Case 6 | Bulletin 17 – General
Published August 2012
For archived bulletins, learning reports and related background
documents please visit www.learningthelessons.org.uk
Email | [email protected]
This document is classified as NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED in accordance with the IPCC’s protective marking scheme
Setting bail conditions to safeguard welfare
Investigation into allegations of child abuse, raising issues about:







Recording strategy decisions
Consideration of safeguarding issues
Setting bail conditions
Disclosure
Completion of hierarchical crime reviews
Supervision of investigations
Working with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Overview of incident
On 1 October, Miss A, reported to police that she had been repeatedly raped by her mother’s
partner, Mr B, over the course of a year.
An officer from Force A visited the young woman and took some initial details before notifying
Force B. A child protection investigation was launched and the investigation was allocated to
Detective Constable C.
Force B created a child protection referral and a discussion was held between Detective
Constable C and a social worker for Children’s Services.
This initial discussion should have identified all the children who could have been at risk of
significant harm and risk management plans should have been discussed to determine what
action could be taken in respect of each child and family unit. This would have then allowed for
discussion around disclosure to relevant parties.
The lack of information which was researched and shared by police and Children’s Social Care
did not allow for a full risk assessment to take place in respect of all the children who Mr A had
potential contact with so a vital opportunity to safeguard their welfare was missed.
Detective Constable C also liaised with Force A’s Child Abuse Investigation Team and it was
agreed that Force A would also contact their local Social Services team with a view to them
visiting Miss A to complete a visually recorded interview and to consider a medical examination.
Force A would then forward the evidence to Force B to progress.
It was 14 days after Miss A was interviewed before Mr B was arrested.
On 16 October Mr B was arrested and taken to a police station where he was interviewed. He
denied the alleged offences however he did state that he still had contact with his other children
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 1 of 1
from previous relationships, however officers failed to follow up with their parents/guardians or
take other steps to safeguard their welfare.
Although officers searched Mr B’s property for any evidence of this offence or any similar
offences against children they failed to make a record of this on the intelligence system, Child
Protection Unit (CPU) referral or the custody record.
Before Mr B was granted bail Detective Constable C should have sought gatekeeper advice
from one of the Evidence Review Officers (ERO) in custody, in the absence of an acting
Sergeant to consider whether the evidential test had been met, whether there were further
enquiries to complete, and whether there was a need to impose bail conditions under the Bail
Act to: prevent further offences; to prevent interference with witnesses; to prevent Mr A
obstructing the course of justice; or for his own protection or welfare.
Mr B was bailed to return on 9 December. As part of his bail conditions Mr B was prohibited
from contacting Miss A, her mother or her siblings, and was not permitted to have any
unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16, other than his own children.
Police Sergeant D, the custody sergeant at the time, who granted the bail conditions did not
question the conditions being requested as he felt Detective Constable C was an experienced
officer.
Also, Temporary Detective Inspector E, the officer in charge of the Public Protection team, was
not aware of the investigation so was therefore not able to influence the conditional bail. The
lack of a review of this reported crime by a senior manager should have identified the
conditional bail as a missed opportunity to safeguard the children.
On the day the police received the initial allegation and the day Mr B was arrested there was no
clear acting sergeant in place to provide cover, therefore no-one to assume control or assess
actions to be taken.
At this early stage there was not recording of a strategy discussion with the requisite
information:







To share information available.
To agree the conduct and timing of the criminal investigation.
To decide whether a Section 47 investigation should be initiated.
To plan how the Section 47 investigation should be undertaken, including the need for
medical treatment and who will carry out what actions, by when and for what purpose.
To agree what information is required immediately to safeguard and promote the welfare
of the child/children, and how to provide interim support and services.
To determine what information from the strategy discussion will be shared with the family,
unless such information sharing may place the child at increased risk of suffering
significant harm or jeopardise investigations into any alleged offences.
To determine if legal action is required.
The first recorded supervision of the investigation was detailed as taking place between
Detective Constable C and Detective Sergeant F on 13 November. This was recorded on the
child protection referral and identifies two actions for completion before gate keeping advice is
provided as to whether the investigation should be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for
charging advice or whether the evidence of the case does not pass the evidential test.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 2 of 2
Significantly, Detective Constable C, failed to put in place any safeguarding measures to identify
whether the children living close to Mr B had been abused, nor had any disclosure been made
to their parents regarding his arrest or subsequent charge.
Mr B was bailed a further 3 times before returning to the police station on 25 March.
On 1 December Detective Constable C contacted the mother of one of Mr B’s other children,
Miss G to ask whether she had anything to disclose. As a potential witness it was inappropriate
for her mother to be asking her for potential evidence. On 3 December Detective Sergeant F
identified that Miss G and her sister Miss H should be formally interviewed by police. Miss G
was never interviewed but her sister was interviewed on 5 December.
No rationale for the failure to interview Miss G was recorded as part of the strategy discussion,
however Detective Constable I later added that this was because Miss G’s mother had indicated
that she had refused to speak to police. Miss G later alleged she had been abused by Mr B’s
father, her grandfather, for a number of years.
Incorrectly Detective Constable I instigated a Section 17 investigation, rather than a Section 47
investigation which should have been conducted to enable a decision to be made as to the
action that should have been taken to promote the child’s welfare.
On 3 December the bail conditions allowing him access to his children were identified as an
issue by Detective Sergeant F, however no action was taken.
During the period between Mr B’s release from custody on 16 October and his return on 25
March 2010, a statement is taken from the victim’s mother, an enquiry is made with the mother
of one of Mr B’s other children, and a visually recorded interview is completed with one of his
children.
In addition to these enquiries Detective Constable C submitted the file to his supervisor who
identified further lines of enquiry before CPS advice was then sought.
The CPS provided an action plan and on 25 March 2010, Mr B was interviewed in respect of the
witness account provided by one of his daughter’s which supported the allegation made by Miss
A. Mr B was then bailed to return on 6 April.
Detective Constable C then booked another CPS appointment for 30 March however was told
that 90 minutes was not long enough for the CPS lawyer to review the file. Detective Constable
C then had to bail Mr B until the 15 April.
By the 13 April the CPS lawyer responsible for the file had not reviewed it so it was passed to
another lawyer. As a result Mr B was re-bailed to 12 May. Again his bail conditions remained
unchanged.
Officers obtained further advice from the CPS on 11 May and it was decided that Mr B would be
charged with 6 counts of rape against Miss A.
Mr B attended the station to answer his bail on 12 May and was then charged and bailed to
attend the Magistrates Court on 27 May with the same conditions he had remained on since his
release from custody on 16 October.
On 20 May the mother of one of Mr B’s other children, called to report that her daughter, Miss I,
had been sexually abused by Mr B.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 3 of 3
Later the same evening Mr B was arrested and taken to the police station.
During a Section 18 search of Mr B’s property officers seized a laptop which was later found to
contain a number of indecent images of children, in addition to prohibited and extreme adult
images.
Mr B was interviewed the next day about the new allegations, but denied the offences. He was
subsequently charged and remanded in custody to appear before the court the next day.
Miss H alleges that she was never told by officers or Children’s Services that Mr B had been
arrested and charged with rape.
Following his appearance at court Mr B was remanded into custody.
On 17 August Mr B was produced from prison and taken to a police station where he was
interviewed regarding the indecent images found on his laptop. Mr B admitted to searching for
adult pornography, but denied searching for images of children. He was conditionally bailed and
returned to prison.
On 31 August another one of Mr B’s daughters, Miss J also reported that she had been sexually
abused by Mr B.
On 12 October Mr B was produced from prison and taken to a police station where he was
interviewed in respect of the allegation made by Miss J. He denied the offence and was
informed that he would be reported for the offence.
On 10 November Mr B was charged with the sexual abuse of Miss J and for possession of
indecent images of children. Mr B later pleaded guilt to two counts of digital penetration.
INTERNAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW (IMR)
The force commissioned an Independent Management Review (IMR) after learning of the
allegations from Miss I and Miss J after Mr B had been arrested and placed on conditional bail
following the rape of Miss A.
The force agreed the following terms of reference for the review:



To review Force B’s involvement with the children subject of this IMR
To review the management of the criminal investigation relating to Mr A from the initial
disclosure on 1 October to the conclusion
To complete a chronology of significant information held by Force B
IMR Findings
1.
The quality of recording decisions was found to not be of a sufficient standard, lacking
justification and rationale.
2.
The requirement to record the content of strategy discussions in accordance with
Working Together to Safeguard Children was lacking in respect of two of the three
investigations.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 4 of 4
3.
Other strategy discussions could have included more information in accordance with 5.57
Working Together.
4.
There was no recorded Evidential Reviewing Officer decision prior to the decision to bail
Mr A on 16 October.
5.
Although not solely an issue arising for Force B, but there was no requested or convened
face to face strategy meeting. The purpose of a multi-agency meeting in a case of this
nature would be to share information about the family dynamics of a complex structure of
multiple relationships. Actions could have been agreed jointly and have been
documented in relation to safeguarding children and potential disclosures to assist with
the protection of children. There has been a long history of concerns relating to the
children in these investigations which have included previous sexual allegations and
investigations, and periods where the children have been subject to child protection
registration. The referrals reviewed as part of this IMR have identified that these checks
have not been completed or if they have, they have not been recorded.
6.
Another issue which is not solely for Force B, but one which could have been requested
is the need for a child protection conference. Three children from two different family units
have been abused and their siblings will undoubtedly have been indirectly affected. 5.81
Working Together ‘where agencies most involved judge that a child may continue to, or
be likely to, suffer significant harm local authority children’s social care should convene a
child protection conference. The aim of the conference is to enable those professionals
most involved with the child and family, and the family themselves, to assess all relevant
information and plan how best to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child’.
7.
Inappropriate bail conditions were set that didn’t offer protection to the children concerned
8.
There was no disclosure or discussion with the mother of the subsequently alleged
abused children even though the defendant admitted on his first interview that he
continued to have contact with his children.
9.
Some lines of enquiry were not followed in respect of potential safeguarding children. It is
good practice that this was identified and considered, but the subsequent lack of action
taken and the rationale for the delay in intending to take actions potentially put children at
risk of significant harm.
10.
Crime reviews were not routinely completed and this process may have identified
safeguarding actions which could have protected children.
IMR Recommendations
11.
Staff within the child protection arena should be reminded of the importance of accurate
and detailed recording of strategy discussions.
12.
Operational Inspectors are reminded of the need to undertake and record strategy
discussions with Children’s Services or EDS.
13.
Custody Units are provided with an aide memoir for cases involving child protection
investigations to ensure that all safeguarding issues have been considered before
release either on bail or after charge.
14.
An audit review (covering approximately 10%) of child protection cases over the last 3
months is instigated to provide a picture of the number of child protection investigations
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 5 of 5
with arrests which have recorded an ERO decision prior to release.
15.
Training input is provided to PPD Sergeants and Inspectors on Crime Reviews as per the
policy and processes.
Type of investigation
IPCC Supervised Investigation.
Good practice
1.
The PPD SMT took rapid action to arrange a review of the criminal investigation once
apparent failings had been identified.
2.
Non-CPU officers/staff have attachments to the CPU to heighten awareness.
3.
Crime Reviews are carried out by officers of all ranks, not just Sergeants.
4.
Resourcing issues are identified within the force risk register, which helps to improve the
force’s ability to manage associated risks.
Recommendations
Local recommendations
Finding 1
1.
Custody staff need to know their responsibilities for safeguarding as the bail condition
may have prevented such an offence.
Local recommendation 1
2.
It would be good practice for custody staff to receive a mandatory input, potentially by elearning, around responsibilities arising from ACPO guidance on ‘Working together to
safeguard children’.
Finding 2
3.
On the day the police received the initial allegation from Miss A, and the day Mr B was
arrested there was no clear acting sergeant in place to provide cover.
Local recommendation 2
4.
When supervisors are going to be absent for a significant period of time, a clearly
identified ‘acting or temporary’ replacement should be identified and communicated.
Finding 3
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 6 of 6
5.
The timescales of the CPS did not support the family or victim in this case as the
offender went on to commit further sexual offences.
Local recommendation 3
6.
A structured process should be introduced to escalate matters where the CPS and the
police do not agree over decisions made.
Force response
Local recommendations
Other actions
1.
The force’s Strategic Custody Department conducted a review and advised all EROs and
Custody Sergeants that when dealing with suspects involved in child abuse no
unsupervised contact should be allowed with children under 18 years, including the
suspects own children and any other child. Advice goes on to state that there may be
times when such bail conditions are not appropriate, and each case must be considered
on its merits. It also states that a well reasoned rational for all bail conditions must be
recorded within the custody file, taking into account the safeguards that are in place for
children.
2.
The force has now introduced a Child Protection Referral Unit (CPRU). This has helped
the force to establish a consistent threshold for strategy discussions and to centrally
manage referrals and requests for information. The introduction of the CPRU has also
helped Detective Sergeants spend less time on strategy discussions and meetings and
more time of intrusive supervision and quality assurance of work.
Outcomes for officers and staff
Detective Constable C
1.
Detective Constable C received management advice following a misconduct meeting for
not adhering to set practices and procedures, in particular for not carrying out an
instruction from Detective Sergeant F to ensure that Mr A was supervised in any contact
with children.
Police Sergeant D
2.
Police Sergeant D received management action for his failure to ask probing questions of
the officers who presented Mr A whilst he was performing the role of custody sergeant.
This is to prevent a recurrence of similar where incorrect bail conditions are granted.
Temporary Detective Inspector E
3.
Temporary Detective Inspector E received management action to highlight the need for
carrying out Crime Reviews.
Detective Sergeant F
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 7 of 7
4.
Detective Sergeant F, was praised for bringing the apparent failings, as soon as she
received the case, to the attention of her SMT.
5.
Detective Sergeant F received management action for her failure to follow up on
instructions tasked to her staff and demonstrate her ability to supervise in an intrusive
manner. This action was also taken to highlight the need for carrying out Crime Reviews.
Detective Sergeant I
6.
Detective Sergeant I received management action for his failure to record a clear
rationale and decision for when safeguarding referrals are made, and under which
section of legislation that decision is made.
Superintendent K
7.
Superintendent K was praised for her immediate request for a review when the apparent
failings were identified.
Acting Detective Inspector L
8.
Acting Detective Inspector L was thanked for his professionalism in carrying out the
independent review for Superintendent K.
Inspector M
9.
Inspector M was attached to the CPU and was working in an unfamiliar environment. He
was working under the guidance of Detective Constable C so cannot be accountable for
the failings as a whole.
If you need more information about this case, please email [email protected]
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 8 of 8