Internal guidance/protocols/manuals regarding performance reviews of police officers

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.021708

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please provide internal guidance/ protocols/ manuals regarding performance reviews of police officers in charge of investations taking into account the proportionality test and expenditure of public funds, where the OIC is - for instance - pursuing an investigation (including voluntary interview of a suspect which has not been arrested) and subsequent prosecution of:
a very minor offence slightly above £3 and not exceeding £5 value (for instance for alleged criminal damage)? -
According to GOV.UK, the Legal Aid fixed fee capping for the attendance of a duty solicitor at a voluntary interview at a police station is set at £225.39 with an escape fee set at 764.17 (depending on borough) - please provide corrected figures in case of any inaccuracies.

Depending on circumstances, further costs might be added for instance for the attendance of:
- an interpreter if English is not the first language or for instance
- an appropriate adult for vulnerable suspects (as required by PACE code C) -
Please provide the hourly rates or capped fixed fees and any further costs interpreters and appropriate adults are permitted to claim for police station attendance.

If the identity of the suspect (of good character, never arrested, free from previous convictions) has evidently been determined from the outset -
- Please provide (internal) protocols, guidance (excluding PACE) outlining under which conditions it would be considered proportionate and reasonable to add further costs, as well as the actual chargeable costs incurred by the police for requesting and processing biometric data (such as fingerprints and dna) from the suspect of an alleged minor offence not exceeding £5 value.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors (CPS) includes a proportionality test which is split into two parts - "the evidential test" and the "public interest test" and stipulates various factors which should be considered when determining whether both tests have been met. For the "evidential test" to be met, the prosecutor must be satisfied that the quality of evidence is such that there is a 'realistic prospect of conviction'. Notwithstanding the evidential test being met, a prospective prosecution may fail the "public interest test" if there is a persuasive argument against prosecution (e.g. the disproportionate impact a conviction for a minor offence may have on a suspect's career)... Both the "evidential test" and "public interest test" must be met for a prosecution to take place. ...[the Code] asks prosecutors to consider whether a prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome and to take into account the cost to the CPS and wider criminal justice system "especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty"."
CPS guidance states further regarding "minor offences":
"In cases involving minor offences, a decision to prosecute may have serious ramifications if the prosecution is a disproportionate response to the offending. For instance, the cost to the person charged and to the criminal justice system (CJS) may be disproportionately high in relation to the loss or harm caused by the offence; and even if the prosecution is successful, it may result in only a nominal penalty being imposed by the courts.
A decision to prosecute a minor offence is therefore a serious step and should only be taken after the reviewing prosecutor has considered whether the offence can be disposed of in an alternative way (which includes not taking any action)" (The Supreme Court considered the proportionality of such interference in [2019] UKSC 3.)

- Please provide the relevant police-code/guidance/protocols which mirror/reflect CPS' proportionality test.
In the case of Christopher James Miller v Director of Public Prosecutions (2018), Mr.Miller’s conviction for drug driving was revoked because West Midland Police had breached Code C of PACE by not providing an appropriate adult despite him telling officers that he had Asperger and being aware from his previous interactions that he had Aspergers.
- Please provide police guidance/ protocols/ manuals (including internal) documenting the procedure and police ranks reviewing OICs compliance with Code C of PACE by providing an appropriate adult.
- Please provide documentation / procedures / protocols how and which police ranks review and authorise an OIC's decision to charge and prosecute a case of an alleged very minor offence (not exceeding £5 value) - considering the proportionality test and vulnerability of a suspect.
- Alternatively in case the charging decision is made by the Crown prosecutor, please provide the relevant CPS guidance and/or training/CPD material including test cases illustrating the proportionality test has been applied for a very minor offence as outlined above.
- Please provide the cost to the CPS and criminal justice system (e.g. Magistrate Court) for the above example (very minor offence, not exceeding £5 value).

Decision

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

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Q1 - Please provide internal guidance/ protocols/ manuals regarding performance reviews of police officers in charge of investigations taking into account the proportionality test and expenditure of public funds, where the OIC is - for instance - pursuing an investigation (including voluntary interview of a suspect which has not been arrested) and subsequent prosecution of:
a very minor offence slightly above £3 and not exceeding £5 value (for instance for alleged criminal damage)? -
According to GOV.UK, the Legal Aid fixed fee capping for the attendance of a duty solicitor at a voluntary interview at a police station is set at £225.39 with an escape fee set at 764.17 (depending on borough)

MPS response - The value of an item in regards to theft and criminal damage offences is relevant and considered in the crime assessment principles (CAP). The extract from the General investigation policy is below. However the value would not be a determining factor alone. It would be assessed within all relevant aspects of the Crime assessment principles and the THRIVE+ model. So there would be consideration around threat, harm, risk and vulnerability.
The crime assessment principles are already published on line. The link is below, principle 3 refers specifically to value.
Copy of Internal Correspondence of Crime Screening Policy

Principle 3 – The value of the theft or criminal damage
You must use your professional judgement under THRIVE+ regarding the loss the victim has suffered as a result of a crime. The victim may be vulnerable and therefore the loss to them more impactful, for instance a small shop owner, the elderly or a homeless person may be more impacted. In these circumstances, you must continue to consider the other Principles. Conversely, the victim could be a large commercial organisation where the loss has less impact and the assessment may point towards the case being closed. However, you must be mindful that it could be the same suspect who continues to deliberately target the organisation knowing that police will likely not take action.
N.B. Principle 3 only relates to acquisitive or criminal damage offences. If the incident involves additional offences (for example: assault, public order, burglary etc.) you must go to Principle 4.

Q1a - please provide corrected figures in case of any inaccuracies.

MPS response – please contact the CPS for question 1a at the below link:
CPS - Publication - Freedom of Information

Q2 - Depending on circumstances, further costs might be added for instance for the attendance of:
- an interpreter if English is not the first language or for instance
- an appropriate adult for vulnerable suspects (as required by PACE code C) -
Please provide the hourly rates or capped fixed fees and any further costs interpreters and appropriate adults are permitted to claim for police station attendance.

MPS response - Please see attached Interpreter fees.

Q3 - If the identity of the suspect (of good character, never arrested, free from previous convictions) has evidently been determined from the outset -
- Please provide (internal) protocols, guidance (excluding PACE) outlining under which conditions it would be considered proportionate and reasonable to add further costs, as well as the actual chargeable costs incurred by the police for requesting and processing biometric data (such as fingerprints and dna) from the suspect of an alleged minor offence not exceeding £5 value.
The Code for Crown Prosecutors (CPS) includes a proportionality test which is split into two parts - "the evidential test" and the "public interest test" and stipulates various factors which should be considered when determining whether both tests have been met. For the "evidential test" to be met, the prosecutor must be satisfied that the quality of evidence is such that there is a 'realistic prospect of conviction'. Notwithstanding the evidential test being met, a prospective prosecution may fail the "public interest test" if there is a persuasive argument against prosecution (e.g. the disproportionate impact a conviction for a minor offence may have on a suspect's career)... Both the "evidential test" and "public interest test" must be met for a prosecution to take place. ...[the Code] asks prosecutors to consider whether a prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome and to take into account the cost to the CPS and wider criminal justice system "especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty"."
CPS guidance states further regarding "minor offences":
"In cases involving minor offences, a decision to prosecute may have serious ramifications if the prosecution is a disproportionate response to the offending. For instance, the cost to the person charged and to the criminal justice system (CJS) may be disproportionately high in relation to the loss or harm caused by the offence; and even if the prosecution is successful, it may result in only a nominal penalty being imposed by the courts.
A decision to prosecute a minor offence is therefore a serious step and should only be taken after the reviewing prosecutor has considered whether the offence can be disposed of in an alternative way (which includes not taking any action)" (The Supreme Court considered the proportionality of such interference in [2019] UKSC 3.)

MPS response - Please contact the Crown Prosecution Service at the below link for this information:
CPS - Publication - Freedom of Information

You may also find the below link useful which is our Fee & Charges and has costs of lab etc:
MPS General Fees and Charges - 2022/23.pdf

Q4a - Please provide police guidance/ protocols/ manuals (including internal) documenting the procedure and police ranks reviewing OICs compliance with Code C of PACE by providing an appropriate adult.

MPS response - During the booking in procedure, the custody officer (substantive Sergeant) completes a risk assessment. A 'risk assessment' is the way of identifying risks to a detainee's health, safety and wellbeing and requires an appropriate response to avert or reduce the risk. This would include whether an Appropriate Adult would be required.

This is covered in the attached policies D2, D4 & D10 as well as the Codes of Practice, Code C Paragraph 1 (link below)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/903473/pace-code-c-2019.pdf

The Custody officer has ongoing responsibility to review risk, this would include the requirement for an Appropriate Adult. Detention is reviewed after the first six hours & subsequent nine hours by an Inspector under Section 40 PACE (link below)
Government Leglisation - UKPGA - 1984/60 - Section 40

Qb - Please provide documentation / procedures / protocols how and which police ranks review and authorise an OIC's decision to charge and prosecute a case of an alleged very minor offence (not exceeding £5 value) - considering the proportionality test and vulnerability of a suspect.

MPS response - A decision to Charge is made by an Evidence Review Officer (ERO) which is normally a substantive Sergeant or above or an Acting Sergeant who has completed an ERO Course. A form MG3 is completed by the OIC which is then sent to the ERO. The ERO either sends it back to the OIC with a decision or sends it to the prosecutor to make a decision. The decision is made in line in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) Guidance (Charging Directors Guidance Sixth Edition) Link Below
CPS - Charging Directors Guidance Sixth Edition - December-2020

Qc - Alternatively in case the charging decision is made by the Crown prosecutor, please provide the relevant CPS guidance and/or training/CPD material including test cases illustrating the proportionality test has been applied for a very minor offence as outlined above. And
Qd - Please provide the cost to the CPS and criminal justice system (e.g. Magistrate Court) for the above example (very minor offence, not exceeding £5 value).

MPS response - The answer to these questions would have to be obtained from the CPS at the below link:
CPS - Publication - Freedom of Information