Presentation by Inspector Michael Head of Lincolnshire Police, regarding crime, disorder and the role of Community Policing across West Lindsey.
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed Inspector Michael Head of Lincolnshire Police who gave a presentation to the Committee regarding crime, disorder and the role of Community Policing across West Lindsey.
Inspector Head explained his background and advised that his first year in the job had been challenging due to staffing issues, a force wide restructure, difficulties at Scampton, as well as adjusting to the role in general.
The Neighbourhood Policing Remodel was explained and it was highlighted that an evidence based policing approach was taken to ensure best allocation of resources. This included a reduction in the number of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), with retained PCSOs being allocated to high harm areas, working closely with partners to reduce Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and community based problem solving.
It was advised that the district was split into nine separate beat codes each of which had their own Neighbourhood Policing Team and priorities. Details of the geography of each area was then outlined together with the staffing and priorities for each. Detailed crime figures for each beat code were presented to Members.
The arrangements for urgent response requirements in the area were outlined. Members heard there were four different teams working from Gainsborough and Market Rasen. Each team consisted of one Sergeant and ten Constables would respond to 999 and 101 calls. It was explained that there was a dedicated team to police the RAF Scampton site and their role was to provide education among residents and act as a link between the police, the centre and the Home Office.
With regard to the use of Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBO’s), which issued conditions the receiving individual was mandated to abide by, it was explained that such orders could run for a period of two years and recipients could face a custodial sentence should they breach the mandated condition. Members heard there were six such orders in place in West Lindsey. Further sentencing guidelines were explained, with scenarios provided to clarify how aspects such as culpability (for example pre-meditated or impulsive act) and level of harm (for example substantial physical or psychological harm, extensive damage, substantial degree of loss, or, limited harm, nothing stolen, limited damage) were used to demonstrate what sentence might be handed down to a perpetrator of crime.
Questions were welcomed from the Committee, recognising there may be the need to provide answers outside of the meeting. The Chairman thanked Inspector Head on behalf of the Committee for a thorough and informative presentation.
In response to an enquiry regarding contact with Parish Councils, it was acknowledged that attendance at meetings of Parish Councils was not as frequent or common as it had been in the past. Inspector Head explained he had made contact with parishes when he started in his role, and had maintained those lines of communication as far as possible. He requested Members to emphasise the approachability of the area teams and for parishes to make contact with their named officers as well. It was acknowledged that some areas naturally had more contact between residents, Parish Councils and their policing teams, however the importance of understanding community needs was equally recognised.
With regard to the priorities set for each area, a Member of the Committee enquired as to how frequently the priorities were reviewed and set, and whether there was account taken of sudden changes. It was explained that there were quarterly reviews of the data and priorities were set accordingly, however, as it was a new team structure and with new officers in place, comparisons with previous years were not being used at this point, but would be monitored through the quarterly review process.
In response to a series of enquiries regarding specific policing teams, such as CID, Rural Crime and policing the roads around Lincolnshire, Inspector Head provided further information as to the focus of the rural team, for example regarding hare coursing, and detailed the work of the CID team based from Lincoln. There was wider discussion regarding the PCSOs and involvement in the min-police scheme, and it was confirmed the scheme did still run across some schools although it had been scaled back in recent years. There was specific praise for the Gainsborough team, with a witnessed example of Officer going above and beyond to assist a member of the public.
A Member of the Committee enquired about ‘fear of crime’ as an issue, for example families or individuals who would not go out after dark for fear of a crime occurring, and whether there was anything to offer reassurance to those who were worried. The Committee heard that there was a lot of inter-agency working in order to address the issues that led to that fear in the first place, such as the drug-related issues, and there was greater emphasis on people approaching the police, speaking with them to discuss any issues they were having, without worry of reprisals within their neighbourhood. Inspector Head recognised the importance of increasing peoples’ confidence in their communities to be able to live without that fear, and emphasised the work he and the teams were doing to interact and build that rapport with the local communities.
Further discussion matters included the wider implications of certain crimes in Lincolnshire, for example cars being ‘stolen to order’, stripped down, transported out of the county and sold on in a very short space of time, making them irrecoverable, as well as certain types of crimes being brought into the county from out of area (such as County Lines). In relation to drug issues in the district, it was explained that there was a high level of interaction with local schools to educate children about the dangers of drugs, and ongoing work, especially inter-agency, to address specific individuals or addresses where there was a known problem.
Traffic issues were raised, such as speed limits, speeding ‘hotspots’ and whether the Community Speedwatch scheme was working as it should, based on feedback from communities involved. It was acknowledged that speeding was an issue in some areas specifically, and the police were only able to deal with speeding motorists if they were caught. The Community Speedwatch scheme was recognised to be manned by volunteers, with the data submitted on a regular basis, however, there had been greater focus on, for example, drink driving, using mobile phones, the Fatal Four. Anecdotal evidence suggested the speeds were reduced at the times of the Community Speedwatch activity, proving as a deterrent to drivers.
Further questions were posed to Inspector Head, including concerns about dog attacks and how they were dealt with in the district. There was anecdotal evidence of dogs attacking other dogs, but not having been reported or treated as an issue, until there was an attack against a person. Members were invited to share such incidents with Inspector Head in order for him to gain a wider understanding of the extent of the issue, with it also acknowledged that the police could only act on what was reported to them, but if there was a wider issue it would need to be investigated further.
Having brought the question and answer session to a natural conclusion, the Chairman, on behalf of the Committee and Visiting Members, extended his heartfelt thanks for Inspector Head’s time and effort, and for a thorough and detailed presentation and engaging discussion session.
Note: The meeting was adjourned for a short comfort break at 8.03pm and reconvened at 8.11pm