Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Caroline Addy and Deputy James Thomson.

The Chair welcomed the appointment of Mary Durcan and Alderman Greg Jones to the Committee, and placed on record the Committee’s thanks to Mia Campbell, who had stepped down as external Member.

There were no declarations.

To receive the terms of reference of the Committee as agreed by the City of London Police Authority Board at its meeting on 29 July 2020.

RESOLVED, that the terms of reference of the Committee as agreed by the City of London Police Authority Board at its 29 July 2020 meeting be received.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 29 November 2019.

RESOLVED, that the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 29 November 2019 be approved.

Joint report of the Town Clerk and Commissioner.

Members considered a late joint report of the Town Clerk and Commissioner regarding references and the following points were made.

8/2019/P – Force Communications Plan to be reviewed to reassure public regarding Stop and Search

·         The Assistant Commissioner noted that both the Force internal and external communications plans incorporated data on the use of stop and search. Moreover there was a report later on the agenda that gave a breakdown of stop and search statistics.

·         A Member Observer noted that a quarterly public report on the Force website noted that there was a technical error preventing the display of data with regards to ethnicity. The Assistant Commissioner committed to rectifying the issue in time for the November 2020 meeting of the Committee.

·         Members noted that the reference had arisen as a means to provide public reassurance on the use of stop and search, and that it could now be closed.

12/2020/P – Response on potential use of predictive policing methods

·         The Assistant Commissioner noted that the Force did not use predictive policing or artificial intelligence at present and there would be consultation with the Authority in advance of those methods being adopted. Members were asked to note, nevertheless, that there was some discussion nationally regarding the ethics of predictive policing.

·         A Member highlighted a 11 August 2020 decision by the Court of Appeal against South Wales Police’s use of automated facial recognition and encouraged the Force to ensure issues within that judgement be factored into the decision making process towards adoption of any predictive policing methods.

·         Members agreed that the reference could be closed.

14/2019/P – Future meeting dates of London Police Challenge Forum

·         In response to a question, the Assistant Commissioner replied that the Forum was a joint meeting between London Forces and partners, which the Force’s Head of

Report of the Commissioner.

Members considered a report of the Commissioner regarding COVID-19 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs).

·         The Chair noted that the figure on FPNs given at the Court of Common Council meeting in early September 2020 was different, in the number of FPNs issued had been revised down to 19. However since the report had been produced a further 8 FPNs had been issued during Extinction Rebellion protests in the City, all to white males. In total this meant 27 FPNs had been issued.

·         A Member requested that the way in which data was presented be reviewed. It was not clear to him whether the data referred to Force officers, but acting wider than the City area. A more detailed breakdown on officer-based and geographical-based data would be welcome.

·         A Member welcomed the data, noting that it showed interesting patterns emerging. Specifically it appeared that outside of the City it was more likely for BAME persons to be issued fines, and the Member queried why this was the case. Moreover if both fines and warning figures were combined that BAME were typically given fines whereas older white persons typically received a warning. It would be interesting to have some context on why this might be the case.

·         The Assistant Commissioner replied that the demographics of fines and warnings reflected areas of London where the Force was typically deployed in support of partners. For example the boroughs surrounding the City were very diverse and it was therefore more likely to encounter BAME persons. On the issue of fines versus warnings, each encounter with a member of the public was a clear phased process commencing with a request for compliance, with progression through the phases dependent on how the individual reacted.

·         A Member queried whether interactions with younger BAME persons were escalating in such a

Report of the Commissioner.

Members considered a report of the Commissioner regarding the Stop and Search Quarter 1 2020/21 – 1 April 2020 – 30 June 2020 and the following points were made.

·         The Chair noted that the Force’s 35% positive outcome rate was significantly more than the national average of 21%, which reflected the fact the Force had worked hard to ensure there were strong grounds for stop and search tactics being used.

·         The Assistant Commissioner noted that the conversion rate for Metropolitan Police stop and search tactics during 2019/20 was 15%.

·         In response to questions, the Assistant Commissioner replied that of 584 stop and searches, 235 had taken place outside of the City, and agreed to review whether a breakdown in terms of age and ethnicity could be provided for the 235 stops outside the City.

·         In response to a question, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed that the Force stop and search statistics incorporated stop and searches conducted by Op Servator trained officers. Not all officers were Servator-trained and the Force was looking at how Servator stop and search techniques could be rolled out among the Force as a whole. The Force’s Transform programme involved a consideration of how Servator numbers could be uplifted. Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services had noted that the Servator officers actually had a slightly higher failure rate when completing stop and search paperwork, which was being reviewed.

·         The Assistant Commissioner, for the benefit of any members of the public watching the meeting, noted that Servator was a Force initiative dating to 2014 that used behavioural analysis as part of intelligence-led deployments to crime hot spots and areas deemed at high risk of terror attack. It involved both overt and covert deployment of officers, and public communication via leafleting and social media. Servator had

Report of the Town Clerk.

Members considered a report of the Town Clerk providing a summary of recent reviews of Police complaints and the following points were made.

·         The Chair noted that a review of the new process had been planned after three months of operation but, due to COVID, would now take place in January 2021. The Review Panel was meeting on a monthly basis and training would be made available to Members.

·         The Deputy Head of Police Authority Board highlighted that there was a bias towards reviews of complaints relating to Action Fraud, and not many complaints regarding the Force’s core business, which was positive. Of the complaints made regarding Action Fraud, the Review Panel was seeing about a third. The Review Panel generally felt that the Force could make better explanations of the process through which cases were referred on for investigation or not, and that explanations should be presented in layman’s terms as far as was possible. Complaint responses were often a comprehensive end to end summary of process, but with scant detail on the key areas concerning the complainant. The Authority would welcome the opportunity to work with the Force to improve this.

·         A Member noted he was present at the June 2020 Review Panel and requested the record be updated accordingly.

·         The Chair noted that she was concerned that feedback from the Force had not been received on the recommendations put to the Force by the Panel, particularly recommendations arising from the July 2020 panel meeting. This was particularly important as the new process was designed to foster a learning culture rather than one of blame – lack of response from the Force suggested that the learning culture had yet to be embraced. Lastly, a Member of the Panel had flagged the potential GDPR issue around the use of

Report of the Commissioner.

Members considered an update report of the Commissioner regarding Integrity and Code of Ethics. The Chair noted that a version of the report had been considered by the City of London Police Authority Board at its July 2020 meeting.

RESOLVED, that the report be received.  

Recruitment of External Member

·         In response to a question regarding the process of recruiting an external Member of the Committee, the Town Clerk noted that the intention was to advertise and recruit ahead of the Committee’s November 2020 meeting, although this would be offset by wider Authority governance work on drawing up Member role profiles and job descriptions. The process would also be aligned with the work of the City’s Tackling Racism Working Party.

·         A Member encouraged the Authority to be as creative as possible in advertising the vacancy and cited the example of recruiting young alumni on to Local Governing Bodies of academies in the City of London Academies Trust. The Member suggested that the Committee may benefit from hearing from a speaker from an independent organisation on this issue. Moreover greater use, particularly for recruiting City of London Police Authority Board external Members, could be made of professional head hunters.

External Scrutiny

·         In response to a question, the Deputy Head of the Police Authority Team noted that the Community Scrutiny Group and Independent Advisory Group had been amalgamated to form the Independent Advisory and Scrutiny Group (IASG) in December 2019. The new group arrangements were working well, and the Chairman of the City of London Police Authority Board would be attending a meeting of the IASG and vice versa. The Chair of the Professional Standards and Integrity Committee would also be attending a meeting of the IASG to better understand how the work of the two bodies could align. The reports on the work of the IASG that were submitted to the City of London Police Authority Board could also be submitted to the Committee for information.

·         The Deputy Head of the Police Authority Team confirmed that the Independent Custody Visitors’ Scheme (ICV) was Authority-led whereas the IASG

There were no questions.

MOTION – that under Section 100 (A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

RESOLVED, that under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2019.

RESOLVED, that the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 29 November 2019 be approved as a correct record.

To receive a note of the inquorate meeting held on 2 March 2020.

RESOLVED, that the non-public note of the inquorate meeting held on 2 March 2020 be received.

Joint report of the Town Clerk and Commissioner.

Members considered a late joint report of the Town Clerk and Commissioner regarding non-public references.

Report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor.

Members considered a report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor regarding Employment Tribunal and Other Legal Cases.

Report of the Commissioner.

Members considered a report of the Commissioner regarding Professional Standards Statistics – Quarter 1 – 1 April 2020 – 30 June 2020.

Report of the Commissioner.

Members considered a report of the Commissioner regarding Professional Standards Directorate Cases.

Members considered cases with no case to answer or were not upheld.

Members considered cases dealt with by local resolution.

Members considered cases involving death or serious injury.

Members considered cases dealt with under Complaint and Conduct Regulations 2019.

There were no non-public questions.

There was no other business.