Clare Moody and Assistant Chief Constable Genna Telfer gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Clare Moody:

Good morning. I am Clare Moody, representing the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.

Genna Telfer:

Good morning. I am Genna Telfer, representing the NPCC.

Q Hello. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, Shadow Justice Minister. I want to begin with the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Obviously, you will work directly with victims, and the outcome of all your work will be a sentence passed by a judge. I know from personal experience that, privately, the police can sometimes be just as frustrated with sentences as victims are. You will know that at the minute, anyone, including victims and their families, has only 28 days to appeal against a sentence they consider to be unduly lenient. Given your experience of being in court and working alongside victims, with all the trauma that they might be experiencing at that time, do you think there is any merit in extending the time available for victims and their families to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence?

Genna Telfer:

That is a difficult question to start with. It is a tricky one. This would probably be better done through a victim survey of individuals who have been through the process. Although we would want to give people additional time to truly consider it, what might take someone two weeks to think about might take someone else 12 months, so what is the right timeline to put on it? I am not sure I can answer that from a policing perspective.

Obviously, our witness care teams keep victims informed and talk to them. That is absolutely something we would do. We inform them about the scheme, but we do not tell them whether they are eligible for it or not, because we think that would be better done by the CPS, which has a better understanding of how it all works. But in terms of the timeline, that is a difficult one to answer, because how long is a piece of string?

Clare Moody:

I agree with Genna. I do not feel that I am qualified to say right now that if you extended this to three months or to two months—

Q If I may interrupt—sorry—do you think 28 days is enough?

Clare Moody:

I would want to come back to you on that point specifically and separately, because I do not feel right now I could give you an informed response.

Q Okay. I would like to ask you next about sentencing remarks. Again, you work with victims; you see at first hand, through your victim care work, the trauma of a court process. Very often—outside some very limited trials—victims do not get to see sentencing remarks. A week later, it is all just what their memory tells them and what might be reported in the press. Again, based on your experience of working directly with victims through the criminal justice process, do you think there is any benefit in having sentencing remarks published, so that people can actually see what was said in court at the point of sentencing? Clare, do you want to start with this one?

Clare Moody:

I absolutely can see the benefit in that. When you are in the moment, with so many emotions, and are in a high state of emotional experience, we do not retain information—none of us does. So we are talking about being able to refer back to that. I am not clear, to be honest, on the reasons why the remarks are not already published, so I cannot argue to the specific points about why this does not exist right now. But my instinctive response, if that is fair, is that, yes, it would seem sensible to publish those remarks.

Genna Telfer:

I think this came up recently. I am not sure whether it came out from one of the surveys, but there was a question about victims being present at sentencing, and I know that some work was going on about that with the CPS as well. So if they want to be in the room, rather than just reading the remarks, obviously, that might be beneficial to some victims.

Q I also want to ask you about the new power that is being introduced in the Bill to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. We are tabling an Amendment to suggest that victims and their families should be consulted as part of that process. Again, based on your experience of being in the courtroom and of working with victims and families, do you think there is benefit in ensuring that victims and families are part of the discussion about what happens with attendance at hearings?

Genna Telfer:

Absolutely. That was one of the points that we were going to raise today. I think victims should be considered and consulted as part of that process. Having read about the way that this is going to work—the different options such as potentially adding time to the sentence, or physically removing a suspect into court— the second option is “reasonable force” and I can imagine there are lots of issues with that, in terms of practicality. If someone really does not want to be in court, it will be difficult to achieve that. There is then the potential disruption that could be faced, such as delays for the victim because the trial takes longer to go ahead as a result of that issue. So I think some victims will absolutely want that, but others would probably prefer not to have it.

Do you want to add anything, Clare?

Clare Moody:

In terms of the involvement of the victim in that decision making, as Genna said, there are complications around getting the perpetrator into the courtroom, but who would not want them to see the justice that is being meted out and for the victims to have that opportunity? But yes, the consultation would make sense.

On that point specifically, the non-attendance of sentencing hearings, we feel that we have gone as far as we can in the Bill in terms of introducing prison sanctions and other sanctions that can be given to the perpetrators to enable their attendance at their sentencing hearings. It is the first time ever that judges will have these powers at their discretion. You mentioned concerns around “reasonable force” in getting them to the courtroom. That is one thing that is available under the Bill. The Opposition have also tabled an Amendment about the ability to gag and restrain perpetrators who attend. Do you have any thoughts on that and on how workable it would beQ ?

Genna Telfer:

As I said, moving anyone who does not want to be moved is very difficult. We do it all the time in policing; we have to move people when they do not want to. It is difficult, it takes a lot of people and it takes a lot of resource. There is a risk of injury to the prison staff who are moving them. What we are trying to achieve, versus the impact of trying to do that, might be the balance that is needed. I think that while it is good to have it in there, prison entitlements and the potential extension of the sentence are probably more the tools to do this than the actual physical restraint of people.

Clare Moody:

I would say exactly that. An accidental outcome of this should not be the greater traumatisation of victims. The process might wind up with some kind of scene that involves centring the perpetrator, rather than what the victims have been through. I think there needs to be care around that in ensuring that victims are still at the heart of the process.

Q Bringing it back to victims, which is exactly what the Bill is meant to be about, one of the new measures in the Bill concerns the victim contact scheme and a dedicated helpline for victims, so that they can have and request information about their perpetrators—for example, about conditions placed on them—and their cases. As frontline officers, dealing with this every day, what difference do you think will that make to victims and survivors?

Genna Telfer:

I think it will simplify it. At the moment we have two schemes—the contact scheme and the notification scheme—with different eligibility, so it will make it slightly easier. The helpline is a great idea, but it needs to be resourced properly, as with anything. If it is not, then we are setting an expectation for victims that might not be met, which might frustrate them further. A concern for us in policing is whether, if it is not resourced properly within probation, it falls back to policing to address, when we might not have the information or resource to do it. But in principle, absolutely, I think it is a great idea.

Clare Moody:

Again, I agree with that. It is about simplification, clarity, support for victims, and the value that that adds. Of course, there will not be straightforward calls. Victims will be calling in and asking, “But what about this?” or “Can you tell me this?” to get more information. There will be complexity in the calls that come in and the response to them. There needs to be resourcing for that, and there may be a knock-on to wider victim services, because there will be questions that fall out of that and through to the victim services support sector.

Q How do you see the new powers that the Bill gives the Victims’ Commissioner affecting work with police and PCCs, particularly on victims of antisocial behaviour?

Clare Moody:

Those powers are welcome. One of the points about the new powers is the reporting. It is about aligning what is going on with those powers. Where police and crime commissioners have a responsibility for antisocial behaviour reviews, how does that align with the work of the Victims’ Commissioner? With all of this, it is about making sure that there is simplicity in the system for victims and that there is not duplication, and aligning things. For example, as police and crime commissioners, we do local reporting through the local criminal justice boards, and we report into the Ministry of Justice through that. How does that sit alongside the work of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that there is not a multiplicity of reports and we are pointing in the same direction of benefits and changes that we need to see for victims?

Genna Telfer:

Yes, it has to complement what PCCs are doing through the local criminal justice boards. Any additional support we can get to work with partners is welcome. As was described earlier, ASB is definitely not just an enforcement issue; it is the whole partnership piece. We welcome the additional powers around housing. As Clare said, it has to complement what is going on locally.

Q Thank you for coming in to give evidence. In areas such as support for victims of sexual violence and rape, helplines have been closed down over the past few months and years because of a lack of funding. How confident are you that the funding and resources will be there to set this helpline up and keep it going further down the line?

Clare Moody:

I cannot comment on future spending and where that will go. We would share the view that resourcing matters for the helpline. The nature of services is that they generate demand. It is not just about services for the helpline; it is about wider victim services support. That is for funding decisions that are beyond my remit.

Q As a police and crime commissioner, would you like to see increased funding for other victim services?

Clare Moody:

As a police and crime commissioner, I am always going to ask for increased funding.

Q Are you confident that the helpline will give victims the information they need about the perpetrator? Will things be joined up enough for a national helpline to be able to answer a question that could come in from anywhere in the country? As far as I understand it, there will not be different helplines in different police areas.

Genna Telfer:

That is always a challenge. It is a challenge that we are trying to work through at the moment in terms of code compliance and how we share information through different agencies. There is a piece of work going on between policing, the MOJ and the CPS to try to work out how we align all our data—how we have the right people giving the right information at the right time, but also access to that data.

The first thing is whether the data is right. There is a whole piece of work going on in the MOJ at the moment around data auditing and checking. The second thing is how the communication is happening. We have just launched a joint communications framework between policing and the CPS, which gives our witness care units practical examples of what they communicate and when. In future, we would like, potentially, to look beyond that to go into probation and expand it further. There is another piece of work ongoing around technology and how that could assist us to do some of this. That is subject to funding, because none of that comes cheap, but absolutely, the intention is to try to align that as much as possible. There will probably always be some gaps when you are transferring from one agency to another, but as much as we can, we are trying to join it up, so that the victim gets the right information, ideally from the right place.

Q It sounds like quite a lot of work to do behind the scenes to make this function properly.

Genna Telfer:

Yes, absolutely.

Before I ask my question, I declare my interest as a member of the Prison Officers Association, a former POA branch chair, and a former prison officer at the rank of SO trained in control and restraint, PAVA and SPEAR.Q

I want to ask a specific question on the Opposition Amendment on restraint and gagging in court. I understand the Government’s position, allowing reasonable force at the judge’s discretion. As you will know from policing history, the use of force is on a spectrum from minimal right up to the top end. I have never heard of being able to gag. It is certainly not a technique that is used in the Prison Service; it is not in the “Use of force” manual and it is not part of the training. Were the Opposition amendment to be made, how would you suggest that it be done? What do you think the impact on the courtroom more widely would be if we were to take forward gagging? Do you believe it is even legal under current rules?

Genna Telfer:

Obviously it is not something we are trained in, or something we do, so there would be a whole training implication. We do use spit hoods—that is probably as close to that that we get, in terms of putting something over someone’s head, but that does not affect sound and even those are quite controversial, so they are used quite sparingly. It is difficult, because if we did not do that, we are back to the disruption point and potentially removing people straightaway for contempt of court.

On the legality, I do not know—it is something that we would have to have a look into. If it were agreed, it would need to be checked whether it was legal, and then there would be a whole range of training. But that is not something policing would do; it would be the Prison Service involved in that, rather than us.

I can talk about my own experience. I was an officer safety trainer, so I have quite a lot of knowledge and, again, that would be really difficult to do. We use leg restraints, handcuffs and things, but to restrain someone effectively and to gag them to move them into a courtroom, I think would be really challenging.

Clare Moody:

I go back to the point that I was making earlier about not making this a theatre show. I think that would somehow make it a spectacle, and it puts the perpetrator at the centre of all the attention. As I said earlier, this is about justice for the victims, and I think that there would be real problems with that. Adding to the points that Genna made about the practicalities of it, making a show of it, or making theatre in the courtroom, I do not think is the appropriate thing to do.

Q To pick up on this theme, Assistant Chief Constable, the police show all the time that it is possible to move and restrain people legally, do they not?

Genna Telfer:

Yes.

Q So how is this different?

Genna Telfer:

It is not; it is exactly the same, but we do not move them easily. If someone does not want to be moved, there is a risk to the people moving them, as well as a risk to the individual. Obviously, we train and we do a lot of work to make sure that that injury is limited, but people do get injured when we try to move someone forcefully, on both sides.

Q The focus of what we are trying to do in this Amendment is to put the victims at the heart of it. The police and crime commissioner talked about this potentially turning into—I do not think you used the word “farce”, so I do not want to put that—

Clare Moody:

I did not, no. I talked about making a spectacle of it.

Yes—sorry. That is why in the Amendment we have suggested that victims need to be consulted about what would happen. Obviously that would be a risk, but that should be the victim’s choice. That should not be for the establishment—the criminal justice system or politicians. We should actively say, “This is the potential risk of this. Do you want that to happen?” They should be the people at the heart of our conversation, should they not?

Genna Telfer:

I think they should be at the heart of the conversation, but I do not think they should be the decision maker. If you have someone who is so violent that it presents a risk, effectively making other people victims—prison officers or whoever—there should be a decision either by the Prison Service or by the judge that, “This is too risky to do, and it is going to cause more problems than it is going to solve.” I accept that we would want to consult the victim and put them at the heart of it, but I do not think they should be the decision maker in that case.

Clare Moody:

I absolutely echo the point that Genna has made. It is one thing saying that this might be the outcome, and that it depends how the outcome is displayed in terms of what that could look like in a courtroom, but there could be the danger of retraumatising victims if this becomes all about the disruption in the courtroom at the point of sentencing. I think there are real problems with that.

Genna Telfer:

I do not disagree with the principle of it. I just think it would be very difficult to do.

Good morning, both; thank you for appearing this morning. There are lots of cases in my Constituency, and I am sure in those of other Members as well, where housing associations are not taking strong enough action against tenants who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. We have heard from you and from the previous panel; there are lots of different agencies involved. How do you see the role of the police working alongside the Victims’ Commissioner, housing providers and other agencies to combat antisocial behaviour? How do you think the Bill could help make that relationship and partnership working more fruitful?Q

Genna Telfer:

We obviously have really close working relationships with our partners. There should always be a number of people around the table trying to work out the best option to deal with these cases—from a problem-solving point of view, not just in the short term. Rather than just solving the immediate problem by, for example, moving people from one address to another, they might ask, “How do we manage this for the future?”

In my experience, I do not think there is an unwillingness from housing associations and local authorities to get involved. I think sometimes there are just challenges with being able to resolve some of the issues. The new power for the Victims’ Commissioner on the requirement to give a reasonable response as to why something has or has not been done will be really helpful, because it will provide more transparency and scrutiny of the problems we are trying to resolve. I do not think there is an unwillingness; I just think there are some challenges in the system that make it difficult.

Q Sometimes in my experience there is an unwillingness, but I appreciate what you say. Clare, have you got any comments on that?

Clare Moody:

Not specifically on the legislation piece. I think it is about the agencies working together. We have an example in Avon and Somerset where there are police officers who co-locate with the housing association —they have a desk space in the housing association—and that close working has resulted in closer co-operation on how to manage difficult situations with tenants. There are practical ways you can do things that do not necessarily require the legislation to change, because they are already in place.

Q I just want to pick up the point on the Opposition Amendment about the power to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. I am particularly mindful that we are talking about a sentencing hearing, at which point someone will have been found guilty and convicted. I think the general sentiment from victims and the public is that at that point the rights of the victim and their family come first, and that should be front and foremost in the projection of what goes on in the court, in order to see justice delivered. I am mindful that in other jurisdictions, including the US, there are powers to restrain and gag a disruptive offender. Do you have any further thoughts on that?

Genna Telfer:

I am not sure I can add any more to what I have already said. I have said that if the victim wants the offender in court, I agree with the principle of it. In terms of gagging people and dragging them into court, which is effectively what we are talking about, it just becomes really challenging. I am not saying that you would not necessarily do it; I just think there is a whole load of stuff that needs to be worked through to consider it.

If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.