Crime Reduction - Helping to Reduce Crime in Your Area

The following is a report of the questions asked of the panel of experts at the Information sharing Conference hosted by the Home Office on 10 September 2001.

<< Back to conference contents

Offender profiling

A view was invited on the legality of exchanging data on offender profiling. Individuals or groups of offenders were profiled or mapped as part of the audit process, and the information was then shared.

Mr Bamford replied that the legality depended to a large extent upon the identifiability of individuals. If data was linked in such a way that a person could not be identified by the conventional factors (name, address etc) then no great difficulty arose in data protection terms. The general watchwords were that the more data was kept in an anonymous or pseudonymous form, the lighter the touch of data protection. General offender profiling did not of itself cause any illegality – everything depended upon what was done with the information and the extent to which it was identifiable personal information. For example, mapping truanting or school exclusion postcodes to crime hotspots did not present a problem provided that individuals were not identifiable.

The impact of the Human Rights Act on the granting of ASBOs

Mr Duke-Evans explained that the Home Office had been concerned about the initially slow take up of ASBOs and had looked into the reasons, but this research did not suggest that Human Rights Act considerations were at the bottom of it. In general terms, when legislation was introduced, lawyers considered the proposed powers and would not proceed unless there was compatibility with the Human Rights Act. With ASBOs, unfamiliar civil procedures were being used for actions traditionally dealt with by the criminal route. The position was more complicated than had been expected, and in some cases the early applications were not well prepared so they did not succeed, and in some cases the local authority may have been discouraged. Advice was issued by the Home Office and numbers had picked up in the last year. They were becoming accepted by the courts which had a crucial role as an effective weapon against anti-social behaviour. They were not the only weapon – the growth of acceptable behaviour contracts showed what could be done outside formal legal structures.

Experience from Hampshire, Mr Readhead added, showed that success should not be gauged solely by whether an order was made. Success in impacting on the quality of life in given areas could come from looking at housing arrangements, or making policing on the ground more dynamic. Other actions by a variety of agencies could have an impact.

Role of the voluntary sector

It was suggested that the voluntary sector often had unexpected information concerning crime and disorder, and should be encouraged to participate in the partnership arena. Mr Readhead agreed. There was work to be done by all the agencies to tease out things which could make a difference, and the voluntary sector needed to be included in the communications.

Incidents of repeat burglary

A community safety partnership with an archive of data on residential burglary wanted to look at repeat burglaries in order to target burglary reduction resources and needed personalised information in order to identify vulnerable properties. Mr Bamford said that whenever possible such work should be done without personal information, for example the street, or an area. If it was crucial to consider the nature of an individual property, data protection issues would arise. The question would turn on the balance of fairness to the victims of crime who had reported their details to the police: should the police allow other agencies access to this specific information? Fairness might be judged by the presenting problem: was there an overriding need which would justify setting aside the wishes and expectations of the victims, and sharing their information? Were there privacy-friendly ways of achieving the desired result, for example by asking the consent of burglary victims to pass the details to other parties for the specific purpose of an initiative against repeat burglary?

Domestic & social problems arising from late night licences

It was suggested that granting licences to 2.30am contributed to domestic and social problems when drinkers made their way home drunk. Closing time should be earlier, and there should be a way of controlling how much alcohol landlords served to individuals.

Mr Readhead said that he personally felt that a more liberal approach to licensing hours would encourage sensible consumption, and reduce the deployment of police officers to deal with criminal damage and fights. Good management regimes, sensible stewarding of clubs, planning provision putting clubs away from residential areas, and use of CCTV would all help alcohol to play a less important part in the disruption which occurred at closing time in many inner cities.

It was mentioned that the Drugs Prevention Advisory Services had a number of regional initiatives on alcoholism. The Centre for Social Studies at Oxford was looking at the impact of alcoholism across the country, including identifying the premises which were resulting in problems. This would help the Home Office in taking matters forward.

<< Back to conference contents

Date modified: 19 June 2003
Review date: February 2004
Originator: Home Office Information Sharing Te