Closed consultation

Draft Community Scrutiny Framework: National Guidance for Community Scrutiny Panels (accessible version)

Published 31 August 2023

© Crown copyright 2023

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/national-guidance-for-community-scrutiny-panels/draft-community-scrutiny-framework-national-guidance-for-community-scrutiny-panels-accessible-version

Version 1.0 August 2023

Foreword

Policing by consent has been at the heart of how the police force in the UK has operated since its very foundation in 1829. Police officers are part of the social fabric of the communities they serve, which can flourish with the safety police provide.

This social fabric is held together by trust. The Government recognises that it is important to maintain public trust and confidence in policing. Accordingly, we have committed to address police transparency and accountability to ensure that trust remains.

Empowering police officers to be able to exercise their powers confidently to maintain law and order, with the backing of the communities they serve, is key to maintaining public confidence.

I am pleased therefore to announce this consultation on the Community Scrutiny Framework (CSF). The framework recommends national guidance standards for the effective community scrutiny of local public-police interactions, by Community Scrutiny Panels (CSPs), so that communities and the police are better engaged in understanding each other.

CSPs provide an opportunity for representative, diverse communities to be involved in helping to make improvements to local policing issues. It is right therefore that Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) lead and facilitate community scrutiny processes, working with the Chief Constable (CC), force, and input from the community as appropriate. In the framework, we recommend that PCCs support CSPs to scrutinise all local public interactions with the police, including the use of police powers.

The framework has been developed with PCCs, the police and civil society organisations. In January 2023 we conducted a survey of PCCs’ offices, gathering their thoughts on the role they should play within the community scrutiny process, which are reflected in the framework.

I recognise that the issues covered in this framework are important not just to PCCs and the police, but also to the public. I therefore want to hear your views on the framework and encourage you to have your say on how community scrutiny processes can be optimised to help police to tackle local crime issues more effectively.

Rt Hon Chris Philp MP

Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire

Overview

In March 2022, the government published Inclusive Britain,[footnote 1] its response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) report (March 2021).[footnote 2] The CRED report made a number of recommendations to meaningfully address disparities and inequalities for all those affected. [footnote 3]

Inclusive Britain presents a raft of measures that translated the findings from the CRED report into concrete action. One of these is the government’s commitment to develop a new national framework by Summer 2023 for how the use of police powers—including stop and search and use of force—is scrutinised at a local level.

The Beating Crime Plan (BCP), launched in July 2021, set a blueprint with extensive powers and investment for the police to cut serious violent crime and homicide, dismantle country lines drugs supplies, get weapons off the streets by permanently relaxing voluntary conditions on Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994[footnote 4] stop and search powers and introducing Knife Crime Prevention Orders.[footnote 5]

The BCP aimed to increase confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole, put victims first and counter negative perceptions of how the police and public interact through better engagement and communication. This included examining how PCCs maintain public confidence in policing and demonstrate progress on their public priorities.

As part of these commitments, the Home Office has developed this national Community Scrutiny Framework (CSF) in partnership with the policing sector and civil society and community groups.

CCs and PCCs have legal duties[footnote 6] in relation to the community scrutiny of the use of police powers. Whilst there are various ways to facilitate community scrutiny, one way is via local Community Scrutiny Panels (CSPs)[footnote 7].

CSPs can help hold police officers to account by reviewing individual incidents where powers have been used or where there has been a public-police interaction and report back to the PCC and force who if appropriate, may take action. Observations and feedback offered by a CSP can facilitate continuous learning, improvement of police services and identification of good practice. This practice can increase officers’ confidence when using powers and may lead to better anti-crime outcomes. CSPs can also provide a forum for improving public understanding of the complex and challenging nature of police work; and support better communication between the police and communities regarding both ‘how’ and ‘why’ powers are used and to help address any misconceptions or concerns.

The role of the CSP is not to detect unlawful use of police powers, for which there are established processes in place[footnote 8]. Rather, the purpose is to scrutinise how powers are used and the quality of police interactions with the public. These interactions can leave a lasting effect—good or bad—on how individuals and the community perceive the fairness, legitimacy, respect, and effectiveness of the police as an institution.

Ultimately, community scrutiny is intended to increase the effectiveness of the police in tackling crime and anti-social behaviour by helping to build public trust and assure police legitimacy—giving officers the confidence to exercise their powers in a targeted and proportionate way, with the backing of the community. Healthy public perceptions of police legitimacy pave the way for good cooperation by the community, the absence of which hinders the ability of the police to do their jobs.

Engagement and dialogue between the community, the PCC and the police can help to foster good relations, positive public perceptions of policing and improve public trust and confidence. Improved information exchanges between the public and policing should enable targeted and effective policing.

Feedback from CSPs can also help inform and assist the PCC and CC to allocate resources according to local policing priorities and help implement changes in organisational learning or training.

It is for PCCs and CCs to decide how best to operate community scrutiny processes in their local area, according to local thresholds or community triggers.[footnote 9] This should be done as far as possible in consultation with the local community, especially those perceived to be, or having been, disparately affected by the use of police powers.

Executive Summary

The Government aims to achieve a cohesive regime of community scrutiny processes nationally, whilst allowing CCs and PCCs discretion to apply them according to local crime and policing priorities, and community needs.

We have developed this community scrutiny framework to assist PCCs and CCs when implementing a CSP in their local area. There are 7 sections within the framework containing key recommended principles on arrangements for optimising effective community scrutiny processes.

The framework does not have statutory basis nor does it impose any legal duties[footnote 10] on PCCs, CCs or forces, CSPs or anyone involved in the community scrutiny process, but is aimed to complement existing legislation that places duties on PCCs and the police in relation to community scrutiny processes.

We recognise that PCCs and forces will have different approaches to CSP processes and procedures due to the varying demands and priorities of their respective force areas. These principles are therefore intentionally broad and overarching to allow the police, with PCCs and the local community, to adapt and implement them according to local needs.

Whilst not prescriptive, we hope that these principles will serve as a useful guide to enable PCCs and the police to deliver and measure effective community scrutiny, share and adopt best practice and improve and expand processes as they see fit.

The aim is that by doing so, tangible improvements in trust and confidence in the police can be made, with a better public understanding of how and why police use their powers, and for police officers to be empowered to use their powers legitimately, proportionally, and confidently, with the backing of the communities they serve. Feedback from the community scrutiny process can also help to effect meaningful changes and improvements within policing such as training or learning.

These principles have been collaboratively developed by the Home Office, PCCs, CCs and force leads, Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC), National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), College of Policing (CoP) and key organisations representing diverse communities and those with lived experiences of police interactions. Accordingly, the framework builds on good practice, with notable examples and feedback from policing and civil-society partners on what effective community scrutiny should look like.

This framework draws from and complements existing guidance:

We are grateful to all who have contributed to developing this work.

Existing legislation already places duties on police forces and PCCs in relation to community scrutiny of police powers.

Paragraph 5 of PACE Code A[footnote 19] mandates that forces, in consultation with PCCs, must make arrangements for stop and search records to be scrutinised by representatives of the community, and to explain the use of the powers at a local level (see paragraph 5.4 of Code A).

Section 96 of the Police Act 1996[footnote 20], as amended by Section 14 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act (PRSRA) 2011[footnote 21], imposes a duty on local policing bodies to make arrangements to obtain the views of the community on policing. A local policing body is defined under Section 101 (1) Police Act 1996 to include a Police and Crime Commissioner.[footnote 22]

Section 34 PRSRA imposes specific duties, in relation to public engagement, on Chief Officers, to make arrangements for obtaining the views of local people on crime and disorder and providing information about neighbourhood policing. Section 34 (3) PRSRA requires that a Chief Officer must make arrangements for regular meetings between neighbourhood police officers and persons in the community. Section 36 imposes a duty for the Chief Officer give the elected local policing body, the information they require, which may be published.

There is, therefore, a clear mandate for Chief Officers and PCCs to facilitate community scrutiny; to uphold their commitments to serve their communities with transparency and accountability; and to give a voice to the public.

The suggested principles reflect notable practice and focus on key elements within the community scrutiny process, which can be developed to effect community-led, tangible outputs in policing.

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) is a legal duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 for public authorities – including the police and PCCs. It is hoped that this framework will support forces to comply with the PSED whilst exercising their functions, in particular to address the needs of people from protected groups[footnote 23]: and encourage their participation in public life and/or other activities where their participation is disproportionately low, by their active involvement in CSPs and the feedback process.

Key Principles

Effective scrutiny should be independently led by responsible people who have a real commitment to driving improvements in public services; provide constructive feedback and challenge and give voice to the public or community to raise issues or concerns[footnote 24].

A CSP[footnote 25] should:

  • consider information objectively, and make balanced and fair assessments
  • reflect the local community’s voice and views
  • advocate strong ethics and integrity including commitment to the CS process, upholding the law and human rights
  • recognise what is working well
  • provide constructive feedback and identify areas for improvement
  • work towards making meaningful and tangible change in a collaborative way with police and PCCs, and other partners
  • maintain relevant knowledge and understanding of police practice and utilise training and resources to make measured assessments

A CSP’s role is therefore primarily to assess the police handling of an incident in line with official guidance standards, to highlight examples of good practice, and provide feedback for any improvements.

This framework covers 7 key principles to facilitate that process.

Principle 1- Purpose and Remit.

This is about being clear why a Community Scrutiny Panel (CSP) is being convened and what its scrutiny role is. As far as possible a CSP’s purpose and remit should be decided and agreed by the PCC, CC and panel, in line with local crime and policing priorities, and the community’s interests or concerns.

Principle 2 - Governance.

This is about clearly setting out the roles and responsibilities of the PCC, CC (and their representatives) and the CSP Chair and members. The PCC provides leadership throughout the community scrutiny process, and is responsible for ensuring CSP feedback will be heard and action taken as necessary.

Principle 3 - Panel Membership.

This is about making sure that CSPs are representative of their local community and their interests; that panels are inclusive and diverse, and that there are suitable arrangements to ensure that people from all backgrounds, including young people and those with protected characteristics[footnote 26], are able to participate fully in the community scrutiny process, and can make a positive contribution to help shape local policing outcomes.

Principle 4 – Panel Scope.

This is about ensuring that CSPs may scrutinise records involving police-public interactions and the use of BWV footage. Official statistics and force-level data can help guide the CSP on the types of cases appropriate for panel review, and should help communities understand how and why the police have used their powers in a particular situation.

Principle 5 – Case Selection.

This is about how the PCC and/or CC select and provide relevant records, including BWV footage, to the panel to enable meaningful and effective scrutiny. The process of how case records are selected, whether random specifically chosen by the PCC/ CC and presented to the CSP, should be transparent and open.

Principle 6- Ways of Working.

This includes suggestions for how panel sessions should be conducted by the CSP to help ensure that everyone in the process understands and complies with the necessary legal, data protection, confidentiality, and safeguarding requirements.

Principle 7 – Outputs.

This is about what happens after a CSP session, to demonstrate that panel feedback is actively considered by the PCC and CC (or their representatives) to produce meaningful outcomes and improvements. The PCC and/or CC is responsible for establishing a clear process for panel feedback to be reported, published and actioned as necessary, and that the panel is informed and involved throughout.

Throughout this document we have referred to CC, the police and the force interchangeably. Whilst the CC has final authority for decisions within the police force and will maintain oversight throughout, they may delegate authority to a deputy or representative for their role within the community scrutiny process. Likewise, whilst the PCC maintains overall leadership, oversight and governance for the community scrutiny process, they may appoint a deputy or representative to act on their behalf.

This document should be read with the Terms of Reference for Community Scrutiny Panels[footnote 27] which provides example text for each principle. This should assist PCCs, the police and panels to draft Terms of References for their community scrutiny processes and adapt the wording as necessary.

1. Purpose and Remit

These principles set out why a Community Scrutiny Panel (CSP) is being established in local area and its function(s)

1.1 At the outset, setting the focus and purpose of a Community Scrutiny Panel (CSP) in a force area, is a decision for the PCC and the CC, made as far as possible with input from the local community.

1.2 A CSP’s purpose should reflect local policing objectives and community concerns on crime. This can be clearly stated and communicated via the force/ PCC website and incorporated into the panel’s Terms of Reference.

1.3 A statement of the overarching aim to facilitate improvements in engagement and trust between the police, PCCs and the local community can also be included. This statement might do the following:

  • State the role and function of the CSP, which could either be more broadly outlined to analyse records of a range of police interactions, or focussed on specific types of powers such as stop and search, or use of force incidents. Panel sessions can be flexible in the focus and types of scenarios scrutinised.
  • Explain how the CSP can, through its scrutiny of police powers, help improve transparency, accountability and better public understanding of how powers such as stop and search, for example, are applied appropriately according to official guidance and standards
  • State the remit of the CSP - this could include a statement on the geographical or demographical area within remit, assessing disproportionality in areas or analysing data trends
  • Explain how CSPs can through collaborating with PCCs and police forces, influence improvements and develop meaningful outcomes in police training or policy changes.

1.4 A CSP should have its own Terms of Reference. This could incorporate the overarching aims above and ideally clearly set out its purpose, scope, functions, governance, legal requirements, data protection protocols[footnote 28] and escalation processes to address issues that require action by the PCC or the police, following panel feedback.

1.5 A CSP’s Terms of Reference should provide guidance on what effective scrutiny entails: to consider information objectively, with a balanced and fair assessment of issues, reflect the local community’s views and provide constructive feedback in a collaborative way; and work with the police, PCCs and local agencies and partners to identify improvements.

2. Governance

These principles set out how the CSP will operate, with the roles and responsibilities between the police force, PCC and panel.

2.1 This section of the framework recommends governance standards for an effective community scrutiny model.

2.2 There are existing (and in some cases long-standing) scrutiny and governance arrangements in place for various police practices and powers, including stop and search, use of force, out-of-court Us[footnote 29], and police custody. The PCC and CC should follow good practice when establishing a governance mechanism between the panel, PCC and the police. This will require an assessment of any resource implications needed to support scrutiny arrangements. The PCC and CC should agree on how this will be provided.

It is recommended that a description of the governance arrangements should include:

Organisation

2.3 A statement on how the CSP will be organised with the PCC’s leadership throughout the community scrutiny process, in partnership with the CC, and as far as possible, an independent, representative and diverse panel and panel Chair.

Leadership

2.4 Acknowledge and explain the importance of the PCC’s leadership role to the community scrutiny process. The PCC’s role is vital and their strategic function to set priorities within a Crime and Policing Plan can help to guide panels to focus their scrutiny on local policing issues, and direct forces to make available related records and data.

PCC Involvement

2.5 Agree the PCC’s involvement in the community scrutiny process. Depending on local issues and needs, PCCs or their representatives may with the agreement of the panel and the CC, chair or attend panel meetings, and provide advice and assistance in any matters that require escalation or action post feedback.

Roles and Responsibilities

2.6 Agree and clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities of the PCC and the CC within the community scrutiny process and panel to provide assurance that the CSP’s feedback will be given attention to and actioned as appropriate by the force and PCC leadership, with demonstrable organisational improvements, (e.g., policy, training etc) as appropriate.

2.7 Agree and clearly define the panel members’ and Chair’s roles and remit.

2.8 Governance arrangements should be included in the panels’ Terms of Reference.

PCC and Force Contacts

2.9 The main points of contact should be communicated to the panel/ Chair and can include a responsible PCC/ CC contact for the escalation of issues or concerns. The PCC and CC can designate a deputy or representative of appropriate rank as the main points of contact.

2.10 The role and remit of the designated police point of contact within the community scrutiny process or panel session should be communicated to the panel/panel Chair. The responsible force contact officer should agree with the panel what their appropriate remit and function will be within a panel session or their overall involvement within the community scrutiny process.

2.11 The force contact officer’s duties may include a force-to-panel liaison role, support and advice to the panel, training and oversight, or as the first point of escalation for concerns which are then reported to the CC/ PCC. This list is not exhaustive, and it is for the relevant force and the panel to decide roles and functions as appropriate and make these clear in a written form, such as suggested, in the Terms of Reference.

2.12 The police point of contact is distinct from the PCC point of contact, however there should be regular interaction and feedback between them.

Processes

2.13 The specific processes (including selecting records, feedback and escalation) should be clearly explained to the panel. This will include how cases or records (including Body Worn Video footage) are internally sampled, scrutinised by the panel, and how feedback is conveyed from CSPs to PCCs and CCs (or their representatives). There should be a clear statement of the process for escalation of concerns or issues to be resolved after the CSP meeting.

Feedback and Action

2.14 An appropriate feedback loop and relationship between CSP, PCC and police should be established. Via panel feedback, the PCC can influence appropriate actions within the force such as organisational learning, training or policy changes.

Funding and resources

2.15 The PCC and CC should clarify if they will apportion resources for the CS process from the outset such as engaging within the community in targeted panel recruitment campaigns, or within the process for example for panel members’ renumeration. The PCC and CC should agree who will meet any specific costs relating to the facilitation of venue, reception arrangements, or digital/ IT requirements, or travel subsidies for panel members from lower income or vulnerable backgrounds. communicate this to the panel and members within the overall governance statement.

3. Panel Membership

These principles cover provisions to facilitate representative, diverse and inclusive panels with relevant expertise or lived experiences who can provide effective scrutiny

Independence

3.1 Whilst PCCs maintain overall leadership, governance and responsibility for the community scrutiny process, as far as possible they should aim for panels to be independent. This should be clearly reflected within Terms of Reference and in addition to the principles in Sections 1 and 2 above.

3.2 Selecting a non-PCC or non-police member of the local community has particular value and resonance in allowing the community to have agency and an independent voice in helping shape local policing outcomes.

3.3 A community member panel Chair, where possible, should be independently selected, ideally by the CSP members themselves, or where appropriate and agreed with the panel, with the PCC’s or CC’s assistance. The panel Chair (and members) should be equipped (via training and resources) with adequate knowledge sufficient to meet the requirements of the role, and to provide good effective scrutiny. If a panel member has specific expertise of the subject area, they should be considered to chair the panel.

3.4 The role and remit of the panel Chair should be agreed by the panel and Chair, with the PCC, CC or their representatives. The Chair’s function is to act as the main point of contact for panel members to raise any issues to the PCC and police.

3.5 With the panel’s agreement, the PCC or representative, and force liaison officer can be a member of the panel to provide advice, and address concerns or action feedback issues.

3.6 Interactions between police point of contact/expert lead and the panel: The police contact should provide support and advice as far as is necessary and appropriate to the panel but should leave the panel sessions during case reviews or further discussion to ensure and enhance panel independence.

Selection

3.7 Without prejudicing panel independence, PCCs and the police may assist in the selection of panel members. The PCC and CC should take an active role in engagement activities within the community, building on existing links with those within the criminal justice system[footnote 30], or youth justice, to identify and recruit potential panel members. Existing panel members may also be involved in and assist with making recommendations to the PCC/ CC and panel Chair on recruiting potential new panel members.

3.8 In particular, proactive engagement with the local community and with those disproportionately affected by police powers, including protected characteristics groups should assist in forming a diverse cadre of volunteers for selection.

3.9 The selection process should be fair, open and as transparent as possible and, where possible, include those with relevant lived experiences (for example, individuals disproportionately affected by police powers, or with involvement within the criminal and youth justice system) or professional or other relevant experience or expertise.

3.10 To aid representative and inclusive selection, participation of potential panel members should be encouraged with an assurance that training and resources will be provided to help them fulfil their scrutiny roles. (This can include providing access to information on police organisations, official reports, guidance issued by the Independent Office of Police Conduct, HMICFRS, CoP and Authorised Professional Practice) and they should be assisted to clearly understand their role and function within the CSP. (See Section 4- Panel Scope, Training and Resources)

Community Engagement

3.11 The PCC and CC should consider how best to communicate recruitment and panel involvement objectives and increase awareness of the community scrutiny process within the local community, including via a targeted communications strategy. This can include engagement with individuals who have raised concerns or have particular interest in local crime and policing issues.

3.12 The PCC and CC should consider a wide range of community engagement activities to ensure a CSP is open and representative of the demographics of their local force area.

3.13 Proactive methods and opportunities should be utilised such as local media, press, radio, sports centres, youth and community centres, schools and colleges to raise awareness of the work of the force and CSP and as part of a comprehensive community engagement strategy.

3.14 Some examples include:

  • Forces maintaining a visible and approachable presence to conduct informal surveys to gauge the public’s views on an incident from Body Worn Video (BWV) footage and rating the interaction on a simple emoticon (smiley) scale.
  • Forces inviting members of the community to apply to join an operational ride-along to help them gain an insight into role of an operational police officer.
  • Hosting and/or attending youth sports tournaments and sports days to engage with youth groups on a peer level basis.
  • Inviting community groups, local pressure groups and young people to attend CSP meetings on a regular or ad-hoc basis, and to contribute to discussions through anonymous online mediums (such as Slido)
  • Circulating BWV footage, discussion topics and other materials at a set period of time ahead of a panel meeting to allow members to watch and read materials at their own pace.

Representation

3.15 A CSP should be reflective of the local demographic. It is for the PCC, CC, and where appropriate with input from the community existing panel members, to recruit as far as possible a diverse and wide range of participants.

3.16 Where appropriate, the PCC, CC and panel should seek to involve those with lived or other experiences of police encounters, or the criminal justice system. Panel members for example, may be able to suggest suitable individuals for selection, subject to agreement by the PCC, CC, panel Chair and/or other members.

3.17 Panel membership should be regularly reviewed by the PCC, CC and panel Chair and members themselves to ensure an accurate reflection of local community demographics.

3.18 The PCC and CC should consider how to facilitate better representation through renumeration for expenses such as travel costs, for those who may otherwise be unable to participate in the panel, such as young people with experience of the criminal justice system or those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Young People

3.19 Maintaining the trust and confidence of children (under 18 years of age)[footnote 31] and young people (aged between 16 and 18)[footnote 32] in the police is crucial for policing. The representation of young people with lived experiences of the criminal justice system[footnote 33], within CSPs, can be particularly valuable in providing insightful scrutiny. Involving young people in the community scrutiny process can also empower them to contribute positively to local policing outcomes and inspire their confidence in the police.

3.20 PCCs and the police should carefully consider and assess engagement, recruitment, vetting, venue access, reception and safeguarding arrangements particularly with regard to the best interests of young people.[footnote 34]

3.21 Facilitating the representation of young people within CSPs requires particular care and provision of services. We recognise that young people have specific needs and vulnerabilities and local policing bodies, and the police have specific responsibilities when interacting with them. [footnote 35]

3.22 The PCC and the police should establish partnerships with local authorities, Social Services, Probation Service, charities, Youth Justice teams and Young Offenders teams, with the aim of engaging people with lived experiences of the criminal justice system or those who have been the subject of specific police powers such as stop and search.

3.23 Engaging with young people from such backgrounds will help realise meaningful representation in community scrutiny panels, and will enable them to interact with policing partners, share their views in the context of their scrutiny role, within a safe space for discussion and dialogue.

3.24 The PCC and CC (or their representatives) should ensure that adequate reception, training and safeguarding arrangements are available to support young people during their involvement within the community scrutiny process and where necessary thereafter. (For example, post-scrutiny support such as for mental health may be required for a (young or vulnerable) panel member as a result of exposure to sensitive or distressing scrutiny records)

3.25 The PCC/ force should work with local agencies (the local authority, Social Services, mental health services, youth services or charities) to deliver such support holistically.

Vetting

3.26 We recognise that criminal justice system information including personal records shared by the police and law enforcement agencies needs to be properly secured, and in accordance with relevant obligations (such as data protection legislation).

3.27 Vetting individuals especially those who will have access to such information is therefore important and, in most cases, a necessary requirement. However, we also recognise that vetting requirements may exclude certain individuals from wanting to participate, potentially preventing valuable learning as part of the community scrutiny process.

3.28 A careful assessment of the benefits and constraints of vetting individuals needs to be made, and the right balance struck between protecting personal or confidential information, and the inclusion of individuals within the community scrutiny panel.

3.29 It is for the CC, (and where appropriate, in consultation with the PCC) to consider whether or not to recruit non-vetted or non-security checked panel members. PCCs and CCs will determine what level of vetting is required to perform the role of panel member or panel Chair.

3.30 The panel and Chair will have little influence over whether or not vetting is carried out by the force. However, the CC and the PCC should carefully consider the merits and constraints of vetting panel members and the requirement for any security checks where sensitive or confidential material is to be reviewed.

3.31 In particular, consideration should be given that vetting can exclude individuals from certain demographics, for example, young people who have a criminal history or previous involvement within the criminal justice system. CCs and PCCs should therefore consider and balance the requirement for vetting against the potential equalities implications of vetting requirements, and the disproportionate impact on people who share protected characteristics.

3.32 CCs and PCCs should consider proportionate vetting protocols depending on the nature of the case. This may lead to simple or basic background checks being sufficient in some cases to enable a more representative and diverse panel membership. Moreover, where an individual fails vetting, this should not automatically prevent them from participation in a CSP, and alternative arrangements for participation should be considered. PCCs and forces may, for example, provide remote or online scrutiny or reviewing non - sensitive records, as appropriate.

3.33 CCs should inform their intention to vet individuals to the panel Chair and PCC.

Safeguarding

3.34 It is particularly important for the PCC and CC to ensure that panel members are able and willing to participate in the community scrutiny process. Potential panel members should be appropriately informed, prior to selection, that their role may entail the requirement to review difficult and distressing incidents.

3.35 Panel members should be assured that they will be provided with support to help them fulfil their scrutiny functions, including safeguarding and welfare provisions.

3.36 CCs, PCCs and panels should have adequate and specific safeguarding policies in place, especially for individuals with vulnerabilities. Further principles on safeguarding are at Section 6 Ways of Working- Safeguarding.

4. Panel Scope

These principles set out the focus and types of police-public interactions the panel should scrutinise.

Scope

4.1 The responsibilities of the panel, and the focus of the panel sessions should be clearly articulated and understood from the outset.

4.2 The PCC and/or CC should work with the panel to:

  • Establish what elements of police powers or tactics may be scrutinised by the panel, and if there is overlap with other types of powers or tactics (such as a use of force incident relating to domestic violence), whether another body or panel is best placed to review.
  • How the panel will scrutinise the police powers and come to clear recommendations or actions in connections with its findings for the force.
  • Provide clarity that the scope of the panel’s role is to scrutinise the particular incident and make a decision whether the powers used were appropriate or not, according to official guidance and standards
  • Set out what training will be made available to panel members to enable them to fulfil their scrutiny functions, and if specific to types of cases.

Types of cases for scrutiny

4.3 Whilst local forces and PCCs working with panels will have discretion as to what powers and tactics will be scrutinised, it is recommended that the types of cases to be made available for panel scrutiny should include:

  • stop and search powers, including both the authorisation of section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 powers and the interactions between the police and the public for all searches
  • incidents involving use of force
  • intrusive powers such as strip searches
  • the use of BWV

4.4 Forces/PCCs must ensure that any cases for the panel’s review are not the subject of any ongoing or legal proceedings and that information sharing in relation to cases is compliant with data protection legislation and Panel policies.

4.5 Forces/ PCCs must also ensure that there is no overlap with the formal complaints’ mechanism via the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC).

Data driven scrutiny

4.6 Case records should be considered in the context of official Home Office statistics (for example on stop and search powers[footnote 36] and use of force[footnote 37]) and national and force level data.

4.7 The panel should be guided (by the PCC/ force lead) on the benefit of such data-driven exercises on the types of powers specified above, whilst ensuring compliance with data protection law and principles.

4.8 Case records on the types on police powers/ interactions specified above, which are made available for panel scrutiny, should also reflect local issues and data trends.

4.9 The PCC/force should help identify trends in force level data on the use of police powers and communicate this to the panel with training on how to interpret statistical information. This may aid in directing which case files including body worn video (BWV) are scrutinised by the panel. The panel should review any cases including BWV which may be of evidential value in court proceedings, and all records available to the panel should be handled in accordance with data protection laws.

Children and young people

4.10 When reviewing records of the interaction between the police and children or young people, officers are expected to maintain the highest standards of conduct, in line with relevant legislation and guidance.

4.11 The Children Act 2004[footnote 38] requires agencies to share early concerns about the safety and welfare of children, which includes young persons, and to take preventive action. Under sections 10 and 11 of the Act, local policing bodies and Chief Officers have specific responsibilities to protect young people and co-operate with arrangements to improve the wellbeing of children in the local authority’s area.

4.12 PCCs and forces must ensure that the safeguarding needs of children and young people are fully considered, and that appropriate action is taken to ensure the dignity and welfare of children and young people is maintained.

Strip searches

4.13 Where the intrusive use of police powers such as strip search intersects with vulnerable groups such as children, these records, subject to data protection protocols, should be shared with PCCs and for independent community scrutiny as appropriate.

4.14 Strip search is one of the most intrusive powers available to the police and its use must be fair, respectful and without unlawful discrimination. A strip search experience can be traumatic and the impact on children’s welfare should not be underestimated.

4.15 Forces are required to report annually to the Home Office on the number of strip searches of children in custody and under stop and search powers.[footnote 39]

4.16 Force data should also be shared with PCCs, subject to data protection principles and policy.

4.17 PCCs and forces should ensure that records of strip search of children, in custody and following a stop and search, are available to the appropriate community scrutiny panels such as a stop and search scrutiny panel or a custody scrutiny panel. These cases are likely to be of particular interest to CSPs.

4.18 Panels should be able to review cases where intrusive strip search powers are used on vulnerable groups, particularly children, including;

  • a strip search of child which involves the exposure of intimate parts (EIP)
  • an urgent strip search of a child without the presence of an Appropriate Adult40 or
  • an intimate search.

4.19 Cases for panel review should not be subject to any formal complaints processes or legal proceedings.

4.20 Every care should be taken when presenting and reviewing strip search cases in panels. Where an EIP search takes place, officers are required to record the encounter in accordance with force policy.[footnote 41] Video recordings must not form part of the community scrutiny of strip search. Strip search data should be presented to the panel to review alongside the record of the searches in question, covering the decision-making process for the search, including the reasonable grounds for the search.

Body Worn Video (BWV)

4.21 Body Worn Video (BWV) footage is of significant value in enabling CSPs to scrutinise an incident. As far as possible, forces should make BWV available to CSPs, in accordance with data protection policies.

4.22 Where BWV footage is to be viewed by CSPs, the panel must agree to comply with disclosure, data protection protocols and force guidance. (See Section 6- Ways of Working- Data Handling).

4.23 Forces should adopt a clear process for the review of BWV footage and how data is made available to the CSP, including opportunities to view footage in advance of a panel session, online or remotely. This process should ideally be determined by the PCC or Professional Standards department of forces before the footage is provided to the CSP.

4.24 Forces and PCCs should have due regard to the latest national guidance on the use of BWV footage.[footnote 42]

4.25 All panel members should be adequately supported to deal with potentially distressing cases of BWV footage and should be made aware that they may withdraw from the process if they wish to do so (See Section 6 - Ways of Working- Safeguarding).

Training and Resources

4.26 To aid in defining panel scope (see also Section 5 Ways of Working- Training and Resources) panel members should be made aware of existing official (HMICFRS, CoP, NPCC, Independent Office of Police Conduct-IOPC) reports and guidance and receive specific training on the protocols for each type of police power or tactic, e.g., on stop and search[footnote 43] or use of force[footnote 44].

4.27 The PCC/ force lead should also provide training for panel members to understand what effective scrutiny is in line with established guidance[footnote 45] and relevant to how each case type is assessed by the panel.

4.28 The PCC/ force lead should agree with the panel how panel decisions will be made in relation to each case type assessed and the extent of their scrutiny functions. Panels should be made aware that their role is not to make a finding of any unlawful use of power or raise a complaint as to the use of a power, or an officer’s conduct, for which separate formal complaints and legal processes are in place.

4.29 A tri-point decision matrix may aid panels to reach as far as possible a collective finding, where the panel may assess and decide collectively whether the actions reviewed were:

  • appropriate
  • inappropriate
  • decision not agreed

4.30 The panel should provide feedback and comments for each of these findings, including identifying good practice, what worked well, and areas for improvement or learning.

4.31 PCCs/CCs should review lessons learned, share good practice, information and learning between PCCs and forces, via online publication, through Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs) or other relevant local bodies. These resources should also be made available to the panel for reference.

5. Case Selection

These principles set out how case records are selected and made available to panels for review

5.1 Random case selection within the scope of relevant criteria set out, with transparent and consistent governance arrangements, can ensure a more independent panel review.

5.2 Panels should be able to request the PCC or police for a thematic review of certain types of interactions/ use of powers within specified parameters. The PCC or force lead should consider the selection of records for review, reflecting panel concerns, and local crime and policing priorities.

5.3 To aid case selection, panel members should be made aware of existing reports (IOPC, CoP, HMICFRS etc) and overall standards against which to scrutinise cases, and where appropriate, be provided access to these resources, in advance of a panel session.

5.4 Any cases of alleged misconduct by police officers or complaints against the police that are under live investigation by the IOPC (or other investigatory bodies) should not be selected for scrutiny while such investigations are ongoing to avoid prejudicing any potential criminal prosecutions or police disciplinary processes.

5.5 The force should be transparent and explain any internal case selection process, including how records are collated and prepared for presentation to and selection by the panel.

5.6 Particular care should be given by forces/ PCCs to ensure there is no conflict of interest with case selection or breach of confidentiality (such as where an individual is known to the panel). If a conflict of interest is anticipated or identified, the force should consider selecting cases which are not from the immediate local area of panel members.

5.7 The force and/or PCC should ensure that panel members are appropriately trained and provided guidance on the types of cases selected for review, to enable the panel to conduct effective scrutiny. Training should be provided periodically to ensure panels are equipped to scrutinise case types, and training should be refreshed accordingly.

5.8 The PCC and force lead should allow for sufficient time to disseminate material to panel members for review prior to a panel meeting, to ensure panel members can participate fully in panel sessions. For example, PCCs/ forces may wish to consider making BWV footage available to panel members prior to a panel session, so that the panel have some time to reflect and formulate feedback and questions.

6. Ways of Working

These principles set out how panel sessions should be conducted, how effective scrutiny should be assessed, in line with data handling, safeguarding and training requirements.

6.1 The PCC / force should consider and agree with the panel, how often, how long and where panel sessions will be held, and as far as possible, this should be done in an open and transparent way, so that panel members are not disadvantaged. Effective scrutiny

6.2 Panel members should be trained on how to scrutinise specific tactics or powers, such as use of force, official guidance[footnote 46] and protocols, for example the National Decision Model.[footnote 47]

6.3 The PCC / force leads should also train panel members on what effective scrutiny is. In turn the panel should provide feedback and comments, including identifying good practice, what worked well, and areas for improvement or learning.

Data handling

6.4 PCCs/ forces and panels should ensure robust data handling arrangements (especially for personal or confidential information) are in place and followed.

6.5 Forces/ PCCs may share personal data with CSPs in line with their ability to do so within the limits of data protection legislation, for instance where they have a lawful basis for the processing of data and provided that appropriate safeguards are in place.

6.6 Forces and/or PCCs are advised to carry out a data protection impact assessment (DPIA)[footnote 48] before doing so.

6.7 Forces should make available and communicate clear guidance, (including national guidance) to panel members about anonymity, data protection and disclosure protocols.

6.8 Panels must agree to all such requirements, including all legal obligations (such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)[footnote 49], data handling and disclosure).

6.9 All panels must operate in accordance with the GDPR and ensure that personal data relating to police officers and members of the public remain secure.

6.10 In some circumstances, it may be appropriate for forces/PCCs to formally agree with the panel and its members, data-sharing or confidentiality protocols, including limiting as necessary, scrutiny to anonymised records. Forces/ PCCs may therefore wish to secure formal assurances with panel members via signed agreements including for non-disclosure.

6.11 PCCs /forces and their representatives should clearly inform panel members about their responsibilities in respect of the processing of personal data in line with the force/ PCC’s data handling policies, or GDPR requirements.

6.12 Agreed national protocols to support redaction and removal of identifiable personal data for when BWV footage (see Section 4 Panel Scope- Body Worn Video) is shown should be followed.

6.13 Non-vetted individuals should not be unreasonably precluded from viewing sensitive or confidential records, and as above, the PCC/ force should consider if redaction or removal of personal information can be made to enable non-vetted members to participate in the community scrutiny process and to provide meaningful effective scrutiny. However, it is paramount that personal data and confidentiality requirements (particularly including the safety and welfare of individuals identified within records) should not be compromised.

Safeguarding

6.14 Adequate safeguarding provisions must be available to everyone involved within the community scrutiny process.

6.15 It is particularly important for PCCs and forces to ensure that panel members are able and willing to participate in the community scrutiny process. Panel members should be appropriately informed and supported to undertake their scrutiny role, especially where distressing footage will be viewed, and understand where they can find further support.

6.16 Particular consideration should be given to the different requirements that individuals (including those with protected characteristics and vulnerabilities) may have and their potential reactions to sensitive and difficult criminal justice records. All panel members should therefore be adequately equipped and supported to deal with potentially distressing cases, in particular via BVW footage, and should be made aware that they may withdraw from the process if they wish to do so.

6.17 Forces, PCCs and panels should ensure that adequate and specific safeguarding policies are in place, especially for those with vulnerabilities (see Section 3 Case Selection - Young people and Section 4 Panel Scope - Children and young people).

6.18 Safeguarding arrangements concerning an individual’s CSP membership, or within the overall community scrutiny process can be aligned to the force’s and/or PCC’s existing safeguarding, well-being, diversity and inclusivity policies and as well as any relevant legislative requirements.

6.19 Safeguarding and associated support should be provided throughout a panel member’s involvement in the community scrutiny processes for their mental and physical wellbeing and if necessary, thereafter (for example where a panel member has been distressed or affected by exposure to a particular incident and needs to be referred to a GP or local Mental Health Unit).

6.20 The availability of support should be clearly communicated to all members by PCCs and force leads. PCCs and forces are encouraged to work with local agencies and charities to provide support services in a holistic way. Regular and post-session feedback from panel members should address health and wellbeing concerns.

6.21 Safeguarding provisions should clearly be cited and included in the panel’s Terms of Reference.

Location/ Venue

6.22 Consideration should be given to providing remote attendance, instead of in-person attendance, to provide better accessibility for community members.

6.23 To maintain panel independence and provide a safe space for discussion, the PCC and the police should consider identifying and utilising a neutrally located venue for panel sessions or alternatively, remote access.

6.24 The PCC and CC should consider funding or reimbursing panel members’ travel costs to a particular venue, for example, if further travel is required or where there are accessibility requirements. Alternatively, where remote access is required the PCC and CC should consider provision or use of IT equipment and any associated reasonable costs.

Training and resources

6.25 PCCs and CCs should ensure panels are well informed and equipped with resources and training including guidance on overall standards relating to police powers and procedures.

6.26 Access to resources and training should be provided in advance by the PCC / force lead to help panels to select and review cases.

6.27 PCCs should enable panels members to be trained on how to review cases in line with official guidance and standards and to make scrutiny decisions.

7. Output

These principles set out processes for reporting feedback and taking action following panel sessions

7.1 The panel should communicate its findings via the police force lead to the PCC and CC for consideration.

7.2 The PCC and CC should take note of panel findings, particularly in relation to any disproportionalities, and should work with the panel to inform them of any follow-up or action, such as providing an explanation or if a training need has been identified.

7.3 A clear communication loop between the force lead, the PCC and the panel should be in place, and panels should be informed who they can contact as the police and PCC responsible owners for any follow up actions, and escalation process.

7.4 CSP outputs (feedback) should be transparent, and panels should aim to publish their minutes/ findings via the PCC/or force website or other independent website/local media.

7.5 Where the panel provides feedback, the PCC can help with publishing minutes, reports and enabling contact and engagement between the panel, PCC, force, and cross- agency bodies to implement changes or improvements.

7.6 The CC/force lead should provide clear guidance to the panel on the feedback or complaints governance mechanisms within the community scrutiny process and the clear steps that need to be taken. These should be agreed and communicated between the force and panel and can be included in the panels Terms of Reference (See Section 1 – Purpose and Remit)

7.7 Panels have no legal jurisdiction, and any panel findings cannot change the outcome of a police decision.

7.8 There should be no overlap from the community scrutiny governance/feedback process on the formal complaints’ process via the IOPC, or legal proceedings. However, where a panel finding has identified and escalated a matter for concern to the PCC and CC, the PCC/CC should review and assess if there is any irregularity, and action accordingly. For example, if the PCC/CC consider that a matter is potentially unlawful or unsafe, the formal complaints process via the force, in the first instance, and thereafter the IOPC, should be followed.

7.9 The PCC/CC or their representatives should holistically consider and action any matter following panel feedback, as appropriate, that requires escalation, whether this is as a result of panel findings, or a safeguarding referral or a disclosure requirement.

Glossary

Association of Police and Crime Commissioners:

This is the home of policing governance and the national membership body that supports Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), Police, Fire and Crime Commissioners, Deputy Mayors and other Policing bodies across England and Wales to deliver less crime, safer communities and excellence in policing; be the voice of the public in policing and criminal justice and build trust and confidence across communities. APCC - The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (apccs.police.uk)

Authorised professional practice (APP):

This is the official and most up-to-date source of policing practice consolidating knowledge, guidance and legislation. It is developed and owned by the College of Policing (the professional body for policing) and can be accessed online. Using APP College of Policing

Appropriate Adult:

The role of an Appropriate Adult (AA) was introduced by the PACE Codes of Practice Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice - GOV.UK. An AA is required to be present during procedures carried out by police involving a juvenile (detainees under 18 years of age) or vulnerable adult. The role of an AA is to safeguard the rights, entitlements, and welfare of juveniles and vulnerable adults.

Body-worn video (BWV):

This is the use of small, visible camera devices worn on the officers’ uniform (usually on the chest). They’re used to capture both video and audio evidence when officers are attending all types of incidents. They are issued to the majority of officers who come into contact with the public.

Confidence:

Confidence in the police is described as representing a generalised support for the police as an institution.[footnote 50] This includes the views of the whole population and not just those who come into direct contact with the police.[footnote 51] Confidence is embedded in procedural justice and a social alignment between the police and the community.[footnote 52]

Community Scrutiny Panel (CSP):

A form of community scrutiny, a CSP consists of community members (vetted or unvetted) who scrutinise the use of police powers through varying methods (such as analysis of police records and body-worn video). A CSP is a public platform to better understand police practices, encouraging forces to show whether police powers are used in a fair and effective way and can create a space to listen, learn and demonstrate where steps have been or are being taken to address concerns raised.

College of Policing (CoP):

The College of Policing is a professional, operationally independent arm’s-length body of the Home Office body for everyone working across policing. It sets standards for key areas of policing, accredits and quality assures learning and professional development, and promotes and disseminates good practice, which helps forces and individuals provide consistency and better service for the public.

Community Scrutiny Framework (CSF):

A set of recommended principles aimed to assist PCCs and forces when implementing a Community Scrutiny Panel (CSP) in their local area.

Custody:

Police custody is governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Codes of Practice which set out the legal framework for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers. Additionally, the operational management of custody suites and the training of custody staff is carried out in accordance with the requirements as set by the College of Policing. As policing is operationally independent of Government, Chief Constables and elected Police and Crime Commissioners are responsible for the operational management of custody suites.

Custody [Detention] Scrutiny Panel:

They can assess and report on police detention and custody processes; review and advise on matters of disproportionality; and feedback to improve processes. Custody-Detention-Scrutiny-Panels-Guidance_04042366.pdf

Disparity:

A difference in level or treatment, especially one that is seen as unfair.

Independent Advisory Groups (IAGs):

A body made up of community representatives to assist the police service in understanding the role and impact it has within diverse communities. They were formed in response to the recommendations set out in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, which concluded more should be done to engender trust and confidence in such communities. For further information see Communication College of Policing and For further information see Communication College of Policing and Independent Advisory Groups IAG Guidance_Revised_September 2011_Website

Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC):

IOPC is the independent body that oversees the police complaints system in England and Wales and investigates the most serious matters, including deaths following police contact. The IOPC also sets standards by which the police should handle complaints and from learning, influences changes in policing. IOPC decisions are made entirely independently of the police and government.                                                                                          

National Association of Independent Advisory Groups (NAIAG):

A national umbrella organisation to provide guidance, insight and constructive challenge to local forces and help form genuine partnership with communities, encouraging the active involvement of people from diverse groups. The NAIAG will support regional IAGs develop and share best practice.

National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC):

This is the organisation for UK police leaders bringing them together to set direction in policing and drive progress for the public. The NPCC help the police cut crime and keep the public safe by joining up the operational response to the most serious and strategic threats. Focusing on operational delivery and developing national approaches on issues such as finance, technology and human resources, the NPCC works closely with the College of Policing, which is responsible for setting standards of professional practice, and the APCC. Home (npcc.police.uk)

National Decision Model (NDM):

This is official guidance suitable for all decisions and should be used by everyone in policing. It can be applied to spontaneous incidents or planned operations, by an individual or team of people and to both operational and non- operational situations. The NDM helps decision makers to structure what they did during an incident and why and can be useful to review decisions and promote learning. National decision model College of Policing

Out of Court Disposal (OOCD):

OOCD is a mechanism to allow the police to deal with less serious, and often first time, offending, which provide a diversion from courts. OOCDs can only be used in limited circumstances. OOCDs are aimed to help deter and divert offenders away from their offending behaviour, face up to the consequences and take responsibility for their actions. Reforms to the adult out of court disposals framework in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Equalities Impact Assessment - GOV.UK

Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC):

Under the terms of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the role of the Police and Crime Commissioner is to be the voice of the people and hold the police to account. PCCs aim to cut crime and deliver an effective and efficient police service within their police force area. They are elected by the public to hold Chief Constables and the force to account, making the police answerable to the communities they serve.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent

Police Powers:

The powers available to police officers to carry out their duties. These include stop and search, use of force and strip search powers.

Public Perceptions:

A belief or opinion, often held by many people and based on how things seem. In the context of this framework, this relates to how the public and communities think about their local force and policing at a national level.

Scrutiny:

The careful critical observation or examination of something to get information from it.

Scrutiny Decision Matrix:

A decision making tool to aid panel members to evaluate a public- police incident applying a tri-point assessment. With an understanding of protocols and official guidance, panels can assess whether the powers and/ or tactics used were appropriate, not appropriate, or where no decision could be made. Panels can provide comments on each of these decisions.

The police have a range of statutory powers of stop and search available to them, depending on the circumstances. Most, but not all, of these powers require an officer to have reasonable grounds for suspicion that an unlawful item is being carried. Further information can be found on the College of Policing website: Stop and search College of Policing

The police’s use of strip search is regulated by legislation and statutory guidance, primarily section 54 and Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘’PACE’’) which deals with the detention and questioning of suspects in police custody. PACE Code C provides guidance on strip search procedures both for persons detained in custody and for those subjected to a strip search following a stop and search but who have not been arrested. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) codes of practice - GOV.UK

Terms of Reference (ToR):

Sets out the purpose, scope, functions, governance, legal requirements (e.g., GDPR, data protection) and any escalation processes for a CSP.

Trust:

Trust is based on experience, which includes an individual’s interactions with other people and past experiences that create expectations about how they will be treated in the future.[footnote 53] It is an important quality of service that the police deliver to individuals and is related to the reputation they develop in the community.[footnote 54] If people feel they will be treated with procedural justice and the police will tackle crime they will be more likely trust the police.[footnote 55]

Use of Force:

The law recognises that there are situations where police officers may be required to use force. The primary responsibility for using force rests with individual officers who are expected to use force in a way which is reasonable, proportionate and only where necessary to achieve a lawful objective. Police officers are accountable for their use of force through the law. Further information can be found on the college of policing website: Police use of force College of Policing.

  1. Inclusive Britain: government response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities - GOV.UK ↩

  2. Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities – Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities: The Report – March 2021 ↩

  3. CRED Report -Recommendation 4 Bridge divides and create partnerships between the police and communities, develop a minimum standard framework for independently chaired community [‘Safeguarding Trust’] groups that scrutinise and problem-solve alongside policing, and independently inspect forces against this minimum standard. ↩

  4. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

  5. Beating crime plan - GOV.UK ↩

  6. Note section on Legal Basis ↩

  7. CSPs or panels, terms are used interchangeably throughout this document. ↩

  8. Complaints on police conduct should be referred in the first instance to the local force, and then escalated to the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) ↩

  9. Anti-social behaviour guidance strengthened College of Policing, note -an Anti-Social Behaviour Case Review (also known as the Community Trigger), gives victims of persistent anti-social behaviour the ability to demand a formal case review where the local threshold is met. See also Anti-social behaviour powers - GOV.UK ↩

  10. See Section on Legal Basis ↩

  11.  https://www.apccs.police.uk/media/8509/apcc-equality-framework-for-pccs-2022-2023.pdf ↩

  12.   https://news.npcc.police.uk/resources/police-race-action-plan ↩

  13. https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/publications-log/2022/body-worn-video-guidance.pdf ↩

  14. Use of force, firearms and less lethal weapons College of Policing ↩

  15. https://www.college.police.uk/app/stop-and-search/stop-and-search ↩

  16.  https://www.apccs.police.uk/media/8534/custody-detention-scrutiny-panels-guidance_040423.pdf (apccs.police.uk) ↩

  17. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800048/Statutory_Guidance_on_Overview_and_Scrutiny_in_Local_and_Combined_Authorities.pdf Note this document now falls within the remit of the Department for Levelling Up, Communities and Local Government ↩

  18. https://www.college.police.uk/app/national-decision-model/national-decision-model ↩

  19. PACE Code A 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

  20. Police Act 1996 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

  21. Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

  22. Section 101 (1) Police Act 1996 defines “elected local policing body” to include a) a police and crime commissioner; ↩

  23. Such as those defined under the Equality Act 2010 ↩

  24. Statutory Guidance on Overview and May 2019 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Note this document now falls within the remit of the Department for Levelling Up, Communities and Local Government ↩

  25. CSP or panel- terms used interchangeably throughout this document. ↩

  26. As defined in the Equality Act 2010 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

  27. Example text has been developed with policing partners on guidance for Custody Scrutiny Panels ↩

  28. Personal information - what is it? ICO ↩

  29. NPCC guidance Charging and Out of Court Disposals A National Strategy.pdf (npcc.police.uk) ↩

  30. Age of criminal responsibility - GOV.UK ↩

  31. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, “under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier”. ↩

  32. Defined in the Education Act 1996 (legislation.gov.uk) and regulation 1 of The Working Time Regulations 1998 (legislation.gov.uk) , a young person in the UK is someone over compulsory school age but under the age of 18 years. ↩

  33. Age of criminal responsibility – GOV.UK see also Children as suspects and defendants The Crown Prosecution Service (cps.gov.uk) ↩

  34. Working Together to Safeguard Children 2018 (publishing.service.gov.uk) ↩

  35. Children Act 2004 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

  36. Police powers and procedures: Stop and search and arrests, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2022 - GOV.UK ↩

  37. Police use of force statistics, England and Wales: April 2021 to March 2022 - GOV.UK ↩

  38. Children Act 2004 (legislation.gov.uk) ↩

  39. Police powers and procedures: Other PACE powers, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2022 - GOV.UK ↩

  40. Transparent College of Policing In accordance with the College of Policing’s, Authorised Professional Practice, police should cover the camera (or direct it away from the person) whenever intimate body parts are exposed. ↩

  41. https://www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/publications-log/2022/body-worn-video-guidance.pdf ↩

  42. Professional College of Policing ↩

  43. Use of force, firearms and less lethal weapons College of Policing ↩

  44. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800048/Statutory_ Guidance_on_Overview_and_Scrutiny_in_Local_and_Combined_Authorities.pdf and see also CfPS-Good-Scrutiny-Guide-v4-WEB-SINGLE-PAGES.pdf (cfgs.org.uk) ↩

  45. Legal framework and legislation College of Policing ↩

  46. National decision model College of Policing ↩

  47. Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) ICO ↩

  48. UK GDPR guidance and resources ICO ↩

  49. Cao, L. (2015). Differentiating confidence in the police, trust in the police, and satisfaction with the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management. ↩

  50. Hohl, K., Bradford, B., & Stanko, E. A. (2010). Influencing trust and confidence in the London Metropolitan Police: Results from an experiment testing the effect of leaflet drops on public opinion. The British Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 491-513. ↩

  51. Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2010). What is Trust and Confidence in the Police? Policing: A journal of policy and practice, 4(3), 241-248. ↩

  52. Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2010). What is Trust and Confidence in the Police? Policing: A journal of policy and practice, 4(3), 241- 248. ↩

  53. Skogan, W. G. (2017). Stop-and-frisk and trust in police in Chicago 1. In Police–Citizen Relations Across the World (pp. 246-265). Routledge. ↩

  54. Sargeant, E. (2017). Policing and collective efficacy: The relative importance of police effectiveness, procedural justice and the obligation to obey police. Policing and society, 27(8), 927-940. ↩

Back to top