protection of children at risk of domestic abuse · police can investigate suspected crimes and...

of 41

Protection of Children

at risk of

Domestic Abuse

- States of Jersey Police -

A thematic review of the States of Jersey Police

by officers of the Small Islands Forum

2016

of 41

Foreword It is clear that all our children deserve the right to grow and develop in a safe

environment, cared for and protected from harm. Most children thrive in loving

families and grow to adulthood unharmed. Unfortunately, still too many children are

abused or neglected by those responsible for their care; need to be protected from

other adults with whom they come into contact, or are spending time in environments,

or with people, harmful to them.

It can be said that everybody has a responsibility to look out for vulnerable children,

however police forces, working together and with other agencies, have a particular

role in protecting children and ensuring that their needs are met.

Protecting children is one of the most important tasks the police undertake. Only the

police can investigate suspected crimes and arrest perpetrators, and they have a

significant role in monitoring sex offenders. Police officers have the power to take a

child who is at immediate risk of serious harm to a place of safety, or to seek an order

to restrict an offender’s contact with children. The police service also has a significant

role working with other agencies to ensure the child’s protection and well-being,

longer term.

Police officers are often the eyes and ears of the community as they go about their

daily tasks and come across children who may be neglected or abused. They must be

alert to, and identify, children who may be at risk. To protect children well, the police

service must undertake all its core duties to a high standard. Police officers must talk

with children, listen to them and understand their fears and concerns. The police must

also work well with other agencies to ensure that no child slips through the net and

that over-intrusion and duplication of effort are avoided.

With these policing priorities in mind, this report represents the culmination of a Small

Island Forum Peer Review Process and is intended to identify both areas of good

practice and recommend areas for development in how well children are protected

and their needs met by the States of Jersey Police.

of 41

Contents

Foreword

1 Introduction

2 Background

3 Context for the Force

4 Findings – the experiences, progress and outcomes

Initial contact

Assessment and help

Investigation

Decision making

Trusted Adult

Ending of Involvement

Recording

Managing those posing a risk

5 Finding: Leadership

6 Findings: The overall effectiveness

7 Recommendations

of 41

1 Introduction

This report is a summary of the findings of a peer review of the States of Jersey Police

in respect of the Protection of Children at Risk of harm from Domestic Abuse, which

was undertaken during October and November 2016.

The report comprises seven chapters in three main parts. The first part provides

information on the background to the inspection and the context in which the States of

Jersey Police operate. The second part focuses on the inspection findings, and the third

part looks to the future and makes recommendations for development.

2 Background

The Royal Gibraltar Police, the Isle of Man Constabulary, the Guernsey Police and the

States of Jersey Police ‘SOJP’ are non-Home Office Forces and operate within a unique

small island context. Therefore, for a number of years the Chief Officers of these Forces

have gathered on a quarterly basis under the auspices of ‘The Small Island Forum’ to

discuss mutual strategic issues and share best practice.

During 2015, the Royal Gibraltar Police were subject to an HMIC thematic review.

Whilst the HMIC report was found to be a useful and informative process, it was

considered that the inspection team had not fully recognised the small island context

in which the organisation was judged.

Furthermore, it was thought that inviting the HMIC Inspection team to undertake this

work had been a financially expensive process which had provided limited additional

insight.

Consequently, the Small Island Forum determined that a peer review inspection

programme be developed with the intention of ensuring that each peer review should

benefit not only the force hosting the review, but that the peer review team of subject

matter experts would be tasked with considering their findings against their respective

force capability.

of 41

The resulting effect being a cost effective organisational development opportunity of

all four small island forces together with significant individual development of those

officers embedded within each peer review team.

SOJP agreed to host the first peer review programme with the Guernsey Police being

nominated to lead the review team, collate the recommendations and produce a

report.

The first thematic area chosen for review was Child Protection with a specific focus on

the risk of harm from Domestic Abuse. This highly topical and specialist area was

considered to be of developmental value to all four jurisdictions and in alignment with

recent guidance from HMIC, OFSTED, Care Quality Commission, and HMI Probation

around “deep dive” joint targeted area inspections from Sept 2016 – March 2017.

The methodology used, which mirrored much of the HMIC processes, included a self-

assessment, a dip-sample of case audits carried out by senior SOJP staff, followed by a

visit of the review team to conduct an on-island quality assurance of such case audits,

force policies & guidance together with focused interviews with a cross section of

police officers and staff of all ranks and concluding with discussions with strategic

partners.

of 41

3 Jersey Context

SOJP employ 228 police officers and 100 civilian staff members to deliver the police

service across the Island.

The resident population is approximately 100,000 with the number of people visiting

the island each year said to be over 700,000. The island has a diverse population with a

significant number of Portuguese nationals, some of whom are second or third

generation. In addition, the island has seen a more recent influx of eastern European

nationals with a significant number originating from Poland. The island is divided into

12 parishes with the capital being St Helier, where the Police Headquarters is based.

The peer review team recognise that, as in most other jurisdictions, this review has

been conducted during an increasing period of financial austerity together with a

period of significant transformational change for the Force.

The impending move to a new ‘state-of-the-art’ Police Headquarters in 2017 presents

significant challenges together with opportunities for efficiency.

The review team noted with interest the intention of the SOJP to adopt a new

operating model being implemented by some Home Office Forces known as

“T.H.R.I.V.E”. The key advantages of this operating model are its ability to target

increasingly limited operational resources to counter the Threat, Risk and Harm causes,

together with the ability to consider the weighting of the deployment priority against

the vulnerability of the victim/s. It was therefore judged to be a very positive

development from the peer review perspectives of both Child Protection and Domestic

Abuse.

It was noted that a comprehensive plan was in progress to achieve around 9%

efficiencies through such developments by the end of 2019.

of 41

The review team noted that within the Corporate Governance structure the public

protection services are led by a Detective Superintendent, supported by a Detective

Chief Inspector, responsible for the Public Protection Unit comprising Child Protection,

Domestic Violence and Offender Management officers.

SOJP alongside partner agencies have established a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub

(MASH) which has been in operation for around three years. This is a permanent, co-

located team from Police, Health, Education and Children’s Social Work who constantly

assess threat and risk to children and young persons. Whilst the MASH does not

directly have an operational capability it is able to allocate out appropriately prioritised

actions to individual agencies.

The peer review team were cognisant of the historic and unique parish policing system

with each parish having its own Honorary Police, with the 12 Parish Constables being

elected by parishioners as States representative and officers who serve on a voluntary

unpaid basis. The Honorary Police were noted to perform many community roles in

support of the Jersey Police, including road safety, major event support and

community patrols.

Another process unique to Jersey’s Honorary Police is the Parish Hall Enquiry, which is

in practice a parish court dealing with low level matters which keeps offenders out of

the Magistrates’ Court. They are presided over by the Centenier of the parish, who is

still to this day, the only person with the power to charge and bail offenders.

The review team were pleased to note that all officers and staff spoken with across the

full range of departmental deployments and ranks were dedicated professionals who

were clearly committed to safeguarding children and young people.

of 41

4 Findings – the experiences

Initial contact

The vast majority of initial contact from the community is managed by the Force

Control Room (FCR), this functional area is resourced 24/7/365 with one civilian, one

police constable and is supervised by a police sergeant.

A protocol ensures that wherever possible emergency calls are dual monitored to

facilitate faster dispatch to a wide variety of calls for service.

The reviewers noted some excellent examples of work in the FCR and a small number

of which fell short of expected levels of service, which tended to indicate an

inconsistent response, a good example located was;

(Incident Record)

DV/CP incident caller could only whisper “HELP” followed by her address in heavily

accented English. It was whispered so quietly as to be almost inaudible then the call cut

out. Staff showed great tenacity in repeatedly replaying the call, getting others to listen

and sending officers out to potential addresses before finally locating the correct one

where a rape was reported.

Call takers log their calls onto the ilog system1, which creates time stamped entries

onto the system. However, the I.T. command and control capability is somewhat

limited and therefore quality of service provided to the caller depends primarily on the

level of training, experience and knowledge of the call taker. An example is listed

below;

(Incident Record)

Caller reported her sister’s boyfriend becoming violent and damaging the house whilst

children were present. Response was immediately dispatched and the call taker kept

the caller on the line, but significant and immediate safeguarding opportunities were

potentially missed. The line was effectively kept silent, with no further questions raised

1 SOJP bespoke call recording IT system

of 41

relating to those present including the details of which children were present. No

further directions or safety advice was offered to the caller other than making

themselves known to the attending officers.

RECOMMENDATION 1:

SOJP may wish to consider exploring options for an enhanced CAD system (scripted

call handling/prompts) or process within the FCR with a focus on ensuring a

consistent approach and an enhanced quality of call handling and deployment

decisions.

The review team noted that some police constables working within the FCR had

received a one-week training programme prior to undertaking both call handling and

dispatch duties. The review team did note that a degree of consistency was provided

by the permanent civilian controller and first line supervisor. The apparently frequent

rotation of less experienced police constables through this critical functional area is

believed to create some degree of operational risk and a potential for inconsistent

deployment decisions. The review team believe that whilst the risks could be managed

through a more comprehensive training and mentoring regime, given the context of

further budget reductions/austerity measures facing SOJP, there may be merit in

exploring further civilisation of the constable control room post.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

SOJP may wish to review their control room resourcing model, to ensure it is

appropriately staffed to provide an efficient and effective call handling capability and

to ensure a consistent service response.

The review team were aware that the Jersey, multi-agency Child Protection Register

was not readily available within the FCR. It was ascertained that the register had been

so available until recently when a partner agency had ceased sharing it on the grounds

of data protection. The review team echoed the sentiments of the FCR staff who rightly

recognised that the register was an excellent tool, that greatly assisted in the

safeguarding of children as it allowed them to check, not only against the child’s name

of 41

but also address details. The availability of this data during dispatch, allowed attending

officers to be properly briefed to ensure appropriate decisions and actions were taken

on scene.

It was of great concern that, at the time of the review, this database had already been

unavailable for approximately two months. The review team support the actions of the

DCI Crime who is currently in negotiations with the partner agency to regain access to

the Child Protection data.

It is further recommended that attempts are made to gain FCR access to the Child in

Need database2 to ensure a holistic approach is made to all police deployments where

C&YP welfare and safeguarding actions may be required.

An incident which occurred over a weekend where officers dealt with a DV incident

where there was a child who was not on the register, but was a designated Child in

Need, and had a ‘child’s plan’ in place. This information was not available to either the

FCR or the attending officers. It was however known by PPU who highlighted it on the

Monday (post incident) morning who have access to live I.T. systems. Clearly this kind of

crucial information can severely affect Police decision making and response.

RECOMMENDATION 3:

The review team consider it is essential that efforts continue to regain FCR access to

the critical safeguarding information contained within the Child Protection register. It

is furthermore recommended that such access is enhanced through access to the

data relating to children in need with ‘Child Plans’ particularly where there is an

element of suspected Domestic Abuse, with the appropriate safeguards

The review team noted that the FCR staff interviewed were found to be enthusiastic

and dedicated in their efforts to give the best possible service to the public and

officers, particularly so in child protection situations. Their enthusiasm and high level of

self-motivation is a credit to the force. The team found examples of good practice

during the call monitoring dip samples.

2 MASH database currently only accessible by PPU

of 41

Assessment and help

Five years ago, SOJP introduced a Domestic Violence Booklet, which is issued to all

front line staff as a guide for such incidents; it is known colloquially as the “Blue Book”.

It is designed as a ‘one stop’ attendance record and risk assessment tool for every level

of DV incident.

In examining the Blue Book, the review team noted it contains little information about

children impacted by such incidents. In addition, the review team considered that the

documentation should be revisited given the UK legislative developments in Coercive /

controlling behaviours.

The review team received some feedback from operational staff in which they

considered it to be overly detailed and time consuming for lower level domestic

incidents, which simply require a Domestic Abuse, Stalking & Honour based violence

‘DASH’ form to be completed. Officers relayed that, prior to the Blue Books and to

ensure the attendance time was minimised they had memorised the key risk

assessment questions and completed them in their PNB through casual conversation

with the subject.

Staff commented that the Blue Books required a more structured discussion to fact

find and the process can be perceived as too formalised to best engage with distressed

victims. Whilst the review team recognised this view point, it clearly needs to be

tempered against the important safeguarding information made available to PPU staff

and through them, multi-agency partners, following the comprehensive completion of

the Blue Books. The review team also acknowledge that the quality of the Blue Book

submission is significantly impacted by the officer’s level of policing experience.

of 41

RECOMMENDATION 4:

The review team recommend that the SOJP may wish to review/update the Blue

Book with latest best practice in Domestic Abuse and Child Protection. It is

considered appropriate that this process is completed in consultation with shift

officers to obtain their feedback and stakeholder ‘buy in’.

The process of assessment of risk in domestic abuse scenarios by the police is by its

very nature a subjective process and therefore ‘not an exact science’. That said, the

review team did observe a significant variation on the level of on scene risk

assessments and initial mitigating actions. The documentary dip samples revealed

some excellent examples of DASH forms being completed and early contact with

partner agencies.

One reviewed case revealed the proactive actions of a uniformed operations

supervisor highlighting to PPU that although a DASH form fell one short of the required

14 ticks for marking as high risk, there were distinct contextual risks that meant he felt

it should be graded as such, thereby demonstrating a good understanding of the ability

to use professional judgement.

A further review revealed an incident where a response shift officer attended a

Domestic Violence incident where both parties refused to engage to complete the

DASH. In this case the officer returned to the station and ticked every box “I don’t

know” including questions relating to previous convictions, which they could have

obtained to enable a more complete risk assessment prior to leaving the scene. Of

equal concern this risk assessment documentation was signed off by a first line

supervisor before submission to PPU in an incomplete condition.

The review team noted some uncertainty amongst both FCR and Response Shift staff

as to when contact should be made with the Duty Social Worker ‘DSW’ out-of-hours, in

terms of the threshold for contact. Due to previous criticisms staff felt they ‘couldn’t

win’, if they did update the DSW they wouldn’t come out and would merely

acknowledge the contact. Alternatively, when they didn’t update the DSW they had

of 41

received criticism for not doing so. The review team received feedback that the

process/threshold was unclear to officers and resulted in the potential for a lack of a

consistent and coordinated response from partner agencies.

RECOMMENDATION 5:

The review team recommend that guidance is provided to officers and first line

supervision to assist in achieving a consistent approach to risk assessing and

understanding of thresholds and trigger points for early multi-agency engagement

particularly during out of office hours.

The review team found that following the development of M.A.S.H. post incident

interagency coordination had developed to become an exemplar. Of particular note

was the added quality of service achieved by the physical collocation of key partners

and associated sharing of information. Notwithstanding the excellent information

sharing and tasking levels achieved to date, the review team consider that efforts must

continue to ensure the M.A.S.H. reflects operational best practice developments in this

rapidly evolving area of multi-agency cooperation. Whilst issues are evident for the

future development of the MASH, these were considered beyond the scope of this

Review.

The review team noted with interest that the SOJP, have quite rightly been a key

driving force and supporter in the development of the M.A.S.H. Interviews with key

staff from partner agencies revealed that the Detective Superintendent Crime Services

and the Detective Chief Inspector, Public Protection Unit were singled out as the

driving force behind all key areas subject of the thematic review in recent years.

M.A.S.H. is currently staffed by two warranted officers and a civilian support staff

member. This relatively high level of resourcing commitment together with the

leadership shown in this key functional area is clear evidence of the SOJP’s

commitment to safeguarding the young and vulnerable within Jersey’s communities.

of 41

The review team were also made aware of the MASH IT system created by the Police IT

department thus further evidencing the organisational level support of this initiative.

Investigation

The review team noted that the SOJP are introducing a new organisational structure

within Crime Services with effect from Q1 2017. These structural / line management

changes having been designed to permit a more resilient initial response to high

profile/serious criminality.

There are two decisions which the review team have been made aware of during the

review;

1) Response Investigation Unit ‘RIU’ line management moving from Crime Services

to Operations, with response shift constables rotating through on a six-month

basis; &

2) The line management of the Domestic Abuse team being realigned from PPU to

CID along with the physical relocation of two Detective Constables and one

Detective Sergeant.

The review team noted concerns raised by interviewees relating to an apparent

disconnect between uniform officers and specialist investigators within crime services.

In some cases, there was a clear lack of understanding by uniform staff as to the role of

PPU, M.A.S.H. and safeguarding in general. Officers seemed to have the impression

that PPU was a Domestic Abuse/Child Protection equivalent of CID, in that it should be

taking on all relevant criminal investigations. The review team noted that some

organisational elements of safeguarding were not understood and consequently

response officers did not fully appreciate how the quality of their risk assessments and

reports would drive post incident safeguarding action.

That said, in one case the review team spoke with an acting sergeant with an excellent

understanding of multi-agency roles and responsibilities. It was apparent that this

officer had, as part of the promotion process, undertaken an attachment to PPU

of 41

including observing MARAC and MASH processes. The review team commend this

secondment initiative for all future supervisors and future leaders.

The review team ascertained that probationer constables previously undertook a two-

day attachment to PPU during their initial training. However, some probationer

experiences were apparently less than ideal with PPU not being prepared for them due

to workloads. In these situations, the review team were told that the Probationers had

reverted to working on their own files and gained no discernible benefit from it. These

attachments were said to have now been discontinued.

RECOMMENDATION 6:

The review team believe that the instigation by PPU management of attachments for

newly promoted Sergeants is an excellent one, and its benefits could clearly be seen

by the reviewers in terms of communicating and understanding safeguarding

principles. It is recommended that every effort be made to continue with this process

in 2017.

RECOMMENDATION 7:

The review team recommend that SOJP consider the reintroduction of PPU

attachments during initial probationer training programmes to demonstrate the

importance of on scene information gathering/risk assessments and thus deliver a

better service to the public.

The review team heard how the proposed changes to RIU are also intended to make

positive changes to the way SOJP deliver its services. The team learnt that the current

operational model is at risk of causing response officers to become deskilled due to a

lack of exercise in their core investigatory abilities such as interviewing.

RIU were noted to be utilised in dealing with operational handovers and any

investigations with a named suspect involved. Whilst this model has significant benefits

in delivering a consistent and quality focused secondary investigation, it has

inadvertently resulted in response shift officers becoming a purely reactive capability.

of 41

The risks associated with this model have been recognised by SOJP senior leaders in

that officers are not currently able to develop their investigative skills and abilities

before considering redeployments to other areas of the Force.

The proposed changes to RIU line management in bringing it into the Operations

portfolio and opening up four spaces for response officers to complete attachments is

seen as a positive step in terms of officer development whilst maintaining a core of

experienced secondary investigators. The review team consider this will ultimately

result a long term improvement in the quality of service delivered by the Force.

The review team noted a further change management plan to redeploy officers to

C.I.D. from P.P.U. Interviewees expressed some concern regarding the potential for a

disconnect between DV and CP activities with information flows hindered by the

absence of collocated functions. When further explored it was clear that senior leaders

were conscious of the need for continuing connectivity on a regular basis but that

equally the links between CID and Domestic Abuse teams needed to be enhanced to

ensure a resilient investigative capability. The review team consider that more active

communications with affected staff will assist in alleviating staff concerns.

A very strong spine is evident running through the department from Superintendent,

down through DCI, DI and DS. The PPU has developed into the recognisable model of

DV officers, CP officers and OMU. The decision to move the investigative side of DV

into CID while leaving the safeguarding within PPU is a move in a new direction. Pros

and cons from both sides can be seen, and would be worthy of a post implementation

review in terms of quality of service.

RECOMMENDATION 8:

The review team recommend further change management discussions need to be

held with PPU and CID officers to ease and allay fears over the impending

organisational changes.

The review team were also made aware of the associated change in operational model

within Crime Services staffing at weekends, which will result in investigative cover

of 41

being provided solely by CID, as opposed to the current method of a variety of

Detective departments including PPU covering weekends.

The concerns raised by some current DV staff are perhaps best evidenced by the below

incident: -

A further reviewed incident involved the case of a five-year-old boy being slapped by

mother’s boyfriend leaving a distinct injury to the child.

This was picked up over a weekend, and contains an excellent example of an

investigative log with in the electronic file. Every action or decision is documented and

accompanied by a comprehensive rationale. It was completed by a PPU officer who

happened to be covering that weekend and the focus on child protection is reflected

throughout the investigation. Whilst difficult to quantify against other operational risks

outside the mandate of this review, the team acknowledge the intention of creating a

more resilient CID capability. In balancing the full spectrum of operational risks there

may be some benefit in permitting CID officers to gain some exposure to the work of

PPU.

RECOMMENDATION 9:

The review team recommend that considerations should be given to CID officers

having a short term attachment to PPU to increase CP/DA breadth of knowledge for

all investigative officers.

Decision making

In a further reviewed incident a female caller who had allegedly suffered a number of

instances of rape called into the station on 999, and was eventually located by good

work from the FCR.

As previously mentioned the review team noted some excellent initial work went into

this incident to secure and preserve evidence, and the offence was investigated

of 41

comprehensively. The Domestic Abuse risk to the adult female victim was also

recognised at an early stage and appropriate mitigation measures were put in place.

Despite the review team noting some good initial actions by the attending officers, it

was felt that possible elements to the CP risk were not developed. The mother

disclosed she had been suicidal a couple of weeks prior to this incident, when the

previously unreported rape had occurred. Given that information and the fact she was

now alleging a further rape, no apparent measures or considerations were

documented to safeguard the victim’s children, and it didn’t appear an out of hours

Social Worker was contacted. This situation seemed to require an immediate Strategy

meeting over the phone, as the risks to the children of being with a potentially suicidal

mother needed assessing. As has been highlighted previously there would appear to be

a lack of knowledge within the response officers as to when to contact the DSW.

Another incident reviewed involved a Domestic Abuse assault between partners in the

presence of their 5-year-old daughter, decision not to arrest either party due to counter

allegations being issued. Male left property to stay elsewhere that night.

The SOJP Domestic Abuse Policy rightly recognises that instances of counter allegations

need to be carefully considered to ensure one party isn’t merely using false counter

allegations as a defence strategy. On checking the males nominal he had a history of

being violent when drunk, the review team were unable to find any record of this

information being passed to the officers at the scene, where clearly it should certainly

have formed part of their decision making process. Officers need to have a mind set

and investigative approach which moves beyond just checking the children are still

asleep, and treat them with the same care they do the primary victim of the DA

incident.

Once incidents move past the initial attendance phase, they appear to be reallocated

to either RIU or Crime Services for further investigation. The last 24 hours’ incidents

will be discussed and allocated in the Crime Services morning meeting attended by the

Detective Sergeant in RIU, DI CID, DI PPU and DCI Crime Services. This ensures the

investigative and safeguarding elements are highlighted and appropriately allocated

of 41

dependent on risk and staff availability. All officers in these departments are Initial

Crime Investigators Development Programme ‘ICIDP’ trained, are PIP2 interviewers,

and are SCAIDP trained and so are appropriately trained to deal with these cases.

The Detective Sergeants in CID have all had experience in the PPU arena, and the

review team recognise there is a good level of Domestic Abuse and Child Protection

supervisory knowledge in those departments. Of the three investigative files selected

at random for deep dive review, two showed that initial Child Protection

considerations were not fully recognised by the response shift officers but were picked

up the PPU Detective Sergeant the following morning. The review team consider this

supervisory review demonstrates a good level of quality assurance captured within the

Force systems and processes.

RECOMMENDATION 10:

Whilst it is recognised that the SOJP have invested in providing training and

resources to both PPU and CID, the review team consider it appropriate and

necessary to provide further Child Protection and Domestic Abuse training,

secondments and regular updates to response officers and control room staff.

The review team noted that the SOJP have assembled a resilient core of experienced

and knowledgeable officers and managers within the PPU functional area of service

delivery. It was very apparent that the development of PPU and related functions had

been driven from the ‘top down’ with pro-active engagement at all senior levels of

command.

The review team noted with interest glowing praise echoed by all partner agencies

spoken to, about the SOJP’s approach to all matters of Child Protection. This was

particularly relevant when partners discussed the sustained efforts of both the current

Detective Superintendent and Detective Chief Inspector.

When looking to future challenges the multi-agency partners did raise some concern

regarding succession planning and the need to ensure the child protection focus

remained despite both increasing austerity and longer term leadership plans.

of 41

The review team recognise that the successes in building confidence within the

community to come forward to report such crimes brings with it the additional

potential consequence of increased demand. It is clear that the intended new Threat,

Harm, Risk, Investigative opportunities, Vulnerability & Explored opportunities for

future prevention ‘THRIVE’ operating model and MASH will assist greatly in managing

such fluctuations in demand.

The review team believe it appropriate and necessary for the SOJP to ensure

resourcing levels in this high risk and high profile area of policing are given an

appropriate priority despite impending austerity measures.

RECOMMENDATION 11:

The review team recommend that, if not already done, consideration be given to a

program of shadowing/mentoring and professional development for future

managers and leaders to enhance breadth of knowledge in the multi-agency environs

of Child Protection to assist in the creation of a resilient succession plan.

Trusted Adult

A further documentary review highlighted a potential investigative risk/gap in

capability within SOJP interpreter provision. This concern was echoed during interviews

with officers and staff from both Uniform Operations and Crime Services. Jersey is a

diverse society with a large population of Portuguese and eastern European residents

amongst other minority communities.

In this case the review team noted that police officers attended a DV incident with

children present, the mother spoke no English and so officers were unable to establish

what had occurred, due to there being no local interpreters available to the officers, nor

suitable on scene access to ‘Big Word’ telephone interpreters, officers found themselves

using the victim’s 8-year-old son to interpret for her. This was further complicated as it

of 41

was later established that the victim had previously attempted suicide, a fact that her

son was unaware of.

The review team have significant concerns regarding the findings of this case review as

not only was a young child having to question and translate a potentially traumatic

incident between his own parents but in addition the child’s comments were not

sufficient to be utilised as the basis of the on scene risk assessment. The officers

therefore were not able to complete a detailed risk assessment and the matter of a

previous suicide attempt was not known to the attending officers who then left the

property. The incident log was closed 17 minutes after the call came in to the FCR.

For any victim to recount an incident to a Police Officer in detail can be a harrowing

experience, to have to do it through a speaker phone is far from ideal.

RECOMMENDATION 12:

The review team recommend that, in addition to the availability of Big Word for basic

custody procedures, consideration be given to the provision of ‘on-island’

interpreters to facilitate all aspects of victim and suspected related interactions

including criminal interviews. In alignment with this recommendation, consideration

should be given to updating Force Policy to provide clarity about the use of

interpreters in that no victim or anyone under the age of 18 years should be used for

interpreting services except in situations that put persons at immediate risk of harm.

The review team noted that SOJP have invested in further specialist training for officers

to improve the service given to victims, and to gather the best evidence possible for

prosecutions. As with all small Forces, there is insufficient demand/officer availability

for staff to be permanently posted to conduct such specialisms, so officers are multi

skilled. Amongst these specialisms there are ten officers who are ABE interview

trained. In addition, 15 members of staff are SOLO trained, with three of those SOLO’s

based within PPU. The review team also noted a number of Family Liaison Officers

based within PPU.

of 41

Interviews with a number of response shift officers highlighted some concerns

regarding the absence or availability for out of office hours contact with/guidance from

officers from within PPU and particular reference to the MASH database, which the

review team understand is restricted to PPU officers. In addition, it was suggested that

the Force Control Room could improve the flow of information relating to relevant

nominal and case information to assist and inform on initial scene decision making. The

Review Team did not assess the content of the MASH database and are not able to

determine the operational benefit wider access may provide or information-sharing

implications.

RECOMMENDATION 13:

The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing the access to

the MASH database (out of hours) to ensure that this is not adversely impacting

police decision making and safeguarding activity (e.g. via the FCR).

The White Ribbon campaign was being undertaken by SOJP officers whilst the review

was being conducted, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Partnership Board it was

felt SOJP demonstrated a very effective use of national and international campaigns to

raise awareness of domestic abuse in the island.

The extensive and long running Operation Whistle (June 2015) which continues in

Jersey, had recorded in excess of 60 victims of historic sexual abuse complaints who

clearly felt able to come forward to report crimes to SOJP. This is a positive indicator of

the Force’s organisational developments in recent years and demonstrates the trust

and confidence the Jersey communities have in their Police Force.

During interviews with multi-agency partners, the review team heard of the significant

contribution made by the community policing model delivered in schools. This

partnership operating model had brought Education Services and the Police together

to deliver a resilient crime prevention/reduction/education partnership.

of 41

The review team were pleased to note that the multi-agency Serious Case Review

process had identified very positive comments made by children and young victims

about the service provided by SOJP.

Ending of involvement

The review team noted the realignment of Jersey’s relatively new Independent

Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVA’S) working alongside the SOJP PPU as being a good

example of operational delivery of multi-agency working. Not only was this seen to

assist the initial police response but the benefits were also evidenced in longer term

problem solving once a criminal investigation is complete and Police have withdrawn.

The daily meetings between the Independent Domestic Violence Advisor and the PPU

Detective Sergeant to review high risk DV cases ensure all opportunities are taken to

minimise risk of harm to children and vulnerable adults. This close liaison ensures the

IDVA is able to support the victim and provide early assistance. This effective line of

communication also enables the victim to be kept accurately informed and supported

throughout any Police investigation, and beyond.

The review team interviews with multi-agency partners identified a strong appetite for

the IDVA programme to be further resourced to provide workload resilience. It is also

recognised that the SOJP should not be seen as managing the IDVA service to ensure

that victims are able to seek support without directly engaging the police service.

RECOMMENDATION 14:

The review team recommend that the SOJP consider supporting (but not leading) a

multi-agency initiative to review opportunities to increase staffing within the Jersey

IDVA capability thereby providing resilience for apparent workloads.

The review team noted that the SOJP have recently introduced a bi-monthly Learning

the Lessons Forum. This developmental governance process has staff from key

of 41

functional areas of the Force meet to seek out opportunities for organisational

development based on both good practice and lessons learnt. Whilst this forum is yet

to develop a formalised bulletin to staff it is clear that those involved have already

ensured organisational development has been embedded where appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION 15:

The review team recommend that the Learning the Lessons Forum give consideration

to a Force wide circular which not only communicates Lessons Learnt but also shares

examples of good practice within the Force.

Recording

The SOJP provided copies of their comprehensive policies covering areas relevant to

the thematic review. There was a comprehensive policy in existence for both domestic

abuse and a further separate policy for child protection and safeguarding, with noted

review dates on each document.

The review team did raise some concern regarding the extensive nature of the policies

which were noted to include not only policy and direction but also extensive elements

of operational guidance.

To summarise the position, as put succinctly by one reviewer, the “What we are going

to do as a Force” has been somewhat mixed with “How we are going to practically

achieve that”.

Whilst both elements are important to codify and communicate, the review team were

of the opinion that operational guidance had become less agile due to its inclusion

within Force Policy.

of 41

During interviews with operational officers it became clear that important operational

elements of the Force Domestic Violence Policy were regularly not being complied

with.

DV policy – (Page 8)

The first line supervisor must;

Where practicable attend the scene of all domestic violence incidents

Attend all Domestic Violence incidents where a crime is alleged

On speaking with officers, in real terms neither of these elements are happening due

to the pressures on Sergeants’ time. The review team found that in each example

raised the correct priority decision had been made by the first line supervisor and

question whether perhaps the policy in its current directive has become operationally

unachievable. The review team did note that on each occasion the Sergeant had been

available to provide advice over the secure radio where they were able to demonstrate

their decision making rationale.

It was clearly recognised that the College of Policing Approved Professional Practice

‘APP’ was being utilised to ensure best practice was utilised by the Force. That’s said,

the very comprehensive Force Policies were noted to contain a raft of operational

guidance interwoven with organisational policy. The review team recommend that

relevant Force Policies should be reviewed to extract guidance from policy, thus

enabling the subsequent operational guidance to be more agile without the need to

regularly alter the overarching aims of Force Policies.

RECOMMENDATION 16:

The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing the CP & DA

policies to, where appropriate, separate ‘operational guidance’ from strategic Policy.

It is considered that the subsequent guidance documents would be more agile in the

face of ever changing Approved Professional Practice ‘APP’ best practice.

RECOMMENDATION 17:

of 41

The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing the supervisory

attendance section of the DA policy to ensure it is achievable by default rather than

by exception.

The review team did note a number of gender specific references through sections of

the Domestic abuse policy such as “her” for victim. This language could be equally

impactive and more inclusive if made gender neutral, not only to account for male

victims but also same – sex relationships.

RECOMMENDATION 18:

The review team recommend that consideration is given to ensuring the DA Policy is

gender neutral and thereby appropriate for all types of domestic relationships.

The review team noted that despite developments across some other Forces, the

Honour Based Violence section of the DA policy had not been expanded upon in any

great detail. Interviews with senior officers revealed that this had been a deliberate

decision based upon the current demographics of Jersey’s communities. The review

team considered this to be a sound decision but echoed the need for this decision to

be kept under regular review due to the potential for changing demographics and that

officer awareness of the potential issues is in itself a preventative measure.

The review team noted that the Child Protection Policy did not contain some defined

criteria for Significant Harm and on Page 3 it specifically states: -

“There is no definitive criteria to legally or medically define what constitutes Significant

Harm.”

That said the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 Section 24 specifically makes the following

relevant references;

Under (6) “Harm, Development, Health and ill-treatment”

Under (7) “Where the question of whether harm suffered by a child is significant, turns

on the child’s health or development, his or her health or development shall be

compared with that which could be expected of a similar child.”

of 41

The review team judge that that is an opportunity to provide a cross reference

between the legislation and Force Policy.

A further point of common interest across the peer review team was that there

appeared to be insufficient guidance available to officers on ‘informed (parental)

consent’ around both medical examinations and information sharing.

RECOMMENDATION 19:

The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing references to

the definition for significant harm within Force Policies to align with legislation and

that guidance is made available to all officers in the matter of ‘Informed Consent’.

The review team noted that as with the other small Island Forces, Jersey has a number

of inconsistent Legislative frameworks in the description of what is a child.

The opening page of the CP Policy, and the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 Sec 1 (b) states a

child is: -

“any person who has not yet reached the age of majority”. There is no associated

definition of what the age of majority is.

The Children’s (Jersey) Law 2002 goes on under Part 4 to state a Care Order cannot be

made against anyone who is seventeen (17), or is sixteen (16) but married or in a civil

partnership.

International direction from the United Nations sets a child as anyone under the age of

eighteen (18), yet different Jersey legislation makes this position less certain. It is fully

recognised that each of the jurisdictions will be attempting to address this position by

way of future legislative amendments. However, in the intervening period it is essential

that appropriate safeguards are contained within Force policy to balance the legislative

lacunas.

of 41

RECOMMENDATION 20:

The review team recommend that clear and unambiguous policy terminology is

utilised consistently to ensure all appropriate C&YP safeguards are in place.

MASH ISA

As with all other small Island jurisdictions, the review team noted that the MASH has

been established without a statutory function.

That said, existing legislation is importantly referenced within the comprehensive

Information Sharing Agreement ‘ISA’ at Section 4.6 that Police can share this

information due to section 41 of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002. The review team did

note that this section deals expressly with Police taking a child into Police protection.

Article 42 deals with children under Police protection, protection orders, or likely to

suffer significant harm.

In addition to that expressed powers detailed above, the principles of the Data

Protection Law are engaged for information sharing in some cases where informed

consent has not been obtained.

RECOMMENDATION 21:

The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing the ISA to

ensure the principles of the Data Protection Law, informed consent are thoroughly

detailed within the document to prevent any future challenges.

of 41


The review team noted that the SOJP follow Clare’s law as best practice as UK

legislative developments have not yet been established locally.

The SOJP currently have an Offender Management Unit of two Detective Constables

supervised by a Detective Sergeant. The development of this service is noted to have

been an evolving, demand driven service with two Detective Constables having been in

the role for five years, since its inception in 2011.

There is a comprehensive guidance JMAPPA document which was noted to have last

been updated/reviewed in April 2015 (v4).

Officers in the Offender Management Unit undergo joint training risk assessment

training with Probation staff and both services uses the RM 2000 and stable and acute

risk assessment tool. Police Officers additionally attend an Offender Mangers course in

the UK. Interviews with officers indicate that the JMAPPA service commenced as a

primarily Police only function. However, it has quite rightly now evolved into an

increasing practice to undertake joint assessment with Probation colleagues.

The review team noted a concern raised at the lack of contact for JMAPPA

subjects/RSO’S out of office hours. It is acknowledged that the duty mobile is left at the

station at 4pm, however there appeared to be no method for subjects to contact their

case officer or another trusted professional. The last ditch phone call from a subject to

their trusted case officer of “I think I am about to offend” is a known phenomenon and

there is currently no apparent capability in SOJP for this.

During staff interviews, concerns regarding the extent of inter-agency working to

enhance the risk management process were raised.

of 41

RECOMMENDATION 22:

The review team recommend that JMAPPA officers or another trusted professional is

contactable in an emergency out-of-hours by the subjects to provide that ability to

prevent self-declared offending.

RECOMMENDATION 23:

The review team recommend that consideration is given to JMAPPA expanding their

joint working, between Police, Probation and Prison to enhance the multi-agency

approach to this area.

The review team are cognisant of the welfare of officers and staff deployed within such

a challenging areas as PPU. The resilience of an individual to deal with often upsetting

investigations is difficult to judge and each Force needs to ensure the risks are

managed through welfare gateways.

The review team noted that SOJP do not apply a fixed tenure to specialist deployments

which is perhaps an understandable position given the relatively small workforce and

the time taken to train and gain experience in such roles.

Interviews with staff revealed some concerns regarding the current welfare provision

for such officers. It was ascertained that SOJP had an “in house” welfare officer which

on the face of it is an excellent initiative. However, there was an apparent

reluctance/refusal to engage with the service due to a perception that staff did not

want to be seen coming out of the welfare office for the stigma/rumours that might

spread. Additional but unsubstantiated concerns were also raised about the

confidentiality of such an internal welfare service.

That said, it is acknowledged that PPU officers and staff had nothing but praise for their

first line management, specifically Detective Inspector and Detective Sergeant in all

matters of welfare. They were deemed as very approachable and caring by their staff

which is to their credit.

of 41

Discussion with Crime Services senior managers revealed that welfare provision had

been identified as an area for development and it is understood that an external

welfare representative is in the process of being appointed to speak with officers to

alleviate this concern.

RECOMMENDATION 24:

The review team recommend that consideration be given to providing specialist

officers including those within PPU with both mandatory (annual) welfare checks by

a trained counsellor and optional welfare counselling.

The review team noted a legislative gap relating to police bail. Currently there is no

ability for suspects to be placed on release conditions prior to an appearance in Court.

This legislative gap may expose victims of DA/CP to unnecessary levels of risk. Should

the grounds not exist to retain a suspect in Custody, the Force may find itself

constrained and have minimal methods to control the behaviour of the suspect. The

by-product of this position is that it may require more suspects to be held in Custody

until Court than is necessary had police bail conditions existed.

The review team found that this may also place a pressure on the Court process as

offenders are then placed in Court as soon as possible, normally within 24 hours, which

creates time pressures for all elements of the Criminal Justice System.

The review team are conscious of UK developments in this area with the advent of bail

conditions pre-charge, as these would be an invaluable tool for managing low end

DV/CP risks. It is understood UK legislation has been drafted but not progressed as yet.

DV is a priority crime for the SOJP and therefore this United Kingdom development

should be monitored closely.

It is acknowledged that from January 2014, States of Jersey established a MARAC

alongside the IDVA service. This important forum enables high risk DA cases to be risk

of 41

assessed and appropriate mitigation and safeguards implemented on a multi-agency

basis.

RECOMMENDATION 25:

The review team recommend that Police Bail legislative provisions are prioritised for

enactment in Jersey and that associated UK legislative developments are closely

monitored.

of 41

6 Finding: Leadership

Throughout the peer review process, it was apparent that strong leadership in recent

years had ensured significant developments throughout the scope of this review.

This, together with enthusiasm and professional commitment from across the

spectrum of managers and investigators deployed within the sphere of this review had

enabled impressive organisational change to become imbedded within business as

usual in all matters relating to CP & DV.

In addition, as referenced throughout this report the effective leadership within the

SOJP had also encouraged and influenced a number of strategic partners to engage in

all manner of safeguarding activities. Many of the key partners interviewed readily

stated that without the relentless drive and leadership shown by SOJP they would not

have been able to make the necessary changes within their own organisational sphere

of influence.

The review team have been able to view many of the developments within Crime

Services as best practice which will no doubt be considered for use in their respective

Forces.

That said, the review team hold some concern regarding the level of specialist

knowledge of managers within the uniformed operations environs. This observation is

not intended as a criticism of the Sergeants and Inspectors fulfilling those roles, but

rather the experience, knowledge and training delivered to some of those staff

interviewed by the review team.

The operational risks are amplified within the Response Shift setting as most officers

are young in service and the current operating model which requires early handover of

investigations substantially increases the risk of skills fade.

It is fully recognised that this ‘inexperience’ problem is not one facing SOJP alone, and

is symptomatic of Policing in other jurisdictions. The challenge of abstraction from the

‘front line’ to train and upskill officers and supervisors is a compounding problem. The

key issue to be managed is that public protection expectations on the Service have

of 41

increased significantly in recent years and the difficulties of attempting to keep abreast

of these developments should not be underestimated. This increase in demand on

Police resources is only likely to further increase given the current socio-economic

environment. The review team are conscious that as within all other small Island

Forces, this is further exacerbated by officers already being abstracted for other

specialist roles they undertake such as Firearms, PSU, Search Team etc.

The review team noted that efforts have been made to provide inputs to shift from

PPU and more are planned in 2017. On an annual basis inputs are given to

Probationers giving an overview of all PPU areas. Generally these inputs are to

Probationers returning to the classroom before the end of their 2 years.

The PPU inputs have covered:

1. MASH – how it works, referrals

2. CPN’s – does and don’ts

3. DV reports – does and don’ts

4. Responding to CP issues

5. Responding to DA issues

6. Overview of APN’s

During the previous two years, PPU managers provided inputs on the Senior Constable

courses, these inputs have covered DA, CP/CSE/CSA and were organised by the

Training Dept.

It is noted that further consideration is also being given to expanding the training

regime in order that it includes not only probationers but also the senior Constables

and Police Sergeant CPD training.

RECOMMENDATION 26:

The review team recommend that consideration is given to increasing the scope of

officer annual CPD training delivered by the SoJP to include CPD Safeguarding &

Public Protection Training to all front line staff.

of 41

The realignment of RIU to Uniformed Operations with the commencement of four, 6

month’ rotating aide slots is considered to be a positive officer development

opportunity which will cascade learning, reduce the risk of ‘front line’ skills fade whilst

maintaining standards within the RIU.

The review team were provided with access to the September 2016 Performance

Briefing Report which was noted to have some well-developed quantitative data

relevant to PPU activities. Data was available for Protecting Vulnerable people,

including Mental Health, Missing Persons and welfare checks conducted by the Force.

Elements such as Court outcomes and attrition rates for DA assaults and rapes were

other useful data all of which could be used to identify the challenges facing the Force.

The review team were made aware of Action Plans being delivered in conjunction with

the Safeguarding Partnership Board to assist in a review of the Islands Domestic Abuse

Strategy.

During the review teams on Island visit the SOJP were observed to secure funding for a

Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) which is a notable achievement and should be of

real benefit to victims of such traumatic crimes.

The review team noted a well-structured system of Corporate Governance meetings at

all management levels.

of 41

6 Findings: The overall effectiveness

States of Jersey Police have demonstrated a clear commitment to develop both

organisationally and on an individual level. The progress made in the environs of both

investigating Domestic Abuse and Child Protection is self-evident and commendable.

Not only has this effective change management been implemented during times of

increasing austerity but, due to previous investigations of note, the changes have been

implemented under the local and national media spotlight.

The review team recognise that many of the identified developments within the scope

of this thematic review are best practice within the small Island context and although

there have been some areas identified that may be worthy of further development the

SOJP are considered to be an exemplar in the environs of CP and DA.

The review team noted that there is a clear intention of all officers and staff of the

SOJP to continue to improve and develop as detailed throughout this report. However,

the SOJP and multi-agency partners are under no illusion as to the size of the challenge

that stands ahead given the need to meet increasing budget restrictions.

of 41

7 Recommendations

Initial Contact:

1) SOJP may wish to consider exploring options for an enhanced CAD system

(scripted call handling/prompts) or process within the FCR with a focus on

ensuring a consistent approach and an enhanced quality of call handling and

deployment decisions.

2) SOJP may wish to review their control room resourcing model, to ensure it is

appropriately staffed to provide an efficient and effective call handling

capability and to ensure a consistence service response.

3) The review team consider it essential that efforts continue to regain FCR

access to the critical safeguarding information contained within the Child

Protection register. It is furthermore recommended that such access is

enhanced through access to the data relating to children in need with ‘Child

Plans’ particularly where there is an element of suspected Domestic Abuse

with the appropriate safeguards.

Assessment and help:

4) The review team recommend that the SOJP may wish to review/update the

Blue Book with latest best practice in Domestic Abuse and Child Protection. It

is considered appropriate that this process is completed in consultation with

shift officers to obtain their feedback and stakeholder ‘buy in’.

5) The review team recommend that guidance is provided to officers and first

line supervision to assist in achieving a consistent approach to risk assessing

and understanding of thresholds and trigger points for early multi-agency

engagement particularly during out of office hours.

of 41

Investigation:

6) The review team believe that the instigation by PPU management of

attachments for newly promoted Sergeants is an excellent one, and its

benefits could clearly be seen by the reviewers in terms of communicating

and understanding safeguarding principles. It is recommended that every

effort be made to continue with this process in 2017.

7) The review team recommend that SOJP consider the reintroduction of PPU

attachments during initial probationer training programmes to demonstrate

the importance of on scene information gathering/risk assessments and thus

deliver a better service to the public.

8) The review team recommend further change management discussions need

to be held with PPU and CID officers to ease and allay fears over the

impending organisational changes.

9) The review team recommend that considerations should be given to CID

officers having a short term attachment to PPU to increase CP/DA breadth of

knowledge for all investigative officers.

Decision making

10) Whilst it is recognised that the SOJP have invested in providing training and

resources to both PPU and CID, the review team consider it appropriate and

necessary to provide further Child Protection and Domestic Abuse training,

secondments and regular updates to response officers and control room staff.

11) The review team recommend that, if not already done, consideration be given

to a program of shadowing/mentoring and professional development for

future managers and leaders to enhance breadth of knowledge in the multi-

agency environs of Child Protection to assist in the creation of a resilient

succession plan.

of 41

Trusted Adult

12) The review team recommend that, in addition to the availability of Big Word

for basic custody procedures, consideration be given to the provision of ‘on

island’ interpreters to facilitate all aspects of victim and suspected related

interactions including criminal interviews. In alignment with this

recommendation, consideration should be given to updating Force Policy to

provide clarity about the use of interpreters in that no victim or anyone under

the age of 18 years should be used for interpreting services except in

situations that put persons at immediate risk of harm.

13) The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing the

access to the MASH database (out of hours) to ensure that this is not

adversely impacting police decision making and safeguarding activity (e.g. via

the FCR).

Ending of involvement

14) The review team recommend that the SOJP consider supporting (but not

leading) a multi-agency initiative to review opportunities to increase staffing

within the Jersey IDVA capability thereby providing resilience for apparent

workloads.

15) The review team recommend that the Learning the Lessons Forum give

consideration to a Force wide circular which not only communicates Lessons

Learnt but also shares examples of good practice within the Force.

Recording

16) The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing the CP

& DA policies to, where appropriate, separate ‘operational guidance’ from

strategic Policy. It is considered that the subsequent guidance documents

would be more agile in the face of ever changing Approved Professional

Practice ‘APP’ best practice.

of 41

17) The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing the

supervisory attendance section of the DA policy to ensure it is achievable by

default rather than by exception.

18) The review team recommend that consideration is given to ensuring the DA

Policy is gender neutral and thereby appropriate for all types of domestic

relationships.

19) The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing

references to the definition for significant harm within Force Policies to align

with legislation and that guidance is made available to all officers in the

matter of ‘Informed Consent’.

20) The review team recommend that clear and unambiguous policy terminology

is utilised consistently to ensure all appropriate C&YP safeguards are in place.

21) The review team recommend that consideration is given to reviewing the ISA

to ensure the principles of the Data Protection Law, informed consent are

thoroughly detailed within the document to prevent any future challenges.


22) The review team recommend that JMAPPA officers or another trusted

professional is contactable in an emergency out of hours by the subjects to

provide that ability to prevent self-declared offending.

23) The review team recommend that consideration is given to JMAPPA

expanding their joint working, between Police, Probation and Prison to

enhance the multi-agency approach to this area

24) The review team recommend that consideration be given to providing

specialist officers including those within PPU with both mandatory (annual)

welfare checks by a trained counsellor and optional welfare counselling.

of 41

25) The review team recommend that Police Bail legislative provisions are

prioritised for enactment in Jersey and that associated UK legislative

developments are closely monitored.

26) The review team recommend that consideration is given to increasing the

scope of officer annual CPD training delivered by the SoJP to include CPD

Safeguarding & Public Protection Training to all front line staff.

protection of children at risk of domestic abuse · police can investigate suspected crimes and...

Documents