Policy on duty of care of someone that believes they were spiked

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023676

I note you seek access to the following information:
Could I also request your policy on your duty of care to someone that believes they were spiked.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Although there is no official policy, this is the guidance provided to officers should they come into contact with an individual where it is suspected that an incident of spiking has occurred.

Spiking - Crime Recording and Forensic Recovery Advice
17 January 2022

In allegations of ‘spiking’ - whether by injection or drink tampering, it is vital that we provide support to victims, record allegations correctly and take prompt action to preserve evidence.

The police must record crimes as alleged by victims unless there is credible evidence immediately available that an offence did not occur. The decision to record a crime is based on the balance of probability – you should ask yourself ‘is it more likely than not that a crime has occurred?’ Your decision will be based on all the available information such as:

• Why does the complainant believe their drink was tampered with or they were injected?
• Additional information to support their belief (unusual memory loss, sickness, puncture mark)
• Believed motivation, or recent interaction with potential offenders

If the allegation is of Spiking alone, offences will generally fall under one of the following two pieces of legislation. If the circumstances suggest an intention to commit a sexual offence then you should record:

Administering a Substance with Intent to commit a Sexual Offence (s61 SOA 2003 – CRIS code 008/05)

Where there is no indication of a sexual motive then you should record:

Administering a poison with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy (s24 OAP Act 1861 – CRIS code 008/02)

If a substantive serious sexual offence occurred as a result of spiking then you should record that offence.

In order that we can understand where and when spiking offences are happening, and deploy our resources correctly, it is important to flag all these allegations accurately:

Features page – Feature ‘CE’ - Drugs used on Victim including Spiking

Venue page – specific venue codes eg. - ‘JP’ Pub/Bar/Nightclub

VIW page – Sexual Offences / Weapon ‘IN’ Injection/Needle (if appropriate)
In all cases consideration should be given to referring the complainant to the London Ambulance Service or hospital as appropriate.

Forensic Recovery:

In all cases, the early capture of evidence is vital.

Early Evidence Urine Sample(s)

To maximize alcohol and drug detection, officers should take a urine sample as soon as possible with an Early Evidence Kit. Detection times are much longer in urine than in blood. If the complainant does not need to urinate ask them to drink some water and wait. Certain substances are eliminated from the body more quickly than others, hence the need for prompt action by officers. The optimal time period for the collection of a urine sample for testing purposes is within 12 hours. However, certain substances can be identified for longer periods, i.e. between 3-7 days.

A second urine sample from a separate act of urination should be taken if a full alcohol assessment is required, including back calculation. A second urine sample is not critical for the purposes of drugs analysis.

Blood Sample

A blood sample is also required, this should be taken as soon as possible by a medical practitioner, such as the FME. If the complainant is hospitalised please obtain any hospital admission blood or serum samples, through liaison with appropriate parties at the hospital, such as the doctor responsible for the complainant’s care. Detection times in blood are shorter than those in urine, with some substances taken as a one-off dose being eliminated from the blood within 12 to 24 hours in many cases.