Safe Connection / Regaining women's trust initiative

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023353

I note you seek access to the following information:

This is being sought to use in a bigger report around safety measures enacted in the wake of the Sarah Everard case 'Safe Connection' initiative and to look at if they are being utilised.

1) Since then, how many times has an officer's identification being questioned, and how was the request handled? Please breakdown by type - ie: An officer phoned the control room / a second officer confirmed their ID / a member of the public phoned 111 / or?

2) Of the total amount of requests, how many were successfully answered with the officer's ID being confirmed as correct?

3) Of the total amount of requests made, how many resulted in an officer's ID not being confirmed? Please detail any cases where an officer was found, not to be a member of the police.

Decision

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

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Q1. Since then, how many times has an officer's identification being questioned, and how was the request handled? Please breakdown by type - ie: An officer phoned the control room / a second officer confirmed their ID / a member of the public phoned 111 / or?

Please note that MetCC (Met Command and Control - Responsible for receiving emergency and non-emergency public telephony) had started tagging CADs (Computer Aided Despatch) under code POLID from 04/10/2021 prior to the initiative ‘go-live’ date 20/10/2021.

Please see below CAD calls, there were 10 occurrences (two are the same incident but two CADs were created see 8 & 9):
Seven CADs were dated 04/10/2021 – 19/10/2021 and three dated 20/10/2021 – 27/10/2021.
As at 11/02/2022 there were no incidents since 27/10/2021.
All were CAD calls.

1. Inft requested if officer who attended house re an incident in the street was genuine & that there was an incident - Officers were identified as genuine.
2. Inft requesting if officers who attended her H/A in plain clothes were genuine - officers were identified.
3. Inft requesting if officers who attended their H/A address were genuine - confirmed and referred to SNT for reassurance visit.
4. Inft requesting confirmation that officers who attended were genuine - confirmed they were licencing officers.
5. Inft requesting confirmation if officers who attended her address were genuine - linked CAD confirms.
6. Call requesting confirmation of officer who attended enquiring re CCTV - Confirmed officer.
7. Inft enq if 2 officers at their door were genuine - Confirmed they were officers.
8. Safe connection request via BCUS by an officer.
9. Linked to above call – officers liaised with SLT & requests to go through Ops room ID confirmed.
10. Inft requesting details of officer are genuine identity confirmed re call back.

Abbreviations
Inft - Informant
H/A - Home Address
SNT - Safer Neighbourhood Team
BCUS - Borough Command Unit
SLT - Senior Leadership Team
Ops room - Operations room

Q2. Of the total amount of requests, how many were successfully answered with the officer's ID being confirmed as correct?

A2. All of them

Q3. Of the total amount of requests made, how many resulted in an officer's ID not being confirmed? Please detail any cases where an officer was found, not to be a member of the police.

A3. Zero