London Crime Reduction Board - 17 January 2023 - Minutes

• Sadiq Khan (SK) - Mayor
• Dame Lynne Owens (LO) - Deputy Commissioner of the MPS
• Will Balakrishnan (WB) - Director, C&P, MOPAC
• Kenny Bowie (KB) - Director, S&MPS Oversight MOPAC
• Ian Bickers (IB) - London Prisons
• Sinead Dervin (SD) - NHS England
• Diana Luchford (DL) - CEO, MOPAC
• Claire Waxman (CW) - London Victims Commissioner
• Cllr Jas Athwal (JA) - London Councils
• Kilvinder Vigurs (KV) - Regional Director, NPS
• Cllr Gareth Roberts (GR) - London Councils
• Doug Flight (DF) - Advisor, London Councils
• Tamara Barnett (TB) - Head of Partnerships, MOPAC
• Jane E Garvan (JG) - HQ Strategy & Governance, MPS
• Shobnam Islam (SI) - Officer, MOPAC
• Cllr Darren Rodwell (DR) - London Councils
• Kris Venkatasami (Kris V) - CPS S
• Jo Coleman - CPS N

Apologies

• Claudia Sturt (CS) - CEO, YJB
• Barry Hughes (BH) - Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS
• Lionel Idan (LI) - Chief Crown Prosecutor, CPS
• Debbie Weekes-Bernard (DWB) - Deputy Mayor
• Sophie Linden (SL) - Deputy Mayor, MOPAC
• Althea Loderick - CEO, Southwark Council, LC rep

Dame LO spoke out about the Carrick case, expressing disgust and outrage for the victims and women, as well as the significant impact this incident will have on public trust and confidence. LO emphasised MR's previous statement about the importance of an internal MPS review. LO said that MR wants to reconsider how we deal with abuse and corruption and be more proactive. More restrictions are being imposed on people in the MPS; more people are being suspended; time limits are being improved; and resources are being dedicated to support victims and uncover perpetrators. LO emphasised the importance of victims calling the available helplines. LO spoke about the new MPS Strategy. They are looking at standards, victim care due to HMIC report, reinvesting in public protection, and more trust and confidence.

KV said that staff retention/recruitment is key challenge. Firstly, cost of living crisis raises difficulty in recruiting within the public sector.  Work around disproportionality was cited as good practice as was the joint work with MOPAC. The biggest risk is around information sharing including with police. KV recognised that the organisation has stabilised and now there is a focus on improving the quality of programme. LO stated that MPS are happy to collaborate to develop a way to identify the most vulnerable victims and high-risk perpetrators. MPS and partners need to use the same data to pinpoint who is the highest risk. Probation are developing a VRU and invited Ian and the Prisons service to join and collaborate. KV recognised that there are issues surrounding recalls, acquittals, and individual delays. There is a need to automate processes to streamline case progress. JA highlighted the human element and that families and victims affected can only be supported by partners working together.

WB spoke on behalf of the collaboration. Evidence suggests that a collaborative approach is critical to reducing violent reoffending. MOPAC now has a clear framework in place, as well as identified gaps and coordinated responses to achieve common goals. Following this meeting, literature will be distributed to board members. Co-commissioning and resource sharing have been beneficial in reducing reoffending: NHS, Prisons, IOM, LAs, and the DWP, among others. Evidence is now available to show local governments and providers that this works and to secure additional funding and ongoing support.

Backlogs have a knock-on effect on victims with some victims waiting more than a decade for justice. Victims frequently withdraw as a result. Furthermore, prosecutors and intermediaries are in short supply. Courthouses are in poor condition and are frequently inoperable. Prisons are overcrowded, defence teams are not receiving timely conferences, and trials frequently become longer or delayed due to a lack of space. CW stated that she has heard that Section 28 is a flawed policy, in part due to a lack of resources: she has been told that prosecutors are underpaid and thus refuse to take these cases. CW emphasised the need for specialised rape courts to reduce backlogs and attrition rates. Kris  noted that Nightingale Courts were occasionally used in place of a specialist rape court, which worked well, reinforcing the need for specialist courtrooms. Some cases would benefit from relocation outside of London. JT noted that the LCJB workshop resulted in shared objectives to ensure cases are as efficient and effective as possible:

• Reduce attrition rates for victims and witnesses
• Enable early guilty pleas
• Resolution of non-jury cases
• Appeals processes
• Improve case management
• Gain an understanding of demand across CJS
• Review of committal paths