N08 Crime reporting and investigation 

1. Security protective marking

1.1. Not protectively marked.

2. Summary of changes

2.1. The following changes have been made to this policy on 13 December 2011:

 

• Policy has transferred to the ownership of Partnerships and Communities.

 

2.2. This policy is due for review in June 2012.

3. Application

3.1. This policy applies to all police officers and police staff including Private Finance Initiative (PFI)staff.

 

4. Purpose

4.1. The purpose of this policy is to provide police officers and police staff with corporacy in the correct interpretation and explanation on the National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) and Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR).

 

5. Introduction

5.1. Crimes, and allegations of crime, can be reported to Kent Police in a number of ways:

• Victim to police;
• Third party (witness) to police;
• On-line (Vanguard) to Force Contact and Control Centre;
• Discovered by police;
• Transferred crime;
• True Vision (on-line) reported.

5.2. The vast majority of reported crimes are recorded by the Initial Crime Investigation Unit (ICIU), although officers working within Basic Command Unit (BCU) Public Protection Units (PPUs) have the authority to record allegations of crime that fall within their terms of reference.

5.3. Crimes are recorded on Genesis which is the IT system used by Kent Police for recording, managing and investigating crime, case, intelligence and custody.

5.4. Where apparent or perceived criminal activity is reported, which does amount to a notifiable crime, the details will be recorded on Storm.  Such incidents are referred to as Crime Related Incidents (CRIs).

5.5. Particular types of CRIs, due to their nature and character, are recorded on Genesis under pre-determined incident types, i.e. bogus callers, first incident harassments, etc.  This is because Genesis has a far superior intelligence and search capability than Storm.

5.6. Crime Related Incidents and Secondary Incidents are subject to policy, N114. 

 

6. National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) and Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR)

 

6.1. NCRS were adopted nationally in April 2002.  The aim was to encourage a more victim focused and consistent approach to crime recording, enabling more accurate comparisons to be drawn between forces, and internally between BCUs.

6.2. The NCRS are a set of principles which overlay the HOCR – the HOCR are sets of rules which apply to particular crime categories i.e. criminal damage, burglary, violence against the person etc, which have been in existence since 1998.

6.3. The NCRS and HOCR can be found in their entirety on the Kent Police Intranet, under “Reference Library”, “Guidelines”, “Home Office”.

6.4. The HOCR are amended annually.

6.5. The Force Crime and Incident Registrar and Data Accuracy Unit are responsible for ensuring compliance with HOCR, NCRS and that all no crimes, detections, and non-validations are legitimately claimed.

6.6. NCRS – general principles

6.6.1. There are three basic principles to NCRS:

 

• All reports of incidents, whether from victims, witnesses or third parties, and whether crime related or not, will result in the creation of an incident (Storm) record.  (But where a crime report is completed by ICIU in the first instance, there is no need to generate a Storm record as well.);
• Following the creation of an incident record, a crime report will only be generated for offences against an identified victim if, on the balance of probability:

 

(a) The circumstances as reported amount to a crime as defined by law (the police will determine this based on their knowledge of the law and HOCR);

and

(b) There is no credible evidence to the contrary.

6.6.2. Balance of probability – a crime should be recorded once you are satisfied from all available information that it is more likely than not that the incident is the result of a criminal act.

6.6.3. In most cases, a belief by the victim (or person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) that a crime has occurred is sufficient to justify its recording, although this will not be the case in all circumstances.

6.6.4. A person will be deemed to be acting on behalf of the victim (i.e. a third party) if they have had direct contact with the victim, and are acting on their behalf and with their knowledge, and are aware of the full circumstances of the incident.  (Frequently third parties are neighbours or family members acting on behalf of the elderly, incapacitated or vulnerable.)

6.6.5. For offences against the State, the points to prove to evidence the offence must be clearly made out before a crime report is generated.

 

6.7.  Once recorded a crime will remain recorded unless or until additional verifiable information comes to notice, which disproves that a crime had occurred in the first instance i.e. accident, victim/witness exaggerated/lied, property found (not stolen).

6.8. The withdrawal of the complaint or refusal to provide personal details, or assist a prosecution, is insufficient reason not to record a crime.  However, where:-

a) The alleged victim declines to confirm the crime;
b) The alleged victim cannot be traced;
c) The incident has been reported by a third party; and
d) There is no supporting evidence to show that on the balance of probability that a crime has occurred then do not complete a crime report but ensure a CRI (Storm report) is completed, and appropriately closed.

 

7. The validation process

7.1. The rules state that a crime should be recorded as soon as the Reporting Officer is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the incident is more likely than not the result of a criminal act.

7.2. The incident should be recorded as a crime, where appropriate, within 72 hours of the incident first being logged.

7.3. A maximum of seven days is allowed to record a crime to cater for those situations beyond the control of the police, i.e. the victim/witness is unavailable – the reason for the delay must be explained on the log.  It is not acceptable that validation enquiries were delayed due to rest days, annual leave, or the likelihood of a detection.

7.4. Upon generating a crime report, it will remain unvalidated (disposal code 0), unless detected, for a period of up to 72 hours, thereafter it will automatically become validated and defer to undetected (disposal code 1).

7.5. If additional verifiable information comes to light prior to the expiry of the initial 72 hours which suggests, on the balance of probabilities, that the incident should not be recorded as a crime i.e. the victim has found the mobile phone believed to have been stolen, or where CCTV shows the victims injuries were self-inflicted whilst drunk. 

7.6. In these circumstances, with an appropriate explanation in the log, the crime report will not be validated and will be shown as an unvalidated incident (confirmed) with a disposal code of 0.1.  The authority of the Area Crime and Incident Management Unit (ACIMU) Supervisor is required.

7.7. Where additional verifiable information comes to light after the crime report has become validated, which suggests the incident should not be recorded as a crime, a supplementary crime report or crime submission is required. 

NB: The term “information” rather than “evidence” is used here, which indicates/suggests knowledge rather than proof is sufficient, so long as it is verifiable.

8. Storm incident recording

8.1. An allegation of an incident is considered made at the point at which the victim (or person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) first makes contact with the police, whether by phone or in person.

8.2. All subsequent crime recording decisions, even if the victim cannot be contacted further, or refuses to provide further details, will be based on this initial report.

8.3. Where an incident is recorded as a crime in the first instance, i.e. by ICIU, it is not necessary that a Storm incident record is also generated.

8.4. Where a victim is reporting a crime which has occurred in another force BCU, i.e. Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), British Transport Police (BTP), Sussex etc, then details of the alleged crime will be recorded on Storm as a CRI, and transferred to the force in question.  Under no circumstances should the victim be told to contact the force in question directly. See policy N114.

9. Closing a Storm record

9.1. Storm records should not be closed without using the correct primary and supplementary result codes.

9.2. Always include details of the Investigating Officer.

9.3. Where a crime report or secondary incident has been generated as a result of the Storm incident record being recorded, the Storm record should not be closed until the relevant crime reference number or SI reference number has been included on it.

9.4. Where a crime related Storm incident is recorded, which subsequently does not require the generation of the crime report or SI, then a full explanation why the incident as reported does not constitute a crime, must be recorded on the Storm record before it is closed.

9.5. Use of the term “No offences disclosed” is not a sufficient explanation to close a Storm record, neither is opinion.  There must be credible information/evidence to explain why a crime is not being recorded i.e:

• Following investigation it appears more likely that strong winds caused the fence panel in poor repair to be blown over, rather than the criminal act of a vandal; or
• The victim refuses to confirm the allegation; or
• The victim cannot be traced; or
• The incident is reported by a third party; and
• There is no supporting evidence that a crime has occurred.

10. No crimes

10.1. No crimes relate to crimes already recorded, and should not be mistaken for Incident Reports that are Not Crimed.

10.2. Once a report of a crime has gone through the 72 hour validation process, and deferred to undetected, it can only be “No Crimed” if one of the following four criteria is satisfied:

10.2.1. Where, following a report of an incident which has subsequently been reported as a crime, additional verifiable information comes to light which determines that no crime has actually been committed.

10.2.2. If the crime as alleged constitutes part of a crime already recorded, i.e. a criminal damage to a shop window was recorded, but it subsequently transpires property has been stolen from the display.  In these circumstances the crime of burglary would be recorded and the already recorded offence of criminal damage should be “No Crimed”.

10.2.3. If the reported incident was recorded as a crime in error, i.e. an offence of arson is recorded in respect of an abandoned burnt out vehicle, but enquiries fail to establish an owner for the vehicle.  This should be treated as crimed in error, as would be the case where Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) endorse an MG3 with no evidence of an offence having been committed.  In these circumstances both reports should be “No Crimed”.

(Where the CPS advice is “insufficient evidence to prosecute”, this is not sufficient to “no crime” an allegation – the crime report must remain undetected.)

10.2.4. The crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of the police force in which it is reported.  A number of locations on our county borders have Kent addresses but actually fall within the policing boundaries of neighbouring force areas, which often results in crime reports being attributed/allocated, and incorrectly routed, i.e. part of Westerham is covered by Surrey Police, Frant by Sussex, Biggin Hill, Orpington and Bexley by the Metropolitan Service. 

10.2.5. Crimes committed on BTP property, particularly car parks, are an issue here, as is the case with crimes committed on military establishments.  Incorrect routing often results in delays in contacting victims, forensic opportunities being missed, and a poor quality of service.

10.2.6. Where the recorded crime is under classification:-

• 53 C - Fraud by false representation, plastic card and on-line bank accounts (not eBay or PayPal);
• 53 D - Fraud by false representation, other fraud.

In respect of the above, refer to HOCR General Rules Section C, or your Dedicated Decision Maker (DDM).

10.2.7. Where a No Crime relates to a previous year’s recorded crime, an adjusted Crimsec 3 for that financial year may be submitted.  However, effort must be made to ensure the timely submissions of No Crimes.  Current year’s figures must not be distorted by including previous year’s No Crime.

 

11. Classification and reclassification of Crime Reports

11.1. A crime should be classified based on the evidence/information available at the time i.e. criminal damage, burglary or attempted burglary etc.

11.2. The crime type selected should be that which, based on the evidence and information available, you would expect the suspect to be charged with.

11.3. In the event additional verifiable information comes to light after a crime has been recorded that identifies/suggests the original crime classification to be incorrect, the crime report should be reclassified in accordance with the new information.

11.4. The ACIMU will undertake to reclassify the crime where it is appropriate to do so.  All such reclassifications require the subsequent sanction of the Force Crime and Incident Registrar.

11.5. The CPS are responsible for determining what offences should be charged in all but the most minor cases.

11.6. The alternate offence rule determines those circumstances where recorded crimes can still be detected where the CPS have elected to charge a lesser or different offence to that which is recorded, because there is a more realistic prospect of a conviction.  For example:

• Theft instead of robbery;
• Criminal damage instead of attempted burglary;
• Common assault instead of Actual Bodily Harm (ABH).

11.7. The downgrading of charges by the CPS conflicts with the general principles of HOCR, but in determining the alternate offence rule the original recorded crime can be detected notwithstanding the CPS decision to charge a lesser offence, and without the need to generate a further crime report in respect of the lesser offence charged, e.g..:

a) The CPS indicate on an MG3 that there is sufficient evidence to charge the original offence, but indicate that an alternative (lesser) offence should be charged or cautioned instead, which has a more realistic prospect of conviction;

or

b) When submitted to the CPS, papers where the material facts relied upon to determine the original crime classification are identical to the material facts relied upon by the CPS, in an alternate charging decision, i.e.

• Where recorded offences of criminal damage and Section 5 (POA) in respect of the same offender/victim are replaced by the CPS with a single charge of harassment or anti-social behaviour, the recorded offence of criminal damage and Section 5 can still be detected;
• Where a group of offenders are responsible for several burglaries which have been recorded individually, and the CPS advise charging each member with a single count of conspiracy to burgle – the individual burglaries can still be detected.

11.8. Custody Sergeants may determine the charge in respect of those more minor offences, which fall outside the statutory charging scheme, and charge or caution for an alternative offence to that which is recorded, i.e. drunk and disorderly instead of Section 5 POA, threat of violence at a football match. The authority of Custody Sergeants to determine charges without reference to the CPS extends to:

a) Any offence under the Road Traffic Acts except:-

• Where death has occurred;
• Dangerous driving is alleged;
• Disqualified driving is alleged but there has been no admission to both the driving or the disqualification in a PACE interview;
• Where the statutory defence of being “in charge” of a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs is available;
• Where there is an allegation of Unauthorised Taking of Motor Vehicle (UTMV) (including the aggravated offence) unless it is suitable for disposal as an early guilty plea.

b) Any offence of absconding under the Bail Acts 1976, offences contrary to Section 5 POA 1986 and any offence under any bylaw and any summary offence punishable on conviction with a term of imprisonment of three months or less.

 

12. The principal crime rule

12.1. The principal crime rule should be applied where a number of different crimes are committed within what could be described as the same incident, and involving the same offender(s) and victim e.g:-

• A victim has an argument with a neighbour.  The neighbour kicks open the victim’s garden gate (criminal damage), punches the victim in the face (ABH), rapes the victim, then leaves taking the victims garden shears from the greenhouse.

12.2. In these circumstances the HOCR determine that as these different crimes can be said to have been committed during the same incident, and the crimes involve the same offender/victim, that only one crime report needs to be generated, reflecting the most serious or principal crime, which in this case would be the rape. Details of the ABH, theft, and criminal damage would be detailed in the crime report log.

12.3. The fact that only the rape has been crimed does not prevent the Investigating Officer, in collaboration with the CPS, from charging the offender with the ABH, theft and/or criminal damage in addition to the rape, so as to more accurately reflect the offender’s criminal behaviour, but no additional crime reports need be generated and detected, only the rape.

12.4. There is a principal crime look-up table contained in Appendix F to the HOCR which should be referred to in the event of a dispute.  Here, for example, the crime of robbery is ranked above aggravated burglary and criminal damage with intent to endanger life.

 

13. The finished incident rule

13.1. The finished incident rule should be applied where there has been a series of crimes committed by the same offender(s) against the same victim.  The offences may be of different types, i.e. criminal damage, Section 5, common assault, and committed over several days or weeks.

13.2. In circumstances where the victim, often in desperation, reports nine different offences at the same time, the HOCR determines that only one crime report need be generated in respect of one offence, with details of the other eight offences detailed on the crime report log.

13.3. The offence crimed would normally be the most serious, or “principal crime” in the series, or the most recent.

13.4. An incident shall be regarded as finished when it comes to the notice of police.  Crimes reported by the victim thereafter will be crimed individually.

13.5. As with the principal crime rule, any number of offences can be charged by the Officer in Charge (OIC), but only the one recorded crime can be detected.  No additional crime reports can be generated in order that they can be detected against the offender.

13.6. Any additional crime reports generated within the principal crime rule or finished incident rule, whether mistakenly or not, will be deemed to be included offences by the Data Accuracy Team, and will not count.

14. Dedicated Decision Makers (DDMs)

14.1. The role of the DDM was identified and has evolved alongside the recent introduction of the alternate offence rule, as the person appointed to administer that rule. In Kent, DDMs are usually those Inspectors responsible for each ACIMU.

14.2. The role and responsibilities of DDMs has developed to include the following:-

• Managing the application of the alternate offence rule in respect of recorded crime.
• Reviewing cases that have been discontinued by the CPS, to ensure detections are sustained where appropriate or cancelled if necessary.
• Review and authorise the disposal of crimes by way of offences taken into consideration.

14.3. Authorise the disposal of the two remaining non-sanction detections for indictable-only crime where:

• D1 – The offender dies before proceedings can be initiated or completed
• D6 – Those instances where the CPS determine that the guilt of the offender is clear, but decline to prosecute on public interest grounds.

14.4. Review Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) cases which are contested. Specialist training is being developed for DDMs to ensure their continued professional development, and corporacy in order to achieve a consistent and improving level of compliance in respect of the application of the HOCR, No Crimes, Non Validations etc.

 

15. Charging standards

15.1. A great deal of work has been undertaken to ensure consistency and corporacy in respect of charging standards, and when pre-court prisoner disposals, i.e. cautions, PNDs etc. are appropriate.

15.2. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) gravity factor matrix attributes a score to a particular offence under consideration, based on aggravating and mitigating factors, which include considerations in respect of the seriousness of the offence and the antecedents of the suspect. 

15.3. The resulting score will determine if an offender will be subject to a caution, or a charge resulting in a prosecution.  In the case of juveniles it will help determine whether the suspect is subject of a reprimand, final warning or charge, in the first instance.

15.4. The ACPO Gravity Factor Matrix is contained in the Prosecution and Diversion Policy, M01A. 

15.5. Where the suspect is to be charged, questions then need to be asked in respect of the desired method of disposal of the suspect, the evidence to hand and any which may still be required in support of the proposed charges.

15.6. At this point in the process the CPS will relate to the Codes for Crown Prosecutors, and seek to apply one of the two tests, the Threshold Test or the Full Code (otherwise known as the Evidential Test).  This terminology has caused some confusion in the past.

15.7. The code for Crown Prosecutors is a 20-page document which is designed to make sure that everyone knows and has access to the principles that the CPS upholds in relation to the treatment of victims, witnesses and defendants alike.

15.8. The CPS applies this code across its 42 areas so that fair and consistent decisions can be made in relation to prosecutions.  All police officers are advised to avail themselves with the contents of this useful document.

 

15.9. The following two tests are contained within the codes.

15.9.1. The Threshold Test

15.9.2. The Threshold Test is applied in those cases where, following arrest, it would not be appropriate to release the suspect on bail after charge, and the police/CPS are seeking a remand in custody.

15.9.3. The reasons for not releasing the suspect on bail are primarily due to one or a combination of the following (abbreviated):-

• Name and address not confirmed;
• Will fail to surrender;
• To prevent from committing further offences;
• To prevent causing injury to another or loss or damage to property;
• Prevent from interfering with justice;
• For his/her own protection;
• To enable a sample to be taken (PACE Section 63 b).

15.9.4. The Threshold Test requires the CPS to determine whether there is at least reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence, and if it is in the public interest to charge the suspect.  Where the decision is made to charge, and apply to have the suspect remanded, it is then the responsibility of the OIC to secure all the outstanding evidence (statements etc.) sufficient to progress the case file to a full file status.

15.9.5. Every effort must be made to ensure the case file is completed within statutory time limits due to the statutory time limits that a suspect can be kept in custody pending trial.

15.10. The Full Code or “Evidential” Test

15.10.1. More often than not, when it is intended to charge a suspect who has been arrested in connection with an offence and the case file is not complete, the suspect will be bailed with a view to charging him/her on their return to the police station.

15.10.2. Between arrest, release and return date, all remaining enquiries should have been made and evidence obtained to progress the case file to full file status.

15.10.3. The case file will be reviewed by the CPS, and the Evidential Test applied.  Where the CPS are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction in respect of each defendant, then the CPS will apply the second “public interest” test to determine if the case should be progressed to court.

 

15.11. If either test fails, the case will not be progressed no matter how important or serious it might be.

 

16. Offences against the State

16.1. State Crimes – these are offences where the victim is shown on the crime report, as “the public”, i.e. going equipped, handling stolen goods, offensive weapons, possession of controlled drugs, and most public order offences.
 
16.2. The points to prove to evidence an offence against the State must be clearly made out before a crime is recorded.  The majority of offences against the state are “possession” offences, and public order offences.
 
16.3. In the majority of cases, a crime report will not be generated until the CPS have authorised the service of a summons, or a charge, unless:

• Possession offences – the guilty knowledge of the offender can be evidenced;
• Public order offences – a specific victim has been identified.

16.4. In respect of Section 5 public order offences, the case of R v Orum 1988 should be considered before recording a crime.  This case states “it is improbable in the extreme that any police officer would ever be provoked by threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”.

16.5. An officer’s actions in response to such behaviour would determine if a Section 5 should be recorded or not.  Breach of the peace or drunk and disorderly are more often relied upon in such circumstances.  However, if the behaviour is such that an officer is alarmed or distressed, and the full offence is proven, then a crime should be recorded.

 

17. Public order offences

17.1. In the case of public order incidents, where, on the arrival of police there is no continuing disorder and no specific intended victim, the incident should not routinely be recorded as a crime.

17.2. Section 5 public order warnings that do not lead to the arrest of an offender will not be recorded as a crime, but a STORM incident record should be generated.

17.3. When considering public order offences, a useful exercise is that, with the exception of S4 and 4A offences, a specific victim needs to be identified before a crime report for a public order offence is generated.

17.4. When two or more people sustain minor injuries during a fight, record one offence of “Affray” contrary to Section 3 of the Public Order Act.  Do not record the assaults separately.

17.5. Some incidents are more appropriately dealt with under local byelaws and not recorded as a crime, e.g. urinating in a public place is not a crime under the Public Order Act 1986, unless accompanied by exhibitionist behaviour, or it takes place in a major thoroughfare i.e. a high street.

18. Counter-allegations

18.1. Suspects in cases of assault often make counter-allegations claiming to have acted in self-defence.

18.2. Such counter-allegations should not routinely be recorded as a crime but will obviously require further investigation.  The lateness of such an allegation, or absence of evidence such as injury or availability of independent witnesses, may feature when deciding whether or not to record this additional allegation as a crime.  The balance of probability test should be applied, with each case being treated on its own merit.

18.3. A decision not to record such counter-allegations should be recorded, with reasons, on the original crime report log.

18.4. The making of counter-allegations is a frequently employed defence ploy, intended to “muddy the waters” and to deflect attention from their client by trying to create the impression that the incident was “all of one and half a dozen of the other” thereby seeking to adversely influence the Investigating Officer, and encourage the CPS not to proceed with a prosecution, which might otherwise have progressed to court.

Investigators will often be tested in these circumstances to ensure the real victim is properly identified.

 

19. Threats to kill

19.1. In order for the offence to be complete it has to be shown that the suspect intended that the other person would fear that the threat to kill them, or a third person, would be carried out.

19.2. It is the intention of the suspect that needs to be investigated to determine the offence of threats to kill, rather than the belief of the victim.  This can usually be determined by interviewing the suspect.

19.3. Section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 provides the offence of threats to kill.  It states:

'A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat intending that the other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person, shall be guilty of an offence.'

19.4. The following notes are intended to assist in determining whether an offence of threats to kill has been made out, or not.

19.4.1. It does not matter whether the accused intends to kill; their intent has to be that the other person would fear the threat would be carried out to kill that person or a third person.

19.4.2. In order to establish that they had a lawful excuse, it is necessary for a person, i.e. the accused, to show:-

• that they honestly, but mistakenly, believed on reasonable grounds that the facts were of a certain order; and
• that if those facts had been of that order his conduct would have been lawful.

19.4.3. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that there was no lawful excuse for making a threat.  The jury should be directed to facts which could give rise to lawful excuse, for example, for the prevention of crime or in self-defence providing it was reasonable in the circumstances to make such a threat.

19.4.4. It is for the jury to decide ultimately what is reasonable and what amounts to a threat.

19.4.5. Evidence of previous history between the parties is admissible as tending to prove that the defendant intended his words to be taken seriously.

19.4.6. The third person – an unborn child (foetus in uterus) is not a third person distinct from its mother for the purposes of this section.  Therefore a threat to a pregnant woman to kill her unborn baby is not an offence under this section.  However, it would appear that a threat to kill a child after its birth, made at a time when it is still a foetus, may come within the scope of this offence.

19.5. When investigating an offence of threats to kill, it is worth remembering:

• The offence of threats to kill is a serious offence for which an offender can be sentenced to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment on indictment;
• Such threats are often made in the heat of the moment and are not intended;
• Threats made by telephone when the suspect is a long distance from the victim are unlikely to amount to an offence to kill.

19.6. Any evidence of history between the parties is admissible when trying to show/prove whether or not the suspect intended their words to be taken seriously.

 

20. Road traffic crimes

20.1. It has been the case for some time that the offence of causing death by dangerous driving is a recordable offence for crime recording purposes.  However, a crime report should not be generated until a summons has been issued or the suspect has been charged.

20.2. The following additional road traffic offences are now recordable for crime recording purposes:

• Causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs;
• Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving;
• Causing death by driving whilst unlicensed (driving license), disqualified or uninsured;
• Dangerous driving;
• Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking.

20.3. As with all these offences, a crime report should not be generated until such time that a summons has been issued or the suspect has been charged.

 

21. Violence against the person – new Home Office crime classifications

21.1. There have been some significant changes to the way that violent crime and violence against the person is now recorded for crime recording purposes.

21.2. The changes have been brought about to accommodate changes in the Public Service Agreement 23, entitled “Making Communities Safer”, which focuses government and beyond to reduce re-offending and to reduce crime in respect of violence against the person.  A number of changes have been made which include new classifications of:

• 5a – wounding or carrying out an act endangering life
• 5b – use of substance or object to endanger life
• 5c – possession of items to endanger life
• 8f – inflicting grievous bodily harm without intent
• 8g – actual bodily harm and other injury.

The full list of changes is contained in the Home Office Counting Rules on the intranet.

21.3. The need to accurately record crimes within this crime category is particularly important as resultant crime statistics for this financial year will form the baseline in respect of which all reduction targets and measures will be based – significant financial rewards are paid to forces which achieve targets determined by public service agreements.

21.4. The recording of offences of violence now focuses on the intent of the offender rather than the degree of injury.  Many offences are currently being incorrectly recorded as Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) where an offender has struck the victim with a bottle which only resulted in bruising.  Under the new rules, that incident should be classified as Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) (classification 5A) where the offender demonstrates a clear intention to inflict serious bodily injury.

21.5. This rule conflicts with the law and does not affect the CPS right to determine a charge of ABH given these circumstances.

21.6. Below are examples to illustrate the new crime classifications:

• A woman in a nightclub appears to provoke another woman she knows by pouring a drink over her head.  She then picks up a bottle, a deliberately strikes it on the table and strikes the other woman with the bottle in the face.  The bottle fails to break.  The victim suffered bruising to the bridge of the nose and a nose bleed, - record one crime of class 5a, “Wounding or carrying out an act endangering life”. Given these circumstances, the CPS would determine a charge of ABH (classification 86).
• A is approached by B who asks for a cigarette, his request is refused.  A becomes aware that B is behind him and feels what he believes to be a punch in the back.  A falls to the ground and bystanders who come to the assistance of A notice he is bleeding.  He requires hospital treatment for a shallow puncture wound to the back, - record one crime of class 5a “Wounding or carrying out an act endangering life”. Given these circumstances, the CPS would determine a charge of GBH (classification 5A). Great care should be taken when considering if the wound is minor.  Class 8g should only be used for wounds that require basic first aid or minimal hospital treatment .  Any cut that leaves the victim with an injury likely to leave a noticeable scar, should be classified under class 8f.  If already recorded under class 8g, the Force Crime Registrar should consider reclassification.
  

22. Retention and disposal of records

22.1. Documents mentioned in the above policy will be retained for the period specified in the disposal schedule.

23. Equality impact assessment

23.1. This policy has been assessed with regard to its relevance to race and diversity equality. As a result of this assessment the policy has been graded as having a low potential impact.

 

23.2. Attached is the latest equality impact assessment that forms part of the policy review process.