The Truth Behind Crime Figures

[Fidgits]

Revealed: how the Home Office hides the true level of crime

By Daniel Foggo and Carl Fellstrom

Sunday Telegraph 17/04/2005

The Government is misleading the public on the true level of crime in Britain by instructing police forces not to record many offences, while simultaneously logging crimes in which nobody is convicted or even taken to court as "detected".

This week the Government will release its latest quarterly figures for recorded crime in England and Wales, the last such release before the general election. But regardless of whether they show an overall fall or rise, they will give a highly distorted picture.

Multiple offences can be logged as a single crime

A detailed analysis by The Telegraph of the Home Office's "counting rules" - the instructions that are given to all forces each April telling them how to compile their official crime statistics - has revealed that the Government has expanded the range of "get-outs" that allow officers to ignore many crimes while taking credit for solving others that have not resulted in successful prosecutions.

In some instances, even if the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which usually has the last word in deciding whether someone should be charged, declares that there is no evidence at all to sustain a prosecution, the police are allowed to claim that they have "detected" the relevant crimes. In this way, a police force that has problems with proper evidence gathering and whose prosecutions have a tendency to collapse can still present a glowing "detection" record.

In the last prime minister's questions before the election campaign began, Mr Blair boasted: "It's a well established fact that crime has been falling for years."

In February he said: "The important thing is crime is actually down, not up. However, that is no consolation if you are a victim of crime. There are also record numbers of police but people don't always see them out on the street."

The revelations on the "counting rules" put into stark relief the Government's claim that it has recently broadened the criteria by which crimes are logged, resulting in a rise in recorded incidents. In fact, under a sub-clause in the counting rules, the police are allowed to record only "one crime per person". In an incident where several crimes are committed by the same person against the same victim, only the most serious single crime is recorded.

An example given is that "a house is entered [burglary], the female occupant is raped [rape] and her car is stolen from the driveway [vehicle theft]". The statistics must overlook the burglary and car theft, the Government has ordered. The record should read only: "One crime of rape."

In another get-out, police are also told to log multiple offences as only one crime if they are all reported at the same time.

The rules make it clear that any number of crimes can be distilled down to a single figure simply according to the timing of when they are reported. One example states: "[if] A threatens B on three occasions [and] B reports the threats to the police on each occasion a threat is made [it is] three crimes. [if] B reports the three occurrences at the same time [it is] one crime."

The counting rules also stipulate how police forces must record "detected" crime. Most members of the public would understand the term detected to mean solved, or cleared up.

In fact, under the counting rules definition, it means only that the police have an idea of who may have carried out the crime and usually have enough evidence to charge him or her. It does not correspond to the number of people convicted, or even to those appearing in court. As the rules state, a crime is detected if someone is charged or summonsed "irrespective of any subsequent acquittal".

Despite this revelation, the last annual published figures showed "detection rates" across England and Wales of only 24 per cent.

The rules on penalty charges, which since last year have been used by all of Britain's police forces to deal with low-level "nuisance" crime, such as shoplifting and public disorder, also enable the police to claim better results than they are achieving. Offences for which a penalty notice has been issued can be logged as detected", even if the CPS subsequently decides there is not enough - or, indeed, any - evidence to support it.

If an alleged offender contests a penalty notice, the case is referred to a magistrates' court. Before going to trial, the prosecution must be approved by the CPS, who may decide there is insufficient evidence to proceed. Yet for the purposes of the official crime statistics, the police can ignore such a finding by the CPS, simply by having one of the force's "designated decision makers" (DDM) - usually an officer of the rank of sergeant - state that he is happy with the issuing of the penalty notice. Although the penalty notice goes no further, the alleged crime is still registered as "detected".

In all other crimes, from murder downwards, if the case is dropped before or during a trial because the police have not gathered enough evidence, it is still logged as "detected". The rules state: "If the case is discontinued on evidential grounds, then the detection should not be cancelled if a DDM still stands by the reasons for charging."

Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, a charity that supports people affected by serious crime, said that most people would imagine that "detection" rates related to those convicted. "We in the police know that detection rates are nothing of the sort, but the public do not" he said. "If we recorded crime accurately the public would be astounded. Violence against the person is up by 90 per cent over the last five years but the true figure is four times that."

[reece]

Too much to read there!

In one sentence... The figures are fiddled?!

[Fidgits]

In one sentance

'Labour have made it so, even though crime has gotten worse, the numbers look like its gotten better, thanks to the fact police dont actually have to convict someone to register it as a solved crime, as well as other convient loop-holes...'

[daktari]

There was a program on BBC1 last night. Panorama. Which intimated that crime figures were being 'massaged' so that the government could show everyone how clever their policies were. It`s a very similar story with the NHS in regard to waiting times. The whole !Removed! issue wants tearing apart and rebuilding from the ground up.

[Boro Sera]

not exactly shock news though.

Anyway, it's not a crime to rig the figures ( if it was then the figures would need amending again ! ) :P

[Bibbs]

What a supprise, the words from Tony's mouth are lies ..

Where are the WMD's Tony? I'm still waiting you lieing peice of :ffs:

[Matthew_McNally]

Where are the WMD's Tony? I'm still waiting you lieing peice of :ffs:

←

would quite like to hear the answer to that myself.

[earpl]

the wmd's are in chesterfield, they can be deployed in 15 mins!!! BOMB CHESTERFIELD!! well thats what were gonna tell mr levit when he comes to our work tomorrow!!!

[Robie]

Carefull labeling a topic "The Truth Behind Crime Figures" and then quoting The Torygraph as the sole source...

[earpl]

lol good point :P

[Bibbs]

Carefull labeling a topic "The Truth Behind Crime Figures" and then quoting The Torygraph as the sole source...

←

Rather read the Telegraph than the Sun .. <_<

At the end of the day, we all know he's a lieing POS .. and I'l like to punch him in the face :D

I'd also take the mick out of his wife, but nature beat me to it ..

[Robie]

Carefull labeling a topic "The Truth Behind Crime Figures" and then quoting The Torygraph as the sole source...

←

Rather read the Telegraph than the Sun .. <_<

At the end of the day, we all know he's a lieing POS .. and I'l like to punch him in the face :D

I'd also take the ***** out of his wife, but nature beat me to it ..

←

I totally agree with you there... Wth made you think I read the Bun :o

[Bibbs]

I totally agree with you there... Wth made you think I read the Bun    :o

←

Isn't it one of the New Labour papers? I dunno, I can't read ..

[Robie]

Indeed it is but it is certainly not the only New Labour paper. However, I am not New Labour... I am very liberal in my political views

By the way I generally read articles on the internet rather than a paper but I pick up my parents Times ever so often ;)

[earpl]

im voting for him, he did the right thing with iraq

[Robie]

im voting for him, he did the right thing with iraq

←

George Bush?

[earpl]

no TB. now mr bush is a man i really do admire.

[Fidgits]

I'm very liberal with my views too Robie, but i cant vote for them because of their 'policies' for the general election.

[jaxx]

no TB. now mr bush is a man i really do admire.

←

top bloke

big up to the bush massive

[Robie]

I do love bush :o

[Bibbs]

I'm an anti bush man myself ..

Hmm, shaven haven .. funny as I think TB is a :ffs: too ..

Now where were we?

[scionic]

In one sentance

'Labour have made it so, even though crime has gotten worse, the numbers look like its gotten better, thanks to the fact police dont actually have to convict someone to register it as a solved crime, as well as other convient loop-holes...'

←

These types of tactics are nothing new here. Our president is using the same sort of Shell games to try and conceal the mountain of debt he's created.

[scionic]

no TB. now mr bush is a man i really do admire.

←

top bloke

big up to the bush massive

←

*****, I hope you're kidding.

You are, aren't you?

At least TB can speak in complete sentences and doesn't have the intellect of a 5 year old child.

George W. Bush is astonishingly dimwitted, ignorantly singleminded and full or religious born-again Christian southern baptist dogma.

The fact we elected him twice just goes to show that at least half of America is as obstinate and ignorant as people elsewhere say we are. :(

He's a horrible diplomat and an embarrassment to our country.

[Bibbs]

*****, I hope you're kidding.

You are, aren't you?

At least TB can speak in complete sentences and doesn't have the intellect of a 5 year old child.

George W. Bush is astonishingly dimwitted, ignorantly singleminded and full or religious born-again Christian southern baptist dogma.

The fact we elected him twice just goes to show that at least half of America is as obstinate and ignorant as people elsewhere say we are.  :(

He's a horrible diplomat and an embarrassment to our country.

←

What is worse?

Having someone like that in charge? Or having someone who sucks up to someone like that?

Stop the world - I want to get off ..

[kevin5952]

In answer to the first thread on this subject..crime figures.I am a serving police officer and i am astounded at how many initiatives this government has brought in.Far from releasing us to detect crime we are are being given more paperwork to complete. The lastest "bright idea"" if we speak to a group/individual anywhere and ask them to account for being in that particular place we now have to fill in another form..it,s called an encounter form!! so if for example we speak to a group where previously there has been an incident we have to fill out a seperate form for each individual!!! i have known officers who have to spend an entire shift filing out these forms because they have made the mistake of speaking to a group..then we have this new idea of fixed penalty tickets for barstaff that serve drunks in pubs/clubs..do we now have to place a police officer in every pub/club in the country to issue tickets! We have asked about this but as usual this government has no logical answer.All we want to do is get out ther and start solving crime and putting offenders before the court,However i believe this government is SOFT ON CRIME..SOFT ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME..Give us the freedom to do our job and you will see results.