Agenda item

14.1  In accordance with the requirements of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (2011), Dr. Billings, Police and Crime Commissioner, presented his draft 2014/15 annual report setting out how he had exercised his statutory functions as well as an overview of the work undertaken by the South Yorkshire Police Authority of its statutory functions between April, 2014 and March, 2015.

14.2  The main purpose of the report was to highlight performance against the functions of a Police and Crime Commissioner as set out in the Act and to demonstrate performance against the key objectives set out in the Police and Crime Plan. 

14.3  It should be noted that the report included the following priority areas of the previous Police and Crime Commissioner:-

-          Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour

-          Protect Vulnerable People

-          Improve Visible Policing

together with Dr. Billing’s priorities for 2015/16 which were:-

-          Protecting Vulnerable People

-          Tackling Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour

-          Enabling Fair Treatment

14.4  The reporting year was another very difficult year for all public services and Policing was not immune from the further significant cuts made by Central Government.  The reduction in Government funding and the Service finding ways of running the service more efficiently had had the combined effect of £50M of cashable savings since 2007/08.

14.5  The Police and Crime Commissioner invited comments on the annual report and responded as follows:- 

·           The term anti-social behaviour covered a wide range of activity some of which may be the responsibility of the local authority.  It was hoped that the new local policing teams would be better at managing certain aspects of anti-social behaviour working with other parent organisations, however, it had to be recognised that unless the Police engaged with those other partner organisation and brought the public with them, then some aspects of ASB would continue. 

·           Until publication of the Jay report, the scale of the problem had not been understood.  A lot of work had taken place on changing the understanding in South Yorkshire Police, training Officers and co-locating Officers concerned with CSE with other professionals. 

·           Prosecution cases were being put together and would be taken to trial later in the year.  However, it had to be recognised that some of the victims had been abused whilst quite young and were now in their late 20s/older and had new lives, partners and children.  Some of them wanted to go to trial and bring the perpetrators to justice whilst others did not; some co-operated with the Police in bringing cases to trial and some did not; some victims and survivors were strong now but it was not known how they would be when they went to Court.

·           A Victim, Survivor and Families Panel had been established and was helping with the training of Police Officers. 

·           Discussion would take place with the Chair of the Independent Ethics Panel as to whether it was appropriate for a member of the Police and Crime Panel to become a co-opted member.  However, care would need to be taken so as not to confuse the scrutiny function.

·           A review was underway of the use of the 101 facility and the ways in which members of the public could contact the Police.  Satisfaction with the service appeared to have improved but that may be due to the volume of calls having reduced.  Technology and additional staff resources were being considered. 

·           The growth in the use of legal highs, particularly on the part of young people, was very worrying and was on the Police’s radar.  A publicity campaign was being considered across South Yorkshire to alert people to the dangers and raise awareness.   It was not known if the drug testing in custody suites was at a standard to cope with the legal highs.

·           The use of body cams by Officers was an operational matter for the Chief Constable.

·           The National Crime Agency was also involved looking at historic cases of CSE.  The public’s frustration was understood but there was a lot of work that had not been done previously to be done from which results would follow.  Individual officers were being investigated on the whole question of CSE particularly in Rotherham.  A review by Professor John Drew had been commissioned for the whole of South Yorkshire to be absolutely clear about what was happening in Barnsley, Doncaster and Sheffield as well as Rotherham.

·           Approximately one hundred Police Officers had been reported to the IPCC with the results of those investigations awaited.  Twenty-four had been assessed in relation as to whether their misconduct needed to be investigated.  The IPCC carried out a severity assessment and assessed whether the IPCC independently investigated, supervised or managed an investigation or whether it was given back to the Force to investigate.  An Officer was not necessarily suspended – the decision was taken in light of whether they were front line or on restricted duty but not always suspended if there was no risk involved; it was at the discretion of those making the severity decision.  The Vice-Chair reported that she had asked the IPCC for regular updates and it was her understanding that twenty-seven Officers have been served with Misconduct Notices.  Forty-one instances were being investigated in relation to those twenty-seven Officers.

Action:  That any comments on the draft annual report be forwarded to the OPCC by 18^th September, 2015 – Immediate

Action:  That consideration be given to inviting the Chair of the Independent Ethics Panel to a future meeting to enable Panel members to gain an understanding of its work programme and forward plan

Action:  That the OPCC give an update to the next meeting on Police Officers being investigated in relation to CSE

Action:  That the OPCC provide an answer to Councillor Otten regarding drug testing in custody suites