Minutes:
The Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner, Mr David Munro, gave a presentation in respect of Surrey-Wide Policing issues.
The Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) was responsible and held a democratic mandate for a wide range of duties. These included:
· The appointment of the Chief Constable and hold them to account for running the force.
· Setting police and crime objectives for the area through a Police and Crime Plan and the management of local priorities.
· Setting the Surrey Police force budget and the determination of the Surrey Police precept.
· Bringing together community safety and criminal justice partners.
· Contributing to the national and international policing capabilities as set out by the Home Secretary.
Police-worn body cameras had transformed Policing in Surrey. The cameras gave added security to the police officer, sent a strong message to criminals, and promoted efficiency in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, whilst there had been preconceptions that the police would not have welcomed the introduction of body-worn cameras, they had been embraced by Surrey Police. Looking to the future, Surrey Police were looking at other new technology to increase efficiency and better police performance.
The PCC was in the process of setting the annual budget for Surrey Police. Whilst it was imperative to keep policing standards high, there was a need to set a sustainable budget, which would require deep-cutting savings Surrey Police currently employed 1,900 Police Officers and 1,300 police staff, and had recently experienced a good officer and staff retention rate. Currently approximately 80% of the Surrey Police budget was allocated for staffing costs.
Some of Surrey Police’s key focusses in regard to crime were highlighted for particular attention:
· Anti-Social behaviour cases evoked the highest levels of engagements by residents. Improved relations and greater partnership working with other Public Sector bodies had improved Surrey Police’s ability to tackle anti-social behaviour.
· Surrey had recently experienced a rise in burglaries. Whilst tackling organised burglaries was still a high priority, burglary rates were not as high as their peak 18 months ago. It was noted the burglaries of highest propensity were undertaken by highly skilled, organised groups, which were hard to trace and crack-down upon.
· Whilst there was a need to actively tackle drugs related crime, there needed to be greater emphasis paid on reducing the demand for illicit drugs including particular focus to cutting middle class demand for drugs.
· Typically victims of modern slavery were illegal immigrants who had few perceived defensible rights and were terrified of being reported to the authorities. It was important to remind businesses to check that their subcontractors and partners were not perpetrators of illegal employment practises.
· In recent years, unauthorised encampments had been the biggest cause of tension in communities and had taken up significant Police resources. Whilst trespassing by travellers was a civil offence, more attention had to be paid to the criminality surrounding unauthorised encampments. Common residents’ complaints claimed a different implementation of the law for the Gypsies, Roma and Travellers (GRT) community in comparison to the majority population. Whilst perhaps unpopular, transit sites in Surrey would aid the police with extra powers to deal with illegal encampments. By having the ability to ask GRT members to move to a specific transit site would enable Police Officers to better implement their powers to move GRT communities on.
Arising from the Members’ comments and questions the following points were noted:
· Surrey County Councillors had previously conducted research into the feasibility of transit camps. After informal consultation with the GRT community, it was found there was little support towards the provision of transit camps. In addition, whilst there had been significant money invested into the provision of transit camps in Southampton, there had been little use of the sites by the traveller community.
· Even though the provision of transit camps was not the panacea to the problem of unauthorised encampments, statistics have shown where transit camps were in close proximity, unauthorised incursions had plummeted. In addition, there had been discussions amongst senior officers in Surrey Police to revise protocols in regard to dealing with unauthorised traveller incursions. It was underlined that Surrey Police were keen to work collaboratively to move authorised encampments on shown by the recent incursion in Windlesham where the travellers were moved on within 24 hours.
· A few years ago the Stop and Search facility was overly used, and an abused tool. The regulation system for stop and search was now properly enforced, and the recording of stop and searches by Officers allowed in-depth analysis of its use. Mr Munro asserted when there were good grounds to use the tool, Officers should not hesitate in using stop and search; despite the wider debate on the issue. Latest figures in Surrey had indicated that Officers were not afraid to use the Stop and Search facility. Last year there were 12,000 stops carried out, which had increased 16% from the previous year.
Furthermore the Home Secretary was in talks with Senior Police Officers in regard to the relaxation of the ‘reasonable grounds’ criteria in regard to Stop and Search. The proposals entailed an overall strengthening and widening of the Stop and Search powers and would update criteria; which was currently based on the 1984, Criminal Evidence Act.
· Body-worn cameras provided significant evidence as to whether there were grounds for a complaint against a Police Officer. Duty Officers were able to easily review Officer-public interactions and ensure Stop and Search powers were being used proportionately. In addition the Independent Office for Police Conduct were aiming to shorten the investigation process against officers and the process for deciding whether a case should go to a disciplinary hearing.
· The latest legal advice given to Surrey Police was that the Chief Constable could not delegate Police Parking Enforcement powers to Council led Joint Enforcement Teams. Whilst Surrey Police still held the powers to remove obstructing vehicles from the middle of the road; Surrey County Council held the powers to remove obstructing vehicles from the pavements. It was noted by the Committee that locally these powers had been delegated by Surrey County Council to the neighbourhood policing team.
The Committee thanked Mr Munro for his informative update.