Investigation into a serious injury afflicted by a man on police bail - Essex Police, April 2022

The IOPC recommends that Essex Police should ensure that where there are multiple investigations relating to the same suspect/ victim, methods of communication between teams are reviewed, and guidance developed, to include supervisors from each team having contact and recording this contact on the case management record.

This follows an IOPC investigation where it was found that whilst there were numerous teams working with the victim and suspect, there was an indication that there was poor communication between the teams. Essex procedures do not currently have a process in place relating to communication between teams where there are multiple investigations. The investigation found there was little evidence that officers were communicating effectively to progress investigations and included errors such as one investigating officer taking the victim's phone for downloading and not directly emailing another investigating officer about the temporary phone number, leading to the victim not being contacted for a number of days. This resulted in delays to the investigation as enquiries were not progressed.

The IOPC recommends that Essex Police takes steps to ensure that officers and staff have accurate and up-to-date knowledge in relation to domestic abuse and breaches of bail and breaches of civil orders. This should include consideration of issuing communications to officers on this matter and/or ensuring that it is adequately covered in appropriate training.

This follows an IOPC investigation where it was found that officers missed opportunities to arrest a suspect for breach of bail offences. Furthermore, it was found that there was some confusion within the Domestic Abuse Investigation Team regarding the validity of the non-molestation order that was in place on the suspect, and it took a few days to resolve this query and seek confirmation from the courts. This led to a delay in progressing enquiries regarding the allegations and delayed the arrest of the suspect. It also potentially impacted upon the decisions to bail rather than remand the suspect when he was arrested, as it was stated that the validity of the non-molestation order still needed to be confirmed. Additionally, information received during the investigation indicated that investigating officers could have considered applying for a Stalking and Protection Order on the suspect and there appeared to be a general lack of understanding around this type of order.

The IOPC recommends that Essex Police should revise its custody procedures in order to ensure that when authorising bail the custody sergeant should upload the advice given to them by the relevant detective sergeant, or any advice given by officers or other professionals in the case, onto the custody record.

This follows an investigation whereby a man received pre-charge bail for a number of offences including recent breaches of a non- molestation order and a historic allegation of rape. The custody sergeant, and the duty inspector, when making his bail application rationale, recorded that they had received advice from the detective sergeant from the Domestic Abuse Investigation Team stating that further enquiries were required and could not be completed within the current bail timeframe. However, the detective sergeant had not recorded her decision making in relation to bail and remand considerations and the attempts made to progress the investigations. During the investigation it was evident that there was disparity in views between the detective sergeant, who ascertained that the man should be released on pre-charge bail, and officers in her team, who had expressed their views that the man should be remanded. Whilst Essex pre-charge bail procedures stipulate that the custody sergeant must seek authority from an inspector, it does not provide guidance on obtaining and recording advice from the detective sergeant or other professionals in the case, although it is evident that this advice is heavily relied upon when making bail and remand decisions. Recording the rationale within the custody record would have meant that it was easier to understand the reasoning underpinning the detective sergeant’s advice to the custody sergeant and duty inspector.

The IOPC recommends that Essex Police should revise their guidance to include that when decisions are being made in relation to bail, investigating officers or their sergeants should record interim safeguarding plans onto the Athena record whilst awaiting DV5 safeguarding planning by the Central Referral Unit (CRU).

This follows an investigation whereby the detective sergeant of the Domestic Abuse Investigation Team (DAIT) did not record safeguarding onto the Athena case management record following the release on pre-charge bail at 10pm of a suspect for a range of offences against his ex-partner. During the investigation the DAIT sergeant stated she believed that she had completed safeguarding activity by countersigning the domestic abuse risk form as high, therefore triggering a referral to the Central Referral Unit. However, CRU officers are not available on a 24 hour basis and therefore the referral was not picked up until the next morning. A safeguarding plan (a DV5) was then completed on the victim. Approximately 26 hours after the suspect was released on pre-charge bail he committed a serious assault on his ex-partner, which resulted in him being convicted for Attempted Murder. Whilst the safeguarding plan completed by the CRU was in place at this time, the investigation found that there had been a gap between when the suspect was released and when the plan was completed by the CRU of over 12 hours which was concerning given that the victim had been assessed as high risk and had two young children. Essex procedures states that any decision to bail or release a suspect under investigation will require a review of the safeguarding plan that is in place. It stipulates that in high risk cases CRU, where available, will be updated prior to release of a suspect, to enable this to be done, but if there is no CRU Officer available the detective sergeant will review the safeguarding prior to the release of the suspect. However, it does not state how this should be completed or recorded.

The IOPC recommends that Essex Police should monitor the compliance of officers activating their body-worn cameras when attending domestic abuse incidents, and consider methods to raise awareness of this policy with officers.

This follows an IOPC investigation whereby it was found that few of the officers attending the incidents reported by the victim, which included breaches of non-molestation order, activated their body worn cameras. This was despite clear local guidance and policy around activation of body worn cameras in domestic abuse incidents. Whilst this did not seem to have had a significant impact on the investigations conducted by Essex Police, officers should be reminded of the importance of activating body worn cameras including capturing victims’ accounts.