We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Nicholas Martin please sign in and let everyone know.

MET Police Crime Assessment Policy

We're waiting for Nicholas Martin to read recent responses and update the status.

Nicholas Martin

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Could you supply a copy of your Crime Assessment Policy as discussed on this website:

http://news.met.police.uk/blog_posts/dac...

Yours faithfully,

Mr Nicholas Martin

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Martin

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018070000652

I write in connection with your requests for information which were
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 17/07/2018.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

REQUEST 1:
"Could you supply a copy of your Crime Assessment Policy as discussed on
this website: http://news.met.police.uk/blog_posts/dac... "

REQUEST 2:
"Request for a copy of the flowchart issued to officers under the MET
police crime assessment policy. "

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Martin

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018070000652

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 17/07/2018.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

REQUEST 1: Could you supply a copy of your Crime Assessment Policy as
discussed on this website: http://news.met.police.uk/blog_posts/dac...

REQUEST 2: Request for a copy of the flowchart issued to officers under
the MET police crime assessment policy. .

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at .  The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Introduction
As of the Monday 4th September 2017, mandatory policy and associated
instruction regarding crimes that are assessed ‘in’ or ‘out’ for further
(secondary) investigation will be introduced. 
The policy will enable the Met to properly assess recorded crime reports
for further investigation. I provides a consistent approach to identifying
the ‘solvability’ of crimes and subsequently assists investigators and
supervisors in managing workloads by focussing on those solvable crimes. 
The policy and associated instruction must be followed and borne in mind
at an early stages of a primary (initial) investigation. This is in order
to prevent unnecessary and disproportionate levels of crime reports that
pass through to secondary (further) investigation. 
By formalising this policy, it will protect officers and staff (when
making decisions based on this policy), from potential complaints
regarding their decisions to assess a crime report ‘in’ or ‘out’. All
decisions made by officers to either assess ‘in’ or ‘out’ must be made
using this policy and the principles described within the National
Decision Model (NDM) – see Operational Risk for further information.
 
Mandatory crimes
Crimes that are deemed to be ‘Mandatory Crime’ are not subject to this
assessment process and must be assessed ‘in’ for further investigation.
A full list of mandatory crimes can be found by clicking here (see
attached file titled Mandatory Crimes). Please be aware that this list is
subject to ongoing review and as such may be changed in the future.
Officers must refer to this link for an up to date list of mandatory
crimes.
GBH - The exception to this is the offence of assault occasioning Grievous
Bodily Harm (GBH). The Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR) have been revised
over time and now describe GBH to be an assault which results in any cut
or break of the skin. However this can mean even a minor cut would be
classified as a GBH.
Technical GBH crimes (which before the HOCR changes, might have been ABHs
or common assaults), where:
(i)    the injury is minor, and
(ii)  where there are no other aggravating factors making them a PIP level
2 offence,
must be assessed ‘out’, despite being in the mandatory crime list.
These technical GBH crimes should be reviewed, as any other assault
classification and an assessment decision made from any potential leads
which are identified via the following guidance and principles. If the
investigator is in any doubt they must refer to a supervisor for further
advice.
 
Crime assessment principles
The crime assessment process is outlined here (see attached process
diagram) and relies upon six principles:
(1)  The victims’ willingness to prosecute
(2)  The suspects’ identity being known
(3)  The value associated to the crime (in theft and criminal damages
investigations)
(4)  The availability of CCTV footage of the crime
(5)  The possibility of forensic leads
(6)  Action specific to Making Off Without Payment (Fuel theft)
Please read the below guidance in conjunction with the process diagram. 
Principle 1 – Victim 
Q –      Is the victim willing to support a police prosecution, regardless
of the presence of any other leads which could solve the crime? 
A –      ‘No’, then the crime is to be recorded as assessed out for that
reason at this point. If the answer is ‘Yes’ the next principle is to be
reviewed. 
Principle 2 – Suspect
Q -       Is the suspect identified by the victim/witness?
A -       This is a straight forward ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. If the suspect
is identified by the victim or witness, the crime is to be assessed ‘in’.
If the answer is ‘no’ and the suspect is not identified principle 3 must
be reviewed. 
Principle 3 – Value
Q -       Is the crime a low level theft (Other Theft, Shoplifting, Making
off without payment (MOWP) (fuel theft only) and Theft from a Motor
Vehicle (TFMV) or Criminal Damage offence (Criminal Damage, Criminal
Damage to MV, MV Interference) of £50 or under? 
A -       If the crime is £50 or under and the suspect is not known the
crime should be assessed ‘out’ for these reasons (see principle 6 for MOWP
other than fuel theft). If the value is over £50 and the suspect is not
known then proceed to principle 4. 
Note:  Principle 3 only relates to the acquisitive or criminal damage
offences described.  If the offence is different to those described (for
example: assault, public order, burglary etc.) go onto Principle 4.
Principle 4 – CCTV
4a:       Q: Is CCTV footage known to exist?
A: If ‘Yes’, then move to 4b. If ‘No’ then assess ‘out’.
Note: It may be proportionate to take a time limited look for possible
nearby CCTV if not immediately obvious.
4b:       Q: Is the exact time of the offence known and CCTV is available
which captures the crime taking place?
A: If ‘Yes’, then move to 4c. If ‘No’ then assess ‘out’.
Note: Where the exact time of the offence is not known and an extended
period of CCTV which requires viewing is longer than 20 minutes, the crime
must be assessed ‘out’.
4c:       Q: Is there a clear facial image of the offender and either:
(i)            footage of the offence taking place OR
(ii)          other evidence to link the image to the offence (e.g.: a
reliable witness who describes the offence they witnessed and states that
the image is a clear image of the person who committed that offence –
compliance with PACE Code D)?
A: If ‘Yes’, then move to 4d. If ‘No’, then assess ‘out’.
4d:       Q: Is the CCTV ready for collection?
A: If ‘Yes’ then assess ‘in’. If ‘No’, then assess ‘out’, pending the CCTV
being ready. If there are no other investigative leads whilst waiting for
the CCTV footage, then the crime needs to be assessed ‘out’.
All points from 4a to 4d inclusive must be fulfilled to justify the report
being assessed in.
Principle 5 – Forensic Leads 
Q –      Is a forensic examination of the crime the only investigative
lead? 
A –      A Scene of Crime Officer (SOCO) can be requested via the CRIS
report and via CAD, therefore a crime does not need to be assessed ‘in’ if
only waiting for the forensic examination to occur. In the same vein, if
this is the only investigative lead, then the crime must be assessed
‘out’. 
Principle 6 – Making off without payment (fuel theft only)
Q -       Is the vehicle involved known to police intelligence databases
for dishonesty activities?
            OR
            Is the vehicle involved a ‘repeat’ MOWP suspect vehicle?
A -       If the answer to either of the above questions is ‘Yes’, then
assess ‘in’. If the answer is ‘No’, then assess ‘out’.
 
Informing the victim as to the assessment decision

Investigative Officers’ Responsibilities:
Comply fully with the Victims’ Code of Practice (VCOP) policy.
You must tell the victim the following information if the crime has been
assessed ‘in’:
That the crime has been recorded
That there will be a further (secondary) investigation to develop
investigative leads
The name of the officer who will carry out the further investigation
(yourself or another)
Furthermore, you must manage their expectations of that further
investigation.
You must tell the victim the following information if the crime has been
assessed ‘out’:
That the crime has been recorded
(If Principle 1 applies) – that the victim has told us that they do not
want the police to investigate the crime any further and that the police
will respect that decision
That, in your assessment and subsequent decision, there are no
proportionate leads that would enable the police to identify a suspect
responsible for the crime or to successfully prosecute them
That the report will be closed. However, the decision to close the crime
may change if new information or evidence comes to light that was not
known at the time of the initial investigation.
Other important messages to tell the victim:
The police have to use their professional judgement to decide that they
should, or can, investigate the crime any further
That, regardless of the assessment decision, we need people to continue to
report crime to ensure that police can manage our resources. This allows
the police to put those resources at the right place at the right time to
attempt to prevent those crimes taking place again. Furthermore, it allows
the police to work in partnership with others to problem solve those areas
where crime takes place.
 
That the closure of crime reports does not mean that they are filed and
forgotten – offenders can be identified as being responsible and, if
applicable, stolen property can be recovered as a result.
 
Recording the assessment decision

Investigative Officers’ Responsibilities:
Regardless of the decision to assess the crime as ‘in’ or ‘out’, the
rationale behind that decision must be documented within the DETS screen
of the CRIS report.

Decisions should rarely differ from the assessment process (See chapter
3). However, if they do, discuss your rationale with your supervisor and
fully document that conversation within the DETS pages of the CRIS report.
 
Viable leads not covered within the principles

There are other leads where decisions may be affected as to whether the
crime is assessed ‘in’ or ‘out’.

Example 1: tracking software present on a stolen mobile phone which is
active at the time of the initial (primary) investigation – assess ‘in’.
However, if the tracking software is on the phone but it is not active at
the initial investigation stage, assess ‘out’.

Example 2: items have been left at the scene of the crime by an
unidentified suspect. This should be flagged for a SOCO to attend – assess
‘out’ pending SOCO attendance and subsequent result.

Example 3: suspect has been seen getting into a vehicle and the vehicle
registration mark has been recorded, assess ‘in’ for further
investigation.

Public Interest

There may be crimes which do not meet the assessed ‘in’ criteria, however,
due to public interest, they should be assessed ‘in’. Some examples of
this may be theft of government property, theft of war medals or other
paraphernalia or theft of medical notes, etc. These cases, albeit rare,
must be referred to a supervisor for the assessment decision to be made by
them. The crimes may merit greater flexibility of the principles within
this policy. The supervisor may make a decision to refer the crime to the
Safer Neighbourhood Team or some other investigative deployment.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me via email at [email address], quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Paul Mayger
Information Manager

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 10 Lambs Conduit Street, London, WC1N 3NR.
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Information Rights Unit
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Nicholas Martin please sign in and let everyone know.