Policing priorities

There are thousands of committed and ethical officers and staff working in the Met. They—like members of the public, victims, and survivors—have been let down for too long. We are concerned that without an explicit timetable for future external review of the Met, there will not be sufficient follow-through on Baroness Casey’s recommendations and that her Review will join a long list of those that have gone before without effective implementation. We understand that the new quarterly Policing Board convened by the Mayor of London can provide ongoing scrutiny, but it remains to be seen whether that will be enough to drive change at the scale and pace required or whether it will be sufficient to show Londoners that progress has been made. Baroness Casey was brought in precisely because previous efforts by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime to drive cultural change in the Met had failed.

We recommend the Home Office and the Mayor of London co-ordinate in commissioning a further independent review of the Met to monitor and measure progress in implementing Baroness Casey’s findings up to March 2024, a year on from the publication of her review.

Some will be attracted to a career in policing precisely because it provides a position of power that can be exploited or abused. Vetting upon recruitment and in-service needs to reflect this. It cannot be right that vetting practices vary between forces, or that officers can evade vetting upon transfer. As citizens, we should have the same protections no matter where we live in the country, and regardless of whether officers are from territorial or specialist forces.

We recommend the Home Office empower the College of Policing to require forces to use consistent recruitment processes which include values-based interviewing. We expect to see all forces aligning recruitment processes and utilising values-based interviewing within 12 months.

Common standards for vetting should be enforced nationally, with sanctions upon non-compliant forces. We recommend the Government make vetting upon transfer a statutory requirement within the lifetime of the current Parliament. It should also ensure all forces immediately implement His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’s recommendation on re-vetting officers of concern, including those who have been subject to a criminal investigation, received a formal warning or reduction in rank following a misconduct hearing, or where “adverse information” has otherwise come to the force’s notice. We recommend the Home Office monitor how local policing bodies are holding their chief constables accountable for implementing the recommendation, taking remedial action swiftly where accountability is found lacking or progress in implementation unsatisfactory. We invite the Home Office to report its progress on this in six months’ time: that report should include details of monitoring mechanisms and any remedial steps taken or planned. (Paragraph 18) 60 Policing priorities

Improving policing culture means creating a safe space for personnel to raise concerns. All team members, especially supervisors, should have the skills and resources needed to nurture positive team cultures and support those coming forward with concerns.

The College of Policing’s standards for leaders must, at every level of leadership, include the responsibility to support team members who call out inappropriate behaviour, along with the duty to do so oneself. We recommend the standards are amended accordingly. We invite the College of Policing to write to us on progress towards standards revision and the impact of changes in six months’ time.

Without appropriate intelligence, forces cannot detect patterns of misconduct or criminal behaviour among officers and staff, or act on them. Proactively alerting forces to new adverse information would provide a valuable opportunity for re- vetting or intervention which may, in turn, prevent escalation.

We support the recommendation from HMICFRS that by 31 December 2023 Chief Constables make routine use of the PND to discover otherwise unreported adverse information about officers and staff. We recommend that the Government, and HMICFRS, urgently work with the PND and other sources of valuable information pertaining to their employees’ conduct, to enable ready and proactive access. We would request that they report progress on this in their response to this report.

We heard that here has been a lack of clarity on what constitutes misogynistic or predatory behaviour, as well as multiple reports of police officers engaging in commercial sexual exploitation. For that reason, we recommend that forces which have not already done so follow the Met’s lead and make it explicit in policy that their police officers are prohibited from paying for sex.

When the Home Office first proposed its review of dismissals, the Independent Office for Police Conduct argued that the focus on dismissals was “too narrow.” We agree. The Home Office’s proposals will not address the overall weaknesses in the misconduct and disciplinary system.

There are circumstances where the public would hold dismissal appropriate but current regulations do not provide a clear mechanism for it. Dismissing an officer who fails re-vetting should be straightforward and we welcome the Home Office’s commitment to this. We are pleased that the Home Office is engaging with stakeholders to create a list of criminal offences which would automatically amount to gross misconduct upon conviction. We ask the Home Office to set out by the end of the year its timetable for completing this work.

We are persuaded, however, that policing could do more within the existing disciplinary system, ahead of any regulatory changes. Giving chief officers more say over dismissals will not on its own deliver a more consistent interpretation of “gross misconduct” or higher quality of investigations. We also remain concerned about troubling race disparities in the misconduct system, highlighted in our previous report on “The Macpherson Report: Twenty-two years on.” (Paragraph 41) Policing priorities 61

The Review of Dismissals was too narrow in scope. We recommend the Home Office immediately commission wider work on the functioning of the competence and disciplinary system, linked to the “Fitness to Practise” regime (see paras 51–54).

We recommend the Home Office evaluate the impact of regulatory and other changes to policing misconduct and disciplinary processes 12 months after implementation. The evaluation should include consideration of the proportion of cases resulting in a finding of gross misconduct, changes in dismissal rates, the speed of misconduct cases, challenges against decisions and disproportionality in dismissal outcomes. We support in principle the recommendations made following the Home Office’s own review, that “the Government, with the policing sector, [ … ] consider the way data is reported, where there are possible gaps, and how to improve collection to enable more meaningful data across England and Wales”, and that the Home Office carry out multi-variate analysis to “identify any disproportionality related to intersectional characteristics.” We recommend these considerations and analysis commence immediately and invite the Home Office to set out its timetable for completion in its response to our report.

Police and Crime Commissioners should drive systemic improvements in local forces, for example by taking steps to assure themselves that misconduct and competence processes are fit for purpose, rather than intervening in individual cases. HMICFRS has noted that Police and Crime Commissioners currently only have to comment on its reports once, within 56 days of publication, when forces have may not yet have made changes as a result of the Inspectorate’s recommendations. As a result, “the obligation has proved insufficient in making sure Police and Crime Commissioners are holding chief constables to account for implementing improvements.” We call for increased responsibility upon Police and Crime Commissioners to update HMICFRS on the impact of its recommendations.

We support HMICFRS’s call for Police and Crime Commissioners to be required to provide follow-up comments, at least annually, where HMICFRS have not yet confirmed that recommendations pertaining to them and their local force have been sufficiently addressed. We will return to matters of local accountability in our inquiry into Police and Crime Commissioners.

The perception of policing as marking its own homework with regards to professional standards and misconduct is damaging. We recommend influential independent scrutiny of these processes.

We recommend police forces embed specialist external expertise in permanent roles to drive the scale of cultural reform needed by officers, staff and the public in order to restore public faith in policing.

A regime that sought to identify fitness to practise the profession of a police officer could be more effective than separate, rigid misconduct and performance systems in ensuring that those in the service have the attributes, skills and values to do the job well. We believe this would create a less adversarial system, and one more likely to support a culture of learning and development. It could also help reinforce the status of policing as a skilled profession. (Paragraph 53) 62 Policing priorities

Working with the College of Policing, NPCC and other key stakeholders, we recommend the Home Office scope out a “Fitness to Practise” regime for policing. This should be done as part of the review of wider functioning of the disciplinary system we have recommended already.

If policing can’t get its approach to complainants, victims and survivors within the service right, it has little chance of doing so for others.

We recommend the Home Office work with the Ministry of Justice in considering amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to clarify rights for police officers who are themselves the victims of police-perpetrated crime. The Home Office should work with the Independent Office for Police Conduct to ascertain how police complainants could be afforded similar rights to other complainants and whether this would require amending the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020. Any necessary changes to the Regulations should be completed with the current Parliament.

We strongly recommend the Home Office examine measures to further reassure the public that officers accused of offences will be investigated without fear or favour – whether this be through investigation by an officer from another force or through some other means.

It is unacceptable that it takes two to three years for a decision on whether officers facing serious allegations should be dismissed.

We recommend the Home Office explore with the Independent Office for Police Conduct how misconduct processes could run concurrently with criminal cases. It should also set time-limited targets for the reduction of time taken to reach decisions on dismissal for misconduct.

We urge the Home Office to consider the findings of the IOPC Review. We recommend, given concerns about the complexity of the complaints system and lack of clarity about key players in that system, the Government consider how the Independent Office of Police Conduct review might be supported by a wider review of Police and Crime Commissioners’ roles in complaint handling.

In our previous report on Police conduct and complaints, we concluded that uniting the roles of chair and director general of the IOPC detracted from the ability to scrutinise the executive action of the IOPC and to hold it to account. Notwithstanding the findings of the forthcoming Review, we again recommend that the Government appoint an independent chair alongside the director general of the IOPC as a matter of urgency.

It is vital that policing understands who is making complaints, why they are doing so and what the outcomes are. Ethnic disproportionalities exist across areas such as stop and search and use of force, and the generally lower levels of confidence in the police amongst many people from Black and minority ethnic communities, make this particularly important. More understanding is also needed of the experiences of complaining among people with other protected characteristics. (Paragraph 69) Policing priorities 63

We recommend the Home Office requires forces to record data on all protected characteristics of complainants with the aim of achieving a greater understanding of who is making complaints, the outcomes of those complaints, and the extent to which there is disproportionality. Professional Standards Departments should analyse the data and adopt a “reform or explain” approach. To ensure transparency and scrutiny, this data should be submitted to the Independent Office for Police Conduct and made publicly available in a clear and accessible way on a regular basis.

We remain deeply concerned over the inadequate monitoring and implementation of recommendations from scrutiny bodies including the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Revoicing a recommendation from our report on Police conduct and complaints, we urge the Government to review how the IOPC, HMICFRS, and Coroners’ learning recommendations can be reported upon in a joined-up and meaningful way, with data published centrally to simplify and streamline access.

We repeat the recommendation from our previous report on police conduct and complaints that Government monitor and review bi-annually how effectively local policing bodies are holding their chief constables accountable for implementing IOPC recommendations and report the outcomes to us. (Paragraph 73) Building trust and confidence in policing

The Home Secretary highlighted success stories of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’s “Engage” process but the Inspectorate needs more powers to drive through recommended changes.

We support HMICFRS’s call for the Home Secretary to review the limitations of its remit and powers and establish whether legislative change is needed. We believe the Chief Inspector of Constabulary should have powers to give directions where a force’s identified failings pose a significant risk to public safety. This should include—in certain circumstances—power to direct the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s and the College of Policing’s support for the force. We recommend formal arrangements for high-performing forces to “buddy” struggling ones are put in place within 12 months.

HMICFRS states that, while it regularly makes recommendations to organisations other than police forces to improve public safety, only Police and Crime Commissioners are required to respond to its reports. We support HMICFRS’s call for further “additional departments and agencies” to be required to respond to its reports. This could include the Crown Prosecution Service and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation for England and Wales, for example. We recommend a statutory requirement be put in place for the Home Office to respond to recommendations made by HMICFRS in its thematic reports within the life of the current Parliament.

We appreciate the openness of those who gave evidence, but fear that under pressure leaders can default to a defensive position, missing opportunities to help the public understand the challenges they face or to build trust by admitting mistakes. We 64 Policing priorities urge leaders across policing to recognise the true scale of the changes needed and the benefits of open dialogue with citizens, notwithstanding that some operational details will need to remain confidential.

We recommend that the NPCC, College of Policing, Home Office and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners formally consider whether a professional “duty of candour” might drive greater transparency in policing. We consider that, while this would not be enough on its own to drive the culture change needed, it would help set the direction of travel towards a presumption of openness.

There was widespread agreement among our witnesses that neighbourhood work was the bedrock of policing. But too often it is side-lined by abstractions or otherwise undermined, for example where officers are taken away from their usual duties to respond to emergency situations, or the actions of non-territorial squads undermining the trust built up by local teams.

Neighbourhood policing does not simply mean an increased police presence in communities. It has to be accompanied by community engagement where community members are treated as active participants whose concerns are genuinely responded to. Community engagement should, however, not be left to neighbourhood officers. Instead, it is core to the work of all policing with a public-facing role.

We recommend the College of Policing and individual forces maximise efforts to make neighbourhood policing a recognised specialism. Initial and on-going training for all public-facing personnel should incorporate communication, de-escalation and engagement skills.

Use of stop and search powers is particularly controversial and has a wide-ranging impact for the Met in particular. But this is not an issue that other forces can afford to ignore. Disproportionality in stop and search across policing damages community relationships. Our report on “The Macpherson Report: twenty two years on” drew attention to the evidential gap on the effectiveness of stop and search in reducing serious violence crime. That evidence is still lacking.

We are concerned at the duration of the investigation following the supercomplaint on section 60 searches. We welcome the Home Office’s recent commitment to better communication around section 60 searches, along with moves to support more consistent local scrutiny. We strongly support His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Service’s recent recommendation for further primary research to quantify the deterrent value of stop and search and the causes of disproportionality in its use. This research should examine the impact on trust and confidence that stop and search has so that officers can make evidence-based decisions on how best to deploy it.

Policing should provide an effective and compassionate service to victims and survivors. But it cannot provide the level of specialisation that “by and for” services can, nor cater as effectively for those victims and survivors who do not wish to report a crime or engage with the police. (Paragraph 102) Policing priorities 65

When commissioning victim services, Police and Crime Commissioners should be mindful that not all victims will want to report crime or have trust and confidence in the police. By and for services may provide a more tailored approach and ensure that all victims and survivors have equitable access to crucial support.

The National Race Action Plan contains admirable aspirations. Stakeholders need to ensure they are realised speedily. We recommend the NPCC commit to a clear timeframe for the next iteration of the plan and adopt an “accept or explain” response to ISOB’s recommendations.

Victim and survivor care is one of the basics that policing has to get right. We agree that failure to prioritise the needs of victims and survivors in the past has undermined trust and confidence in policing today. We are pleased to see that an interim Victims’ Commissioner has finally been appointed. It is, to us, wholly unacceptable that the position was vacant from September 2022 until October 2023. The Government has explained that the recent appointment is temporary in order to “enable a new recruitment campaign to be launched which better reflects the new responsibilities the role will have once the Victims and Prisoners Bill is passed.” We invite the Government to explain in its response to this report why an interim commissioner could not have been appointed a year ago.

We urge the Government to expedite recruitment of a permanent new Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, so that victims and survivors do not face such a long wait without a representative again. We recommend policing proactively publish and interrogate data on outcomes and victim satisfaction to measure the impact of a renewed focus on supporting victims.

Policing needs to show rather than tell women and girls that cultural change has taken place. It can start by providing a consistently excellent service to victims and survivors of VAWG. The availability of officers with the right skills and sensitivities is a crucial part of this.

We repeat our previous recommendation, made in our report on “The investigation and prosecution of rape”, that the Government strongly encourage forces without specialist police rape and sexual offence teams to put such teams in place and with sufficient resource, including capacity for ongoing training and development.

All victims need to feel safe in coming forward to the police and be confident in reporting potential criminality. The Government’s alternative proposals do not go far enough to address the concerns of migrant victims and survivors who may be unsure of what will happen to them after prosecution, or if a prosecution does not proceed through no fault of theirs.

We restate the previous Home Affairs Committee’s recommendation from its 2018 report into Domestic Abuse, that “immigration status must not bar victims of abuse from protection and access to justice.” We concur with the Women and Equalities Committee’s recommendation that the Government “establish an appropriate firewall- type mechanism between the police and the Home Office to prevent data sharing for the purposes of enforcing immigration rules against victims of abuse.” As that Committee 66 Policing priorities said, any information sharing from the police with Immigration Enforcement on victims should only be in exceptional circumstances for the purposes of assisting in the safeguarding of the individual or acting against their abuser. (Paragraph 124) Prioritising roles and functions

Officers, staff and citizens alike deserve and require a shared national understanding of the role and mission of the police, and the basic functions that policing should get right all the time.

We recommend the Home Office, working together with key partners, set out its vision for the basics that the public nationwide have the right to expect from policing. This may reflect the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, College of Policing and NPCC’s Policing Vision 2030, but will also focus on how those objectives may be perceived in the public mind.

Crime and demand patterns change over time. Policing priorities need to reflect this these changed contexts. We are not convinced that the 43-force model facilitates an effective strategic response to change especially as forces develop different initiatives that do not always align. The understandable lack of appetite for major changes to that structure intensifies the need for the centre to provide the basic building blocks for an effective service. It therefore cannot be right that the Police Allocation Formula remains outdated. If a long-term funding settlement is not possible, commissioners and forces should at least have the information they need to make medium-term financial plans.

Multiple bodies are involved in setting the strategic direction of policing both locally and nationally. However, the Home Office must provide a strong “strategic centre” and take responsibility for providing policing with the resources it needs to succeed. As a first step, the Home Office must urgently review the Police Allocation Formula and update it where necessary, setting out points for future review in advance to facilitate effective planning by PCCs and forces.

We recommend the Home Office monitor the effect of changes in response to non-crime hate incidents and crime recording more broadly, so that adverse impacts are quickly identified and the effect on public trust and confidence tracked.

Private industry, particularly social media platforms and the mobile networks, must play its part in “designing out” fraud. We plan to revisit the crucial area and the right balance of responsibilities in our inquiry on this topic.

We support the commitment in the Government’s Fraud Strategy to “make the tech sector commit to protect their customers through legislation and voluntary commitments” and “help banks slow down suspicious payments.” We urge the Home Office to deliver on those commitments as soon as possible. For example, a new online fraud charter was to be delivered by the end of Summer 2023. We expect to see this by the end of 2023 at the latest. (Paragraph 151) Policing priorities 67

Policing faces challenges in delivering its core mission. Simultaneously it has become “the service of last resort for people in crisis.” We agree with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and College of Policing that tackling this mission creep “requires cross-Government working.”

The police should work effectively with other services without having to compensate for lack of resources elsewhere or absorb demand that should rightly sit with others. We understand that often police will not be the right professionals to intervene in mental health situations. We believe profoundly that people with mental health issues should receive expert care from the right professionals, rather than needlessly coming into contact with police officers who already face a range of demands aligned to their core mission. We are concerned however that there are risks associated with challenging other services to step up without providing them with sufficient resources to do so. Simply shifting unrealistic demand onto other services will not represent overall policy success for the Government. Moving to a new model may save police time but we should also expect to see “non-crime demand” outcomes improve across the system because the right professionals are responding, as well as improved policing performance in the core areas of preventing, investigating and detecting crime.

The Right Care Right Person model appears to have been successful in reducing demand on police in Humberside. We recommend that, as it is adopted across the country, the Home Office carefully evaluate the impact of its adoption on both policing time and overall performance, publishing its first findings a year on from the adoption of the National Partnership Agreement.

We recommend the Home Office also work with the Department of Health and Social Care to evaluate the impact of RCRP on wider outcomes, for example, for those in mental health crisis who might previously have been dealt with by the police and be prepared to take remedial action where necessary to support other service providers. This evaluation should include any impact on the workload, wellbeing and safety of policing colleagues as well as partners in health and social care.

If Right Care Right Person is to succeed as a national approach, it is crucial that those frontline health and care services who will be expected to step up receive the resources they need to do so. As Government makes funding settlements across these services, it must ensure that those resources are in place.

Policing has a key role in crime prevention, but greater clarity is needed about what that role is and where police responsibilities end and those of others begin. The Government has to allow policing to prioritise its purposes and functions in the sound knowledge of its key roles.

We recommend the Government set out in its response to this report its vision for policing’s role in crime prevention. (Paragraph 168) A workforce fit for the future

A police service that fails to attract, retain and progress diverse officers will be unable to demonstrate that it can meet the needs of diverse communities. While 68 Policing priorities a representative workforce is crucial, we cannot rely on numerical representation alone to drive far-reaching cultural change. Instead, officers, staff and communities need to see evidence of processes, actions and outcomes that are fair, inclusive, and enhanced by meaningful two-way communication.

Police and Crime Commissioners should hold forces to account on efforts to recruit, retain and progress a broadly representative workforce across all ranks.

Senior officers should actively support staff organisations representing groups and consider the full range of tools at their disposal to ensure that forces reflect the community they serve.

Whilst the National Police Wellbeing Survey, along with surveys carried out by PFEW, provide useful information on police wellbeing and morale, we would also like to see these complemented by data from mandated exit interviews.

We recommend the Home Office complete implementation of the Police Covenant within six months.

We recommend the Home Office work with partners to create a mechanism to collect data on staff and officer views on police culture, wellbeing and morale. This would, for example, provide an annual picture on confidence to whistle blow on unacceptable behaviour.

It is no longer sufficient that individual forces design their own workforce plans and strategies in isolation. Crime crosses force boundaries and requires specialist officers and recruits with unique skills. Following the end of the uplift programme, it must be a priority of the Government to set out how it intends to work with forces to deliver an effective workforce strategy that will enable the Police to adequately meet the challenges of the future.

We recommend the Home Office set out a workforce plan and strategy for policing over the next ten years as a matter of urgency. The plan should address officer and staff numbers and skills. Particular attention should be placed on recognised areas of shortage. The plan should be subject to periodic review and impact analysis, with the first of these completed and published by 31 December 2024.

We are concerned that the status of NCA staff as civil servants with different pay scales to policing increases the challenge of recruiting and retaining the right people. We are not convinced that it is feasible to recruit 400 entirely new fraud specialists.

We recommend the Home Office, working collaboratively with forces and the NCA, create a sustainable pipeline of fraud specialists, with fair pay scales that will encourage retention.

We recognise that training of local officers needs to be shaped by local considerations. However, citizens should be able to be assured that all officers share basic skills, and that approaches are broadly similar nationwide. (Paragraph 195) Policing priorities 69

We recommend the Home Office empower the College of Policing to mandate learning curricula and essential Continuous Professional Development. This could lead to development of a Licence to Practise as part of the wider Fitness to Practise model we have discussed.

Strong leadership is crucial, especially given the current high proportion of inexperienced officers. We welcome the College of Policing’s commitment to underpinning the future of police leadership.

Policing must continue its investment in leadership, especially at sergeant level. These training elements should be embedded within the workforce plan we have recommended.

The esteem afforded to police officers should reflect the complexity of skills and knowledge needed to do the job well. Given the Government’s general enthusiasm for degree apprenticeships, and the Home Office’s previous view that the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship was not deterring officers from applying, we find the rethink in this area surprising.

The Home Office should take care that its determination to keep a non-degree route open into policing is not in conflict with attempts to build the profile of policing as a highly skilled profession, and does not create more inconsistency with the recruitment, competency requirements and training of other entry routes. We recommend the Home Office investigate further the impact of making a degree a mandatory requirement first on police officers’ recruitment and retention and, secondly, on the potential impact on policing’s reputation. We also recommend that the Home Office keep under review the wider impacts of its decision to retain a non-degree entry route. We recommend all three of these elements of research and analysis be commenced within the next three months. (Paragraph 202) The wider criminal justice system

As the police and CPS bicker over where the burden of investigation and paperwork should lie, victims and survivors lose out. We understand the rationale for DG6 and we note that the CPS consulted forces and the NPCC when designing the updated guidance.

Now that DG6 has been in place for almost three years, we recommend the CPS review its implementation and impact, consulting stakeholders before proposing changes that will better reflect an appropriate balance between the need for effective early investigation and proportionality in resource consumption. We understand that there is already “work ongoing” in this area, and that the piece of work we recommend here may now come under the auspices of the Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences.

We urge the Home Office to accelerate the timetable for the Independent Review of Disclosure and Fraud Offences. (Paragraph 214) 70 Policing priorities

We recommend the CPS and NPCC review the process for police obtaining early advice from prosecutors before full case files are prepared or submitted and charging decisions made. Where possible, we recommend this work draw on local examples of existing good practice.

Lengthy and inefficient redaction processes and protracted investigations are neither effective nor fair on either victims or suspects. The handling of case files needs to comply with data protection laws. However, ensuring that the requirements are proportionate and that forces have the digital capacity to meet such requirements efficiently is an urgent issue that needs addressing. More needs to be done to pilot solutions and get the balance right.

We recommend the Home Office expedite, with urgency, its work with the Attorney General’s Office and CPS to identify potential solutions to the lengthy and resource- intensive redaction process in case file preparation. This should include piloting a “redaction bubble”, consideration of any necessary changes to data protection regulations and consultation with HMICFRS on harnessing existing good practice. Forces with the poorest digital capabilities should be prioritised for the pilots and outcomes formally evaluated. We expect initial piloting to be completed withing 12 months.

We second HMICFRS’ recommendation that the Home Office lead a review of the digital forensics budget and identify where need is greatest. The review should encompass future funding needs at both force level and centrally. It should provide a basis for a national strategy to bring the service into the 21st century in terms of digital forensics. We recommend the Home Office launch and commence implementation of the national strategy within 12 months.

Broadening police powers to charge without recourse to the CPS is not the solution to case backlogs in the courts.

We recommend the Home Office work, in collaboration with the NPCC, to put more incentives in place for alternative disposals to charging and prosecuting individuals in court, where they have been proved effective and better fit with victims’ needs and wants. If alternative disposals can speed up the delivery of the justice to which victims and survivors are entitled, while reducing court backlogs, everyone benefits. (Paragraph 226) Policing priorities 71