Crime and intelligence - Crime investigation policy (N26)

1. Summary of changes

1.1 The following amendments have been made to this policy on 7 February 2023:

• Paragraphs 3.25 and 3.26 amended.

2. What this policy is about

2.1. This policy describes the fundamental elements of effective crime investigation and what is required of every investigator in Kent Police.

Compliance with this policy and any linked procedure is mandatory.

3. Statement of policy

3.1. All criminal investigations undertaken by Kent Police and its staff will be in accordance with the College of Policing: Authorised Professional Practice (APP) and respective force policy.

3.2. All criminal investigations will be in the context of the force: Mission, Vision, Values and Priorities (MVVP) with a focus upon:

• providing a first-class service
• putting victims and witnesses at the heart of every investigation
• ‘doing the right thing’

3.3. Crime recording and allocation is the principle responsibility of the Investigation Management Unit (IMU) and subject to force policy N05. The IMU will allocate crime reports for investigation on the principle of ‘solve the solvable’ – which includes considering the tests of proportionality and public interest. There are certain crime criteria which will be allocated under specific policy (EBIT offences under policy O52, offences under schools policy N17, and bilking offences without aggravating factors under IMU working practices).

3.4. Crime reports allocated for investigation will be recorded within the ‘investigations’ domain of Athena and will attract a unique reference number (URN). Each investigation will be allocated to an investigator.

3.5. The Code of Practice to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) defines a criminal investigator as:

‘…any police officer involved in the conduct of a criminal investigation. All investigators have a responsibility for carrying out the duties imposed on them under this code including, in particular recording information and retaining records of information and material’.

(An investigator may be a warranted officer or member of police staff. Section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (as amended) allows chief officers to designate police staff as investigating officers).

3.6. Section 22 CPIA defines a criminal investigation as an investigation conducted by police officers with a view to it being ascertained;

(a) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or

(b) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it

3.7. Every investigator and investigation will be cognisant of the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) and their disclosure responsibilities from the outset.

3.8. The CPIA Code of Practice issued under section 23(1), (in its March 2015 edition) identifies at part 3 general responsibilities relevant to this disclosure duty. In particular, paragraphs.3.4-5 state:

‘…in conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect. What is reasonable in each case will depend on the particular circumstances’.

3.9. Section 3(1) (a) of the CPIA provides a single test for disclosure and requires the prosecution to:

‘…disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused’.

3.10. Investigators should be mindful of The Code for Crown Prosecutors and the two-stage approach with The Full Code Test: The Evidential Stage and The Public Interests Stage.

Investigators should be specifically mindful of paragraph 4.6 and 4.7 respectively:

4.6 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

4.7 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor’s objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which they might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.

3.11. Investigators are required to operate effectively within the ‘golden hour’ by utilising the VVOWS mnemonic:

• victims
• voice of the child/vulnerable adult
• offenders
• witnesses

3.12. It is the responsibility of all investigators to protect life and property in the first instance.

3.13. Safeguarding responsibilities may take primacy over any immediate investigation but on many occasions can be undertaken simultaneously.

3.14. Investigators are expected to undertake ‘Fast Track Actions’ (FTA) within the ‘golden hour’ to secure evidence which otherwise might be lost such as:

• arresting the suspect(s)
• obtaining witnesses details and initial accounts/evidential statements
• CCTV
• forensic evidence
• house to house enquiries

3.15. Investigators are required to be mindful of the fact that some victims may be reluctant to make a statement or support a police prosecution in the first instance. This is entirely understandable for some victims in relation to certain crime types such as domestic abuse. It is incumbent upon investigators at this stage to remember their wider responsibilities to prevent future victims and consider the public interest. The investigation should be victim focused and not victim led with a view to taking positive action to prevent reoffending.

3.16. An ‘Evidence Led Prosecution’ (ELP) should be considered at the outset in accordance with SOP N26b and the opportunities for securing evidence which does not rely entirely upon the testimony of the victim such as; body worn video (BWV) evidence, res gestae evidence, bad character evidence.

3.17. False allegations:

1. false complaints are made from time to time
2. they may be malicious, mistaken, designed to support others, financially motivated, or inexplicable and
3. when considering allegations, investigators should give full consideration to all background information

3.17.1. Those falsely accused of crime should be treated as victims. They should be offered and, if they want it, provided with support and liaison compatible with the gravity of the allegations made.

3.18. The aforementioned investigation phase is described as ‘initial investigation’. The next phase of the investigation is described as ‘further investigation’.

3.19. In the event that the ‘initial investigation’ is to be handed over to an alternative investigator then a ‘handover’ procedure will need to be followed as outlined in SOP N26e.

3.20. The investigator responsible for the ‘further investigation’ phase is required to define an ‘investigation plan’ and identify ‘reasonable lines of enquiry’ (RLE). They are also responsible for safeguarding victims and witnesses as the investigation progresses and assessing risk in relation to suspects. A ‘RAG’ assessment in relation to any suspect(s) is required at this stage and full compliance with SOP N26d.

3.21. All investigators are required to undertake good quality and timely investigations.

3.22. All investigators are required to comply with the Victim Code and The Witness Charter.

3.23. All investigators are required to review force policy and any standard operating procedure (SOP) which relates specifically to the crime type they are investigating.

3.24. All investigators are required to maintain a conscientious approach to offenders on bail or released under investigation (RUI) in accordance with SOP Q01j.

3.25. Supervisors are required to supervise all investigations by their staff and undertake meaningful reviews usually every 28 days, depending on the crime type, in accordance with SOP N26c.

3.26. Inspectors/DIs are required to review all ‘active’ crime under their command every three months and Chief Inspectors/DCIs every six months in accordance with (SOP N26c).

3.27. At the conclusion of every investigation an outcome must be arrived at in accordance with the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) and National Crime Recording Standards (NCRS) within their defined outcome codes 1 to 22 before the investigation can be completed. Certain outcome codes require additional actions, which can be found within force policy NO5 and SOP NO5A, these must be complied with.

3.28. At the conclusion of every investigation any suspects that have been on bail or RUI and is not being prosecuted or is not subject to a caution or non-court disposal (NCD) must be informed that they are no longer on bail or RUI in accordance with force policy QO1j.

3.29. In addition, at the conclusion of every investigation when a suspect was on bail or RUI, supervisors must not finalise the investigation until the custody record and bail app procedures have been followed, in accordance with force policy Q01 & SOP Q01j. This effectively means updating those records with the fact that the suspect is no longer on bail or RUI.

4. Implications of the policy

4.1 Finance/staffing/training/other

Staff and officers of Kent Police will be trained in crime investigation. Accreditation of investigation to PIP level 1 and 2 will be managed by Kent Police Training School.

4.2 Risk assessment(s)

This policy has been assessed as medium risk. Police officers and police staff will adopt a generic risk assessment in line with the relevant procedure and in accordance with their individual roles.

Equality Impact Assessment (EIA)

An EIA has been carried out and shows the proposals in this policy would have no potential or actual differential impact on grounds of race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, transgender, disability, age, religion or belief or sexual orientation. 

5. Consultation

5.1. The following were asked to consult on this document:

• IT Security
• PSD
• Equality and Diversity
• Legal
• HR
• Finance
• Estates
• Unison
• Federation
• Superintendents Association
• Staff Associations

6. Monitoring and review

This procedure/SOP is scheduled for full review every two years and will be reviewed by the author and owner to ensure it still remains accurate and fit for purpose.

7. Security

Kent Police have measures in place to protect the security of your data in accordance with our Information Management policy (Policy W1000 – Information Management).

8. Retention and disposal of records

Kent Police will hold data in accordance with our Records Review, Retention and Disposal policy (Policy W1012 - Records Review, Retention and Disposal).