Police Accountability Board Public Notes 8th February 2017

Office of Northamptonshire Police, Fire and Crime CommissionerNorthants Police Logo



Action Notes and Decision Record

8th February 2017


1. Welcome and Introductions


Stephen Mold (SM), Northamptonshire Police and Crime Commissioner (Chair)

Martin Scoble (MS), Chief Executive, OPCC

Paul Fell (PF), Director for Delivery, OPCC

Emily Evans (EE), Minute Taker, OPCC


Simon Edens (SE), Chief Constable

Andy Frost (AF), Deputy Chief Constable

Rachel Swann (RS), Assistant Chief Constable


– SM gave introductions and introduced the meeting.

– There were some discussions around the format and structure of these meetings going forward. PF explained the proposed new process of assurance and accountability board including timescales and how meetings will be serviced and subject matters for assurance and accountability will be determined.

– It was agreed that going forward there may be matters discussed on a sensitive operational nature. Where this was the case there was scope for both an open and closed session


2. Burglary Performance

– Force had been asked to address two specific questions via the accountability board in relation to this.

– RS introduced the report and identified the questions asked by the OPCC. An explanation was provided in relation to existing performance monitoring processes that were in place within the Force. This included daily tasking and management meetings, chaired by a senior officer, to monthly tasking meetings and quarterly organisational performance meetings chaired by Deputy Chief Constable.

– It was explained that this process had previously identified some operational concerns relating to burglary performance that had already been addressed through the commissioning of an operational plan to address these. Early indications were that there still needed to be further action in order to progress this and as such operational activity will continue, reported to RS.

– RS opened the topic for discussion.

– SM gave thanks for the report and requested clarification around figures included. This was provided by AF and advised that it will be monitored. SM requested an update at a future date to ensure that progress has been made. This will be formally built into an accountability board meeting for the future PF to place on Agenda 14th June 2017.

– RS addressed the second question and gave brief explanation of the report.

– SM requested clarification around some of the terms used within the report, particularly around dwelling and non-dwelling burglary. AF advised that there are some changes being implemented around recording classifications and counting rules from 1st April and that this may result in a perceived increase in burglary dwelling.

– RS provided assurance that the situation will be monitored closely to ensure that burglary does not increase.

– There was some discussion around the SDM and how this is planned to increase victim satisfaction. RS provided assurance that there are policies in place within the SDM to improve this.

– SE drew attention to the policing priority of protecting people from harm and priorities must be assessed on a risk basis. He clarified that the Force had a clear ethos of achieving this and would not be distracted. He made the point that policing activity will be focused to deliver against high harm risk issues ahead of other issues.

– He provided reassurance that there is work ongoing to improve performance around burglary; and was confident that sufficient work is being undertaken.

– SM was in agreement with SE that there must be consistency and alignment in analysis and interpretation of data. AF gave advice around how to properly use data to interpret crime and establish emerging risks.

– SM requested further clarification around EMSOU and whether best use was being made of this resource to tackle some of the issues that had been raised in the response to PCC. RS provided some background information around this resource and their deployment. She stated that she is confident in the abilities of EMSOU and shared her personal experiences of them. SM was satisfied with this response.

– SM closed topic for discussion.


3. HMIC Effectiveness Inspection

– AF introduced the report and gave summary. He explained that the document and process of response to HMIC comments is owned by Chief Inspector Gary Ashton. He gave a description of the process included in signing off action points and included what happens when points are superseded. AF outlined process for accountability and advised that it is also scrutinised by the Joint Independent Audit Committee.

– SM requested updated version of document following the force assurance board. AF agreed that he would provide it. AF to provide updated copy of HMIC action plan to PF following Force Assurance Board.

– AF agreed that there will be an update on the progress of the HMIC recommendations every 3rd Accountability board meeting. PF to place on agenda.

– SM has offered his support in implementing these recommendations going forward.

– RS provided reassurance that she will follow up on actions personally.

– There was discussion around how HMIC grading for effectiveness can be improved by the time of the next inspection.

– AF drew attention to the HMIC letter to all PCCs relating to consultation on the 2017/18 inspection regime and there was some clarification from MS around what this means and the OPCC response to this.


4. AOB

– MS drew attention to a letter received recently from Brandon Lewis MP in relation to an efficiency plan. It was confirmed that this had gone to all PCCs . This was discussed and all agreed that as Forces at this time were not mandated to produce an individual bespoke efficiency plan, we were not intending to devise one by 20th February. It was agreed that MS would draft a constructive response to Mr Lewis that outlined a range of efficiency activity that was being undertaken and attach a number of key plans and documents.

– SM closed the meeting at