Recommendations - Cleveland Police, May 2022
In 2015, Cleveland Police made a referral as a result of a criminal investigation carried out by the force, Op Javelin. During the investigation into historical child sexual abuse and exploitation, three of the victims in the case expressed a level of dissatisfaction about the way they were treated by officers in the 1990s. All three victims reported that Cleveland Police failed to protect them from known abusers and as a result they were systematically sexually abused and exploited for …
Recommendations
4 totalThe IOPC recommends that Cleveland police should identify all officers and staff who must undergo it's mandatory child sexual exploitation (CSE) training packages. The force should maintain accurate and auditable records of all officers and staff who have attended such training packages. This follows an IOPC investigation whereby, historically, frontline and neighbourhood police officers were not aware of child sexual exploitation and lacked understanding of indicators and children at risk of exploitation. It is now evidenced by the force that it has a mandatory training package in place, however Cleveland Police have exposed lacking appropriate auditability of who has conducted it and when they did so.
Recommendation accepted: Consultation has taken place with the IOPC and strategic leads and a detailed response to the recommendations has been provided.
The IOPC recommends that Cleveland police should develop and deliver training packages on the use of appropriate language for victims and witnesses of crime. The use of appropriate language is vital when dealing with all victims of crime. Any language used by the police which could interpreted by the victim as they themselves were to some extent at fault for becoming a victim must be recognised, understood and avoided by officers. This follows an IOPC investigation whereby historically victims of Child Sexual Exploitation were viewed as child prostitutes. This was the accepted term in the 1990s and as such no criticism is made against Cleveland Police for this. However the investigation found that record keeping uses language such as the victim being involved in risk taking behaviour and putting herself at risk. It is accepted that attitudes have improved, however it is still evident that the language used in formal records is still not appropriate.
Recommendation accepted: Consultation has taken place with the IOPC and strategic leads and a detailed response to the recommendations has been provided.
The IOPC recommends that Cleveland police force should ensure that vulnerability and needs assessments are always conducted for victims and witnesses and, where court proceedings occur, an application for special measures is made where appropriate. This will ensure provide better support is provided for victims and witnesses.’ This follows an IOPC investigation whereby, historically, victims were not supported to be witnesses and when they did support a prosecution their lives became at risk. The force has improved its contact with victims of crime, but more needs to be done to assess their needs. Cleveland Police conducted a review of current practice and their findings were that there was regular contact with victims and updates were being recorded. While we found that, in the majority of cases, victims’ needs assessments were completed, the vulnerability recorded did not consistently align with that identified by the call handler and the officer’s risk assessment. This means that the assessment often isn’t adequately informing the special measures the victim requires at court to remove the stress of giving evidence. These measures include screens in the court room, a live video link to the court room, and other ways of giving evidence.
Recommendation accepted: Consultation has taken place with the IOPC and strategic leads and a detailed response to the recommendations has been provided.
The IOPC recommends that Cleveland Police should improve its processes and record keeping to show the flow of information between partner agencies and demonstrate actions taken and accountability. This follows an IOPC investigation whereby historically information was shared from one agency to another, but agencies did not routinely report decisions made with the information shared. As a result their was a lack of accountability.
Recommendation accepted: Consultation has taken place with the IOPC and strategic leads and a detailed response to the recommendations has been provided.