Agenda item

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 been successful and had been rolled out to 27 Forces nationally, as well as giving greater focus to officers and improving stop and search outcomes.

·         In response to a question, the Assistant Commissioner replied that over the past eight to nine years the positive outcome rate from stop and search had increased significantly, with more scrutiny, focus, tasking and intelligence-led deployments. Over the same period the number of stop and searches conducted had declined. Stop and search was not an exact science, but it was a tactic that was applied in response to intelligence provided by victims of crime and members of the public. There would of course be occasions when officers would come across suspicious behaviour during the course of routine deployment that would require engagement that could result in a stop and search.

·         An Observing Member was heard, noting that she hoped that officers underwent de-escalation training for when they engaged with young people, given the statistics underpinning both COVID FPNs and stop and search. Secondly, there appeared to be differing approaches to statistics within the quarterly report varying between self-identified ethnicity and perceived ethnicity, which could give rise to misleading statistics. There was also a differing approach to using either graphic presentation of data versus narrative descriptions where a direct comparison of like with like would perhaps be more helpful.  Thirdly, it would be helpful if data could be presented in a more qualitative way e.g. breaking drug stops down into whether the arrest was for Class A, Class B, and either supply or possession. Lastly, the Member queried how many of the 106 drug stops conducted were done for the reason that cannabis could be smelled, which was bad practice.

·         The Chair noted that these points and queries were quite detailed and might benefit from a written response outside of the meeting but invited the Force to provide an initial response at the meeting.

·         The Assistant Commissioner agreed to review how best data could be broken down and presented in reporting. In terms of drug stops, the Force did have a stated priority to disrupt the supply of Class A drugs and so officers were tasked accordingly. HMICFRS had assessed 92% of Force stop submissions to be of a high standard, with the reasons for the remaining 8% under review and often for technical reasons. Officers were trained to engage with young persons and moreover in addressing unconscious bias. The Force also convened an independent Stop and Search Scrutiny Group. Lastly, Members were welcome to engage with the Assistant Commissioner directly on stop and search matters although were requested to provide email feedback in the first instance.

·         The Town Clerk agreed to ensure the written response to the Member’s comments and questions were published in the public domain. The Assistant Commissioner added that the Force’s independent Stop and Search Scrutiny Group would also be briefed on the points raised.

RESOLVED, that the report be received.