Brighton & Hove
Strategic Assessment of
Crime and Community Safety 2019
Brighton & Hove
Strategic Assessment of
Crime and Community Safety 2019
CONTENTS
1.1 Legislative context and purpose of the Strategic Assessment
3.1 Socio-demographic characteristics and deprivation
4. Crime and disorder overview
5. Impact of crime and disorder
7. Violence, abuse and exploitation
7.2 Serious violence, incl. robbery and crimes involving weapons
7.3 Violence, vulnerability and exploitation
7.4 Modern slavery and trafficking
7.6 Domestic violence and abuse
9. Community cohesion and resilience
9.1.1 Racist incidents and crimes
9.1.2 Faith and religiously motivated incidents and crimes
9.1.3 Hate incidents and crimes motivated by perceived sexuality
9.1.4 Gender identity motivated incidents and crimes
9.1.5 Disability motivated incidents and crimes
10.2 Fraud, computer misuse and cybercrime
11.1 Appx A: Socio-demographic characteristics in 6 city areas at a glance
11.2 Appx B: Multiple Deprivation Index 2019 for Lower Super Output Areas in Brighton & Hove
11.3 Appx C: Police recorded crimes in 6 city areas at a glance, 2018/19
11.4 Appx D: Neighbourhood issues raised by Local Action Teams
Since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there has been a statutory obligation for Community Safety Partnerships to produce evidence-based strategies. From 2007 (under the Police and Justice Act 2006) the requirement has been to refresh three year strategies on an annual basis, backed up by annual strategic assessments.
This Strategic Assessment is prepared for Brighton & Hove Community Safety Partnership to provide an analytical basis to inform the partnership’s Community Safety and Crime Reduction Strategy 2020-23. It looks at the crime and disorder picture within the city, what the impact is, who is affected, and what needs to be addressed as a priority.
The Strategic Assessment has been jointly carried out by subject lead officers and analysts/researchers within the partnership. While acknowledging the crucial role of individual agencies in providing support so people can live and work in a safe environment (eg, housing and homelessness services, substance misuse treatment services, children’s services, mental health services, road safety), the focus of this strategic assessment has been on areas where partnership working is fundamental to making progress.
Following this introduction, Sections 2and 3look at local social and economic context and the characteristics of people who live in Brighton & Hove, while Sections 4and 5take an overview of the scale, nature, trends and impact of crime and disorder in the city. Section 6provides information on some of the more vulnerable people in the city.
The thematic analysis in this report begins in Section 7and concludes at Section 10. Each subject area considered examines contributory factors, levels, trends, the nature of the issue, including where and when it happens, who is affected, and so on. It then goes on to make recommendations on what the priorities might be for partnership work over the next three years.
This Strategic Assessment has drawn on data from different sources and the data used for analysis is as recent as has been practicable, mainly from 2018/19.
However, the latest data has often been set in the context of more historical information to indicate trends. An important consideration when interpreting trend data is whether there have been any changes in practice in reporting and recording of data. In the case of police data, this is discussed further in Section 4.1.
Brighton & Hove is a city by the sea with good transport links to London and Gatwick airport, and along the coast in both directions.
As a popular tourist destination, Brighton & Hove sees large numbers of UK and overseas visitors each year. The latest figures (2017) show there were 9.4 million tourism day trips to Brighton & Hove, down 2% compared with 2016. There were also 4.9 million overnight stays, 3% fewer than in 2016.[1]
The city has two universities, many English language schools and it has a reputation for being a welcoming and inclusive place to be.
People factsAccording to the 2018 ONS population estimates, there were a total of 290,400 people living in the city, up from 273,400 at the time of the 2011 census. Based on 2016 data, the ONS population projections predict the city’s residents will rise to 307,900 by 2028.
Gender and age
Compared with England and the South East, Brighton & Hove has fewer children and older people, and more younger adults, particularly in their 20s and early 30s (see Figure 1).
According to the latest ONS estimates (2018), Brighton & Hove overall has an even gender distribution, with an estimated 145,900 male (50%) and 144,500 female (50%) residents. There are more females aged between 19 and 21, probably due to a higher number of female students (see below), and also more females over 75. However, there are more males in their 20s, 30s and 40s.
Ethnicity
According to the 2011 census a fifth of the population (19.5%, 53,351 people) were Black & Minority Ethnic[2] (BME) compared to 12% in 2001. This is similar to England (20.2%) but significantly higher than the South East (14.8%). The city’s BME population is likely to have increased further since the last census.
The non-White ethnic population made up 11% (29,857 people) of the total population. The largest group is Asian/Asian British (11,278 people), 21% of the BME population. The mixed/multiple ethnic group (10,408 people) are the next largest group making up 20% of the total BME population.[3] The largest BME community is Other White with 19,524 people. This is 7.1% of the total population and more than a third (36.6%) of the BME population.
Migration
The latest ONS data (2018) estimate that 53,000 residents (18%) were born outside of the UK. The city's migrant population is higherthan both South East (13%) and England (15%). The number of Brighton & Hove residents born outside of the UK has increased by 5% over the last 5 years. 21,000 migrants (37%) in the city were born in the EU and 36,000 (63%) were born in countries outside the EU in the 12 months ending June 2019. Of the estimated 20,000 born outside the EU, are 13,000 from Asia, 7,000 from Sub-Saharan Africa, 4,000 from North Africa, 2,000 from North America, 4,000 from Central or South America and 3,000 from Oceania.
Brighton & Hove is also a destination for short term international migrants (coming to the UK for a period of 3 to 12 months). According to the latest ONS data (2017) there were 2,300 short term migrant in the city. More than three quarters (78%, 1,800 people) were here to attend formal study courses and 22% (499 people) were here to work or look for work.
There is no definitive data on the number of Gypsies and Travellers in Brighton & Hove. In the 2011 census there were 198 Gypsy/Travellers/Irish Travellers recorded locally. In January 2019 the national Traveller Caravan Count recorded 33 caravans (29 at authorised and 3 at unauthorised locations).[4] The 2012 Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment reported higher numbers of caravans in the city with an estimated 146 Travellers in 46 households living in 60 caravans.[5]
Students
For the academic year 2017/18 there was a total 39,355 students enrolled at the University of Sussex and the University of Brighton, a 3% increase on 2016/17.[6] 58% of these students were female and 42% male. It should be noted that not all students at these universities live in the city.
According to the 2011 census, of those in employment, Brighton & Hove has a higher percentage of students (15%) than the South East (8%) and England (9%).
LGBT residents
It is estimated that lesbian, gay and bisexual residents make up 11% to 15% of the Brighton & Hove’s population aged 16 years or more. This estimate draws on information collected via large scale surveys and audits conducted over the last ten years (including Count Me In Too). Using latest ONS (2018) mid-year population estimates and the average of the estimated range would mean there are around 31,900 lesbian, gay and bisexual residents in the city.
According to the 2011 UK Census, 6,425 city residents aged 16 and over (and living in a household) were living as part of a same sex couple (in a civil partnership or cohabiting).[7] This represents 2.9% of all residents age 16 and over, three times higher than the rate for both the South East (0.9%) and England (0.9%).
It is estimated that there are at least 2,760 trans adults living in Brighton & Hove[8]. However, the true figure is probably greater than this because a significant proportion of trans people do not disclose their gender identity in surveys. In addition, as Brighton & Hove is seen as inclusive, many trans people who live elsewhere visit Brighton & Hove to socialise, study and/or work.[9]
Disabilities and wellbeing
From the 2011 census, 44,569 residents (16%) have a health problem or disability that affects their activity. This is similar to the South East (15.7%) and slightly lower than England (17.6%).[10] However, this increases to more than a half of residents aged 65 or older.
In a national survey 7% of city residents surveyed reported low levels of happiness in 2017/18, similar to level in the South East and England. 26% of city residents reported high levels of anxiety, higher that the South East and England, both at 20%.[11]
Based on national prevalence rates[12] in 2017:
· One in forty residents age 18 or older (2.4%, 5,700 people) have a learning difficulty.
· Nearly one in tenresidents aged 65 or older (9%, 3,400 people) are predicted to have a moderate or severe visual impairment. More than one in twenty residents aged 75 or older (6%, 1,200 people) have a ‘registrable’ eye condition (excludes 1,100 people with correctable sight loss).
· Among residents aged 18 to 64, 14,300 people (7%) have a mental health problem, 14,100 people (7%) have a moderate physical disability and 3,900 people (2%) have a serious physical disability.
· One in forty residents aged 18 or older (4,100 people, 2%) are predicted to have severe hearing loss. This increases to 14% (2,600 people) among residents aged 75 or older.
Carers
Nearly one in ten of the city’s residents (23,987 people, 8.8%) provide unpaid care to a family member, friend or neighbour who has either a long-term illness or disability, or problems related to old age. This is slightly lower compared to the South East (9.8%) and England (10.2%).[13]
Armed Forces
Brighton & Hove is not home to any military installations and therefore does not house a substantial community of armed forces personnel. At the time of the 2011 Census there were 147 residents employed by the armed forces in the city, less than 0.1% of the total population. As of March 2018, 547 veterans in Brighton & Hove were in receipt of a pension or compensation under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. This is a rate of 22.3 per 10,000 people aged 16+, much lower than the South East (86.4) or England (67.9).
Alcohol and drugs
A high proportion of Brighton & Hove residents drink alcohol and/or use opiates and/or crack cocaine. During the period 2011-2014 two out of five residents (42%) aged 18 or older were estimated to drink over 14 units of alcohol a week, higher than the South East (27%) and England (26%). At the most recent national survey of young people in 2014/15, Brighton & Hove had the highest percentage of regular drinkers aged 15 (11.3%) in the South East region (average 6.2%).[14]
During 2016/17 it was estimated that 10 residents per 1,000 used an opiate and/or crack cocaine, higher than the South East (6.2 per 1,000) and England (8.9 per 1,000).[15]
Children in Need
Evidence suggests children and young people who are looked after are much more likely to be unemployed, involved in crime and identified as having a substance misuse problem.[16]
In March 2019, in Brighton & Hove there were 2,039 Children in Need (400 children per 10,000). This is higher than in the South East (304 per 10,000) and England (334 per 10,000). The city also had 316 children the subject of a child protection plan (62 children per 10,000). This is again higher than in the South East (41 per 10,000) and England (44 per 10,000).[17]
Education, training and employment
Not being in education, training and employment (NEET) is a risk factor for offending and perpetrating anti-social behaviour. At the end of 2018, 3-5% of 16-17 year old in the city were classified as NEET compared 2-6% in the South East and 3-6% in England.[18]
Unemployment rate
The unemployment rate is an important indicator as it highlights unused available labour, which impacts on the economic growth of the city. Between July 2018 and June 2019, there were estimated to be 7,500 unemployed people in the city. This is 4.6% of those who are economically active, which compares to 4.1% in Great Britain and 3.1% in the South East.[19]
Perceptions of being able to meet basic living costs
One in five (21%) respondents to the City Tracker survey 2017 reported that they did not feel they would have enough money, after meeting housing costs, in the next year to meet basic living costs such as food, water and heating.
Housing and homelessness
At the time of the 2011 census, the average household size in the city was 2.2 people, compared with 2.4 in the South East and in England. 53% of Brighton & Hove residents were home owners, lower than the South East (68%), and England (63%), while 28% of city residents lived in rented housing compared with 15% in both the South East and in England.
A rough sleeping count is conducted nationally on a single night in the autumn each year. This found that the total estimate of rough sleepers in the city rose annually up to 178 in November 2017, but had dropped to 64 in November 2018.[20]. A local count is also carried out and in September 2019 78 rough sleepers were counted, the same number as 12 months earlier.
The draw of Brighton & Hove as ‘a place to be’, the impact of welfare reforms, and the high cost of the private rented sector all contribute to the high levels of homelessness in the city. The Homelessness Strategy 2014 – 2019 states that as rents in the private sector continue to rise at a higher rate than the Local Housing Allowance, it is expected low income working households may be increasingly unable to afford to rent privately. In addition, procuring temporary accommodation for those considered homeless and in priority need within Brighton & Hove is also increasingly difficult to achieve, with those in need of housing often housed outside of the city’s boundaries.[21]
At the time of the 2011 census, Brighton & Hove had more one person households (25%) than the South East (16%) and England (18%). Also, the percentage of all households with dependent children which had a lone parent was higher in Brighton & Hove (29%) compared with the South East (21%) and England (25%).
The socio-demographic characteristics of Brighton & Hove vary greatly across the city. Appendix A in Section 11.1provides an ‘at-a-glance’ overview showing the areas where the greatest density of people with particular characteristics live. For example, based on the number of residents in the area:
|
|
The area to the far west of the city has the highest rates of: · children under 16 years old · working age adults with a health problem or disability that affects their activity |
|
|
The coastal area of Hove has the highest rates of: · commuters (travelling over 10km to work) · people 65 and over with a health problem or disability that affects their activity |
|
|
The city centre has the highest rates of: · single person households of working age · single parent households |
|
|
Areas to the north of the city have the second highest rates of: · children under 16 years old · commuters (travelling over 10km to work) |
|
|
Areas adjacent to the Lewes Road have the highest rate of: · BME (non-White) residents · full time students · people living in social housing |
|
|
Areas to the far east of the city (the ‘Deans’) have the highest rate of · people aged 65 and over |
In terms of the 2019 Index of Multiple Deprivation, which is an overall ranking of deprivation combining measures of income, education, employment, health, crime, housing and living environment, 29 out of Brighton & Hove’s 165 Lower Super Output Areas rank in the 20% most deprived LSOAs in England.
Click on the map on the right to see to view the map in more detail (Appendix B; Section 11.2).
Appendix C (Section 11.3) shows the relative prevalence of crime types across city areas, demonstrating in particular the city centre concentration for all crime groups listed. This is unsurprising given the city centre hub in respect of commerce, leisure and tourism, places of work, transport and so on.
Sixteen Local Action Teams were represented at least one LAT Forum meeting during 2019. Figure 2 shows the neighbourhoods issues most frequently raised.
The map in Appendix D (Section 11.4) provides more detail on issues raised by individual LATs relating to their neighbourhoods.
People do not always report crimes and incidents to the police. Under-reporting is particularly relevant for hate crimes, domestic violence and sexual violence and abuse, but also affects many other crime types to varying extents. (Under-reporting can also be an issue with data from other sources.)
The extent to which crimes are reported to the police varies greatly. For example, national data[22] show that 93% of thefts of motor vehicles and 74% of domestic burglaries with loss are reported to the police. 60% of violent offences with wounding are reported, but only 36% of violent offences without wounding. Fewer than four in ten thefts from vehicles are reported (38%), while about one in three criminal damage (33%) and theft from person offences (27%) are reported to the police.
In terms of police recording of crime data, in 2013 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) undertook a national audit of police recorded crime regarding ‘data integrity’. In response to this, many police forces, including Sussex Police, improved their recording processes leading to increased numbers being recorded, particularly in violent crime types. This complicates the interpretation of trend data (see below for further information).
VolumeThere were 26,940 crimes recorded by the police in Brighton & Hove in 2018/19. Figure 3 shows the different crime groups making up the total. Broadly speaking, 41% were classified as violence against the person crimes, 37% acquisitive crimes and 10% criminal damage.
Appendix E (Section 11.6) provides more detail on the numbers of each crime type recorded by the police in 2018/19, how this compares with one year before, and how we compare with our benchmarked group of ‘most similar’ community safety partnerships.
Figure 4 shows the trend in police recorded crime data in Brighton & Hove between 2010/11 and 2018/19. Looking at total crimes (top left panel), a downwards trend is evident until 2013/14, after which the trend has been steadily upwards. Violent crime data (top right panel) clearly show the response to the HMIC data integrity audit which took place in 2013 (see above) resulting in a marked rise in 2014/15, and an ongoing (but smaller) upwards response.
Unexpectedly since they are dominated by violent crime types, trends in crimes flagged as hate crimes (bottom right panel) and domestic violence (middle right panel) show a similar trend to violent crime and sexual offences also show an upwards trend. As well as any changes as a result of police recording practices, public willingness to report sexual offences has increased following media exposure of sexual offences perpetrated by high profile public figures.
In contrast to violent crimes, the trend in acquisitive crimes and criminal damage was downwards until about 2013/14, with no obvious trend in the following years up to 2018/19.
|
Figure 4. Trends in police recorded crimes in Brighton & Hove 2010/11 to 2018/19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, at the time of writing,
looking at the first eight months of 2019/20 compared with the same
months of 2018/19, there has been an increase of 12% in total
crime, with a greater or smaller increase across a range of crime
groups as shown in Figure 5.
The police record incidents of anti-social behaviour (ASB) which come to their attention. In 2018/19 7,901 ASB incidents were recorded in the city locally. Of these, 86% were classed as nuisance incidents, 9% as personal incidents and 5% as environmental incidents (see Figure 6).
Further information on ASB is to be found in Section 8.
The annual City Tracker survey of a representative sample of 1,000 Brighton & Hove adult residents asks people how safe they feel in the day and after dark, both in their local area and in the city centre.
Data from the 2018 City Tracker survey (see Table 1 and Figure 7) show that, during the day, 96% of residents report feeling safe in their local area and 93% in the city centre. After dark, this drops to 80% feeling safe in their local area and 64% feeling safe in the city centre. Figure 8 shows there has been no consistent upwards or downwards trend since 2015 in terms of how safe people feel.
Table 1 How safe do you feel? City Tracker Survey, 2018, % calculated excluding ‘don’t knows’
|
|
local area |
city centre |
||
|
|
during the day |
after dark |
during the day |
after dark |
|
2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
very or fairly safe |
95.7% |
80.3% |
93.1% |
63.9% |
|
neither safe nor unsafe |
2.8% |
8.6% |
4.8% |
11.7% |
|
very or fairly unsafe |
1.5% |
11.1% |
2.1% |
24.4% |
|
number of respondents |
1000 |
990 |
989 |
958 |
However, some groups within the
local population feel less safe than others.
Figure 9
shows that during the
day females show little difference to males in terms of how
safe they feel, while people with a long term illness or disability
on average feel less safe than other people, both in their local
area and the city centre.
Differences are more marked after
dark. Figure 10 shows that females living in
Brighton & Hove are less likely to feel safe after dark than
the average of all respondents, both in their local area and in the
city centre. Seventy-six percent of females report feeling safe in
their local area after dark with 14% feeling unsafe. The comparable
figures for males are 84% and 8% respectively. Only 53% of
females feel safe in the city centre after dark with 34% feeling
unsafe. The figures for males are 75% and 15%
respectively.
In addition, Figure 10 shows that people with a long term health problem or disability are also less likely to feel safe in their local area after dark than other people (69% vs 82%). Twenty-one percent of people with a health problem or disability that affects their activity feel unsafe after dark in their local area compared to 9% of those without. In the city centre after dark 50% of people with a long term health problem or disability feel safe compared with 67% of those without.
There is also an association
between people who don’t have enough money to meet basic
living costs feeling less safe in their local area after dark than
others (73% vs 85%). The difference in the city centre after
dark was more acute – 48% compared with 70%.
How safe people feel in the city centre after dark also varied with age, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Residents in the 75+ age band are least likely to feel safe when out in the city centre after dark. Although survey respondents overall felt safer in their local area after dark than in the city centre, there was also a tendency for older people to feel less safe than younger people in their local area.
Although data were analysed by sexual orientation, ethnicity and other demographic characteristics, interpretation of the findings is difficult since other characteristics of these groups, for example the age profile, is different from city residents as a whole.
Data have been collected in the Safe and Well at School Survey[23] on how safe school pupils felt at school. When at school, 89% of key stage 2 children felt safe compared with 82% of children at key stage 3 and 82% of those at key stage 4. There has been a slight downward trend between 2012 and 2018 in the percentage of children at all stages saying they feel safe at school.
|
% who strongly agree or agree with the statement “I feel safe at school” |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2018 |
|
KS2 – ages 8-11 years |
94% |
94% |
94% |
91% |
90% |
89% |
|
KS3 – ages 11-14 years |
88% |
89% |
91% |
88% |
84% |
82% |
|
KS4 – ages 14-16 years |
88% |
89% |
90% |
86% |
82% |
82% |
|
All secondary – ages 11-16 years |
88% |
89% |
91% |
87% |
84% |
82% |
In 2018, the following groups of secondary school pupils were statistically significantly less likely to agree or strongly agree with the statement “I feel safe at school” (82% for all pupils):
· BME students (81%) compared to White British (83%)
· Those who have been bullied in the last term (55%) compared to those who haven’t (86%)
· Those who strongly disagreed or disagreed that they had often felt happy in the last few weeks (55%) vs those who had (88%)
· Those who have ever tried drugs (70%) vs those who hadn’t (83%)
· Those who have ever tried an alcoholic drink (78%) vs those who hadn’t (85%)
· Those who strongly disagreed or disagreed that they enjoy coming to school (65%) vs those who did (90%)
· Those who had experienced a problem behaviour[24] in a relationship with a girlfriend or boyfriend (77%) vs those who hadn’t (85% - including those who had never been in a relationship)
· Those who strongly disagreed or disagreed that they had one or more good friends at school (43%) vs those who did (83%)
There was no significant difference between girls (82%) and boys (83%).
The financial impact of crime is significant. A Home Office report has estimated the financial costs attributable to crimes both to individual people or households and to businesses.[25] Figure 12 provides estimates of the ‘whole system’ costs of personal/domestic crimes (estimated costs of a crime to businesses are often higher), taking into account direct costs of loss from the crime itself, costs of anticipating crime and costs of response to crime. The cost of a single homicide is estimated at £3.2m, and the next most costly is a rape at £39,000, followed by violence with injury at £14,000.
Figure
12. Estimated cost of a single
‘personal/domestic’ crime, 2018, £
Figure 13 presents the estimated cost to Brighton & Hove in 2018/19 of a number of crime types, based on the latest Home Office cost estimates (2015/16). These calculations are based on the number of police recorded crimes in the city in 2018/19, scaled up according to estimated under-reporting rates (informed by the Crime Survey for England & Wales).
Figure 13. Estimated total cost of personal/domestic crimes in 2018/19 in Brighton & Hove, £millions
Using these calculations, and due to the prolific number of these crimes in the city, the cost of violence with injury to the city has the highest cost at £1,100m in 2018/19. Rape and sexual offences are the next most costly.
Vulnerable
groups
17% of children at KS2, 15% at KS3 and 10% at KS4 reported in the Safe and Well at School Survey 2018 being bullied during the current term. The bullying rate at all key stages declined between 2010 and about 2014, but has shown signs of slightly increasing since then.
The Safeguarding Children Partnership reported the following data in their annual report for 2018/19[26]
· There were 735 children and young people open to the Early Help Service, and 314 children the subject of a child protection plan as of March 2019. 36 children were unborn or less than 1 year old, 63 were between 1 and 4 years old, 87 between 5 and 9, 107 were between 10 and 15, and 21 were 16 or over.
· Of those on a child protection plan, 54% had been subjected to emotional abuse, 41% to neglect, 3% sexual abuse. and 0.3% physical abuse (see Figure 14).
· In 2017/18, there were 649 half day exclusions from primary schools and 5,171 from secondary schools. 5.5% of city pupils had received a fixed term exclusion, higher than the England average, while the permanent exclusion rate was about a third of that nationally.
· There were 1,065 open cases on the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services caseload as of March 2019, an increase from 906 12 months before.
·
In their 2018/19 annual
report[27],
children’s services reported the following service statistics
under the heading ‘Being safe and happy’.
According to the Youth Justice Board[28] children with the following characteristics are at a greater risk of involvement in offending:
A recent review which focused on the impact of health on criminal justice involvement.[29] highlighted how child and adolescent health and developmental difficulties are important determinants of involvement in the criminal justice system. These included neurodevelopmental disabilities, traumatic brain injury, mental health difficulties, and childhood experiences of trauma and adversity, all of which were shown to be higher in incarcerated young people than in the general population. It also noted that risk is enhanced by societal marginalisation, structural disadvantage and inequality. The review concluded that early identification and assessment is required, with responsive interventions taking account of the particular needs and circumstances of individuals.
Offenders and reoffendingThe number of young offenders in the city as recorded by the Ministry of Justice has shown a year on year decline from 583 in 2008/09 down to 118 young people recorded as offending in 2016/17. The number of young people offending for the first time has also dropped steeply over that period (see Figure 15).
Over this period there has been focused partnership work and processes seeking to divert young people at risk of entering the criminal justice system through alternative interventions.
Although the number of young offenders has been dropping, the percentage of those who have reoffended, and the frequency with which they have done so have increased over this period, suggesting that those who are offending are facing greater challenges to leading crime-free lives.
There were 55 youth offenders in Brighton & Hove in 2017/18 who received a caution or sentence. Figure 16 shows a downwards trend in young offenders in the city with White ethnicity, but the number with a Black, Asian, or minority ethnic background has not shown the same downward trend. [30]
HM Prison and Probation Service have listed the following factors which increase the risk that individuals will offend[31].
A report looking at the health needs of offenders by regions in the South East collated relevant data on the characteristics of resident population from national datasets.[32] Figure 17 shows that Brighton & Hove is poorer in comparison with West and East Sussex, and England on a number of measures which relate to the risk factors above.
Figure 17
Offenders and
reoffending
The number of adult offenders in
the city as recorded by the Ministry of Justice declined between
from 3,215 in 2008/09 to 2,285. However, the number of people
reoffending has remained roughly at the same level over this period
of time, while the average number of re-offences per offender was
on an upward trend until 2014/15, but has remained fairly stable up
to 2017/18 (see Figure 18).
Through health assessments of people detained in custody across Sussex, mental health was identified as a need most frequently, followed by substance misuse, self-harm, homelessness and learning disability.32
Victims of crime
Figure 20 shows the number of total crimes recorded in Brighton & Hove by age group, accounting for the size of the local population within each age band. The age group with the highest victimisation rate in his dataset is the 26-49 group with 18-25s next highest. However, in interpreting this data it is necessary to consider whether reporting is higher at certain age groups. Data from the Crime Survey for England & Wales (see Figure 20) show that victimisation of total crime decreases with age, suggesting therefore that the younger age groups may be under-reporting locally.
· Violence is a very broad crime category: In 2018/19 there were nearly 10,000 crimes recorded by the police, of which 86% were violence against the person (VAP) offences. Of VAP crimes,
· 46% are without injury
· 37% involve injury
· 18% are stalking or harassment
· 3 in 10 (31%) of VAP crimes are domestic violence
· Nearly 2 in 3 (63%) of VAP crimes happen in a public place
The rest of Section 7looks at various types of violence, abuse and exploitation.
· The government’s Serious Violence Strategy[33] makes a clear link between changes in the drugs market, particularly in relation to crack cocaine, and serious violence, with this being linked to supply and demand. It notes that drug market violence may be facilitated and spread by social media, in some cases using social media to glamorise a gang or drug-selling life, taunt rivals and normalise weapons carrying.
· The Serious Violence Strategy also notes that crime can be driven, not just by individuals with a greater propensity for offending (such as those originating from circumstances when growing up), but also by factors that make the opportunity for crime greater.60 For example, more people in the confined spaces of pubs and clubs consuming alcohol increases the opportunity for provocation and violence.
· The involvement of alcohol remains an important factor behind many crimes of violence, both in a public place and in a domestic situation. However, there is no evidence that the increase trend in recorded serious violence is driven by an increasing role of alcohol.
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or latest as specified) |
benchmarking |
|
Police recorded serious violence offences (No.) |
|
239 |
|
|
Robbery offences (No.) |
|
437 |
rate/1,000 pop B&H: 1.53 SE: 0.73 E&W: 1.46 |
|
Police recorded serious knife crimes (NI 28) (No.) |
|
92 |
|
|
Police recorded gun crimes (NI 29) (No.) |
|
10 |
|
|
Possession of weapons offences |
|
428 |
rate/1,000 pop B&H: 1.49 SE: 0.75 E&W: 0.79 |
|
Test purchases for underage knife sales and sales |
|
11 sales out of 38 test purchases |
|
|
A&E assault-related attendance records where text string *stab* or 'knife' has been found in free text records (No.) |
|
48 |
|
|
A&E admissions for assault by sharp object at RSCH (HES data) (No.) |
|
35 |
|
|
A&E admissions for assault by sharp object for B&H residents only (HES data) (No.) |
|
12
|
|
Figure 21. Police recorded robbery and serious violence crimes, Brighton & Hove
Serious violence
·
There has been a year on year
increase of serious violence offences (including GBH offences and
more serious violent crimes) recorded by the police over the last 8
years.
· Numbers in the first 8 months of 2019/20 has also continued to rise, showing a 21% increase compared with the same months in 2018/19.
Robberies
· Robberies have increased steadily since 2014/15, particularly steeply in second half of 2018/19 and into 2019/20. This increase has been seen in both personal robberies and while business robberies have been relatively few, they have also seen a similar increase.
· Brighton & Hove has slightly more robberies per head of population than England & Wales, and more than twice the rate of the South East.
Crimes involving weapons
·
There were 428 possession of
weapons offences in Brighton & Hove in 2018/19. The rate
per resident is roughly twice that of the South East and of England
& Wales as a whole.
· In Brighton & Hove both police recorded serious knife crimes and gun crimes have dropped slightly over the last six years, but the last quarter of 2018/19 showed an increase in both crime types. This increase has continued into the first six months of 2019/20, with the number of both recorded gun crimes and knife crimes in this period exceeding the total number recorded in the whole of 2018/19.
· In Sussex in 2018/19 the involvement of knives in selected serious violent offences[34] accounted for 5.1% of these offences. This was slightly higher than the South East average of 4.4%, but lower than the England & Wales average of 6.0%.[35]
· In Sussex in 2017/18 there were 298 recorded offences involving a knife or sharp instrument. Nationally, numbers have risen consistently since 2013/14.36
· In Sussex in 2017/18 there were 61 recorded offences involving the use of a firearm. Nationally, the number of recorded offences has declined year on year over the last 10 years.36
· Searching for the text string ‘stab’ or ‘knife’ in a free text field for people arriving at A&E as a result of an assault identifies 48 such attendances in 2018/19, of which 18 related to assaults known to have taken place in the city, and 21 which were known to have happened to a city resident, although place of residence and assault location information is not always completed.
· Out of 38 test purchases for underage knife sales carried out in 2018/19, 11 resulted in a sale.
Who, what, where, whenRobberies
·
90% of robberies (392/437)
recorded in 2018/19 were personal robberies and 10% (45/437) were
business robberies.
· 82% of personal robbery victims where gender was recorded in the 12 months July 2018 – June 2019 were male; 18% were female.
· Males aged 10-19 had the highest rate of victimisation for personal robbery in the 12 month period July 2018 – June 2019 (6.4 per 1,000 pop.). 10-19 year old males were over twice as likely to be victimised than 20-29 year old males, the group with the next highest rate of victimisation (3.0 per 1,000 pop.). The rate of victimisation decreased with every subsequent age group after this (see Figure 24). During this time period, 26% of personal robbery offences had a 10-19 year old male victim.
·
For female victims,
whilst the level of victimisation was much lower, the highest
victimisation rate was found in the 20-29 age group (0.88 per 1,000
pop.)
·
The average age of victims in the
10-19 age group was 17.
· There is not sufficient information recorded regarding weapons, or articles being stolen to analyse this information further.
· The hotspot for personal robbery offences in this period is predominantly in Regency and St. Peter’s and North Laine wards and is strongly city centre based, with offences peaking over Friday and Saturday nights, suggesting links to the night-time economy. The hotspot includes most of the North Laine, the Lanes and Churchill Square, as well as the Old Steine and part of Kemptown.
· Brighton beach, Kings Road and Kings Road Arches, London Road, St James’s Street, North Street, Brighton railway station, Pavilion Gardens, and the Level are all repeat locations, with clusters of offences in these locations.
Crimes involving weapons
· Across Sussex in 2018/19, there were a total of 990 selected serious violent offences involving a knife or sharp instrument: 5 for homicide; 8 for attempted murder; 87 threats to kill; 560 assault with injury/assault with intent to cause serious harm; 304 for robbery; and 26 for rape or serious sexual assault.35
· In Brighton & Hove nearly half (47%) of the 83 serious knife crimes in 2018/19 were robbery offences, 45% were violence against the person offences, and 8% were sexual offences. Offences in quarter four of 2018/19 followed a similar profile, although higher in number. The trend for serious knife crime could therefore be affected by general trends in robbery and violence against the person offences.
· Of the 83 offences in 2018/19 extracted for this analysis, 74 were knife/dagger offences, and 9 were bottle/glass offences.
· Numbers are low and therefore caution must be used, but 10-19 year olds were the most likely to be victims of serious knife crime in 2018/19, followed by 30-39 year olds, and this followed the same profile when looking at just quarter four of 2018/19, where the main increase in the number of offences was seen. 79% of serious knife crime offences in this time period had a male victim; 21% had a female victim.
· In England & Wales in 2017/18, 0.2% of violence against the person crimes involved a firearm, rising to 2.7% of attempted murders/assaults with intent to cause serious harm, and 4 0% of murders). Firearms were involved in 2.2% of robberies.
· Nationally, people aged between 15 and 34 are over-represented as victims of firearm offences (excl. air weapons)[36].
· A national study found that children under 16 are at the highest risk of being stabbed when going home from school.[37]
Summary of key issues· 2019 shows a steep increase in both offences involving weapons and other serious violent crimes.
· Serious violent crimes disproportionately affect young males as victims.
· Violence with injury offences have the highest estimated cost impact in the city.
· Links to the night time economy are shown with peaks for these types of offences occurring on Friday and Saturday night in the city centre.
· There is potential for making better use of data sources other than that recorded by the police.
Resources and gaps|
current services |
community assets |
gaps |
|
· Police · BHCC · Third sector partners (St Giles Trust) · Probation · Court Services · Home Office · OSPCC |
· Trust for Developing Communities, · LATs
|
short term funding |
Recommendations for partnership
work· Better analysis and collection of data from all partners so that resources can be better targeted including NHS and accident and emergency departments.
· Monthly Partnership Tactical Tasking and Co-ordination Group (PTTCG) to identify areas of concern and task responses ensuring that relevant partners are participating in identifying issues and delivering solutions.
· Development of a Violence Reduction Unit to sit alongside the PTTCG.
· Maximise the role of the serious and organised crime (SOC) tactical groups to review opportunities to use available tools and powers against gangs and serious crime groups.
· Review the Statement of Licensing Policy to address concerns regarding the night time economy.
· Continue to work with community and third sector organisations to identify service gaps and commission services to address these gaps.
· Adopt a preventative approach to serious violence.
Violence, vulnerability and
exploitation
Data in the table below is a combination of contextual data and other data more specifically focused on cuckooing and exploitation. In some cases, the datasets have only recently begun to be collected, and in other cases, there is work needed to improve the robustness of available information.
The previous section on serious violence (Section 7.2), which showed a steep rise in robberies and in crimes involving weapons, will include some crimes perpetrated in the context of VVE. Similarly, the follow section on modern slavery (Section 7.4) looks specifically at modern slavery and trafficking, which also overlaps with VVE.
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
No. in last year |
notes |
|
Police recorded drugs supply offences (No.) |
|
2018/19: 148 |
Subject to levels of police activity |
|
Young people reporting to never have tried drugs, KS3 (%) |
|
2018: 94% |
In 2014 Brighton & Hove had the highest percentage of 15 year olds in the country reporting that they had tried cannabis14 |
|
Young people reporting to have never tried drugs, KS4 (%) |
|
2018: 81% |
|
|
Properties identified where cuckooing is or may be taking place (Op Cuckoo) (No.) |
|
Total cases: 108 |
|
|
Current cuckooed properties identified (live cases) (No.) |
|
19 (as of Nov
2019) |
|
|
Children identified at a cuckooed property (No.) |
|
2 recorded in first 8 months of 2019/20, |
NB. data needs verification |
|
Closure orders issued to tackle VVE (BHCC & RSL housing only) (No.) |
|
4 in 2018/19 5 in first 8 months of 2019/20 |
RSL = Registered Social Landlord |
|
Closure orders issued to tackle VVE (police-led) (No.) |
|
12 full; 4 partial closures in first 8 months of 2019/20 |
|
|
Young people discussed at AVRM who have a red RAG rating (Average no. per quarter) |
|
average of 14.8 per
quarter in 2018/19 |
AVRM = Adolescent Risk and Vulnerability Meeting |
|
Children going missing from home or social care three or more times (Average no. per quarter) |
|
36 from care; (average of q1 and q2, 2019/20) |
|
|
Going missing from home or social care three or more times - total episodes (No.) |
|
846 in 2018/19 566 in first 6 months of 2019/20 |
|
|
Children identified as at risk of or engaged in criminal exploitation (No.) |
|
46 as of Nov 2019 |
probable overlap with CSE |
|
Children identified as at risk of or engaged in sexual exploitation (No.) |
|
46 as of Nov 2019 |
probable overlap with CCE |
·
The government’s Serious
Violence Strategy is clear that there is a strong link between
drugs, serious violence and the criminal or sexual exploitation of
children and vulnerable adults.33
· Research suggests that there will be a £3.1billion shortfall in children’s social care funding by 2024/25 with an urgent need for local authorities to reinstate early help and intervention services, including youth services.[38] Many children affected by County Lines have challenging and complex starting points in life such as living in care, subject to child protection plans, excluded from mainstream education, under the youth offending service, have a diagnosed or undiagnosed disability, are drug users, have experienced serious assault/violence and have had episodes of missing from home or care for significant periods of time.[39]
· The government’s Serious and Organised Crime Strategy states that serious and organised crime affects more UK citizens, more often, than any other national security threat and leads to more deaths in the UK each year than all other national security threats combined. It costs the UK at least £37billion annually. Since 2014 there have been genuine increases in some low volume, high harm offences. The National Crime Agency (NCA) assesses that the threat from serious and organised crime is increasing and serious and organised criminals are continually looking for ways to sexually or otherwise exploit new victims and novel methods to make money, particularly online.[40] The Local Government Association estimates that social care faces a funding gap of £4.3billion by 2020. The National Audit Office concluded that neither national nor local government know how long the NHS and care system can continue to absorb these pressures.[41] This means that people with vulnerabilities such as poor mental health, learning disability, substance misuse issues or homelessness are increasingly likely to be targeted and find access to services more difficult.
Who, what, where, when, etc.Local data
·
It was estimated that in 2016-17
there were approximately 2,065 heroin and/or crack cocaine users in
Brighton & Hove.[42]
This indicates that there is a sizeable Class A drugs market in
operation in the city.
· Three out of four different measures of drug-related deaths in Brighton & Hove increased between 2014 and 2017.
·
The 2018 Locality Review reported
that County Lines had been linked to 14 drug
deaths45.
· In terms of young people, some may be more vulnerable to engage in drugs use than others. The Safe and Well at School Survey found that school pupils were more likely to have tried drugs if they were:
· adopted
· unhappy
· needing extra help at school
· LGBT
· young carers
·
If children go missing, this might
be a sign that they are being exploited. In the first half of
2019/20 36 children went missing from care and 90 went missing from
home three or more times (some children may be included in both
figures).
·
There have been 108 cases of
cuckooing investigated in Brighton & Hove between April and
November 2019. Cuckooing is described further
below.
· There were 46 children who are open to social care in November 2019 recorded as at risk of or engaged in sexual exploitation and the same number at risk or engaged in criminal exploitation, although there may be some individuals counted in both types of exploitation and the total number of individuals will be fewer.
· it is not possible to provide a more detailed description of the local picture due to lack of data, but issues at play nationally are likely to be relevant to Brighton & Hove.
National data
· The government’s Serious Violence Strategy 201833 tells us that some serious violent offences– homicide, knife crime, gun crime – have been increasing since 2014. However, these typically make up just 1% of crime recorded by the police. The independent Crime Survey for England & Wales and hospital statistics help to provide a fuller picture. While violence has increased by 94% in police figures between 2012/13 and 2016/17, it fell by 26% on the Crime Survey and by 17% in hospital data. This has largely been attributed to the significant improvements the police have made in recording crimes and also that increasingly victims of previously ‘hidden’ offences like domestic or sexual abuse have come forward to report. However, the hospital data, which are unaffected by the changes to police figures, also show that certain types of serious violence are genuinely rising, and have been since 2014/15.
· Police recorded knife crime has risen by 36% between 2013/14 and 2016/17. There is evidence to suggest that around half of these extra offences are due to improved police recording. Across the same period, hospital admissions for assault by sharp object show an increase of only 18%. Since 2014 there has been a genuine increase in certain types of serious violence across England & Wales; specifically, homicide, knife crime and gun crime. However, it should also be noted that improvements in recording practices are also a factor. These offences typically make up just 1% of all crime recorded by the police, but they cause some of the most serious harms to individuals, communities and societies.33 It is important to acknowledge that data related to serious violence is developing locally and provides opportunities to better understand how this impacts in Brighton & Hove.
· ‘County Lines’ is the name given to the use of a branded mobile phone line which is established in the marketplace and promoted throughout the existing customer base. A relay system (another mobile phone line) is then used to pass orders back to this line in response. The branded phone line is generally controlled by senior group members who are traditionally based in the urban hub (eg. major cities such as London). Increasingly, there are reported incidents of the phone being held closer to the rural marketplace (often coastal areas such as Brighton & Hove). The exploitation of young and vulnerable persons is a common feature in the facilitation of County Lines drug supply, whether for the storage or supply of drugs, the movement of cash, or to secure the dwellings held by vulnerable people in the marketplace (commonly referred to as cuckooing). County Lines groups continue to pose a significant threat to vulnerable people and explore a range of opportunities to identify potential new victims. Victims are exposed to varying levels of exploitation including physical, mental and sexual harm, with some over protracted periods. Some vulnerable individuals are trafficked into remote markets to work whilst others are imprisoned in their own homes, which have been taken over using force or coercion.[43]
· The National Crime Agency (NCA) assesses that most modern slavery and human trafficking is almost certainly driven by organised crime, with most of the organised crime groups loosely networked and of low sophistication. The more sophisticated groups are highly likely to engage in slavery and trafficking alongside other crime, including financial and immigration crime. However, only 8% of all live police modern slavery cases are assessed as serious and organised crime and therefore many are not attracting the additional capabilities available such as financial investigators or support from the Regional Organised Crime Units or NCA.[44]
·
The Violence and Vulnerability
Unit (VVU) completed a locality review in Brighton & Hove in
2018 and found that some of the key issues within the city that
need to be addressed are:
· lack of a needs assessment in relation to drug usage, distribution, use of children, cuckooing, etc.;
· children not talking and signs of accelerated criminal activity;
· a perceived disconnect between strategy and frontline staff;
· “gangs”;
· the use of debt entrapment to involve young people;
· the need to make parents more aware of the issues and how they can seek support;
· a clear profile on gangs, County Lines and drugs;
· improved governance of exploitation generally;
· a re-consideration of safeguarding policies and resources; and
· a clear strategic framework in place to tackle this issue linked with CSE and modern slavery/trafficking work.[45]
Resources and gaps|
current services |
community assets |
gaps |
|
· St. Giles Trust (two-year commissioned service by Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC) from July 2018) · Reboot early intervention youth programme (pan-Sussex – using budget from Home Office early intervention youth fund |
· Pan-Sussex Violence Reduction Unit (funded by Home Office serious violence surge) · Brighton & Hove partnership tactical tasking & coordination group (PTTCG) · Albion in the Community · Third Sector Investment Prospectus (BHCC & CCG funding) · Communities Fund (BHCC-managed) · Trust for Developing Communities - commissioned by BHCC to promote positive changes for young people based around both short and long term outcomes including reducing anti-social behaviour |
· Services to support transition between children’s and adult services · Services for adults at risk of exploitation / currently exploited where provisions of Care Act 2014 do not apply · Support for parents of children at risk of exploitation/currently exploited |
Recommendations for
partnership· Governance led by the exploitation strategy group to direct activity guided by input from Home Office, Violence & Vulnerability Unit, Ending Gang Violence & Exploitation regional group and Sussex Police working groups for County Lines / Modern Slavery; and recommendations from Serious Case Reviews / Safeguarding Adult Reviews.
· Communications activity directed via the exploitation strategy group to direct regular, clear messaging including learning & development opportunities via a multi-agency communications plan led by Brighton & Hove City Council, Sussex Police and Brighton & Hove Clinical Commissioning Group.
· Safeguarding using a contextual approach to ensure people involved in gangs / local crime groups are supported and their needs are met; prevent vulnerable people becoming involved with gangs / local crime groups through peer support and workshops for families / parents / carers / guardians.
· Disruption activity via multi-agency tactical operations / intensification weeks as directed by the Partnership Tactical Tasking Coordination Group (PTTCG) for emerging vulnerable locations / issues.
· Enforcement activity directed by PTTCG / Serious Organised Crime (SOC) tactical groups using available tools and powers against gangs / local crime groups who exploit vulnerable people (eg. Modern Slavery Act 2015, Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014, etc.).
· Partnership data developed, analysed and shared via a central forum with strategic oversight to inform needs assessments / profiles, identify vulnerable locations / hotspots, etc.
· Commissioning within community and voluntary sector (including specialist providers) to fill service gaps using funding opportunities from Home Office, Office of Sussex Police & Crime Commissioner, Third Sector Investment Prospectus, Communities Fund and other appropriate funding opportunities.
Contributory factors· The 2016 Home Office Modern Crime Prevention Strategy[46] proposed that there are six drivers of crime, including opportunity, character, profit, drugs, alcohol and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Of this list, profit, opportunity and drugs may be particularly relevant to modern slavery.
· Extreme poverty, substance misuse and debt bondage can lead to people becoming trapped into living in circumstances of modern slavery.
· Drugs can be a driver of this type of crime both as a criminal activity (ie. County Lines drug dealing, forced work in cannabis grow operations), and as a vulnerability factor of potential victims.
· Brighton & Hove has a comparatively high level of homelessness and rough sleeping. Those seeking to exploit vulnerable people are known to have preyed upon members of the local street community with offers or work, accommodation and sometimes access to alcohol, which can later lead to situations of labour exploitation.
· Substance misuse is one of the factors that can put people at greater risk of ‘cuckooing’ (a process in which the homes of vulnerable people are taken over and used by others, often for criminal activity) by groups connected to County Lines. Among other harms, this can lead to forced criminality if they are subsequently coerced to take part in the drug supply activity.
· County Lines drug dealing activity is a significant driver for the exploitation of young people and vulnerable adults.
· Although penalties are high when offenders are brought to justice, the low number of crimes detected and perpetrators brought to justice may not provide a strong deterrent. Due to the complexity of successfully prosecuting modern slavery offences, perpetrators are often charged with associated offences that may have a higher chance of securing a conviction (eg. GBH, offences related to drug supply).
· Some people enter the UK or are brought to the UK without having the correct immigration or identity documents. Sometimes people overstay their visas or their leave to remain expires, meaning that they can no longer access public services, tenancies in the private rented sector or legal employment opportunities. This can push people to enter exploitative situations and make it harder for them to seek help from public authorities.
· Those who do not speak English or for whom English is not their first language are additionally vulnerable to modern slavery offences as this has the potential to increase their isolation and dependency on those that might seek to exploit them.
· Language deficit can also cause further vulnerability to labour exploitation and domestic servitude due to a lack of knowledge of UK employment rights, such as the National Minimum Wage, the Working Time Directive, or the right to provision of appropriate safety equipment. This can lead people to accept exploitative circumstances, as they may not perceive them to be exploitative or may consider them comparatively better than what they could secure in their country of origin or other places they have worked in.
· Brighton & Hove has historically been a city to which draws people who engage the services of sex workers. The illicit nature of this industry is an inherent driver of vulnerability to sexual exploitation. Legal concerns, immigration issues and the stigma that exists around sex work can further reduce the capacity of those experiencing exploitation to seek help. Locations of sex work can also lead to increased incidents of ASB in the surrounding area.
National and local data|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
No. in 2018/19 |
|
Referrals to the National Referral Mechanism - B&H City Council (No.)
|
|
3 |
|
Referrals to the National Referral Mechanism - Sussex Police (whole of Sussex) (No.) |
|
51 |
|
Referrals to the National Referral Mechanism - all agencies (whole of Sx) (No.) |
|
171 |
|
MS1 forms (anonymous subjects) submitted to the Home Office (No.)
|
|
5 |
|
Modern slavery crimes (B&H) under the 2015 Act (No.)
|
|
21 |
|
Completed safeguarding enquiries linked to modern slavery (No.) |
|
0 |
· The National Referral Mechanism NRM is a national framework for identifying victims of human trafficking to ensure they receive the appropriate protection and support.
· Across Sussex, of the 171 referrals of potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking to the NRM, 30% were initiated by Sussex Police, 26% by Home Office Immigration Enforcement, 18% by UK Visas and Immigration and 13% by local authorities.
· There has been a year on year increase in NRM referrals over the last three years. This is consistent with the national picture where there has been a fourfold increase between 2013 and 2018. Behind this has been increased policy and legislative developments, and greater awareness nationally and locally.
Who, what, where, when, etc.Brighton & Hove data
·
Out of the 21 modern slavery
crimes recorded in Brighton & Hove in 2018/19, 18 related to
holding a person in slavery or servitude, 2 to forced labour and 1
to arranging or facilitating travel with view to
exploitation
· Of 17 modern slavery offences in 2018/19 where the gender of the victim was recorded, 9 were female, and 8 were male. Numbers are low, and therefore caution must be used, but the highest number of victims were found to be in the 10-19 age group (n=8) and of these the majority were male. Further information regarding the nature of these offences was not sufficiently recorded to analyse.
· Brighton & Hove local authority has made NRM referrals of 4 adults and 6 minors over the last three years.
· There have been 11 MS1 forms submitted in relation to Brighton & Hove to the Home Office (where the ‘subject’ wishes to remain anonymous and an NRM referral is therefore not possible) over the last three years. These have all been made by Sussex Police, and cover a range of different types of modern slavery.
NRM referrals for the whole of Sussex, 2018/19
· Sussex Police referred 12 adults and 40 minors in 2018/19. These were 37 males and 17 females
· 97% (33 out of the 34 where type of exploitation was known) of the referrals of males related to labour exploitation. For females, 81% (13/16) were referred for sexual exploitation.
· Over half of referrals were UK nationals, with the next two most common nationalities being Albania and Vietnam.
Summary of key issues· Reporting increasing across Sussex in recent years, in-line with national trends but not keeping pace. New procedures and training for BHCC are currently under development, which may lead to an increase of NRM and MS1 submissions over the next few years.
· Labour exploitation (which includes County Lines related activity) remains the main driver for the exploitation of males. Sexual exploitation is the main driver for the exploitation of females.
· Between 2017/18 and 2018/19 NRM submissions for minors from Sussex Police, East Sussex, West Sussex and Brighton more than doubled, while those for adults rose only slightly. This may indicate a growth of County Lines activity locally, and/or greater awareness that those involved may be subject to exploitative coercion.
Resources and gaps|
current services |
community assets |
gaps |
|
· Housing Options · Adult Social Care · Access Point · Hospital Social Work Team · East/West ATS · Children & Family Services
|
· Survivors Network · St Mungo’s Street Outreach · RISE
|
· No specialist agencies have a presence within B&H · Support for those exiting the National Referral Mechanism
|
Recommendations for partnership
work· BHCC is holding modern slavery learning events for third sector workers involved with homelessness in late 2019. These are being delivered in partnership with The Passage (www.passage.org.uk). If these initial sessions are found to be productive then this may be an activity to be repeated in the future.
· BHCC could consider similar events for other elements of the third sector. At present there are no local specialist services nor do any of the larger national organisations have a footprint in Brighton & Hove. Working with existing local services to enhance their capacity to meet the needs of potential victims could help make Brighton & Hove a better environment for those that have experienced trafficking or modern slavery.
· BHCC is a member of the Sussex Anti-Slavery Network, which brings together stakeholders from multiple agencies across Sussex (eg. East Sussex CC, West Sussex CC, Police, SECAMB, Immigration Enforcement). BHCC should continue to play an active role in this partnership, as it is an effective forum in which to share experiences and good practice.
· The Sophie Hayes Foundation is a national charity that primarily assists victims of trafficking and modern slavery who are leaving the support provided by the National Referral Mechanism, with a focus on recovery and employability. They provide group work, coaching and community events. They are looking to expand their services into Sussex and BHCC has had initial conversations about this. This relationship has the potential to increase the services available to identified victims locally.
Contributory factors· The Home Office Modern Crime Prevention Strategy lists character as a key driver of crime and as such focuses on building positive characteristics and resilience amongst young people in order to prevent crimes such as sexual violence. By teaching young people the concepts of consent and healthy relationships as well as to recognise and challenge unhealthy and exploitative relationships it is hoped fewer young people will become victims and perpetrators of sexual violence.46
· The Institute for Alcohol Studies noted that research typically finds that between 25% and 50% of those who perpetrate domestic abuse have been drinking at the time of assault although in some studies the figure is as high as 73%. However, cases involving severe violence were twice as likely as others to include alcohol, and the risk of rape was twice as high for attacks involving drinking offenders.[47]
· Intimate Partner Sexual Violence (IPV) is more strongly associated with gender inequality in the home and experiences of childhood abuse. Sexual only IPV is also associated with multiple sexual partners and engaging in transactional sex.[48]
· Non-partner rape is strongly correlated with notions of male heterosexual dominance and can involve gangs, fights and weapons. It is also more closely associated with alcohol and drug misuse, poverty and depression.48
National and local data
·
Results from the
latest Crime Survey for England and Wales[49]
showed that one in four women (25%) and one in twenty men (5%) had
experienced any sexual assault since the age of 16. In the last
year, 5% of women, and 1% of men had experienced any sexual
assault. Applying this to 2018 mid-year population estimates, it is
estimated that 24,152 women, and 4,757 men in Brighton & Hove
have been a victim of any sexual assault since the age of 16 and
4,269 women, and 1,226 men have been a victim of any sexual assault
in the last year.
Prevalence
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
data for 2018/19 (or as indicated) |
benchmarking |
|
Sexual offences recorded by the police (No.) |
|
964 |
21% more recorded crimes in B&H than in E&W per resident (2017/18) |
· In Brighton & Hove the police recorded 964 sexual offences in 2018/19, a 4% increase on the previous year and 45% higher than recorded in 2015/16. The rise in sexual offences in recent years has been seen predominantly in serious sexual offences which in 2018/19 made up 85% of all police recorded sexual offences.
·
Interpreting any trend in recorded
data is difficult because, besides any change in the number of
crimes taking place, there may also be changes in recording
practices, outreach work which encourages reporting, reporting
facilities, willingness to report, etc. Improvements in police
recording processes following a national inspection of recording
standards in 2013 have contributed to the increase in the number of
sexual offences data seen since April 2014.
Criminal justice processes
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
data for 2018/19 (or as indicated) |
benchmarking |
|
Sexual offences solved by the police (No.) |
|
70 |
|
|
Sexual offences crimes charged by the police (No.) |
|
53 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for sexual offences (No.) |
|
146 |
data for B&H not available for 2016/17 and 2017/18 |
|
Finalised court cases for sexual offences resulting in a conviction (%) |
|
78.8% (115/146) |
England & Wales 2017/18: 58.3% - rape 80.4% - other sexual offences |
|
Time taken between charge and final prosecution outcome - Magistrates Courts (average no. of days) |
|
93 days |
Sussex: 110 days
|
|
Time taken between charge and final prosecution outcome - Crown Courts (average no. of days) |
|
269 days |
Sussex: 279 days |
·
Figure 26 shows that the number of police
recorded sexual offences has increased, while the number of sexual
offences which have been solved has dropped since
2015/16.
· 70 sexual offences in 2018/19 were solved against 964 sexual offences being recorded. The ratio of offences solved to offences recorded was 7:100 in 2018/19 down from 32:100 in 2012/13.
· Of the 70 offences solved in 2018/19, 8 (11%) were cautions. This is a higher percentage of cautions than in previous years.
· In 2018/19, 146 sexual offence cases were finalised at court, compared with 127 in 2015/16, an increase of 15%. This compares with a 45% increase in the number of sexual offences recorded over the same period.
· 79% of finalised prosecutions resulted in a conviction in 2018/19, the highest level since 2012/13.
· There was an average of 93 days in 2018/19 between charge and a final prosecution outcome at the magistrates court. This has decreased from an average of 122 days in 2017/18, and is lower than the Sussex average of 110 days.
· There was an average of 269 days in 2018/19 between charge and a final prosecution outcome at the crown court. This compares with a Sussex average of 279 days. The average number of days between charge in final prosecution has increased from an average of 252 days 2017/18.
|
about 1 in 20 crimes result in a charge |
|
|
8 out of 10 defendants are convicted |
|
Service data
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
data for 2018/19 (or as indicated) |
benchmarking |
|
SARC referrals; whole of Sussex (No.) |
|
768 |
2018/19 q4: 19% referrals were for B&H residents |
|
SARC attendances; whole of Sussex, self referrals (No.) |
|
148 |
|
|
Survivors Network Independent Sexual Violence Advisor referrals (No.) |
|
210 |
|
|
People receiving Survivors Network counselling (No.) |
|
133 |
|
·
Across Sussex there has been a
steady rise in the number of referrals to the Sexual Assault
Referral Centre in Crawley, totalling 768 in 2018/19, up by 43%
from 2015/16. Self referrals, which made up 19% (n=146) of
referrals in the most recent year, have increased by 350% over the
same period.
· In 2018/19 Survivor’s Network received 210 referrals to their Independent Sexual Violence Advisor (ISVA) service, a 9% increase compared with the previous year. 133 Survivor’s Network clients received counselling in 2018/19, approximately the same number as the previous year.
· In 2018/19 Mankind received 126 referrals relating to male victims of sexual assault, an increase from 89 in the previous year. 70 clients were provided with counselling support, of whom 65 were aged 26 or over, with an average age of 45.
· In 2018/19, Brighton & Hove City Council Adult Social Care completed 41 safeguarding enquiries linked to sexual abuse, and 14 enquiries linked to sexual exploitation.
· In 2018/19, Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust received 53 referrals for Brighton & Hove child victims of sexual assault, and saw 15 children. Across Sussex, the number of referrals increased with age (between the ages of 0 and 13), but the percentage of those taking up appointments decreased with age. Most referrals came from social services, followed by the police. 20% of Sussex-wide referrals related to forensic services, 29% to acute services (not forensic, but within 3 weeks of abuse), and 50% to historic abuse.
· In 2018/19 there were 106 domestic violence service users at RISE reporting rape or sexual offences.
What the problem looks likecrimes and victims/survivors
· Victims of police recorded sexual offences in 2018/19 were overwhelmingly female, with 85% of offences where victim gender was recorded having a female victim, 15% had a male victim. This remains the same as in 2017/18.
·
The highest rate of victimisation
for both males and females was in the 10-19 age group (17.4 per
1,000 pop. for females, and 2.4 per 1,000 pop for males). The rate
of victimisation for this age group is over twice that of those
aged 20-29 (the next highest victim age group) and declines in
every subsequent age group.
· Victim ethnicity was unrecorded in 57% of cases. Of those offences where victim ethnicity was recorded (n=408), 89% were ‘White – North European’, 4% were ‘White – South European’ and Black respectively, 3% were Middle Eastern, and 1% were Asian.
· 78% (n=751) of sexual offences in 2018/19 were committed against over 16s. Of these, 40% (n=301) were rape or attempted rape offences, and 60% (n=450) were other sexual offences (see Figure 27).
· 22% of police recorded sexual offences in 2018/19 were committed against under 16s. Of these, 23% (n=49) were rape or attempted rape, and 77% (n=164) were other sexual offences.
· The Crime Survey for England & Wales found that highest prevalence of sexual abuse was in the 16-19 year age group for women and in the 20-24 year age group for men, with prevalence broadly dropping with age for both women and men.[50]
· 15% of all police recorded sexual offences in 2018/19 had a domestic flag.
·
Of the 240 Sussex residents
attending the SARC in the last quarter of 2018/19, 89% were female
and 11% male; 2% (n=4) were transgender. The ethnicity of 27%
were other than White British.
· The most common vulnerabilities recorded by the SARC for Sussex residents in the last quarter of 2018/19 were mental health, self harm and domestic violence.
peak times and locations
· There is a clear night-time, weekend pattern in police recorded sexual offences, with an elevated number of offences in the early hours of Saturday morning and again on a Saturday night/ Sunday morning. There is a peak in the number of offences on a Saturday morning between 03.00hrs and 04.00hrs and another on Sunday morning between 01.00hrs and 02.00hrs, suggesting a link to the night-time economy (see Figure 28).
·
The hotspot for police recorded
sexual offences in 2018/19 is located in the city centre, covering
an area including part of North Laine (between North Street and
North Road), the Lanes and adjacent seafront, as well as the Old
Steine and part of Kemptown (see Figure 29).
· 6% of sexual offences in this time period occurred inside licensed premises. However, the location of the offence may be different to the location where the victim first meets their attacker.
· Regarding the 38 city residents seen at the SARC in the last quarter of 2018/19, they met their assailant at a range of places, including at the assailants home, at an entertainment venue, outdoors, via social media, at the victim’s home or at a friend’s / family home among other places. However, 34% of assaults took place at the victim’s home, and 21% at the assailant’s home.
perpetrators
· 43% of all police recorded sexual offences in 2018/19 were committed by a stranger, 33% were committed by an acquaintance, 17% were committed by an intimate, and 7% were committed by a family member.
· 98% (n=112) of those offenders charged with a sexual offence in 2017/18 and 2018/19 were male.
· Numbers are low and therefore caution should be used but the rate of offending is highest amongst the 30-39 and 20-29 age groups.
· There was not sufficient information on offender ethnicity to analyse.
· 69% (n=75) of offenders charged with a sexual offences in 2017/18 or 2018/19 lived in Brighton & Hove, 13% (n=14) were from other parts of Sussex, and 18% (n=20) were from the rest of the UK.
· The continued rise in the reporting of sexual violence, alongside the significant downward trend in the successful prosecution of perpetrators (as nationally), is a key concern.
· There are a number of key focus areas for development, not least partnership work between criminal justice agencies and the voluntary sector and other statutory agencies in supporting victims and witnesses when a case progresses.
· Whilst there is acknowledgement that there can be any number of reasons that prosecution does not occur, there is a call from victims and those who support them, for improved communication with regard to the progress of an investigation, explanations when a case is ‘no further action’, and support during court proceedings. There is opportunity to improve the experience for victims/survivors through improvement of service pathways and clarification of the roles of different agencies as a case progresses.
· The resources available to support victims is largely utilised in the immediate support required following sexual violence and abuse occurring and/or being reported (often a long time after the abuse occurred), and support sought to bring the perpetrator to justice. There is also an increase in the length of time that victims are requiring support from specialist support agencies, and this is potentially linked to the number of cases where criminal justice outcomes are not achieved, having an impact on the individual’s ability to cope.
· There are gaps in the resources available to support victims/survivors, both when initial reports are made and in supporting recovery. For example, whilst the data shows the same number of people receiving counselling support over a period of 2 years this reflects the resource available not the demand. Currently, local organisations providing talking therapy are reporting up to 18 month waiting lists for support.
· Perhaps because of the shortage of formal intervention, there has been a significant increase in the number of people choosing to attend peer-led support sessions; often wanting to attend all peer-support sessions available.
· There is a need to proactively challenge inappropriate attitudes and behaviours prevalent within our society, but finding the resources to do so can be difficult. We know that sexual violence is most prevalent in our youngest age groups, and there is concern about the role that media plays in promoting and perpetuating objectification.
· Finally, victims/survivors often talk about not feeling like they can talk about their experiences. There is continued need to develop confidence within support agencies; but also with families and those most able to support victims/survivors in a way that enables them to disclose what has happened to them, and to support their recovery.
|
current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Joint Unit for Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse and VAWG |
Brighton & Hove and East Sussex councils’ joint unit coordinating strategic development and commissioning, and managing delivery of the MARAC service. |
|
Specialist Support Services for Victims: Rape and Sexual Violence: Survivor’s Network |
Provides specialist support to victims of rape and sexual violence, including through The Portal. Works with adults, and also children and young people. |
|
Specialist Support Services for Victims: Rape and Sexual Violence: Mankind |
Provides recovery support for male victims of sexual violence and abuse |
|
Sussex Police, including Sexual Offences Investigation Teams (SOITs) |
Criminal investigations, and provides support to victims during investigations though SOITs. |
|
Children’s Social Care |
Work with vulnerable families, safeguarding lead |
|
Adult Social Care |
Work with vulnerable adults, safeguarding lead. |
|
SARC (Sexual Assault Referral Centre) Crawley |
Forensic evidence and initial support following rape and sexual assault. |
|
community assets |
brief description of role/service |
|
Wider community ‘access’ organisations |
Reporting and support for someone experiencing rape and sexual violence and abuse can come in many forms, and there is a focus on training up community organisations to be able to help individuals identify when they are a victim, and to report. This is about recognising where an individual feels most comfortable/has trust to discuss the issue initially. |
|
gaps |
|
|
Perpetrator response |
There is currently no consistent funding available to develop and provide perpetrator services. This includes early intervention for perpetrators who recognise their behaviour, and intervention for behavioural change/to reduce risk. Conviction rates are also low compared to the number of reported crimes and incidents- suggesting an improvement in collecting evidence to prosecute is required. |
|
Prevention/early intervention services |
With the demand for reactive response and support services for all partners, the current resources available mean that coordinated prevention services do not exist. This can include early intervention healthy relationships training in schools, resources to train community-based assets to extend the reach of support and raise awareness of sexual violence and abuse, and the societal attitudes that can fuel such behaviours. |
|
Being able to support all victims should they want support |
Current resources available mean that not all adults can be offered a service immediately. All children are supported. |
|
Long term recovery support |
Talking therapies and accessible long term peer support. |
A detailed delivery plan will be developed for Brighton & Hove, which will be confirmed in March 2020. However, local stakeholder engagement and response tells us the key themes and emerging actions are important:
· Access to and location of services- because our data and victim and service provider insight tells us that services need to be more flexible to accommodate differing needs, providing simpler pathways in to service that maintain a focus on the victim’s experience.
· Service outreach and co-location
· Development of a Victim Hub for triage of referrals and targeted assessment
· Whole family approach- improved collaboration between services to provide support
· Supporting victims to engage in the criminal justice system and see their perpetrator brought to justice
· Communication and signposting- because our data and victim and service provider insight tells us that our collective services are not visible enough to facilitate access to services; for survivors and service providers who refer.
· Development of Safe:Space:Sussex as a platform for information and networking
· Service outreach and co-location
· Prevention including work with perpetrators, including disruption, early intervention and training and awareness- because we need to be working to change the trends for increasing prevalence, and address the problem at its root.
· Multi-agency delivery of a core offer of Rape and Sexual Violence awareness training. Development of flexible learning opportunities
· Develop and improve professional networks
· Public awareness raising and education on how to support someone who is a victim of rape and sexual violence; and challenging attitudes (especially men’s attitudes to women)
· Policy, Performance and Safeguarding- because our governance for a review of the work needs to be more robust; to facilitate effective partnership working to make best use of resources; and to ensure our partnership services are working efficiently.
· Review and restructure governance around response to Rape and Sexual Violence and Abuse and Violence Against Women and Girls
· 4 Ps: Prevent, Protect, Pursue, Prepare
· Multi-agency working to secure new resources for sustained services; and to review how we use current resources and collaborate; In particular there is a need to focus on holding perpetrators to account, working together to achieve better criminal justice outcomes and reduce the high number of ‘no further action’ cases and the impact this has on a survivor’s support needs. Prioritise work to address gaps in the current service offer including:
· Educate young people on what constitutes healthy relationships, and what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour enabling young people to explore this within their own sexuality and gender
· Work with children and young people affected by Rape and Sexual Violence, including peer to peer.
· Responding to survivors who have multiple and complex needs
· Recovery support including sufficient provision of talking therapies and peer support.
Contributory factors: Domestic
violence and abuse· The government definition of domestic abuse, or domestic violence, is any incident of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or overwho are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of their gender or sexuality.
· There are many potential causes of domestic violence and abuse, but at its root is power, control and inequality. Factors involved may be:
· Socio-cultural: for example, patriarchal societies that allow male violence to control women or as a means of solving problems
· Interpersonal: family interactions are seen as problematic rather than the behaviour of one individual
· Individual/intrapersonal: violence against a partner is learnt behaviour; personality attributes of jealousy, dependency, attachment impulse control and self-esteem are associated with DV; attitudinal or cognitive deficits have been linked to use of violence.[51]
· The Institute for Alcohol Studies noted that research typically finds that between 25% and 50% of those who perpetrate domestic abuse have been drinking at the time of assault although in some studies the figure is as high as 73%. However, cases involving severe violence were twice as likely as others to include alcohol, and the risk of rape was twice as high for attacks involving drinking offenders.[52]
· The Crime Survey for England & Wales asked all respondents whether they thought it was acceptable to hit or slap their partner in response to different situations. 77% of respondents felt that it was always unacceptable to hit or slap their partner in response to their partner having an affair, while less than 1 in 10 of respondents felt that it is mostly or sometimes acceptable (8%). Younger respondents were more likely to think that it was acceptable at least some of the time than older age groups.57
Contributory factors: Stalking
and harassment· Stalking is a wide-ranging behaviour that is perpetrated by a diverse group of offenders. Risk factors for stalking behaviour are multifaceted. Stalking occurs as a result of an inter-relationship between factors such as socio-demographic characteristics, intimate partner relationships, and broader societal and cultural factors such as gender-role socialisation. Research shows that perpetrators of stalking are more likely than non-perpetrators to be diagnosed with psychiatric problems such as schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorders.[53].
Contributory factors Harmful
practices
·
There are some practices,
including forced marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM) and
honour-based violence) carried out in certain cultures which
reflect values and beliefs held by some members of these
communities. These beliefs and
practices may have been held for many generations and some are of a
harmful nature to women in particular and in contravention of
international human rights.
· The latest Crime Survey for England & Wales (CSEW)[54] found that 31% of women and 15% of men have experienced any domestic abuse[55] since the age of 16. In the last year, 8% of women, and 4% of men have experienced any domestic abuse.
·
Applying this to 2018
mid-year population estimates, it is estimated that 29,083 women
and 14,735 men in Brighton & Hove have been a victim of any
domestic abuse since the age of 16. In the last year, 7,997
women, and 4,145 men have been a victim of any domestic
abuse.
·
In the 2018 Brighton & Hove
Safe and Well at School Survey, 51% of 14-16 year old respondents
who had had a boyfriend or girlfriend reported that they had
experienced a problem behaviour[56].
The most common problem behaviour experienced by 14-16 year olds
who have got, or have ever had, a boyfriend or girlfriend by was
being yelled at (29%), followed by being sent or receiving photos
or films of each other naked (22%), and being put down and/or
humiliated (21%).
· Overall there was no significant difference by gender for having experienced any problem behaviour (52% of girls and 49% of boys). However, by individual behaviour there were some differences. Girls were more likely to have experienced being put down and/or humiliated (26% of girls vs 16% of boys), and ‘being threatened if you didn’t do something your partner wanted’ (7% girls vs 3% boys). Boys were more likely to have experienced being hit, kicked, pushed or slapped (15% of boys vs 10% of girls). LGB pupils were statistically significantly less likely to have experienced any problem behaviour (42% vs 50% of heterosexual pupils). There was no significant difference between BME and White British pupils having experienced any problem behaviour.
· The CSEW also asked people who had experienced partner abuse whether they had told anyone. Overall, 8 out of 10 people had told someone, but women were more likely to do so (9 out of 10 women and 6 out of 10 men). Both female and male victims were most likely to tell someone they knew personally about the abuse (80% and 55% respectively). Women were nearly twice as likely as men to tell someone in an official position, eg. police, health (43% of women and 23% of men), with women more than twice as likely than men to tell the police (26% and 10% respectively). Women were also more likely to tell other support professionals or organisations than men (32% of women compared with 14% of men).54 This finding is relevant in the interpretation of the local police and other service data below.
Police data
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
data for 2018/19 (or as indicated) |
benchmarking |
|
Police recorded DVA crimes and incidents (No.) |
|
5253 |
6% more recorded in B&H than in E&W per resident (2017/18), although 11% fewer if you include both crimes and incidents |
|
Domestic violence crimes recorded by the police (No.) |
|
3202 |
|
|
Crimes of coercive control (No.) (new crime of coercive control introduced in 2015) |
|
183 |
. |
|
Police recorded stalking crimes and incidents (No.) (new crime of stalking introduced in 2012) |
|
344 |
|
|
Police recorded crimes linked to harmful practices (No.) |
|
14 |
|
·
In Brighton & Hove
the police recorded 5,253 crimes and incidents with a domestic
violence flag in 2018/19, of which 3,202 were crimes. Recorded
domestic violence crimes and incidents overall have seen a
consistent rise over the last 8 years, with the number of crimes
rising particularly steeply (up 47% since
2015/16).
· The number of police recorded domestic violence/abuse incidents nationally has also been increasing in recent years; it is thought that this increase is due to more victims coming forward and police forces improving their recording of these incidents. This supposition is supported by national data from the CSEW which is showing a long term gradually decreasing trend for both males and females in prevalence of intimate partner violence in the years up to 2016/17 although following two years has flattened or shown a slight upturn.[57]
· The CSEW found that in 2017/18 fewer than 1 in 5 victims of partner abuse (17.3%) had reported the abuse to the police. For those that did not report the abuse, the most common reasons given were the abuse was too trivial or not worth reporting (46%), it was a private, family matter and not the business of the police (40%), and the victim didn’t think the police could help (34%). The percentage of females reporting to the police in 2017/18 was significantly lower in 2017/18 than in 2014/15, and in previous survey years.57
· Crimes of stalking and coercive control are relatively new crimes and have both shown a steep increase locally in recent years. This is likely to be influenced by an increase in public awareness and the embedding of processes, rather than an increase in the number of crimes actually taking place.
· There were 14 crimes related to traditional practices in 2018/19, of which 11 were honour-based violence and the remaining 3 were forced marriage crimes. To date the police have not recorded any crimes of FGM.
· In the 8 year period ending 2018/19 there were 2 people killed through domestic violence and 6 attempted killings in Brighton & Hove. The Femicide Census (defined as the killing of women (and girls) by men), reported 139 femicides in the UK in 2017. 46% were killed by a current or former partner, 22% by a stranger (including terrorist attacks), 17% by an acquaintance and 12% by a family member (3% relationship unknown).[58]
Service data
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
data for 2018/19 (or as indicated) |
notes |
|
Clients worked with at RISE (No.) |
|
1121 |
Brighton & Hove DV adult clients only, and not including therapeutic work |
|
Length of abuse for RISE clients reporting current abuse (months) |
|
72.5 months |
|
|
Length of abuse for RISE clients reporting historic abuse (months) |
|
64.1 months |
|
|
Homelessness acceptances by council housing due to domestic violence (No.) |
|
29 |
|
|
Safeguarding enquiries linked to DV (No.) |
|
97 |
|
|
MARAC cases discussed (No.) |
|
706 |
|
|
People provided with refuge accommodation (No.) |
|
58 adults 28 adults with children 57 children |
|
|
Male perpetrators referred to the Living Without Violence perpetrator programme (No.) |
|
56 (2017/18)
|
|
·
There were 1,121 Brighton &
Hove DV adult clients worked with at RISE in 2018/19, not including
those receiving therapeutic services. 55% of these clients had
children. For those reporting current abuse, the abuse had
lasted for an average of 73 months. For those reporting
historic abuse, the abuse had lasted for an average of 64
months. In both cases there was a drop in the average length
of abuse experienced compared with the previous two years. This
could suggest that people were becoming more willing to report at
an earlier stage and could perhaps be a reflection of a greater
public awareness and confidence to report.
· In 2018/19 there were 706 cases discussed at the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC), of which 45% were cases involving the same victim and perpetrator which had already been discussed at a MARAC within the last 12 months. 63% of referrals to the MARAC came from the police, 19% from the Independent Domestic Violence Advisor service, and the rest from a wide range of other statutory and voluntary organisations. The number of cases discussed at a MARAC has risen steadily over recent years in response to demand, with the frequency of MARACs increasing from two a month to weekly from the beginning of 2018/19.
· Other services have also responded to the needs of domestic violence victims. In 2018/19 there were 29 homeless acceptances due to domestic violence and 97 safeguarding enquiries linked to domestic violence.
· 58 adults (49 females and 9 males), including 28 adults with 57 children, were provided with refuge accommodation in 2018/19.
An international perspective
· The World Health Organisation estimates that globally one in three women who have ever had an intimate partner experience intimate partner violence in their lifetime, with higher prevalence in the WHO Africa, Eastern Mediterranean and South East Asia regions, and a lower prevalence in areas with a higher income.[59]
Criminal justice processes
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
data for 2018/19 (or as indicated) |
Benchmarking |
|
Domestic violence crimes charged by the police (No.) |
|
321 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for domestic violence (No.) |
|
430 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for domestic violence resulting in a conviction (%) |
|
70.0% (301/430) |
England & Wales 2018/19: 76.5% |
|
Time taken between charge and final prosecution outcome - Magistrates Courts (average no. of days) |
|
65 days |
Sussex: 71 days
|
|
Time taken between charge and final prosecution outcome - Crown Courts (average no. of days) |
|
304 days |
Sussex: 222 days E&W: 86 days (2017/18) both courts
|
|
Domestic Violence Protection Orders (No. of applications) |
|
99 (68 granted) |
|
· As shown in Figure 30, while the number of recorded crimes has increased steeply over the last few years, the number solved has decreased.
· There were 430 finalised domestic violence court cases in 2018/19, an increase of 22% since 2015/16 (compared with a 47% increase in recorded crimes).
·
In 70% of finalised court cases
for domestic violence in 2018/19 the defendant was convicted.
The national outturn for the same year was 77%.
· The average number of days between charge and final prosecution outcome has been decreasing for Magistrates Courts (65 days in 2018/19), but has been increasing in Crown Court cases (304 days).
· The use of Domestic Violence Protection Orders has increased steeply since they came into force in 2014. In 2018/19 there were 99 applications for DVPOs and about 7 in 10 were granted.
|
1 in 10 offences charged |
|
|
7 in 10 defendants convicted |
|
Who, what, where, when. etc.:
Domestic violence and abuseType of crime
· Out of a total of 7,809 police recorded crimes with a domestic violence flag in Brighton & Hove in the three year period April 2015 and March 2018, the majority (79%) were violence against the person offences (35% of these VAP offences were injury violence offences). This was followed by criminal damage offences (9%), other theft and handling offences, and sexual offences (4% respectively). The remaining 4% of offences were made up of small numbers of auto theft, burglary, robbery, drugs and fraud and forgery offences.
· Weapons were used in 3% of police recorded domestic abuse flagged offences between April 2015 and March 2018 (n=210). The most prominent weapon used was a knife/dagger (n=72 offences), followed by a metal or wooden bar (n=11 offences). There were fewer than five domestic flagged offences involving a firearm in this three year period.
· Figure 31 shows the kind of abuse being experienced by clients attending the RISE service for victims of domestic violence
|
had experienced strangulation
had experienced threats to kill
had had suicidal thoughts |
Figure
31. Types of abuse reported by RISE clients
who
were currently experiencing domestic abuse, 2018/19
|
Type of abuse |
No. of clients |
|
Domestic abuse |
880 |
|
Stalking and harassment |
233 |
|
Sexual offences, excluding rape |
54 |
|
Rape |
52 |
|
Honour-based violence |
16 |
|
Sexual exploitation |
8 |
|
Gang-related violence |
4 |
|
Forced marriage |
3 |
|
Child sexual abuse |
3 |
|
Trafficking |
2 |
|
FGM |
1 |
Location
·
79% of police recorded domestic
abuse offences in 2018/19 where location type was recorded occurred
in a dwelling, and an additional 2% of offences occurred in
‘non-dwellings’ such as hotels or B&Bs. 13% of
offences occurred on the street, and the remaining 6% of offences
occurred in other public places, such as parks or open spaces,
educational establishments or licensed premises.
Temporal factors
·
Looking at data over the last five
years, there is an observable seasonal pattern in police recorded
domestic violence crimes and incidents, with more recorded in the
summer months than the winter months. However, on top of this
general pattern, there are more around Christmas period (see
Figure
32).
· The data clock (Figure 33) for police recorded domestic violence offences shows an elevated number of offences in the evenings on most days of the week, with these peaks continuing later on both a Friday night/ Saturday morning and Saturday night/ Sunday morning. Sunday overall shows a particular peak in offences, compared with other days of the week, with both an early morning peak in offences between 00.00hrs and 02.00hrs and a further peak in offences between 19.00hrs and 23.00hrs.
Victims/survivors
· Victims locally, as nationally, are overwhelmingly female, with 74% of offences in 2017/18 having a female victim, and 26% having a victim who was male. The rate of victimisation for domestic violence, as with offending, peaks in the 30-39 age group (18.7 offences per 1,000 people) and declines in each subsequent age group after this. This picture is in contrast with data from the Crime Survey for England & Wales (CSEW) in 2014/15 which found that the age group experiencing the highest prevalence of domestic abuse and stalking was in the age group 16-19, with prevalence broadly dropping with age. This was the case for both women and men.[60] However, the latest CSEW data for 2017/18 showed higher rates of victimisation in 20-24 year olds that in other groups when broken down into age x gender groups.57
· The CSEW also found that victims of domestic abuse:
· were more likely to live in single adult and child/ren households.
· live on low incomes
· have a long term illness or disability
· Evidence suggests that a victim’s assessment of their own level of risk is as good, or sometimes better, than other risk assessment tools[61].
· RISE DV adult clients in 2018/19 (total n=1,121) had the following demographic characteristics:
· clients were across the whole age spectrum, but 82% were within the age range 21-50 with 31-40 being the most common age group (34%).
· 94.3% were female, 5.4% male and 0.3% gender queer/non-binary. There were 4 trans clients recorded.
· 87% were heterosexual, 5% bisexual, 4% gay, 3% lesbian and 2% of another sexuality.
·
73% were White British; 7% White
European; 4% Black/Black British and 4% Asian/Asian
British.
· 62% had no religion, 23% were Christian, 8% Muslim and 7% had another religion.
· Where information on language spoken was recorded, 94% spoke English, with Arabic being the next most commonly spoken (1.9%; 15 clients)
· Clients were most commonly separated (29%) or single (29%), with most of the remaining clients being evenly split between cohabiting, in a relationship but not cohabiting, or married.
· Over half (55%) had children. Witnessing domestic violence can have lasting impacts on their lives.[62]
· 27% had a mental health disability, 10% a physical disability and 4% a learning disability.
· Client vulnerabilities included mental health (37%), physical health (10%), alcohol (10%) and drugs (7%), with 17% having more than one vulnerability.
· 42% had a BN2 postcode, 32% BN3/BN41 1/BN41 2, and 26% BN1
· 63% of clients were assigned as high risk at intake.
· There were 49 females and 9 males accommodated at the Brighton refuge. 65% were White British, and 35% were from other ethnic backgrounds.
· Looking at cases of domestic violence referred to the MARAC (12 months ending June 2019), Brighton & Hove had a higher proportion of cases with victims who were LGBT, male, aged 16 and 17, and with a disability, compared with Sussex as a whole, and with the UK. However, the proportion of cases with victims from a BME background was lower (see Figure 34).
Areas of domestic violence client need are shown below:
|
Areas of need identified in RISE adult DV clients 2018/19 (total n=1,121) |
|
|
safety |
660 |
|
housing |
335 |
|
children |
328 |
|
justice |
328 |
|
education, training, employment |
187 |
|
finance |
159 |
|
immigration |
19 |
|
social networks |
240 |
|
Detail around safety needs identified in RISE clients, 2018/19 |
|
|
support keeping safe at home |
592 |
|
support keeping safe out and about |
469 |
|
support keeping safe on phone and online |
248 |
|
support keeping children safe |
209 |
|
support preparing to leave |
100 |
Impact on victim
· In terms of the type of abuse, RISE clients in 2018/19 most commonly reported experiencing emotional abuse (78%), followed by physical abuse (60%) and jealous/controlling behaviour (55%).
Figure 35
· The impact on many victims/survivors is severe, with 3 in 10 RISE clients having experienced strangulation/suffocation, about 1 in 4 having experienced threats to kill, and over 1 in 4 having had thoughts of ‘ending it all’ or attempted suicide.
· The Crime Survey for England and Wales in 2014/15 found that 46% of those who had experienced partner abuse in the last year did not perceive what had happened to them as domestic violence, whilst just 27% did perceive it to be domestic violence (22% did not wish to answer and 5% did not know).[63]
Relationship between victim and perpetrator
|
|
|
victim |
|
|
|
|
female |
male |
|
perpetrator |
female |
5% |
8% |
|
male |
76% |
11% |
|
· Police data from 2018/19 show that the majority of offences are committed by a male offender against a female victim (76%). 11% of offences were committed by a male offender against a male victim, 8% were committed by a female offender against a male victim and 5% were committed by a female offender against a female victim.
· Violence used by men against women is more likely to be severe, and to result in fear and control of partners.[64] Of those offences between April 2015 and March 2018 where an offender was charged (when detailed information on offender relationship is recorded), 35% were committed by a boyfriend/girlfriend of the aggrieved, 31% by an ex-partner, 10% by a son/daughter, and 10% by a spouse/defacto spouse.
· There is a slightly different picture in respect of reports by RISE clients where over half of perpetrators (55%) were an ex-intimate partner, 25% were a current or intermittent intimate partner and 11% a spouse. Other perpetrators were male relatives (6%), or female relatives (1.5%).
Perpetrators[65]
Data from the local domestic abuse perpetrator profile:
· Perpetrators of domestic abuse locally, as nationally, are overwhelmingly male. 86% of offenders charged locally were male, and 14% were female.
· Offenders are predominantly young, with a high rate of offending in the 20-29 age group, and a peak in the rate of offenders in the 30-39 age group.
· Wards with a high rate of domestic violence and abuse perpetrators living in them are closely correlated with areas which score highly in the Index of Multiple Deprivation, particularly East Brighton, Queen’s Park, and Moulsecoomb & Bevendean wards.
· Domestic abuse perpetrators are not a homogeneous group in terms of characteristics and criminogenic need. However, depression, mental health issues and risk of suicide are all indicators of high risk perpetrators.
· The strongest associations with risk of male violence perpetration were emotional and verbal abuse, and forced sex.
Data on people perpetrating against RISE clients:
· In the case of clients in contact with RISE, 94% of the perpetrators were male and 6% female.
· Between 31-40 years was the most common age group with one in three perpetrators in this age group, 21-30 and 41-50 were the next most common age groups. There were 79 out of 1,118 perpetrators (where age was recorded) under the age of 16.
· Stalking takes place in many forms and can consist of behaviour that is persistent and clearly unwanted causing fear, harassment or anxiety. Four types of stalking have been identified: ex-partner harassment; infatuation harassment; delusional fixation and sadistic stalking. One in ten victims do not know their stalker.[66]
· 62% (n=218) of police recorded stalking offences in 2018/19 were flagged as domestic, similar to 2017/18.
· In 2018/19, 64% (n=219) of police recorded stalking offences in Brighton & Hove had a victim who was an intimate of the offender. In 20% (n=70) of offences the victim was an acquaintance of the offender, 14% (n=47) were strangers and 2% (n=8) had a family relationship.
· In 2018/19, 86% (n=297) of stalking victims were female, and 14% (n=48) were male. This is broadly unchanged from the findings of the Stalking and Harassment JSNA summary which used three years of data up to 2017/18.[67]
· The rate of victimisation in 2018/19 was highest for both female and male victims aged 30-39 (4.0 per 1,000 pop. for females, and 0.6 per 1,000 pop. for males) and declined with every subsequent age group after this.
· Whilst both men and women commit stalking, research has shown that men are more likely than women to stalk.[68] Sussex Police data show that 93% (n=100) of offenders charged with stalking offences between April 2016 and March 2019 were male, and 7% (n=7) were female. The highest numbers of offenders were in the 20-29 (n=34) and 30-39 (n=33) age groups, although overall numbers are low. There was not enough information recorded by Sussex Police to report on offender ethnicity.
· Victims of coercive control locally were more likely than overall victims of domestic abuse in the same time period to be female. Of 165 coercive control offences in 2018/19, 86% had a female victim, 13% had a male victim, and 1% had a victim whose gender was recorded by Sussex Police as ‘indeterminate’. Numbers are too low for coercive control offences to analyse further by victim age or ethnicity.
· Of 10 honour-based violence offences recorded in police ‘CADDIE’ data in 2018/19, the majority (n=6) relate to violence against the person offences, such as ABH, coercive control, and harassment offences. Nearly a third of these offences were rape offences. 8 out of 10 offences were committed by an intimate partner of the victim. In all cases where victim gender was recorded the victim was female.
·
|
Some findings from AVA consultation report, 2018 |
|
Commissioning of a number of key domestic and sexual violence and violence against women and children services takes place across Brighton & Hove and East Sussex. A consultation was carried out across Brighton & Hove and East Sussex in 2018 to inform strategic planning and some summary findings are provided below: Accessibility o The thresholds for accessing services had increased. o A lack of clarity over who was eligible for which services and how to access them; the Portal was not a well-known entity, at least by that name. o More could be done to improve referrals by GPs. o Timeliness of access to services was an issue; people didn’t manage to get support at the time they needed it. o Victims/survivors cited housing and longer term support, eg. counselling, therapy and support groups, among the services in need of greater provision. Multi-agency working and quality of service o Ideas for improving multi-agency working included: improved training/protocols; multi-agency training sessions (with services pressures mentioned as an obstacle to greater training provision); co-location; more work with perpetrators. o Victims/survivors mentioned being believed, being sensitive and being knowledgeable as the most important attributes of service providers. o A level of inconsistency in the quality of service, and a lack of knowledge and understanding was reported; there should be more victim/survivor involvement in training. o There was inconsistent or poor communication with victims/survivors, in particular the police. The needs of different groups o People involved in prostitution – people selling sex should be enabled to do so safely and should not encounter barriers to accessing services. o Children and young people – a range of issues were identified, including a need for more support for families living with domestic violence, those under 16s who fell outside the government age range, those being sexually exploited/potentially involved with gangs, and those affected by peer abuse or harmful sexualised behaviour. o People with learning difficulties were identified as groups for whom more support were needed. Women with learning difficulties may be more vulnerable, and agencies may not necessarily recognise signs of abuse. Prevention o Opportunities for preventing or reducing harm was a subject which was mentioned often in the consultation feedback. This was raised in the context of i) prevention work with children and young people, ii) through ‘bystander interventions’ in public places or other scenarios, and iii) more work with perpetrators. Feeling safe o Although the questions asked were different, a greater proportion of the City Tracker survey respondents (sampled from the whole city population) indicated that they felt safe in the city, than did the AVA consultation respondents. Strategic and partnership working o Local partnership work in the following areas was suggested: training; information sharing; working together more closely between statutory and voluntary agencies; campaigning and accessing funds; raising awareness; and supporting victims/survivors. Comments on what a future strategy should contain were put forward in the following ways: o It should be both realistic and also aspirational. o A greater focus on sexual violence was called for, noting the various different contexts within which sexual violence happened. o There should be a clear distinction between the separate needs of men as victims and as perpetrators. o The local strategy should align with the national VAWG strategy and HO Commissioning Toolkit. o Operational groups and structures should reviewed, with more greater involvement of voluntary sector organisations, especially of those who deliver support services. |
Summary of key issues· There continues to be significant year on year increase in reported crimes and incidents of domestic abuse and stalking and harassment. Whilst there is some connection with overall public awareness, and perhaps a greater confidence to report by victims, prevalence may be increasing and this is reflected in national data.
· Local data shows us that there are emerging trends with regard to the profile of victims, in particular a rise in violence towards people with a disability, and particularly low numbers of identified victims of crimes and incidents in Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities.
· With regards to the rising number of victims with a disability, this includes victims with physical and/or learning disability and mental health issues. Local services recognise that often victims present with complex needs because of their situation and that there is a need to ensure that broader support services are aware of the signs of interfamilial and adult family violence as well as intimate partner violence.
· There is recognition that victims from BME communities are under-represented when considering reported crimes and incidents and access to specialist support services. Local stakeholder engagement tells us that this is potentially because of access issues relating to trust of services, not knowing where to go, and the need to work with BME communities to enable more effective pathways in to service.
· During stakeholder engagement, the need to work more effectively with community access organisations and groups has been highlighted, recognising the link between trusted pathways in to support, and early intervention/prevention.
· The AVA Report, and further stakeholder engagement has highlighted the need to ensure that services feel and are accessible for any victim, regardless of age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, faith, disability.
· Consultation with young people shows significant numbers experiencing problem behaviours in their peer relationships. Prevention work in schools, focusing on healthy relationships is key.
· The AVA Report highlighted victim/survivor and service provider perceptions that pathways into support for victims are more restricted because of service access thresholds, but also that people just didn’t know where to go for support, highlighting a lack of awareness of ‘The Portal’, the current ‘branded’ route into support.
· Overall, services are reporting that the average time spent supporting individual victims has risen, and there is a perception that this is directly linked to an increase in multiple and complex needs cases.
· The lower level of criminal cases progressing to court/resulting in a conviction continues to be a concern. Whilst this is a national pattern, and criminal justice agencies are working together to improve outcomes, we must maintain a focus on developing response to perpetrators, both in relation to active prosecution (changing the focus on the victim to respond/change their circumstance), reactive intervention (through MARAC and similar process) and early intervention to change perpetrator behaviour.
· There is work underway to develop a strategic partnership response to the issues highlighted, with particular focus on: improving use of existing resources and securing additional resources to report to the level of need; accessibility of services including focus on victim experience and efficient access to services; and training and awareness raising to support prevention and early intervention.
Resources and gaps|
Current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Joint Unit for Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse and VAWG |
Brighton & Hove and East Sussex councils’ joint unit coordinating strategic development and commissioning, and managing delivery of the MARAC service. |
|
Multi-agency MARAC process |
Agencies involved include Sussex Police, Children’s Services, Adults Services, DA and SH specialist support services, Probation, and other relevant voluntary and community sector agencies |
|
Specialist Support Services for Victims: Domestic Abuse - RISE |
RISE is the lead provider in a partnership contract (The Portal) to deliver domestic and sexual violence support services across Brighton & Hove and East Sussex. RISE provides the specialist support service for victims in Brighton & Hove including IDVA service for high and medium risk victims where there is support with immediate safety planning and response, and recovery. RISE also runs a helpline and provides open access/self-referral support including group work. |
|
Specialist Support Services for Victims: Stalking and Harassment- Veritas Justice |
Veritas is funded by the OSPCC to deliver specialist support to victims of stalking including support to report/manage current stalking issues, and during Criminal Justice processes. |
|
Specialist Support Services for Victims: Stalking and Harassment- Sussex Stalking Support (SSS) |
SSS is a new organisation providing ‘step down’ support for victims of stalking and harassment including peer support groups. |
|
Sussex Police DA Case Workers |
Following initial response, DA caseworkers work with victims to support them with safety planning/response. |
|
Children’s Social Care |
Work with vulnerable families, safeguarding lead |
|
Adult Social Care |
Work with vulnerable adults, safeguarding lead |
|
Community assets |
brief description of role/service |
|
Wider community ‘access’ organisations |
Reporting and support for someone experiencing domestic abuse and/or stalking can come in many forms, and there is a focus on training up community organisations to be able to help individuals identify when they are a victim, and to report. This is about recognising where an individual feels most comfortable/has trust to discuss the issue initially. |
|
Gaps |
|
|
Perpetrator response |
There is currently no consistent funding available to develop and provide perpetrator services. This includes early intervention for perpetrators who recognise their behaviour, and intervention for behavioural change/to reduce risk. Conviction rates are also low compared to the number of reported crimes and incidents- suggesting an improvement in collecting evidence to prosecute is required. |
|
Prevention/early intervention services |
With the demand for reactive response and support services for all partners, the current resources available mean that coordinated prevention services do not exist. This can include early intervention healthy relationships training in schools, resources to train community-based assets to extend the reach of support and raise awareness of domestic abuse and stalking and harassment. |
|
Being able to support all victims should they want support |
Current resources available mean that not all adults can be offered a service immediately. All children are supported. |
|
Long term recovery support |
Talking therapies and accessible long term peer support. |
A Sussex-wide Strategic Framework
for response to Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse and VAWG
(including stalking and harassment and harmful practices) has been
developed during 2019following comprehensive
consultation and engagement with victims and survivors and service
providers. The strategy high level priorities are:
Prevention and Early Intervention
· Together we will work to prevent violence and abuse happening in the first place or from happening again by changing attitudes and challenging behaviours in our communities. By using evidence based approaches we will protect victims and tackle and break the cycle of offending.
Service Provision
· Together we will provide quality, coordinated and accessible intervention and support reflective of what people want and need, working with victims and survivors to better understand their experience of our services. We will commission and develop services intelligently, providing the right services to prevent violence and abuse and repeat victimisation in a longer term, sustained way. We will enable recovery, recognising the impact and outcomes of violence and abuse on all (children and adults) those affected and provide holistic, victim centred services.
· We will promote a listening and believing approach: in what victims tell us and in what we share with each other as providers; working together to solve issues and challenge actions and behaviours that blame victims of abuse and violence.
Pursuing Perpetrators
· Together we will work with partners to strengthen the criminal and civil justice response to perpetrators. We will work with all partners including non-criminal justice agencies to strengthen their part in assessing, controlling and minimising the risk(s) posed by perpetrators. We will robustly manage repeat offenders and as a priority consider perpetrator programmes for early intervention and behavioural change.
Partnership working
· Together we will work collaboratively in and with a broad coalition of partners to develop and provide consistent quality services across the whole of Sussex.
A detailed delivery plan will be developed for Brighton & Hove, which will be confirmed in March 2020. However, local stakeholder engagement and response tells us the key themes and emerging actions are important:
· Access to and location of services - because our data and victim and service provider insight tells us that services need to be more flexible to accommodate differing needs, providing simpler pathways in to service that maintain a focus on the victim’s experience.
o Service outreach and co-location
o Development of a Victim Hub, for triage of referrals and targeted assessment
o Whole family approach - improved collaboration between services to provide support
· Communication and signposting - because our data and victim and service provider insight tells us that our collective services are not visible enough to facilitate access to services; for victims and service providers who refer.
o Service outreach and co-location
· Prevention including work with perpetrators, including disruption, early intervention and training and awareness because we need to be working to change the trends for increasing prevalence, and address the problem at its root.
o Multi-agency delivery of a core offer of domestic abuse awareness training
o Development of flexible learning opportunities
o Develop and improve professional networks
· Policy, Performance and Safeguarding- because our governance for a review of the work needs to be more robust; to facilitate effective partnership working to make best use of resources; and to ensure our partnership services are working efficiently.
o Review and restructure governance around response to domestic abuse
o MARAC Hub Pilot - moving to a new delivery model
o 4 Ps- Prevent, Protect, Pursue, Prepare
· Multi-agency working to secure new resources for sustained services; In particular there is a need to focus on holding perpetrators to account, working together to find the resources to provide perpetrator programmes in Brighton & Hove
o Prioritise work to address gaps in the current service offer including:
§ Work with perpetrators
§ Work with children and young people affected by domestic abuse, including peer to peer.
§ Recovery support including sufficient provision of talking therapies and peer support.
Contributory factorsBased on guidelines issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the NHS noted that conduct disorders may develop, like many mental health conditions, through a combination of environmental and biological factors and noted the following:[69]
· Possible environmental factors include:
· a “harsh” parenting style
· parental mental health problems such as depression and substance misuse
· parental history, such as the breakup of a marriage
· poverty
· individual factors, such as low achievement
· the presence of other mental health problems
· In terms of biological factors:
· Differences in areas of the brain associated with emotions such as empathy and behaviours such as risk-taking had been found in the brain structures of teenage boys with conduct disorders.
· There may be certain genetic variants that a child inherits that may also make them more prone to develop conduct disorders.
· Children with conduct disorders often have other mental health problems, particularly attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
· Conduct disorders which in younger children can manifest themselves as disobedience or argument, can develop into more extreme behaviours as they grow up and include:
· aggression towards people or animals
· destruction of property
· persistent lying and theft
· serious violation of rules
Reporting levels and trends
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or latest as specified) |
benchmarking |
|
Police recorded ASB incidents (No.) |
|
7901
86% nuisance; 9% personal; 6% environmental |
ASB inc/1,000 pop: E&W 28; SE 21; B&H: 33 |
|
Police recorded ASB crimes[70] (No.) |
|
6097 |
|
|
Police recorded criminal damage and arson offences (No.) |
|
2739 |
ranked slightly better than average in the MSCSP |
|
ASB incidents reported to the Casework Team (No.) |
|
549
|
|
|
Complaints about street homelessness to the Casework Team from private property owners/ businesses (No.) |
|
108 |
|
· There is a long term decline in the number of ASB (Anti-Social Behaviour) incidents recorded by the police in Brighton & Hove, as in England & Wales.
· However, in contrast to ASB incidents, an amalgamated ‘basket’ of ASB crimes70 showed a rising trend between 2013/14 and 2016/17, remaining at this higher level in the following two years.
· The rise in ‘ASB crimes’ is largely attributable to the subset of violence against the person crime types; the criminal damage element has remained relatively stable. It is possible that with improved police crime recording, what was previously recorded as incident are now being recorded as a crime.
· The number of reports of ASB to the Community Safety Casework Team has increased over recent years with 548 reports in 2018/19. This increase is in part due to a steep increase in the )
Who, what, where, when. etc.Police data
·
Analysis of ASB crimes showed a
clear link to the night-time economy, with offences peaking on a
Friday and Saturday night, between 9pm and 1am on Friday night, and
showing a longer peak on a Saturday night, between 8pm and 3am
(see Figure
36).
· There are clear seasonal patterns associated with recorded ASB incidents with highest numbers being reported in the summer months and the lowest in the winter months (see Figure 37.
· The hotspot for police recorded ‘ASB crime’ in 2018/19 is located in the city centre in an area covering North Laine, the Lanes and Churchill Square, as well as the Old Steine and part of Kemptown. There are also ‘corridors’ of offences stretching west along Western Road and North along London Road and at the Level.
· The hotspot for police recorded criminal damage offences is located in the city centre and includes the Lanes, all of North Laine, bordered to the north by the New England Quarter and Brighton Station, and also including Grand Parade and parts of the Tarner neighbourhood to the East.
· Of the 7,901 ASB incidents recorded by the police in 2018/19, there were 6,776 (86%) categorised as nuisance ASB, 689 as personal ASB (9%) and 436 (6%) as environmental ASB.
Community Safety Casework Team
· The Community Safety Casework Team receive reports of ASB and hate incidents across the city, except where the responsibility lies with housing services. 36% of reports of ASB incident to the Team in 2018/19 took place in the city centre wards of Regency, St Peter’s & North Laine and Queen’s Park.
· Of the people reporting ASB to the casework team who provided demographic details in 2018/19, they tended to be in older age groups (40+), but for many people demographic information is not available.
·
Of 549 reports of ASB
to the Community Safety Casework Team in 2018/19, 152 (28%) related
to the street community.
Council housing
·
There were 799 cases of ASB dealt
with by council housing in 2018/19 in respect of their tenants or
property (NB. not all reports to them).
· When looking at the 284 tenants involved in an ASB case in the first 7 months of 2019 compared to all council tenants these tenants involved in ASB were more likely to:
· Be younger than average (average age is 47 compared to 55 for all tenants)
· Live in flats or bedsits/studios (75% compared to 58% of all tenants)
· Live alone (55% compared to 39% of all tenants)
· Be vulnerable and/or disabled (64% compared to 53 of all tenants).
· There was little to no variation in sex/gender and race/ethnic group.
· The most common types of ASB in council housing were (in order): intimidating behaviour or verbal abuse; noise nuisance; and ASB related to drugs.
· 39% of cases worked with in council housing in 2018/19 were in East Brighton and Queen’s Park wards.
· As with the seasonal pattern seen in police data, there were more cases dealt with during the summer months.
Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Tasking (MARAT) meeting
· 34 cases of ASB were dealt with at the MARAT in 2017/18 and 2018/19. Whilst the majority of these referrals to MARAT came from council housing (32%), and Brighton Housing Trust (20%) there were smaller numbers of referrals from a wide range of partners.
· The most common enforcement action taken as a result of MARAT meetings was tenancy action (n=14), followed by both police action and tenancy action (n=12). There were 3 closure orders agreed as a result of cases discussed at MARAT during 2017/18 and 2018/19.
· There were often multiple victim households in each case discussed at the MARAT, with 85% of cases having more than one victim. 71% (n=24) of cases in 2017/18 and 2018/19 had one perpetrator, 29% (n=10) had more than 1 perpetrator.
· There were safeguarding concerns in 14 out of 34 cases discussed at the MARAT, of which the majority related to adults (n=11).
· 35% of cases discussed at the MARAT in 2017/18 and 2018/19 had substance misuse as a contributory factor, 24% had mental health, and a further 35% had a combination of both substance misuse and mental health as a contributory factor.
Drug litter
· There were approximately 3,250 needles found by city council services in 2017/18, while in 2018/19 the number had risen to 4,250.
· Between May 2018 and April 2019, Queen’s Park, Regency and St. Peter’s & North Laine wards recorded the most drug litter in the city, predominantly due to drug litter in car parks. Excluding car park data the ward with the most drug litter in this time period was Queen’s Park.
· On average, 252 needles per month, or 58 a week were found in car parks in this time period, with the largest number found in High St car park in Queen’s Park ward.
Perceived high levels of ASB in their local area - national data
· Nationally, people with certain demographic characteristics were more likely to report perceiving high levels of ASB. These include non-White ethnic groups, people with long or short term illness, the long term unemployed, those on lower household incomes, people renting social housing, and people living in flats or maisonettes.[71]
Summary of key issues· Graffiti and tagging is an issue that is regularly raised at Local Action Teams, especially in city centre wards.
· In the high risk and complex cases discussed at the monthly Multi-Agency forum, substance misuse and/or mental health concerns featured as a contributory factor nearly all (32/34) cases.
· Reports of ASB associated with the street community and unauthorised encampments have risen considerably in the last five years, including reports of public place injecting and associated drug litter.
· We continue to receive reports of ASB linked to cuckooed properties across Brighton & Hove. Cuckooing is a process whereby criminal gangs (County Lines) target vulnerable people in order to use their homes to deal drugs.
Resources and gaps|
current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Registered Social Landlords |
Responsible for addressing ASB and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
Police |
Addresses ASB across the city |
|
BHCC Housing |
Responsible for addressing ASB and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
CST Casework |
Addresses ASB in the private housing sector |
|
Cityclean |
Removes graffiti in public spaces, all offensive graffiti and needle waste. |
|
Equinox Drug & Alcohol Outreach Team |
Addresses ASB associated with the street community |
|
Reboot |
Reboot provides young people with protective factors through positive activities helps to prevent them being drawn into anti-social behaviour, crime and violence |
|
Multi Agency Risk Assessment and Tasking meeting (MARAT) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses high risk and complex ASB cases and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and reduce the harm caused. |
|
Street Community Partnership Meeting (SCPM) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses ASB associated with the street community, both individuals and geographical locations, and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and reduce the harm caused. |
|
Weekly Unauthorised Encampment Meeting (WUEM) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses unauthorised encampments across the city and puts in place multi-agency action plans to reduce the community impact of such encampments. |
|
community assets |
brief description of role/service |
|
Local Action Teams |
Community led groups where local residents work in partnership with statutory agencies and third sector organisations to address community safety concerns. |
|
Trust for Developing Communities |
Commissioned to promote positive changes for young people based around both short and long term outcomes including reducing anti-social behaviour |
Recommendations for partnership
work· Address ASB associated with cuckooing through multi-agency Operation CUCKOO, using closure orders where necessary
· Address ASB associated with the street community through weekly Unauthorised Encampments Meeting and monthly Street Community Partnership Meeting meetings
· Community Safety Team duty service to continue to provide advice and guidance to Housing Associations, supported housing providers and other professionals re ASB
· Continue to hold monthly MARAT meeting to discuss and address high risk and complex ASB cases
· Continue to support the Restorative Champions Network to ensure the use of restorative practice continues across the city
· Develop an ASB communication strategy to ensure that our communities are informed of work taking place to address ASB
· Develop a programme of training and briefings for all professionals addressing ASB on the use of ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 tools and powers
· Ensure that relevant BHCC departments are working together to address ASB associated with short term holiday lets
· Ensure relevant agencies know how to refer young people at risk of ASB to Front Door For Families and the Reboot programme
· Further develop the use of Community Protection Notices by the police, BHCC and local housing providers
· Further develop joint working between statutory bodies and the third sector eg. Local Action Team Forum, Local Youth projects etc.
· Implement the newly developed Graffiti Action Plan
· Review the city-wide alcohol restriction Public Space Protection Order
· Update B&H multi-agency ASB and hate incident joint working procedures and guidance
Section 9looks at how people perceive themselves within their community and at their relationships to others in the community. More resilient communities are those which create and maintain an environment which deters people from disrupting the lives of others in their community through acts of crime or anti-social behaviour, and work in the interests of their communities or neighbourhoods.
Adults
·
In 2018, the Brighton & Hove
City Tracker Survey found that 76% of respondents felt strongly
that they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood, with older
residents more likely to feel a stronger sense of belonging than
younger people.
· 76% of respondents believed people in the local area pull together to improve their neighbourhood.
· 94% agreed that people from different backgrounds got on well together. Brighton & Hove scores better than national average (taken from the DCMS Community Life Survey) on all three of these measures.
·
Looking at Figure 38, all measures of community
cohesion obtained by the City Tracker Survey between 2015 and 2018
show an improving trend.
· 44% respondents in the City Tracker survey said they had volunteered formally in the last year. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic community members, and those aged over 35 years were more likely to volunteer.
School children
· The Safe and Well at School Survey found that 91% of Key Stage 2 primary school pupils agreed their school helped them get along with people from different religious or cultural backgrounds, although the percentage for secondary school pupils at Key Stages 3 and 4 was lower at 80%.
· 88% of primary school pupils in the same survey agreed that adults and students treat each other with respect in their school. Again this percentage was lower for secondary school pupils at 60%.
Police recorded crimes
The most comprehensive set of hate incident data available at city level is that recorded by the police. However, it needs to be remembered that as well as reflecting the underlying prevalence of incidents, recorded statistics are also influenced by i) what is reported to the police and ii) what is recorded by the police and flagged as a hate incident or crime. Some crimes or incidents may be flagged with more than one motivation, and Figure 39 shows the number of different types of hate crime recorded in Brighton & Hove in 2018/19, and the extent to which a single crime may be flagged with one or more motivation.
Racist crimes are the most numerous type recorded, followed by crimes motivated by perceived sexuality, then religion, disability-motivated and crimes motivated by gender identity.
Figure 39. Police recorded crimes[72] showing multiple motivations, 2018/19.
NB. schematic diagram, not to scale.
Figure 40 shows how the city compares
with England & Wales in terms of the rate of recorded hate
crimes by population. For all five categories of hate crime,
the rate in the city was higher per resident than in England &
Wales. Possible explanations for this are listed in the
diagram.
Figure 40. Crime rates compared to England & Wales
 |
 |
Reporting rates
All types of crimes and incidents suffer from under-reporting, and this includes those motivated by hate. The most recent report covering data collected through the Crime Survey for England & Wales on hate crime[73] found that in the three year period ending March 2018 of the hate incidents experienced
by survey respondents, 53% of incidents came to the attention of the police. This had increased from 48% in the previous three year period (ending March 2015).
Data from the 2011/12 and 2012/13 Crime Surveys England & Wales[74] found that under-reporting of hate crime was most commonly attributed to the perception that no police action would follow, with the full list of reasons as follows:
· Lack of police action (43%)
· The incident seemed trivial (21%)
· The crime was dealt with privately (12%)
· The crime is a common occurrence (10%)
· Fear/distrust of the police (8%)
· Fear of reprisal (8%)
· Reported to other authorities (2%)
· Inconvenient to report (1%)
These questions have not been reported since then, so the picture may have changed.
Characteristics of victims
The Crime Survey for England & Wales 2014/15-2017/873 found that, across all hate crime types, people more likely to be a victim of hate crime were:
· young people, especially young males
· people of Muslim religion compared with other religions
· people of Asian backgrounds, compared with White adults
· social housing renting households
·
households on low
incomes
Criminal justice
Figure 41 show the number of crimes recorded initially by the police for different hate crimes types, and the number solved. It also shows how many cases which reach court and the number of those where the defendant is convicted.
In 2018/19 the perpetrator was identified in about 1 in every 7 recorded crimes, while fewer than 1 in 10 crimes resulted in a charge being made by the police.
The following two diagrams show, for different hate crime strands, the ratio of charges to recorded crimes (less than 1 in 10 in each case) and the conviction rate for defendants at court (over 90% for racist and religiously motivated and homophobic and transphobic crimes, but 75% for disability motivated crimes)
|
Racist and religiously motivated |
|
|
Homophobic and transphobic |
|
|
Disability motivated |
|
Once at court, the likelihood of the defendant being convicted is high.
|
Racist and religiously motivated |
|
|
Homophobic and transphobic |
|
|
Disability motivated |
|
Hate incident reports to local agencies
Figure 42 show the number of hate incidents
(incidents and crimes in the case of police data) recorded by 4
different agencies in the city in 2018/19.
Figure 42. Hate incidents & crimes recorded in Brighton & Hove by different agencies
|
Sussex Police[75] |
947 (approx.) in 2018/19 |
|
|
Community Safety Casework Team |
108 in 2018/19 |
|
|
Council Housing |
82 (NB. 3 years ending Mar 2019) |
|
|
Cityclean (graffiti) |
98 (NB. 3 years ending Dec 2018) |
|
Location of hate crimes and incidents
Figure 43. Hotspot map of all police recorded hate crimes, 2018/19
The map for all police recorded hate crime in 2018/19 shows a hotspot located in the city centre, in an area bordered by North Road to the north, the seafront to the south, George Street in Kemptown to the east and Churchill Square to the west.
Of all hate incidents reported to the Community Safety Casework Team in 2018/19,
Temporal factors
The data clock for all police recorded hate crime in 2018/19 shows peaks in offences during Friday and Saturday afternoons and early evening, as well as a some peaks in offences later on a Friday and Saturday night (see Figure 44).
Emotional impact
The Crime Survey for England & Wales (2015/16 – 2017/18)73 found that 4% of all respondents felt very worried about being subject to physical attack because of their skin colour, but unsurprisingly, this was much higher for those from non-White ethnic groups (17% for Asian, or Black ethnic backgrounds compared with 3% for those of White ethnic background).
The Crime Survey for England & Wales also found that victims of hate crime were more frequently affected by negative emotional responses on most measures than were victims of all crimes (See Figure 45).
Figure 45 Percentage of hate crime victims reporting experiencing different emotional responses compared with victims of all crime
· A consultation by the Racial Harassment Forum showed significant under-reporting of racist hate incidents. Where hate incidents are not reported, perpetrators may remain unchallenged and carry out further incidents.
· Intersectional experiences of hate crime can lead to reluctance to identify one protected characteristic for reporting.
· A lack of opportunity for social mixing and meeting people of different backgrounds can create a context where racial stereotyping and prejudice develops. Factors such as poverty and social exclusion inhibit social integration.[76]
· National statistics show a rise in hate crimes at around the time of the EU referendum vote in June 2016. The EU referendum was also associated with an increase in community experience of hate rhetoric.
· Perpetrators may be motivated by a perception of threat linked to: economic stability, access to state resources, sense of safety in the community and/or “symbolic” threat posed by people’s values or norms. This sense of threat can be projected onto ethnic minorities, particularly visible minorities, who may be viewed as the source of socio-economic problems.
· Research has shown correlations between educational attainment and prejudiced attitudes - the higher the level of education the lower the amount of prejudice.[77]
· The rise of organised Far Right extremist activity and narratives including narratives of a racial or cultural threat to “natives” from “aliens”, and increased mainstreaming of anti-minority narratives emboldening those who express racist hate.[78]
· The law and sentencing policy create a ‘hierarchy of hate crime’ and send the message that some groups are more worthy of protection than others. This undermines confidence of victims in the law and may contribute to the significant levels of under-reporting in some communities.
Reporting levels and trends
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or latest as specified) |
|
Police-recorded racist incidents and crimes (No.) |
|
535 |
|
Racist incidents recorded by the Community Safety Casework Team (No.) |
|
51 |
|
Racist incidents recorded by the Council Housing team (No.) |
|
17 |
|
Graffiti incidents reported to Cityclean and identified as racist (No.) |
|
18 (2018) |
· There were 535 racist incidents and crimes (465 crimes) recorded by the police in 2018/19[79]. These showed a long term increasing trend until 2016/17, but have stabilised since then. This rising trend runs in parallel with the increase in all police recorded violent crimes[80], which account for a greater part of all racist incidents and crimes (see below).
· Brighton & Hove records around 1.3 times more racist crimes per resident than the England & Wales average.
· The numbers of racist incidents recorded by other agencies (the Community Safety Casework Team, Council Housing and Cityclean) are much lower than the police. Those recorded by the Casework Team are showing a downward trend while the trend for other agencies is less clear.
Criminal justice processes
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 |
benchmarking |
|
Racist crimes recorded by the police (No.)
|
|
474 |
1.3 times more recorded in B&H than in E&W per resident (2017/18) |
|
Racist crimes charged by the police (No.)
|
|
47 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for racist crimes (No.) |
|
74 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for racist crimes resulting in a conviction (%) |
|
93.2% (69/74) |
England & Wales 2018/19: 84.7% (racist&relig) |
· While the number of recorded racist crimes has shown a long term increase, the number of charges (47 in 2018/19) has shown a decrease over the last four years.
· The number of racist cases brought to court has shown no particular long term trend, with 74 in 2018/19. The defendant was convicted 93% of finalised cases, higher than the national rate. of 85%.
Bullying at school
· In 2018 1.2% of children at KS2, 0.9% at KS3, and 1.1% at KS4, reported they had been bullied in the current term based on their ethnicity or that of someone in their family (SAWSS). There is no obvious trend in the prevalence of this type of bullying between 2010 and 2018.
Who, what, where, when,
etc.· Data for 2018/19 shows a city-centre hotspot for police recorded racist crimes, located in an area including all of the North Laine, the Lanes and Churchill Square, as well as the Old Steine and part of Kemptown.
· 93% of police recorded racist offences were violence against the person offences (including harassment offences).
· In common with violence against the person offences generally, there are more crimes and incidents recorded in the summer months.
· Police recorded racist hate crimes appear to peak on a Saturday and Sunday, although there is no clear temporal pattern, with offences occurring throughout the afternoon and evening.
· 63% of victims of police recorded racist offences were male, 37% were female.
· The rate of victimisation is highest for both male and female victims in the 30-39 age group (3.3 per 1,000 pop.).
· Victim ethnicity is unrecorded for 40% of offences. However, of those offences where victim ethnicity is available, 32% were Black, 29% were White – North European[81], 23% were Asian, 9% were Middle Eastern, and 7% were White – South European.
· The three most common location types for police recorded racist offences were on the street (40%), in a dwelling (19%) and in a shop (12%).
· 73% of all police recorded racist offences in 2018/19 were committed by a stranger, 24% were committed by an acquaintance, and 1% respectively were committed by either a family member or intimate.
· Offender data for the three years April 2016 to March 2019 shows that 75% of offenders in this time period were male, 25% were female. For both men and women, both the number and rate of offending peaks in the 30-39 age group (2.0 per 1,000 pop. for males, and 0.7 per 1,000 pop. for females).
· There was not enough information recorded on offender ethnicity for analysis.
· Two thirds (66%) of offenders of racist crimes in this time period were from Brighton & Hove, 17% were from other parts of Sussex, 12% were from outside Sussex, and 5% were of no fixed address.
· A consultation by the Racial Harassment Forum in April 2018 found that
· 61% of respondents reported that they, a family member or someone they associate with had in the past been a victim of a hate crime or incident.
·
Nearly half of all respondents
(48%) who had experienced a hate crime said this had occurred in
the last year. Over three quarters of these respondents said
they did not report the occasion on which they experienced a hate
crime or incident. The most frequent reason cited for not
reporting was a belief that nothing will happen
(56%)[82].
· Long term rising trend in recorded racist hate incidents
· Acknowledged under-reporting of racist hate incidents
· Lack of community confidence in statutory services
· A difference in funding opportunities for third sector groups depending on type of hate incident to be addressed
· Lack of statutory organisations’ understanding of intersectionality
Resources and gaps|
current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Registered Social Landlords |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
Police |
Addresses hate incidents and hate crimes across the city |
|
BHCC Housing |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
CST Casework |
Addresses hate incidents in the private housing sector |
|
Cityclean |
Removes all offensive graffiti irrespective of location |
|
Equinox Drug & Alcohol Outreach Team |
Addresses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community |
|
Reboot |
Reboot provides young people with protective factors through positive activities helps to prevent them being drawn into anti-social behaviour, hate incidents, crime and violence |
|
Multi Agency Risk Assessment and Tasking meeting (MARAT) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses high risk and complex ASB and hate incidents cases and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
Street Community Partnership Meeting (SCPM) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community, both individuals and geographical locations, and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
community assets |
brief description of role/service |
|
Local Action Teams |
Community led groups where local residents work in partnership with statutory agencies and third sector organisations to address community safety concerns. |
|
Refugee and Migrant Forum |
Mechanism to distribute information to a wide range of organisations working with refugees and migrants including messaging on hate crime reporting |
|
ESOL Network |
Mechanism to distribute information to a wide range of organisations working with people for whom English is not their first language, including on hate crime reporting |
|
Racial Harassment Forum |
A community led forum which aims to increase the trust and confidence of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people (individuals and communities) in mainstream statutory, community and voluntary organisations. Provides a support and advocacy service for victims of race and faith hate incidents. |
|
BMECP |
A BME community-led infrastructure organisation promoting community cohesion and venue for groups and events supporting BME communities. |
|
BME YPP |
Provides information, support and advice to BME young people including on hate incidents. |
|
Brighton Table Tennis Club |
Funded by Building A Stronger Britain Together Programme to deliver table tennis sessions building cohesion and tackling racism in schools. |
|
Euromernet |
Promotes positive inter-cultural relations and undertake projects and training on counter-narrative to hate. |
|
gaps |
|
|
Gap in third party reporting centres
|
|
|
Lack of front line BAME staff in statuary bodies |
|
|
Lack of understanding of the full picture of racist incidents in B&H |
|
·
BHCC to lead in forming the
Taskforce which will steer the Inclusive Cities partnership work
and set the action plan, including actions which will tackle
underlying issues and perceptions which contribute to racist and
religiously motivated hate incidents.
· Community Safety Team duty service to continue to provide advice and guidance to Housing Associations, supported housing providers and other professionals re hate incidents.
· Consult with partners and community to purse a joint review of hate speech guidelines on social platforms and in law.
· Continue to develop the Upstanders network working with diverse community groups together to tackle all forms of hate.
· Continue to hold monthly MARAT meeting to discuss high risk and complex hate incident cases, and investigate how community members can be involved in MARAT process.
· Continue to support the Restorative Champions Network to ensure the use of restorative practice continues across the city.
· Develop a hate incident communication strategy to ensure that communities are informed of work taking place to address hate incidents.
· Develop a programme of training and briefings for all professionals addressing hate incidents on the use of ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 tools and powers and best practice in responding to hate incidents.
· Develop partnership research into building preventive educational programmes for perpetrators of hate crime.
· Develop third party reporting mechanisms across the city.
· Further develop joint working between statutory bodies and the third sector eg. Local Action Team Forum, local youth projects, minority and intersectional faith groups, etc.
· Further develop the work to increase trust and confidence in statutory services.
· Make best use of partnership data regarding hate incidents in B&H.
· Raise awareness of statutory services and hate incident reporting processes in local support and advocacy services.
· The recommendations from the Racial Harassment Forum consultation survey should be implemented including a campaign to respond to the under-reporting of racist hate incidents.
· Update B&H multi-agency ASB and hate incident joint working procedures and guidance.
Contributory
factors· A consultation by the Racial Harassment Forum shows significant under-reporting of religiously motivated hate incidents. If hate incidents are not reported, opportunities to challenge perpetrators and deter further offending may be lost.
· Intersectional experiences of hate crime can lead to reluctance to identify one protected characteristic for reporting.
· National statistics show a rise in hate crimes at around the time of the EU referendum vote in June 2016. The EU referendum was also associated with an increase in community experience of hate rhetoric.
· Perpetrators may be motivated by a perception of threat linked to: economic stability, access to state resources, sense of safety in the community and/or “symbolic” threat posed by people’s values or norms. This sense of threat can be projected onto ethnic minorities, particularly visible minorities, who may be viewed as the source of socio-economic problems.
· Research has shown correlations between educational attainment and prejudiced attitudes - the higher the level of education the lower the amount of prejudice.77
· Rise of organised Far Right extremist activity and narratives including narratives expressing religiously motivated hate, and increased mainstreaming of anti-minority narratives emboldening those who express religiously motivated hate.
· Tensions can be heightened and lead to religious hate crimes following global terrorist attacks.[83]
· The law and sentencing policy create a ‘hierarchy of hate crime’ and send the message that some groups are more worthy of protection than others. This undermines confidence of victims in the law and may contribute to the significant levels of under-reporting in some communities.
National and local
dataReporting levels and trends
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or as specified) |
benchmarking |
|
Police-recorded religiously motivated incidents and crimes (No.) |
|
81 (73 crimes and 8 incidents) |
steep increase also seen in E&W |
|
Religiously motivated incidents recorded by the Casework Team (No.) |
|
14 |
|
|
Religiously motivated incidents recorded by the Council Housing team (No.) |
|
1 |
|
|
Religiously motivated graffiti incidents reported to Cityclean (No.) |
|
2018: 6 |
|
· There were 81 religiously motivated incidents and crimes (73 crimes) recorded by the police in 2018/19.[84] These showed a long term increasing trend until 2016/17, but have stabilised since then. This rising trend runs in parallel with the increase in all police recorded violent crimes[85], which account for a greater part of all religiously motivated incidents and crimes (see below).
· In 2017/18 there were 1.8 times the number of police recorded religiously motivated crimes in Brighton & Hove than the England & Wales average per resident.
· The number of religiously motivated incidents recorded by other agencies (the Community Safety Casework Team, Council Housing and Cityclean) are much lower than those recorded by the police. The Community Safety Team reported a long term rising trend, reaching 14 reports in 2018/19.
Criminal justice processes
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 |
benchmarking |
|
Religiously motivated crimes recorded by the police (No.) |
|
70 |
1.8 times more recorded in B&H than in E&W per resident (2017/18) |
|
Religiously motivated crimes charged by the police (No.) |
|
1 |
|
|
Finalised religiously motivated court cases (No.) |
|
2 |
|
|
Finalised religiously motivated court cases resulting in a conviction (%) |
|
100% (2/2) |
|
· While the number of police recorded religiously motivated crimes has shown a long term increase, the number of charges has fluctuated between one and nine per year over the last few years, showing no particular trend. There were nine charges in 2017/18, but only one in 2018/19.
· The number of religiously motivated cases brought to court has also fluctuated between one and three in the recent years for which data are available. For those cases reaching court the defendant has been convicted in nearly all cases.
Bullying in schools
· In 2018 0.9% of children at KS2, 0.7% at KS3, and 0.4% at KS4, reported they had been bullied in the current term based on their religion or that of someone in their family (SAWSS). There is no clear trend in the prevalence of this type of bullying reported since 2010.
Who, what, where, when.
etc.· There was not sufficient information in police datasets to analyse religious hate crime by type. Of 120 offences between 2017/18 and 2018/19, only 26 had specific information recorded about which religious beliefs had been targeted.
· 83% of religiously motivated hate crimes between 2017/18 and 2018/19 were violence against the person offences (including harassment offences), 15% were criminal damage offences and 2% were other offences.
· 55% (n=48) of victims were male, 45% (n=40) were female, but numbers are low and caution should be used. Numbers are too low to analyse by victim age group or ethnicity.
· 79% (n=89) of all police recorded religious hate crimes in 2017/18 and 2018/19 were committed by a stranger, 20% were committed by an acquaintance, and 2% were committed by an intimate.
· Offender data for the three year period April 2016-March 2019 shows that 19 of 21 recorded offenders (90%) in this time period were male, but numbers here are low and caution should be used. Offender data were too sparce for meaningful analysis on age or ethnicity.
· The most common location types for police recorded religiously motivated hate crimes were on the street (37%), in a dwelling (16%), and in a public or religious building (13%).
· A seasonal pattern is suggested in the data over the last five years with more religiously motivated crimes and incidents taking place in the summer months and fewer in the winter.
· Recent research into prejudice experienced by those in both the LGBTQ+ community and faith communities locally, found that 44% of survey respondents (total respondents n=64) reported they had experienced faith-based prejudice in the LGBTQ+ community, and 12% considered the faith prejudice they experienced to be a hate crime.[86]
· 9% (3/33) of people surveyed reported they would go to the Community Safety Team for support following a faith-based incident and 9% (4/45) following a LGBTQ+ hate crime. 16% (5/31) said they would not feel comfortable reaching out to the Community Safety Team for faith-based prejudice and 21% (9/42) would not feel comfortable to do so following an LGBTQ+ prejudice.86
Summary of key
issues· Long term increase in recorded religiously motivated hate incidents.
· Acknowledged under-reporting of religiously motivated hate incidents.
· Lack of community confidence in statutory services.
· Experiences of faith based prejudice within LGBTQ communities and feelings of isolation for LGBTQ people of faith.
· A difference in funding opportunities for third sector groups dependant on type of hate incident to be addressed.
· Lack of statutory understanding of intersectionality.
Resources and
gaps |
current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Registered Social Landlords |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
Police |
Addresses hate incidents and hate crimes across the city |
|
BHCC Housing |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
CST Casework |
Addresses hate incidents in the private housing sector |
|
Cityclean |
Removes all offensive graffiti irrespective of location |
|
Equinox Drug & Alcohol Outreach Team |
Addresses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community |
|
Reboot |
Reboot provides young people with protective factors through positive activities helps to prevent them being drawn into anti-social behaviour, hate incidents, crime and violence |
|
Multi Agency Risk Assessment and Tasking meeting (MARAT) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses high risk and complex ASB and hate incidents cases and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
Street Community Partnership Meeting (SCPM) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community, both individuals and geographical locations, and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
community assets |
brief description of role/service |
|
Local Action Teams |
Community led groups where local residents work in partnership with statutory agencies and third sector organisations to address community safety concerns. |
|
Racial Harassment Forum |
A community led forum which aims to increase the trust and confidence of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people (individuals and communities) in mainstream statutory, community and voluntary organisations. Provides a support and advocacy service for victims of race and faith hate incidents. |
|
Brighton & Hove Faith in Action |
Multi-faith charity bringing together different faith groups to deliver social welfare and community development project. Work collaboratively on projects and events to tackle hate and sit on the Upstanders Network to tackle all forms of hate. |
|
Combatting Faith Hate Partnership |
Partnership chaired by BHFA, to promote tolerance and tackle religiously motivated hate crime with work strands to work in schools, undertake a tour of places of worship and develop a standing committee of faith leaders |
|
Inter-Faith Contact Group |
Interfaith group bringing together people of all faiths and none to build contact and dialogue. Funded under Building A Stronger Britain together for the Angels unity project promoting tolerance and understanding |
|
Faith Council |
Oversees faith covenant and brings faith groups to work collaboratively together and tackle issues on hate crime. |
|
Switchboard |
Working to support LGBTQ people of faith |
|
Refugee and Migrant Forum |
Mechanism to distribute information to a wide range of organisations working with refugees and migrants including messaging on hate crime reporting |
|
ESOL Network |
Mechanism to distribute information to a wide range of organisations working with people for whom English is not their first language, including on hate crime reporting |
|
gaps |
|
|
Gap in third party reporting centres |
|
|
Links between BHCC and faith groups in the city |
|
|
Lack of understanding of the full picture of faith hate incidents in B&H |
|
·
BHCC to lead in forming the
“Taskforce” which will steer the Inclusive Cities
partnership work and set the action plan, including actions which
will tackle underlying issues and perceptions which contribute to
racist and religiously motivated hate incidents.
· Community Safety Team duty service to continue to provide advice and guidance to Housing Associations, supported housing providers and other professionals re hate incidents.
· Consult with partners and community to purse a joint review of hate speech guidelines on social platforms and in law.
· Continue to develop the Upstanders network working with diverse community groups together to tackle all forms of hate.
· Continue to hold monthly MARAT meeting to discuss high risk and complex hate incident cases, and investigate how community members can be involved in the MARAT process.
· Continue to support the Restorative Champions Network to ensure the use of restorative practice continues across the city.
· Develop a hate incident communication strategy to ensure that communities are informed of work taking place to address hate incidents.
· Develop a programme of training and briefings for all professionals addressing hate incidents on the use of ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 tools and powers and best practice in responding to hate incidents.
· Develop partnership research into building preventive educational programmes for perpetrators of hate crime.
· Develop third party reporting mechanisms across the city.
· Further develop joint working between statutory bodies and the third sector eg. Local Action Team Forum, local youth projects, minority and intersectional faith groups etc.
· Further develop the work to increase trust and confidence in statutory services.
· Make best use of partnership data regarding hate incidents in B&H.
· Raise awareness of statutory services and hate incident reporting processes in local support and advocacy services.
· The recommendations from the Racial Harassment Forum consultation survey should be implemented including a campaign to respond to the under-reporting of racist hate incidents.
· Update B&H multi-agency ASB and hate incident joint working procedures and guidance.
Contributory
factors· Brighton & Hove is a beacon for national migrants & international refuges seeking a safer place to be LGBTQ+.
· An increase in race and religious hate crimes can lead perpetrators to embolden threats against other minorities.
· National statistics show a rise in hate crimes at around the time of the EU referendum vote in June 2016. The EU referendum was also associated with an increase in community experience of hate rhetoric.
· Perpetrators may be motivated by a perception of threat linked to: sense of safety in the community and/or “symbolic” threat posed by people’s values or norms. This sense of threat can be projected onto visible minorities.
· Personal insecurity of sexuality and identity are important drivers of hate crime.
· Research has shown correlations between educational attainment and prejudiced attitudes - the higher the level of education the lower the amount of prejudice.77
· There has been a rise of organised extremist activity and falsifying narratives including narratives explicitly directed at stirring up divisions with cohabiting communities, around education or health care, increased mainstreaming of anti-trans and LGBT narratives and emboldening prejudiced views.
· Tensions can be heightened and lead to LGBTQ+ hate crimes following global terrorist attacks.
· The law and sentencing policy create a ‘hierarchy of hate crime’ and send the message that some groups are more worthy of protection than others. This undermines confidence of victims in the law – and may contribute to significant levels of under-reporting in some communities.
· The LGBTQ+ community in general has confidence in reporting, but does not have confidence in statistics, as they fail to represent community and personal experience of hate crime/incidents prevalence.
· Intersectional experiences of hate crime can lead to reluctance to identify one protected characteristic for reporting.
· The number of hate incidents may be influenced by a rise of anti-LGBT+ rhetoric globally, combined with the influence of neoliberal ideology, which promotes individualism. It may also be connected to the influence of a growing number of siloed online communities of hate, which exist with different social norms to mainstream society, running counter to inclusion and tolerance.
National and local
dataNational prevalence and reporting rates
· A 2017 study[87] of 5,000 LGBT people across England, Wales and Scotland found that
o One in five LGBT people had experienced a hate crime or incident because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the last 12 months
o Two in five trans people have experienced a hate crime or incident because of their gender identity in the last 12 months
o Four in five anti-LGBT hate crimes and incidents went unreported, with younger LGBT people particularly reluctant to go to the police.
Reported incidents in Brighton & Hove
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or as specified) |
|
Police-recorded homophobic incidents and crimes (No.) |
|
204 |
|
Homophobic incidents recorded by the Casework Team (No.) |
|
15 |
|
Homophobic incidents recorded by the Council Housing team (No.) |
|
3 |
|
Homophobic graffiti incidents reported to Cityclean (No.) |
|
5 (2018) |
· There were 204 homophobic incidents and crimes (169 crimes) recorded by the police in 2018/19[88]. These showed a long term increasing trend until 2016/17, but have stabilised since then. This rising trend runs in parallel with the increase in all police recorded violent crimes[89], which account for a greater part of all homophobic incidents and crimes (see below).
· Brighton & Hove records three times the number of homophobic crimes per resident than the England & Wales average.
· The number of homophobic incidents recorded by other agencies (the Community Safety Casework Team, Council Housing and Cityclean) are much lower than the police and broadly show a decreasing trend over the last few years.
Criminal justice processes
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or as specified) |
benchmarking |
|
Homophobic/transphobic crimes recorded by the police (No.)
|
|
212 |
3.1 times more recorded in B&H than in E&W per resident (2017/18) |
|
Homophobic/transphobic crimes charged by the police (No.) |
|
17 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for homophobic crimes (No.) |
|
28 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for homophobic crimes resulting in a conviction (%) |
|
96.4% |
England & Wales 2018/19: 96.1% |
· While the number of recorded homophobic and transphobic crimes has shown a long term increase, the number of charges (17 in 2018/19) has fluctuated and not shown a corresponding increase.
· The number of homophobic cases brought to court has also fluctuated, with 28 in 2018/19. All but one resulted in the defendant being convicted (96.4% conviction rate), higher than the national rate.
Bullying at school
· In 2018 1.2% of children at KS2, 1.4% at KS3, and 1.0% at KS4, reported they had been bullied in the current term based on them or a family member being gay, lesbian or bisexual, or being called "gay" as an insult (SAWSS). This kind of bullying dropped between 2010 and 2014, but has shown no consistent trend since then.
Who, what, where, when,
etc.· The hotspot for police recorded homophobic offences in 2017/18 and 2018/19 is located in the city centre, in an area covering part of the North Laine (as far north as North Road), the Lanes and the Old Steine, St. James’s Street and adjacent Kemptown streets.
· 97% of police recorded homophobic hate crimes were violence against the person offences (including harassment offences), with the remaining offences a mixture of criminal damage, robbery or sexual offences.
· In common with violence against the person offences generally, there are more crimes and incidents recorded in the summer months.
· Peaks in police recorded homophobic hate crimes show some association with the night-time economy, with a higher number of offences overall on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and an elevated risk of offences on a Saturday morning between 01.00hrs and 04.00hrs, and again on a Sunday morning between midnight and 05.00hrs.
· Three out of four (75%) victims of police recorded homophobic hate crime were male (where victim information is recorded).
· Overall numbers when split by age and gender are low, but the rate of victimisation for men was highest in the 30-39 age group (2.1 per 1,000 pop.), followed by the 50-59 age group (1.9 per 1,000 pop.) The rate of victimisation for women was highest in the 40-49 age group, but victim numbers here are low (0.8 per 1,000 pop.).
· Victim ethnicity was often unrecorded, but of those offences where it was recorded, 95% (n=131) of offences were perpetrated against those who were White-North European[90]. The remaining 5% were either recorded as White – South European, or Black.
· 76% of all police recorded homophobic hate crimes in 2017/18 and 2018/19 were committed by a stranger, 24% were committed by an acquaintance, and less than 1% were committed by a family member.
· Offender data for the three years April 2016- March 2019 shows that 85% (n=69) of offenders in this time period were male, 15% (n=12) were female. Offender numbers were too low for meaningful analysis on age or ethnicity.
· 58% of offenders of homophobic hate crimes in this time period were from Brighton & Hove, 21% were from outside Sussex, 17% were from other parts of Sussex, and 4% were of no fixed address.
· The most common location types for police recorded offences motivated by perceived sexuality were on the street (49%), in a dwelling (21%), and in licensed premises (7%).
· A national LGBT survey[91] in 2018 showed that at least two in five respondents (40%) had experienced an incident because they were LGBT in the last 12 months; a quarter (26%) experienced verbal harassment, insults or other hurtful comments, 14% experienced disclosure of their LGBT status without permission, 6% had been threatened with physical or sexual harassment or violence, and 2% respectively had experienced sexual or physical violence. More than nine in ten of the most serious incidents were unreported, with the most commonly cited reason being because respondents thought “it happens all the time”.
· Recent research into prejudice experienced by those in both the LGBTQ+ community and faith communities locally, found that 44% of survey respondents (total respondents n=64) reported they had experienced faith-based prejudice in the LGBTQ+ community, and 12% considered the faith prejudice they experienced to be a hate crime.86
· The same research found that 80% of survey respondents (total respondents n=64) reported they had experienced LGBTQ+ prejudice in a faith setting, and 36% considered this a hate crime. 16% had been offered some form of ‘conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapy.86
· Less than one in ten (9%) surveyed reported they would go to the Community Safety Team for support following a faith or LGBTQ+ hate crime, and 21% said they would actively avoid reaching out to the Community Safety Team for LGBTQ+ prejudice.86
· 5 in 10 people agreed that hate crime has higher impact than other types of crime, and that LGBT+ people modify their behaviour in public to avoid being targeted. (Gallop 2019)
· In general, lesbian, gay and bisexual people avoid holding hands in public with a same-sex partner for fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed.
Summary of key
issues· There is a long term increasing trend in LGBTQ crimes and incidents.
· At the same time, there is an acknowledged under-reporting of LGBTQ incidents
· Acknowledged under-reporting of LGBTQ hate incidents.
· Faith-based prejudice is experienced within LGBTQ communities with feelings of isolation for LGBTQ people of faith.
· There is a lack of community confidence in statutory services.
· There is a lack of awareness in the statutory sector of intersectionality.
|
current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Registered Social Landlords |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
Police |
Addresses hate incidents and hate crimes across the city |
|
BHCC Housing |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
CST Casework |
Addresses hate incidents in the private housing sector |
|
Cityclean |
Removes all offensive graffiti irrespective of location |
|
Equinox Drug & Alcohol Outreach Team |
Addresses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community |
|
Reboot |
Reboot provides young people with protective factors through positive activities helps to prevent them being drawn into anti-social behaviour, hate incidents, crime and violence |
|
Multi Agency Risk Assessment and Tasking meeting (MARAT) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses high risk and complex ASB and hate incidents cases and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
Street Community Partnership Meeting (SCPM) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community, both individuals and geographical locations, and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
community assets |
brief description of role/service |
|
Local Action Teams |
Community led groups where local residents work in partnership with statutory agencies and third sector organisations to address community safety concerns. |
|
Rainbow Hub |
Brighton & Hove's local point of contact for LGBTQ+ people seeking up to date help, information or guidance. The hub is a safe, non-judgemental environment. Village Guardians also work from R-Hub. |
|
LGBT CSF |
Bridge between the community and statutory services to enable accountability services. Cultural, educational and social safety community activities and LGBT community/inclusion and accessibility initiative. |
|
Switchboard |
Providing support services run for and by LGBT people. Health, inclusion, mental health, consultations, group work, advice and information and bereavement support. |
|
Allsorts |
Supports & connects children & young people under 26 who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or unsure (LGBTU). Offers training, group work, family support, educational resources and support to education providers. |
|
Terrence Higgins Trust |
Sexual Health & HIV charity offering testing, HIV info and community benefit advice, therapeutic support. Training hub for HIV. Outreach for PSE. |
|
Lunch Positive |
Safe and supportive space for socialising, a healthy meal and peer support. Advice and information, provide emergency food supplies & provide affordable , engaging community catering to events. |
|
Rainbow Fund |
Not-for-profit Community Interest Company-central hub for local LGBTQ+ Community fundraising. An independent grants panel assess applications. Donations from city Pride events. |
|
Small Groups network |
Providing targeted information, training and support to its members. Approximately 16 groups currently in network of small LGBTQ+ support groups. |
|
gaps |
|
|
Gap in third party reporting centres |
|
|
Lack of awareness of the needs of differing LGBT communities |
|
|
Lack of understanding of the full picture of LGBTQ hate incidents in B&H |
|
·
Build community-based, LGBTQ+
staffed reporting mechanism supported by statutory funds
· Community Safety Team duty service to continue to provide advice and guidance to Housing Associations, supported housing providers and other professionals re hate incidents
· Consult with partners and community to purse a joint review of hate speech guidelines on social platforms and in law
· Continue to develop the Upstanders network working with diverse community groups together to tackle all forms of hate
· Continue to hold monthly MARAT meeting to discuss high risk and complex hate incident cases, and investigate how community members can be involved in the MARAT process.
· Continue to support the Restorative Champions Network to ensure the use of restorative practice continues across the city
· Develop a hate incident communication strategy to ensure that communities are informed of work taking place to address hate incidents
· Develop a programme of training and briefings for all professionals addressing hate incidents on the use of ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 tools and powers and best practise in responding to hate incidents
· Develop partnership research into building preventive educational programmes for perpetrators of hate crime.
· Develop third party reporting mechanisms across the city.
· Further develop joint working between statutory bodies and the third sector eg. Local Action Team Forum, Local Youth projects, LGBT CSF, Allsorts, Switchboard, etc.
· Further develop the work to increase trust and confidence in statutory services.
· Improve public knowledge about the damaging impacts of anti LGBTQ+ hate.
· Make best use of partnership data regarding hate incidents in B&H.
· Raise awareness of statutory services and hate incident reporting processes in local support and advocacy services.
· Update B&H multi-agency ASB and hate incident joint working procedures and guidance.
· Work with education providers to ensure new PSHE legislation is applied and community & parental understanding is supported.
· Work with partners to scope & develop disabled/LGBTQ+ community capacity support.
·
Brighton & Hove is a beacon
for national migrants & international refuges seeking a safer
place to be LGBTQ+.
· Community has confidence in reporting but does not have confidence in statistics, as they fail to represent community and personal experience of Hate crime/incidents prevalence
· Increase in race and religious hate crimes can lead perpetrators to embolden threats against other minorities.
· Intersectional experiences of hate crime can lead to reluctance to identify one protected characteristic for reporting.
· National statistics show a rise in hate crimes at around the time of the EU referendum vote in June 2016. The EU referendum was also associated with an increase in community experience of hate rhetoric.
· Perpetrators may be motivated by a perception of threat linked to: sense of safety in the community and/or “symbolic” threat posed by people’s values or norms
· This sense of threat can be projected onto visible minorities.
· Personal insecurity of sexuality and identity are important drivers of hate crime.
· Research has shown correlations between educational attainment and prejudiced attitudes - the higher the level of education the lower the amount of prejudice.77
· Rise of organised extremist activity and falsifying narratives including narratives explicitly directed at stirring up divisions with cohabiting communities, around education or health care, increased mainstreaming of anti-Trans and LGBT narratives emboldening prejudiced views.
· Rise of pseudo LGB groups which project an anti-trans narrative and target progressive and inclusive equality legislation.
· Tensions can be heightened and lead to LGBTQ+ hate crimes following global terrorist attacks.
· The law and sentencing policy create a ‘hierarchy of hate crime’ and send the message that some groups are more worthy of protection than others. This undermines confidence of victims in the law and may contribute to the significant levels of under-reporting in some communities.
National and local
dataReporting levels
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or as specified) |
benchmarking |
|
Police-recorded transphobic incidents and crimes (No.) |
|
53 |
|
|
Transphobic incidents recorded by the Casework Team (No.) |
|
12 |
|
|
Transphobic incidents recorded by the Council Housing team (No.) |
|
0 |
|
|
Transphobic graffiti incidents reported to Cityclean (No.) |
|
0 |
|
· There were 53 transphobic incidents and crimes (33 crimes) recorded by the police in 2018/19[92]. These showed a long term increasing trend until 2016/17, but have fluctuated since then. This rising trend runs in parallel with the increase in all police recorded violent crimes[93], which account for a greater part of all transphobic incidents and crimes (see below).
· Brighton & Hove records about four times the number of transphobic crimes per resident than the England & Wales average.
· The number of transphobic incidents recorded by other agencies (the Community Safety Casework Team, Council Housing and Cityclean) are much lower than the police. Those recorded by the Casework Team are higher in the last three years than in the preceding years.
Criminal justice processes
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or as specified) |
benchmarking |
|
Transphobic crimes recorded by the police (No.) |
|
53 |
4.1 times more recorded in B&H than in E&W per resident (2017/18) |
|
Homophobic/transphobic crimes charged by the police (No.) |
|
17 |
|
|
Finalised transphobic court cases (No.) |
|
0 |
|
· The number of recorded transphobic crimes has shown a long term increase. The data for charges has not been disaggregated from homophobic crimes.
· No transphobic cases have yet been brought to court in Brighton & Hove.
Bullying in schools
· In 2018 0.5% at KS3, and 0.4% at KS4, reported being bullied in the current term about their gender identity or that of someone in their family (SAWSS).
Who, what, when, where,
etc.· 97% of police recorded gender identity motivated hate crimes between 2017/18 and 2018/19 were violence against the person offences (including harassment offences).
· Of those offences in 2017/18 and 2018/19 where victim gender was recorded, 66% (n=31) had a female victim, 30% (n=14) had a male victim, and 4% were recorded as indeterminate. New recording of gender identity by Sussex Police which include transgender categories have since been introduced and will be available going forward.
· Numbers are too low to analyse by victim age group or ethnicity.
· Overall numbers are low, but the most common location types for police recorded gender identity motivated hate crimes were on the street (44%) or in a dwelling (33%).
· 60% (n=36) of all police recorded gender identity motivated hate crimes in 2017/18 and 2018/19 were committed by a stranger, 38% were committed by an acquaintance, and 2% were committed by an intimate.
· Numbers were too low to provide analysis of offender data.
· In common with violence against the person offences generally, there are more crimes and incidents recorded in the summer months.
· A national LGBT survey91 in 2018 found that at least two in five respondents (40%) had experienced an incident because they were LGBT in the last 12 months; a quarter (26%) experienced verbal harassment, insults or other hurtful comments, 14% experienced disclosure of their LGBT status without permission, 6% had been threatened with physical or sexual harassment or violence, and 2% respectively had experienced sexual or physical violence. More than nine in ten of the most serious incidents were unreported, with the most commonly cited reason being because respondents thought “it happens all the time”.
· Many transgender people avoid expressing their gender identity through their physical appearance and clothes for fear of being assaulted, threatened or harassed.
Summary of key
issues· There is an increase in reported transphobic incidents.
· At the same time, there is an acknowledged under-reporting of transphobic incidents
· Faith-based prejudice is experienced within LGBTQ communities with feelings of isolation for LGBTQ people of faith.
· Anti-trans extremist groups are altering perceptions through negative narratives.
· There is a lack of community confidence in statutory services.
· There is a lack of awareness in the statutory sector of intersectionality.
· There is misunderstanding and under-appreciation of the impact of anti-trans rhetoric by statutory and third sector services.
Resources and gaps|
current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Registered Social Landlords |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
Police |
Addresses hate incidents and hate crimes across the city |
|
BHCC Housing |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
CST Casework |
Addresses hate incidents in the private housing sector |
|
Cityclean |
Removes all offensive graffiti irrespective of location |
|
Equinox Drug & Alcohol Outreach Team |
Addresses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community |
|
Reboot |
Reboot provides young people with protective factors through positive activities helps to prevent them being drawn into anti-social behaviour, hate incidents, crime and violence |
|
Multi Agency Risk Assessment and Tasking meeting (MARAT) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses high risk and complex ASB and hate incidents cases and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
Street Community Partnership Meeting (SCPM) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community, both individuals and geographical locations, and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
community assets |
brief description of role/service |
|
Local Action Teams |
Community led groups where local residents work in partnership with statutory agencies and third sector organisations to address community safety concerns. |
|
Rainbow Hub |
Brighton & Hove's local point of contact for LGBTQ+ people seeking up to date help, information or guidance. The hub is a safe, non-judgemental environment. Village Guardians also work from R-Hub. |
|
LGBT Community Safety Forum |
Bridge between the community and statutory services to enable accountability services. Cultural, educational and social safety community activities and LGBT community/inclusion and accessibility initiative. |
|
Switchboard |
Providing support services run for and by LGBT people. Health, inclusion, mental health, consultations, group work, advice and information and bereavement support. |
|
Allsorts |
Supports & connects children & young people under 26 who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or unsure (LGBTU). Offers training, group work, family support, educational resources and support to education providers. |
|
Terrence Higgins Trust |
Sexual Health & HIV charity offering testing, HIV info and community benefit advice, therapeutic support. Training hub for HIV. |
|
Lunch Positive |
Safe and supportive space for socialising, a healthy meal and peer support. Advice and information, provide emergency food supplies & provide affordable , engaging community catering to events. |
|
Rainbow Fund |
Not-for-profit Community Interest Company-central hub for local LGBTQ+ Community fundraising. An independent grants panel assess applications. Donations from city Pride events. |
|
Small Groups network |
Providing targeted information, training and support to its members. Approximately 16 groups currently in network of small LGBTQ+ support groups. |
|
Navigate |
Group for transgendered men, trans masculine &, genderqueer people. Social space, support, health information and awareness raising local campaigns. |
|
Clare Project & trans and non-binary |
Providing trans and non-binary staff to support, resources and volunteering opportunities for the trans, non-binary, intersex and gender-variant (TNBI) community. |
|
gaps |
|
|
Lack of frontline Trans and non-binary staff in statutory bodies |
|
|
Gap in third party reporting centres |
|
|
Lack of awareness of the needs of differing LGBT communities |
|
|
Lack of understanding of the full picture of LGBTQ hate incidents in B&H |
|
Recommendations for partnership
work· Build community-based, LGBTQ+ staffed reporting mechanism supported by statutory funds.
· Community Safety Team duty service to continue to provide advice and guidance to Housing Associations, supported housing providers and other professionals re hate incidents.
· Consult with partners and community to purse a joint review of hate speech guidelines on social platforms and in law.
· Continue to develop the Upstanders network working with diverse community groups together to tackle all forms of hate.
· Continue to hold monthly MARAT meeting to discuss high risk and complex hate incident cases, and investigate how community members can be involved in MARAT process.
· Continue to support the Restorative Champions Network to ensure the use of restorative practice continues across the city.
· Develop a hate incident communication strategy to ensure that communities are informed of work taking place to address hate incidents.
· Develop a programme of training and briefings for all professionals addressing hate incidents on the use of ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 tools and powers and best practise in responding to hate incidents.
· Develop partnership research into building preventive educational programmes for perpetrators of hate crime.
· Develop third party reporting mechanisms across the city.
· Develop training and understanding of anti-trans narratives and groups for statutory and community partners.
· Develop work to pursue and build preventive educational programmes for perpetrators of hate crime.
· Further develop joint working between statutory bodies and the third sector eg. Local Action Team Forum, local youth projects, Clare Project, LGBT Community Safety Forum, etc.
· Further develop the work to increase trust and confidence in statutory services.
· Improve public knowledge about the damaging impacts of transphobic hate.
· Make best use of partnership data regarding hate incidents in B&H.
· Raise awareness of statutory services and hate incident reporting processes in local support and advocacy services.
· Update B&H multi-agency ASB and hate incident joint working procedures and guidance.
· Work with education providers to ensure new PSHE legislation is applied and community & parental understanding are supported.
· Work with partners in trans and non-binary communities to look at support needed with autism/transgender.
· Work with partners to scope & develop disabled/LGBTQ+ community capacity support.
Disability motivated incidents and
crimes· Disabled people may be perceived as an ‘easy target’ leading to incidents being perpetrated against them.
· An increase in race and religious hate crimes can lead perpetrators to embolden threats against other minorities.
· Intersectional experiences of hate crime can lead to reluctance to identify one protected characteristic for reporting.
· National statistics show a rise in hate crimes at around the time of the EU referendum vote in June 2016. The EU referendum was also associated with an increase in community experience of hate rhetoric.
· Perpetrators may be motivated by a perception of threat linked to: sense of safety in the community and/or “symbolic” threat posed by people’s values or norms.
· This sense of threat can be projected onto visible minorities.
· Research has shown correlations between educational attainment and prejudiced attitudes - the higher the level of education the lower the amount of prejudice.77
· Structural factors such as a welfare reform narrative of “benefits scroungers” may have a disproportionate impact on disabled people, leading to increased hostility.[94]
· The growth of organised far right extremism and right wing narratives emboldens those expressing anti-minority narratives across all hate crime strands and can lead to an increase in disability hate.
· The law and sentencing policy create a ‘hierarchy of hate crime’ and send the message that some groups are more worthy of protection than others. This undermines confidence of victims in the law and may contribute to the significant levels of under-reporting in some communities.
National and local
dataReporting levels
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 (or as specified) |
|
Police-recorded disability hate incidents and crimes (No.) |
|
81 |
|
Disability hate incidents recorded by the Casework Team (No.) |
|
22 |
|
Disability hate incidents recorded by the Council Housing team (No.) |
|
3 |
|
Disability hate graffiti incidents reported to Cityclean (No.) |
|
0 |
· There were 81 disability hate incidents and crimes (67 crimes) recorded by the police in 2018/19[95]. These have shown a long term increasing trend up to 2018/19, with a particular peak in 2016/17. This rising trend runs in parallel with the increase in all police recorded violent crimes, which account for a greater part of all disability hate incidents and crimes (see below).
· Brighton & Hove records about twice the number of disability hate crimes than the England & Wales average per resident.
· The number of disability hate incidents recorded by other agencies (the Community Safety Casework Team and Council Housing) are much lower than the police and broadly show a decreasing trend over the last few years.
Criminal justice processes
|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
Data for 2018/19 |
benchmarking |
|
Disability hate crimes recorded by the police (No.)
|
|
67 |
1.9 times more recorded in B&H than in E&W per resident (2017/18) |
|
Disability hate crimes charged by the police (No.) |
|
5 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for disability hate crimes (No.) |
|
4 |
|
|
Finalised court cases for disability hate crimes resulting in a conviction (%) |
|
75% (3/4) |
England & Wales 2018/19: 72.4% |
· While the number of recorded disability hate crimes has shown a long term increase, the number of charges is low, fluctuating between zero and five in the last few years.
· The number of disability hate cases brought to court has ranged between seven and one in recent years. Three out of the four cases finalised in 2018/19 resulted in a conviction.
Bullying in schools
· In 2018 1.2% at KS3, and 0.6% at KS4, reported being bullied in the current term about their disability or the disability of someone in a family member (SAWSS).
Who, what, where, when.
etc.· Disability hate crimes are thought to often involve high levels of sexual violence and property offences, although crimes reported to the police show a different balance.
· 76% of police recorded disability motivated hate crimes in 2017/18 and 2018/19 were violence against the person offences (including harassment offences), 12% were other theft and handling offences, 8% were criminal damage offences, and the remaining 4% were made up of a small number of other offences such as robbery, sexual offences or burglary offences.
· 58% (n=65) of victims were male, 42% (n=47) were female, but numbers are low and caution should be used. Numbers are too low to analyse by victim age group or ethnicity.
· The most common location types for police recorded disability motivated hate crimes were in a dwelling (44%), or on the street (27%).
· 45% (n=51) of all police recorded disability motivated hate crimes in 2017/18 and 2018/19 were committed by an acquaintance, 43% (n=48) were committed by a stranger, 7% (n=8) were committed by a family member, and 5% (n=6) by an intimate. The proportion of offences committed by an acquaintance is higher in disability motivated hate crimes than seen in other forms of hate crime, which were predominantly committed by strangers.
· Numbers were too low to provide analysis of offender data.
· A Speakout report from July 2017, following focus groups and interviews with 54 people found that the majority of people would confide in someone they know if they experienced a hate incident and would look to them for advice on whether to report and who to. A lack of trust in staff and services led people to feel the reporting process is too difficult.[96]
Summary of key
issues· Long term increase in reported disability hate incidents
· Community groups report high level of disability hate incidents occurring in communities, suggesting significant under-reporting of incidents to statutory services and high impact on victims.
· Lack of knowledge of and trust in statutory services
·
A difference in funding
opportunities for third sector groups dependant on type of hate
incident to be addressed
|
current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Registered Social Landlords |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
Police |
Addresses hate incidents and hate crimes across the city |
|
BHCC Housing |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
CST Casework |
Addresses hate incidents in the private housing sector |
|
Cityclean |
Removes all offensive graffiti irrespective of location |
|
Equinox Drug & Alcohol Outreach Team |
Addresses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community |
|
Reboot |
Reboot provides young people with protective factors through positive activities helps to prevent them being drawn into anti-social behaviour, hate incidents, crime and violence |
|
Multi Agency Risk Assessment and Tasking meeting (MARAT) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses high risk and complex ASB and hate incidents cases and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
Street Community Partnership Meeting (SCPM) |
A multi-agency panel that discusses ASB and hate incidents associated with the street community, both individuals and geographical locations, and puts in place multi-agency action plans to address the ASB and hate and reduce the harm caused. |
|
community assets |
brief description of role/service |
|
Local Action Teams |
Community led groups where local residents work in partnership with statutory agencies and third sector organisations to address community safety concerns. |
|
Speakout |
Support people with learning disabilities and sit on the Upstanders Network working with diverse community groups to stand against hate |
|
Grace Eyre Foundation |
|
|
Possability People |
Work to support disabled people and those with long term health conditions and impairments, sit on the Upstanders Network working with diverse community groups to stand against hate |
|
Surdi |
Work to support the deaf community. Developing project work to raise awareness in the deaf community about hate crime and reporting. |
|
gaps |
|
|
Lack of community forum working specifically on disability hate |
|
|
Gap in third party reporting centres |
|
|
Lack of awareness of the impact of disability hate incidents within statutory service providers and the City’s leadership. |
|
Recommendations for partnership
work· A BHCC commitment to support the development of a disability hate forum.
· Community Safety Team duty service to continue to provide advice and guidance to Housing Associations, supported housing providers and other professionals on hate incidents
· Consult with partners and community to purse a joint review of hate speech guidelines on social platforms and in law
· Continue to develop the Upstanders network working with diverse community groups together to tackle all forms of hate
· Continue to hold monthly MARAT meeting to discuss high risk and complex hate incident cases, and investigate how community members can be involved in MARAT process
· Continue to support the Restorative Champions Network to ensure the use of restorative practice continues across the city
· Develop a hate incident communication strategy to ensure that communities are informed of work taking place to address hate incidents
· Develop a programme of training and briefings for all professionals addressing hate incidents on the use of ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 tools and powers and best practise in responding to hate incidents.
· Develop partnership research into building preventive educational programmes for perpetrators of hate crime.
· Develop third party reporting mechanisms across the city.
· Further develop joint working between statutory bodies and the third sector eg. Local Action Team Forum, local youth projects, Speakout, Possability People, etc.
· Further develop the work to increase trust and confidence in statutory services.
· Make best use of partnership data regarding hate incidents in B&H.
· Raise awareness of statutory services and hate incident reporting processes in local support and advocacy services.
· Update B&H multi-agency ASB and hate incident joint working procedures and guidance.
· Work with partners to scope & develop disabled/LGBTQ+ community capacity support.
Contributory
factorsA wide range of factors contributes to the growth of extremist narratives and extremism. This includes (but is not limited to):
· National and local political tension and uncertainty can cause division and create the context in which divisive extremist narratives can take hold.
· There has been an increase in reported and unreported hate incidents following the EU referendum. Hate incidents can signify underlying extremist sentiment.
· There is increased mainstreaming of anti-minority rhetoric which emboldens those expressing hate and enables the narratives to spread further.
· Lack of opportunity for social mixing and meeting people of different backgrounds can create a context where stereotyping and prejudice develops, and creates a context where anti-minority narratives can take hold. Factors such as poverty and social exclusion can inhibit social integration.
· Extremism can grow in the context of a perception of threat linked to: economic stability, access to state resources, a sense of safety in the community and/or “symbolic” threat posed by people’s values or norms.
· A rise of organised Far Right extremist activity and narratives including narratives of a racial or cultural “threat” from the “other”.
· Increasing use of online space to spread extremist narratives.
National and local
dataNational Data
· The 2019 Call for Evidence by the Commission for Countering Extremism found that just over half (52%) of respondents had witnessed extremism in some way. Of these, just under half (45%) reported seeing it online, and two fifths (39%) reported seeing it in their local area.
· Of those members of the public who reported having witnessed extremism, Islamist extremism was the most common form (59%), followed by Far Right extremism (37%) and Far Left (29%) extremism. Practitioner respondents by contrast had witnessed more Far Right (68%) extremism than Islamist (64%) extremism.
· Both public respondents, as well as practitioners agreed that “a lot more” should be done online to counter extremism (56% and 73% respectively). When asked who has a role to play, practitioner respondents’ top choice was social media and tech companies while the public respondents chose faith groups and leaders.[97]
Local Data
· The National Counter-Extremism Strategy 2015 defines hate crime as one of the harms of extremism. Hate incidents can be an indicator of underlying extremist sentiment. In Brighton & Hove in 2018/19 the police recorded 535 racist, 81 religiously motivated, 204 homophobic, 53 transphobic and 81 disability motivated incidents and crimes. The trend over the last ten years has been upwards, although at least some of this increase is associated with improved recording practices. It is difficult to know the extent to which reporting rates and actual incidents taking place are changing, but there nationally there are observable ‘spikes’ seemingly in response to significant national or international events.
· The National Counter-Extremism Strategy 2015 defines harmful practices as one of the harms of extremism. In 2018/19 there were 14 crimes related to harmful practices, of which 11 were honour-based crimes and 3 forced marriage. There have been no police recorded incidents of FGM recorded to date.
· Hate incidents in the form of graffiti are very visible to the public and offensive graffiti is prioritised by Cityclean for removal. In the three year period from 2016-18 54 racist, 28 religiously motivated and 16 homophobic graffiti were removed.
· In 2018/19, 60 community groups were actively engaged to challenge extremism locally.
· Locally, 69 counter extremism activities were undertaken in 2018/19.[98]
Who, what, where, when.
etc.· Nationally, Daesh and Al Quaida inspired or affiliated extremism, and far right extremism, are identified as the main risks.
· Locally far right extremism is a key concern. Stickering relating to organised far right extremist groups has been found within Brighton & Hove.
· Graffiti, including racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic graffiti has been found within Brighton & Hove and is an indicator of underlying prejudice and hate.
· There has been an increase in hate incidents across all hate crime strands, which indicates underlying hate sympathy for extremist narratives. There is significant under-reporting of hate incidents, which means perpetrators can go unchallenged and may continue to propagate hate. It also means victims are isolated and vulnerable to further harm.
· The growth of transphobic narratives and the harm caused to community members by transphobic hate incidents is a key concern.
· Animal rights extremism involving a level of criminality (eg criminal damage) is an emerging risk.
Summary of key
issues· Growth of activity by organised far right groups being seen in Brighton & Hove
·
Growth of anti-minority narratives
across all strands indicating underlying prejudice and
hate.
|
current services |
brief description of role/service |
|
Police |
Addresses hate incidents, hate crimes and crimes relating to harmful practices across the city |
|
CST Casework |
CS Casework Team addresses hate incidents in the private housing sector |
|
BHCC Housing |
Responsible for addressing hate incidents and harm caused that involves their tenants in the locality of their tenancy |
|
Cityclean |
Removal of hate-based and extremist graffiti and stickering |
|
assets |
|
|
Building A Stronger Britain Together projects |
Brighton & Hove Faith in Action – multi-faith work with BSBT communications support Brighton Table Tennis Club – working to tackle racism in schools Euro-Mediterranean Resource Project – delivering counter-narrative workshops to diverse groups. Interfaith Contact Group – unity project |
|
Upstanders network |
Bringing a wide range of diverse community groups with services to work together to tackle hate and all forms of extremism |
|
ANYone Brighton |
Young people working together to tackle hate and extremism online – Instagram @anyonebrighton |
|
gaps |
|
|
Gap in coordinated partnership community tension monitoring |
|
|
Gap in third party reporting for hate across the hate crime strands |
|
|
Currently awaiting confirmation regarding resource including Community Coordinator role for 2020/21 and direction of National Counter-Extremism Strategy. |
|
Recommendations for partnership
work· Develop proactive coordinated community tension monitoring.
· Develop counter-extremism work based on confirmed resource and strategy for 2020/21 – recommendations to be updated January/February 2020.
· Continue to facilitate and develop the Upstanders Network and ANYone Brighton projects.
· Develop third party reporting mechanisms for hate incidents.
Contributory
factors· CONTEST (2018) identifies three key factors which terrorist exploit:
o the proliferation of extremist attitudes, which fragment and divide communities;
o conflict, instability and poor governance, which create the permissive environments where terrorists can thrive; and
o developments in technology, which provide the means for terrorists to operate undetected, together with the global reach to inspire their atrocities.
· Change in communication style of terrorist organisations: Daesh using technologically sophisticated means to draw a large number of people (compared to the Al-Qaida appealing to a select few vanguards and not the masses), hence a change in methodology as well as the target audience.
· Use of social media – increased products and outputs by terrorist organisations like Daesh, change in the pace and control of narrative.
· Use of social media by support base of terrorist organisations to spread the message in the face of territorial and leadership (including formal communication arms) losses sustains the online presence of the group and its narratives.
· The right-wing terrorist threat has been hyper-charged and the online space has provided a major platform for the growth.
· The ‘Alt-right’ has created a change in communication style whereby extremist content is positioned as ‘entertaining’. This style exploits comedy/humour to communicate offensive material creatively, and includes satirical ‘meme culture’ which has expanded reach effectively with ‘gamer’ and online communities.
· Influencers develop capabilities and attract new audiences leading to development of ‘right wing celebrity culture’.
· Platforms enabling user-generated topical content, development of a highly politicised sub-culture, which thrives on violent and dehumanising rhetoric, and on niche platforms, a culture of ‘terrorist-sainthood’ for eg. the Christchurch attacker, glorifying and emulating the ‘terrorist-saint’.
· Although small, a subset of individuals with unclear, unstable or mixed ideologies inclined towards use of violence or glorifying violence.
· Increased numbers of terrorist incidents and casualties globally and its media/reporting (including in the UK and Europe).
· Increased reported hate incidents (including anti-Semitic and Islamophobic incidents) and increase in fear/worry of crime within minority communities.
· Hostile State based activities, including disinformation campaigns.
· Widening of the areas of conflict to eg. Yemen, and Libya.
· International refugee crisis and people fleeing war torn and other areas of conflict and instability.
· Global tensions (eg. the USA and Iran, Kashmir …), intractable conflicts (eg. Israel/ Palestine; Turkish/ Kurdish …), and the unclear/uncertain political and economic landscape provides a fertile ground for grievances/ narratives to be exploited to create division and tensions.
National:
· The terrorist threat is evolving and has become more complex, diffused and diverse. A step change in terrorist threat was noted in 2017 with five terrorist incidents in the UK, two in 2018, and the most recent incident on London Bridge on 29th November 2019. Additionally, 25 terrorist plots (at least sixteen international terrorism plots and eight extreme right-wing plots) were successfully disrupted by the police, security and intelligence agencies in the UK since March 2017. Four ie. half of the extreme right-wing plots were disrupted in 2019 evidencing an increase in this threat. There are higher number of arrests and counter terrorism investigations.
· Presently, terrorism remains one of the most direct and immediate risks to the UK’s national security. The threat to the UK from terrorism is ‘Substantial, meaning a terrorist attack is likely’. On 4th November 2019, the terrorist threat level was lowered for the first time in five years from ‘Severe’ to ‘Substantial’. The current threat level at ‘Substantial’ continues to indicate a high level of threat and an attack might well occur without further warning, as seen with the terrorist incident on London Bridge on 29th November 2019. Northern Ireland related terrorism remains a serious threat, particularly in Northern Ireland itself.
· International terrorism continues to pose the greatest threat to the UK. Territorial losses of Daesh and the recent death of its leader have changed the group narrative from success to survival (steadfastness ie. commitment and patience to re-emerge). However, within the reframed worldview, Daesh’s social media capability and calls to inspire lone actor attack continues. Analysis suggests that Daesh primarily uses collective profile as a charismatic organisation for its brand and thus continues to pose a threat despite changes. The growth of the unofficial Daesh supporter network online is key to Daesh’s strategic objective to remain present and visible online. In the contestation to claim a dominant position, increased communication/activities are also noted from the Al-Qaida (AQ). AQ linked groups have used local grievances to gain entry, create political legitimacy in weak/poorly governed States (eg. in Syria, Yemen…) to reassert themselves.
· Threat from the right-wing terrorism has grown and there is internationalisation of right-wing threat. Growth of far and extreme right in the UK and across Europe is seen in increased attendance at street protests (anti-migrant, anti-Muslim) and electoral gains for the far right political parties (eg. Germany) suggesting increased interactions with far-right social media platforms and a social acceptance of some of the right-wing narratives.
· Right-wing narratives centre on anti-migrant, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic rhetoric and their application is evolving to increase reach of the groups and influencers. Local issues are used to gain online membership and individualistic following for charismatic leaders. Influencers develop capabilities and attract new audiences leading to development of ‘right wing celebrity culture’. ‘Freedom of speech’ and ‘CSE’ (child sexual exploitation) have been co-opted as the main tropes to promote a victimhood narrative. The groups and influencers endeavour to inoculate supporters from accepting mainstream reporting and create a distrust of authorities or an ‘anti-establishment narrative’ taking advantage of the current political, economic and social context (eg. Brexit).
· The ‘Alt-right’ has created a change in communication style whereby extremist content is positioned as ‘entertaining’. This style exploits comedy/humour to communicate offensive material creatively (eg. school shooting), and includes satirical ‘meme culture’ which has expanded reach effectively with ‘gamer’ communities. The communication style relies on generational sub-cultural references. Humour and Irony strategically enable individuals to espouse right-wing ideas whilst disclaiming ideological commitment to it, and dismantles prohibitions to publicly adopting far-right politics. The most damaging impact has been seen in further normalisation of the right-wing discourses and an associated reduction in challenges/ oppositional voices.
· Advancement in social media has accelerated terrorists’ abilities to ‘communicate use of violence’ both in terms of deepening impact of terrorist violence - to create fear, and incentivise the use of violence - to further recruit. Terrorist incident in Christchurch in March 2019, seems to have established a new pattern of ‘livestreaming’ the attack (on Facebook, Twitch …); lone attackers creating a manifesto featuring racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic comments; and targeting places of worship. The language and imagery characterising attackers manifestos and online postings appear to draw from computer gaming and online culture. Attacks have been livestreamed from a ‘first person shooter’ perspective and gaming concepts such as ‘high scores’ are used by the online cohort to describe attack actions and outcomes.
· Online space has also provided a major platform in the growth of right-wing terrorism. Online-networked social movements, including forums (eg. ‘Stormfront’) and imageboard platforms (eg. ‘4chan’ and ‘8chan’ in 2019 reconfigured as ‘8kun’ on the dark web) are essential in understanding right-wing terrorist threat. These sites provide anonymity and are mainly user-response led: users observe and participate in an unending stream of extremist topical content in a highly politicised sub-culture, which thrives on violent and dehumanising rhetoric, and a culture of ‘terrorist - sainthood’ for eg. the Christchurch attacker, glorifying and emulating the ‘terrorist-saint’
· The internet has emerged as a key resource in facilitating the radicalisation process with some direct personal contact. Young people are found to be at an increased risk as digital content is made very attractive and persuasive and can be quickly and widely shared.
· The nature of threat has diversified and progressively evolved to include smaller cells and lone actors that plan and carry out the terrorist attack either with limited or without assistance from a terrorist organisation. The unpredictable and unconstrained operation of lone actors makes prevention even more difficult.
· Individuals returning from conflict (eg. Syria) may pose security threat to the UK upon their return due to increased capabilities gained from training and/ or participation in the conflict. People whose aspirations to travel to join a conflict have been frustrated may carry out lone acts of terrorism.
National policy:
· The national Counter Terrorism Strategy (CONTEST) was updated and strengthened to respond to the heightened threats and findings from a number of strategic and operational reviews that were carried out following five terrorist incidents in the UK in 2017. The strategic aim of the CONTEST (June 2018) and the framework (four work streams: Pursue, Protect, Prepare, and Prevent) remain as before; albeit, with a change in approach within this framework to better respond to evolving threats.
· The aim of the national Prevent Strategy (2011) remains the same ‘To safeguard and support those vulnerable to radicalisation, to stop them from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism’. However, one of the three objectives has been changed and aims to reduce re-offending and improve the reintegration of those already engaged in terrorism or who support it. The revised objectives are:
1. Tackle the causes of radicalisation and respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism (unchanged).
2. Safeguard and support those most at risk of radicalisation through early intervention, identifying them and offering support (unchanged).
3. Enable those who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate (changed in June 2018).
· Following the updated CONTEST, Prevent work is focused on locations with higher threat and risks in the UK. Three ‘Multi-Agency Centres’ (MAC) pilots are running to share information and coordinate support to those who are known to police to prevent engagement in terrorism. Learning from these pilots will be used to roll out work to reduce reoffending and promote individuals to disengage (Prevent Strategy third objective). Individuals subject to court approved conditions are engaged in rehabilitative interventions through ‘Desistance and Disengagement Programme’ (DDP). The Fishmonger’s Hall incident on London Bridge in November 2019, where a convicted terrorist has carried out a further terrorist incident, has focused attention on this work stream.
· The Counter Terrorism & Border Security (CTBS) Act, 2019 updated terrorism offences for the digital age and reflected contemporary patterns of radicalisation. The Act enabled earlier disruption of the terrorist threats in the UK, ensured that sentences properly reflect the seriousness of terrorism offences, and strengthened police’s ability to manage terrorist offenders following their release. It also contributed to the government’s objective of hardening the UK’s defences against hostile State activity.
· With respect to Prevent, the CTBS Act, amended sections 36 and 38 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 to enable local authorities, in addition to the police, to refer an individual at risk of being drawn into terrorism for discussion at a Channel Panel. The new provisions became effective on 12th April 2019.
· The CTBS Act also provided for an independent review of Prevent, which began in August 2019. The review will focus on impact ie. if Prevent is achieving its objectives, effectiveness of Prevent delivery and statutory Prevent Duty (both locally and nationally), its interaction with other policy areas and future direction of travel. The terms of reference were agreed in the parliament and published on 16th September 2019, a call for evidence remained active during 7th October - 9th December 2019, and the review is expected to report to Parliament by August 2020. The Review is an opportunity to engage with the public and partners, challenge critics, understand where the programme can be improved, and also capture best practice in our work to protect the vulnerable and ultimately keep the public safe. Due to legal complications, the review has stopped in December 2019.
· In June 2018, the review into Parsons Green Incident (detonation of an explosive device on the London Underground on 15th September 2017) provided key recommendations on issues such as: mental health support, immigration and Channel quality assurance. Key issues identified by the review were: timely management of Channel (supporting vulnerable individuals from being drawn into terrorism) cases, regular review of vulnerabilities and risks to individuals, structured support plan for cases, and improved understanding amongst professionals.
· Channel (supporting vulnerable individuals from being drawn into terrorism) has seen a shift in responsibilities for some of the processes from the police to local authorities. The new arrangements are being mainstreamed through a regional model and its implementation is being staggered. Currently the South East region is expected to roll out the new arrangements in 2020/21.
· Unclear political and economic landscape due to Brexit and Austerity may lead to potential increase in community tensions and may increase risks of getting drawn into terrorism, the associated reduction in resources may compound impact on communities.
International:
· International landscape has been changing. Use of disinformation campaigns in order to sway public opinions, politics and policy decisions, and other incidents (eg. Novichok poisoning in Salisbury) have seen a resurgence of State based threats within the context of intense competition between nation States.
· Intractable international conflicts continue to make working with communities’ complex, presenting challenges for delivering national policies and strategies locally.
National and local
data· There were 273 arrests for terrorism-related activity in the 2018, a decrease of 41% compared with the 465 arrests in 2017, and the lowest since 2013. The fall is partly due to a relatively large number of arrests in 2017 in the wake of a number of terrorist attacks in the UK. However, each of the past five years the number of arrests has been above the annual average of 258 arrests (2014-18). Of the 273 arrests, 102 (37%) resulted in a charge - of which 81 were terrorism-related, while 99 (36%) were released without a charge[99].
· 31 women (11% of 273) were arrested in 2018, lower than in 2017 (63 women) and the lowest number of women arrested since 2013. Despite the fall, the number of women arrested was above the average arrested per year (24) since the data collection began in 2001. The proportion of females arrested was above the series average (9%) in each of the past six years.
· As in previous years, the ‘30 and over’ age-group accounted for the most arrests (48%). Those aged under-18 accounted for 6% of arrests, a similar level to the previous year, which was the highest proportion of under-18s arrested.
· Despite the decline in number of arrests across all ethnic groups, the number of White people arrested on suspicion of terrorism has been the third highest since 2001 at 118, 43% (26% decrease from 160 arrests in 2017). The largest decrease was seen for Asian ethnic group, standing at 86 people, 32% (56% decrease from 196 arrests in 2017)[100].
· There were 84 trials[101] for terrorism offences in 2018 (86 in 2017, ie. a fall of 2) and 90% (76) resulted in a conviction, as defendants were only acquitted in eight cases.
· At the end of 2018, there were 221 terrorist prisoners in the UK (186, 84% convicted and 16% on remand), a decrease of 1% on the 224 persons in 2017. This was the first fall in the number of persons in custody since the year ending December 2013, and follows an upward trend seen between 2013 and 2017. However, this was the second highest number in custody for terrorism-related offences since the data collection began in April 2009, with the highest number held in 2017 (224).
· Police and MI5 are running more than 700 live counter-terror investigations relating to 3,000 individuals, up from 600 in 2017 and highest in ten years[102].
· Channel data published by the Home Office revealed that there was a decline in overall referrals in 2018/19, with 5,738 individuals referred due to concerns that they were vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism compared with 7,318 in 2017/18, (6,093 in 2016/17 and 7,631 in 2015/16). This is the lowest referrals since comparable data is available from 2015/16. The increases in 2017 may be attributable to a number of terrorist attacks and in 2015 to the introduction of Prevent duty.
· The education sector (1,887; 33%) continues to account for the highest referrals in 2018/19 with similar proportion reported over the years (2,462 in 2017/18; 1,976 in 2016/17 and 2,539 in 2015/16). Police account for the second highest referrals in 2018/19 (1,650; 29%) which is slightly lower than previous years (2,364; 32% in 2017/18; 1,946 in 2016/17 and 2,377 in 2015/16).
· Of the 5,738 individuals referred in 2018/19, 4,407 (77%) left the process or were not suitable to Channel with 64% signposted to alternative services, and 1,320 (23%) were deemed suitable, through preliminary assessment, to be discussed at a Channel panel. Whilst the proportions of those who left the process were higher, higher proportions were signposted to alternative service, and higher proportions were discussed at the Channel panel when compared (1,314; 18% in 2017/18 and 1,146; 19% in 2016/17, and 1,072, 14% in 2015/16).
· Higher number of people (561; 10% of overall referrals or 43% of referrals discussed at the Channel Panel) received Channel support following a Channel panel in 2018/19 (394 in 2017/18). Of these 561 adopted cases in 2018/19, 474 (84%) individuals have subsequently left the process, and 87 (16%) are currently still receiving Channel support. Of those 474 adopted cases who have left the Channel process, 402 (85%) did so with no further radicalisation concerns. The evidence suggests that there are higher rates of individuals leaving with no further terrorism-related concerns ie. 85% Channel cases had vulnerability successfully reduced.
· In 2018/19, of the 5,738 individuals referred, the majority (3,343; 58%) were aged 20 years or under. Those aged 20 years or under also made up the majority of the 1,320 individuals discussed at a Channel panel (839; 64%) and the 561 individuals that received Channel support (373; 66%). The proportions broadly remained the same since 2015/16.
· In 2018/19, of the 5,738 individuals referred, the majority were male (4,991; 87%). Males also made up the majority of the 1,320 individuals discussed at a Channel panel (1,143; 87%) and the 561 individuals that received Channel support (493; 88%). The proportions of male was higher than the previous two years across categories.
· In 2018/19, of the 5,738 individuals referred, 1,404 (24%) were referred for concerns related to Daesh or Al-Qaida affiliated or inspired extremism and 1,389 (24%) were referred for concerns related to right-wing extremism, ie. a 6% increase for referrals related to right-wing concerns. For the first time, the same proportion, 41% of individuals were discussed at a Channel panel for concerns about Daesh or Al-Qaida affiliated or inspired extremism and right-wing extremism (536 and 542 respectively).
· For the first time since recorded data became available (2015/16), more adopted cases were referred for concerns related to right-wing radicalisation (254; 45%) compared with concerns related to Daesh or Al-Qaida affiliates (210; 37%). The proportion of individuals who received Channel support due to right-wing related concerns has increased steadily over the years, from 25% in 2015/16 to 37% in 2016/17, 44% in 2017/18, to the current levels of 45%.
· Of the 5,738 referrals 2,169 individuals (38%) were referred with a mixed, unstable or unclear ideology, of which the majority (1,252; 58%) had no concern identified following an initial assessment. This is a newer trend noted in referrals. Of the 561 adopted Channel cases, 19 ie. 3% were for referrals relating to a mixed, unstable or unclear ideology.
· Tell MAMA report[103] found significant spikes in anti-Muslim hate after trigger events (eg. EU referendum, terrorist incidents). Following a ‘trigger event’ clear spikes are noted in hate incidents online between 24-48 hours and this then moves offline between 48-72 hours. The prevalence and severity of the hate incidents are influenced by the government, media, and police responses to the ‘trigger event’. The 'familiar and familial' effect ie. the level of empathy or connection felt towards the chosen target (victims and location) influences both the prevalence and severity of hate responses. For instance, 700% rise was noted in 'street incidents' in the seven days following the Manchester Arena attack.
· A YouGov poll commissioned by the Muslim Council of Elders has revealed widespread anxieties in the UK, US and Europe around the reconcilability of Islam and Western values. In the UK a plurality (32%) reported that they regard Islam unfavourably[104], with 38% perceiving there to be a clash between Islam and the values of British society. Muslim communities report such perceptions as negatively shaping their experience of life in the UK.
Who, what, where, when.
etc.· In July 2019 changes were made to the terrorism threat level system, to reflect the threat posed by all forms of terrorism, irrespective of ideology. There is now a single national threat level describing the threat to the UK, which includes Daesh/ Al-Qaida associated, affiliated or inspired terrorism, Northern Ireland, left-wing and right-wing terrorism. The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland remains separate.
· The threat to the UK from terrorism is ‘Substantial, meaning a terrorist attack is likely’. On 4th November 2019, the terrorist threat level was lowered for the first time in five years from ‘Severe’ to ‘Substantial’. The threat level from international terrorism was increased in August 2014 to ‘Severe’, mainly driven by the developments in Syria and Iraq and the rise of terrorist organisations such as Daesh, and had remained at the second highest level since[105]. The current threat level at ‘Substantial’ continues to indicate a high level of threat; and an attack might well occur without further warning as seen with the London Bridge incident on 29th November 2019.
· Northern Ireland related terrorism remains a serious threat, particularly in Northern Ireland itself. Since 24th September 2010 when the threat levels were first published, the threat levels in Northern Ireland remains at ‘Severe meaning an attack is highly likely’.
· Threat from Daesh continues despite territorial and leadership losses; the threat from Al-Qaida continues, including contestations between these groups and their affiliates, and remains the dominant form of threat. The right-wing terrorism threat has grown with online space providing a major platform for this growth.
· The right-wing groups/causes, despite sharing many similarities have significant ideological divergences with contestations abound. For instance, groups/ influencers broadly identified as promoting ‘cultural nationalism’ use ‘anti-Salafi-Jihadist’ views to promote a wider anti-Muslim narrative, whereas some of the ‘White-supremacist’ groups popularised the term ‘White Jihad’ and ‘admire Daesh’s recruitment strategies’.
· Many terrorist incidents globally, across Europe and the UK, have used crude and less sophisticated methods, vehicle borne attacks in public or crowded places, many carried out by lone actors or smaller cells, inspired[106]and not centrally directed by terrorist groups or ideologies. It is assessed that most future terrorist plots in the UK will employ simple methods that can be developed with ease and at speed. Terrorists still have the intent to also mount complex, potentially more destructive attacks, probably targeting crowded places or the global aviation system. The general availability and use of encrypted communications allows terrorists to disguise their plans better.
· Online propaganda and networking via social media are still essential means by which to recruit, radicalise and raise money.
· Online influences, social media, increased pace and sophistication of terrorist groups’ communication and narrative continue to pose threats. Significant insight and resources are needed to counter these narratives and keep disseminating the information across partners to maintain confidence amongst professionals.
· The threat from lone actor attack continues from various extremist perspectives, with Daesh, Al-Qaida and right-wing propaganda continuing to inspire lone actor attacks. Lone actor attacks can be hard to detect and disrupt, especially as the timescale from radicalisation to carrying out an attack can be rapid (eg. three weeks in the case of perpetrator of Finsbury Park mosque attack).
· Right-wing terrorist incidents in 2019 have livestreamed mass killings on social media (Christchurch, New Zealand mosque shootings on Facebook) and gaming platforms (Halle, Germany shooting outside synagogue on Twitch) whilst lone actors targeted places of worship. The provision of graphic and shocking images has paradoxically excited ‘a niche’ audience and increased the attacker’s notoriety as a ‘terrorist-saint’.
· The online threat from the extreme-right is largely comprised of fluid leaderless movements, often found on imageboard and niche platforms (eg. ‘4chan’, ‘Gab’, ‘Discord’), making it difficult to identify a single unifying ideology driving the threat. However, understanding how supporters self-identify through defining ‘out-groups’ and re-affirming their shared beliefs makes it possible to identify the core beliefs that make up this audience’s worldview. ‘Othering’ practices in online extremist discourse also link international and local with political, social, and personal concerns, stimulating and strengthening user affiliation.
· Current political and economic landscape and local grievances are often exploited. For instance, online discussions around ‘Brexit’ are characterised by the use of divisive language, with right-wing audiences in particular expressing a stronger ‘Betrayal’ narrative aimed at specific MPs, establishment and mainstream media outlets.
· Risks continue to be posed by the returnees from the conflict, both in terms of those with increased capabilities having participated in the conflict, and families and children who may have been born in the conflict area with associated impact in terms of trauma as well as normalising violence and particular discourses.
· Risk of travel continues and has widened to newer geographical/ conflict areas.
· With continuation of anti-Prevent lobby, and circulation of anti-Prevent reports, perception of public and communities, especially some minority communities about Prevent is therefore fluctuating and needs to continually be engaged with. Nationally, increased transparency is being achieved through publication of Channel data. There is high value on communication to maintain professionals and communities trust and confidence in Prevent.
· Public protests and unlawful or extremist behaviour at the fringes of the lawful protests continue to present risks that vulnerable people may be exploited. Work to increase resilience and critical thinking about involvement in protests needs to be supported to mitigate the risks.
Summary of key
issues· Terrorism remains one of the most direct and immediate risks to the UK’s national security, with
· eight terrorist incidents in the UK since March 2017,
· additional twenty five terrorist plots (at least sixteen international terrorism plots and eight extreme right-wing plots) were successfully disrupted by the police and security agencies in the same period, and
· an increase in arrests and counter terrorism investigations.
· The current threat level to the UK at ‘Substantial’ continues to indicate a high level of threat and an attack might well occur without further warning, as seen with the terrorist incident on London Bridge on 29th November 2019.
· The UK faces diverse terrorist threats: despite territorial and leadership losses, Daesh and Al-Qaida and associated groups continue to pose threat through their social media capability, and calls to inspire lone actor attacks. Online space has provided a major platform in the growth of right-wing terrorisms. Online-networked social movements including forums and imageboard platforms are essential in understanding right-wing terrorist threat. Advancement in social media has accelerated terrorists’ abilities to ‘communicate use of violence’ both in terms of deepening impact of terrorist violence to create fear, and incentivise the use of violence to further recruit. Terrorist incident in Christchurch in March 2019 seems to have established a pattern of ‘livestreaming’ the attack, and lone attackers creating a manifesto featuring racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic content. This increased pace and sophistication of terrorist communication and narrative requires resources to challenge these. Threat from lone actors, returnees from conflict, and whose aspirations to travel have been frustrated has increased. The unpredictable and unconstrained operation of lone actors makes prevention even more difficult. It is assessed that most future terrorist plots in the UK will employ simple methods that can be developed with ease and at speed. However, terrorists still have the intent to mount complex, potentially more destructive attacks.
· The Prevent Strategy is to reduce the threat to the UK from terrorism and continues its aims ‘to safeguard and support those vulnerable to radicalisation, to stop them from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism’. The revised objectives are:
1. Tackle the causes of radicalisation and respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism.
2. Safeguard and support those most at risk of radicalisation through early intervention, identifying them and offering support.
3. Enable those who have already engaged in terrorism to disengage and rehabilitate.
· The Prevent Strategy addresses all forms of terrorism, including right-wing and Daesh or Al-Qaida-inspired and associated terrorisms, but prioritises these according to the threat they pose to our national security. Prevent also addresses some aspects of non-violent extremism that create an environment conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit.
· National Channel data published by the Home Office revealed that there was a decline in overall referrals in 2018/19, with 5,738 individuals referred due to concerns that they were vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism, the lowest number of referrals since 2015/16. In 2018/19, 561 people received Channel support, more than in the two previous years. The proportion of individuals who received Channel support due to right-wing extremism has increased steadily over the years reaching 45% in 2018/19. Majority of individuals referred to Channel and who consented to receive support were aged 20 years or under, and male.
· An overall increase in reported hate incidents, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic incidents continues in the UK. There have been significant spikes in anti-Muslim hate incidents after major national terrorist events; though these can be mitigated by strong locally co-ordinated community messaging that is quick and responsive. The unclear political and economic landscape globally and in the UK (for example, Brexit and austerity) may lead to a potential increase in community tensions and may increase risks of getting drawn into terrorism, with the associated reduction in resources potentially compounding the impact on communities.
·
We will continue to build on the
existing best practice in coordinating Prevent delivery locally,
our successful engagement with diverse communities and partners,
and strive to mainstream Prevent work.
· The Prevent delivery and Action Plan continues to be guided by the principles of proportionality, flexibility and inclusivity. Empowered individuals and communities are at the heart of effective Prevent delivery.
· The action plan has been responsive to the emerging risks and trends and our delivery has been flexible and risk-based. The action plan will be amended in line with the strategic risks outlined in the counter terrorism local profile (CTLP) currently expected in April 2020.
· Multi-agency centres that have been nationally piloted to deliver on the changed objectives of reducing re-offending will be delivered in the city only upon conclusion of the pilot; although, preparatory work with partners will continue.
· We will continue to learn from the national best practice. In light of national developments work will focus on standardisation and improving effectiveness of Prevent delivery.
· Work needs to address the issues of low referrals from communities and the third sector and to improve quality of referrals from partners. It is unclear if concerns with respect to all kinds of extremisms are being understood across partnership as these are not seen in referrals.
· We also need to further develop models of productive partnership with communities to develop supportive interventions particularly to improve support to individuals vulnerable due to their learning needs (eg. on Autistic spectrum) and mental health issues.
· Work to address the right-wing threat will continue along with support for professionals and communities to increase knowledge, skills and confidence to counter the narratives and right-wing threat.
· Local reporting does not reflect some of the national trends in terms of higher levels of reported religiously motivated incidents (Tell MAMA and Community Security Trust reports). The local landscape needs to be better understood, communities better engaged and empowered to improve Prevent delivery.
· We need to continually be aware of the international, national and local critical incidents and assess their impact on community cohesion: polarisation of communities and creating fissures. Work to monitor community tensions and coordinate partnership responses to reduce its impact on the communities in the city is ongoing.
· With local elections in May 2019, political buy-in for Prevent across parties will continually need to be worked on through Members engagement plan as well as through ‘One Voice Partnership’.
· Improved partnership work with communities and communications to maintain trust and confidence in Prevent.
Acquisitive crime is defined as offences where the offender derives material gain from the crime. Examples include, shoplifting, burglary, theft and robbery (although robbery is also classed as a violent crime since it applies to acquisitive crimes involving force or a threat of force).
Contributory
factors· Drivers of crime overall include: alcohol, drugs, opportunity, effectiveness of the criminal justice system, character and profit.. However most acquisitive crime is financially motivated, and may be linked to purchasing drugs.46
· The value of items increases the motivation for theft.[107]
· Opportunity or a lack of security is one of the main enablers of acquisitive crime. This may impact on trends seen in various types of acquisitive crime, ranging from the theft of individual items to the growth of online technology crime.[108]
· Characteristics such as a willingness to break social norms, levels of empathy and self-control are three times more likely to predict whether a young person will offend than factors associated with the immediate environment.1
Trends|
|
annual trend: last 8 years |
No. latest year (2018/19) |
|
Acquisitive crimes (No.)
|
|
10394 |
|
Total vehicle crime (No.)
|
|
1820 |
|
Cycle theft (No.)
|
|
864 |
|
Total burglary (No.)
|
|
1349 |
|
Domestic burglary (No.)
|
|
786 (16/17) |
|
Residential burglary (No.)
|
|
858 |
|
Non-residential burglary (No.)
|
|
492 |
|
Shoplifting (No.)
|
|
1826 |
Residential
burglary
The hotspot for police recorded domestic burglary in 2018/19 is located in an area covering Kemptown, parts of Hanover and Queen’s Park, North Laine, and the areas around Brighton Station, Seven Dials and the New England Quarter.
Auto
theft and vehicle interference
The hotspot for police recorded auto theft and vehicle interference offences includes the Lanes, North Laine, London Road and the New England Quarter, part of Seven Dials, Western Road and the streets north and south of Western Road as far west as Cambridge Road.
There are an elevated number of offences in a corridor stretching east to west across the city centre.
Cycle theft
The hotspot for police recorded cycle theft offences is located in the city centre, and includes all of the Lanes, as well as North Laine, as far north as Cheapside. The hotspot area also includes Grand Parade, the Old Steine, and Western Road and surrounding streets, as far west as Preston Street.
The ever deeper penetration of the use of computers and the internet in the day-to-day life of individuals and business, has been matched by an increasing desirability of perpetrating crime by these means.
Computer misuse and fraud offences are very prevalent, although local data are not available. The National Crime Agency Strategic Assessment of serious and organised crime 2018 stated that fraud is the most commonly experienced crime in the UK.[109]
Data from the Crime Survey for England & Wales found that, in 2018:
· 78 out of every 1,000 adults had been a victim of fraud, an increase of 17% since 2017
· 21 out of every 1,000 adults had been a victim of computer misuse, a decrease of 21% since 2017
· 54% of fraud offences and 94% of computer misuse offences were flagged as cyber (internet-enabled) crime.[110]
The South East Regional Organised Crime Unit (SEROCU)[111] is a police unit responsible for addressing cybercrime and other organised crime across Sussex Police and other forces in the South East, with close links to wider structures in the UK and internationally. As well as investigating cybercrime, it provides advice to protect individuals and businesses, and also works to prevent people, young people in particular, from becoming involved as perpetrators.
|
(Source: Census 2011, except marked * ONS MYE 2017) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proportion of population with these characteristics |
|
|
Shading represents the three highest ranked rates by resident population |
North Portslade South Portslade Hangleton & Knoll
|
Wish Central Hove Westbourne Goldsmid |
Brunswick & Adelaide Regency Queen’s Park St Peter’s & North Laine |
Hove Park Withdean Patcham Preston Park
|
H’dean & Stanmer Moulsecoomb & Bevendean East Brighton Hanover & Elm Grove |
Woodingdean Rottingdean & Coastal
|
Brighton & Hove |
England |
|
mid-year pop est. 2017* |
34,879 |
46,228 |
58,502 |
56,184 |
68,324 |
24,038 |
288,155 |
55,619,178 |
|
residents under 16yrs* |
7,051 |
7,541 |
6,011 |
10,808 |
10,120 |
3,850 |
15.7 |
19.1 |
|
residents16-64yrs* |
22,052 |
31,990 |
47,390 |
36,519 |
51,735 |
14,758 |
70.9 |
62.8 |
|
residents 65+* |
5,776 |
6,697 |
5,101 |
8,857 |
6,469 |
5,430 |
13.3 |
18.0 |
|
one person households <65 |
1,922 |
6,543 |
10,569 |
3,991 |
5,194 |
1,607 |
24.5 |
17.9 |
|
one person households 65+ |
1,944 |
2,972 |
2,768 |
2,694 |
2,486 |
1,604 |
40.5 |
31.5 |
|
single parent h/h |
1,405 |
1,235 |
1,369 |
1,462 |
2,489 |
677 |
29.0 |
24.5 |
|
BME (non-White) |
3,281 |
5,130 |
6,714 |
4,842 |
7,940 |
1,950 |
10.9 |
14.6 |
|
full time students |
1,770 |
2,359 |
8,473 |
3,654 |
14,563 |
1,437 |
15.3 |
9.0 |
|
commuters (10km+) |
5,108 |
9,008 |
10,176 |
10,122 |
8,588 |
3,653 |
22.1 |
24.2 |
|
LLTI (16-64yrs) |
3,200 |
3,601 |
5,107 |
3,619 |
6,482 |
1,647 |
12.2 |
12.7 |
|
LLTI 65+ |
2,889 |
3,769 |
2,644 |
3,900 |
3,486 |
2,470 |
53.7 |
53.1 |
|
social housing |
2,870 |
1,661 |
3,955 |
1,294 |
7,532 |
875 |
15.0 |
17.7 |
|
population density* |
34,879 |
46,228 |
58,502 |
56,184 |
68,324 |
24,038 |
34.9 |
4.3 |
Appx B: Multiple Deprivation Index 2019 for
Lower Super Output Areas in Brighton & Hove
|
Number of police recorded crimes in each area |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shading represents the three highest ranked rates by resident population |
North Portslade South Portslade Hangleton & Knoll
|
Wish Central Hove Westbourne Goldsmid
|
Brunswick & Adelaide Regency Queen’s Park St Peter’s & North Laine |
Hove Park Withdean Patcham Preston Park
|
Hollingdean & Stanmer Moulsecoomb & Bevendean East Brighton Hanover & Elm Grove |
Woodingdean Rottingdean & Coastal
|
|
mid-year pop est. 2017 |
34,879 |
46,228 |
58,502 |
56,184 |
68,324 |
24,038 |
|
ASB incidents |
631 |
907 |
3,940 |
724 |
1,461 |
343 |
|
Bicycle theft |
12 |
157 |
426 |
72 |
149 |
18 |
|
Burglary |
97 |
219 |
486 |
194 |
258 |
68 |
|
Criminal damage & arson |
298 |
367 |
944 |
307 |
588 |
135 |
|
Drugs offences |
45 |
80 |
448 |
131 |
210 |
28 |
|
Possession of weapons |
26 |
32 |
246 |
13 |
78 |
24 |
|
Public order |
220 |
289 |
1,184 |
214 |
432 |
132 |
|
Robbery |
15 |
32 |
262 |
31 |
65 |
13 |
|
Vehicle crime |
174 |
272 |
585 |
340 |
396 |
133 |
|
Violence and sexual offences |
888 |
988 |
3,907 |
890 |
1,973 |
465 |
Neighbourhood issues raised by
representatives of LATs at LAT Forum meetings
Jan-Oct 2019
|
|
Apr 18 –Mar 19 |
2018/19 compared with 2015/16 (% change) |
rank within 15 benchmarked CSPs, 2018/19[112] |
|
|
Police recorded crimes |
|
|
|
1=best;15=worst |
|
Total crimes |
23622 |
26940 |
+14.0% |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criminal damage (incl. arson) |
2797 |
2739 |
-2.1% |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Injury violence |
2632 |
2950 |
+12.1% |
9 |
|
Violence against the person |
7883 |
10998 |
+39.5% |
9 |
|
Sexual offences |
667 |
964 |
+44.5% |
|
|
Robbery |
279 |
437 |
+56.6% |
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Burglary |
1463 |
1349 |
-7.8% |
3 |
|
Vehicle crime |
1399 |
1820 |
+30.1% |
6 |
|
Pedal cycle theft |
695 |
864 |
+24.3% |
* |
|
Theft and handling (incl. motor vehicle theft) |
8746 |
8608 |
-1.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police recorded incidents and crimes |
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic violence incidents and crimes |
4575 |
5253 |
+14.8% |
n/a[115] |
|
Racist incidents and crimes |
462 |
534 |
+15.6% |
n/a |
|
Religiously-motivated incidents and crimes |
64 |
81 |
+26.6% |
n/a |
|
Homophobic incidents and crimes |
177 |
204 |
+15.3% |
n/a |
|
Gender identity hate incidents and crimes |
30 |
53 |
+76.7% |
n/a |
|
Disability hate incidents and crimes |
76 |
81 |
+6.6% |
n/a |
|
Anti-social behaviour incidents |
11524 |
7901 |
-31.4% |
n/a |
Brighton & Hove
Strategic Assessment of Crime and Community Safety, 2019
tel: (01273) 291103/291099
email: community.safety@brighton-hove.gov.uk
www.safeinthecity.info
March 2020
[1] The Economic Impact of Tourism Brighton & Hove 2017, Tourism South East. https://www.visitbrighton.com/dbimgs/EIA%20of%20Tourism%20Brighton%20and%20Hove%20-%202017-FINAL%20(3).pdf
[2] Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) is defined as all ethnic groups other that White English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British.
[3] ONS 2011 UK Population Census, table KS201EW available at https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/data_finder
[4] Traveller Caravan Count, 2019 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/traveller-caravan-count-july-2019
[5] NHS Brighton & Hove, ‘Gypsy and Traveller Rapid Health Needs Assessment’, 2012
[6] Higher Education Statistical Agency (HESA), https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis
[7] Office for National Statistics. Census 2011, table QS108EW https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/data_finder
[8] Brighton & Hove Trans Needs Assessment 2015
[9]Equalities in Brighton & Hove: Data snapshot for equalities groups across the city, April 2017. Available at http://www.bhconnected.org.uk/content/reports
[10] Office of National Statistics, Census 2011, table DC3201EW. https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/data_finder
[11] ONS Annual Population Survey. Self-reported wellbeing 2017/18, https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/
[12] Projecting Older People Population Information System
www.poppi.org.ukand Projecting Adult Needs and Service Information www.pansi.org.uk.
[13] ONS 2011 UK population Census, table Available at https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/data_finder
[14] What About YOUth Survey 2014/15 https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/
[15] Estimate of prevalence derived from various data sources 2016/17. https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/
[16] NICE. Costing report: Promoting the quality of life of looked after children and young people; October 2010.
[17] Characteristics of children in need: 2018 to 2019, Department for Education. 9https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/characteristics-of-children-in-need-2018-to-2019
[18] Department for Education, NEET data by local authority, 2019
[19] ONS, Brighton & Hove Labour Market Profile. Available at https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/
[20] Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Homelessness statistics, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/rough-sleeping-in-england-autumn-2018
[21] Brighton & Hove City Council, ‘Homelessness Strategy 2014 – 2019’, 2014
[22] Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2019: Annual trend and demographic tables. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesannualtrendanddemographictables
[23] Safe and Well at School Survey, 2018 https://www.bhconnected.org.uk/sites/bhconnected/files/Safe%20and%20Well%20at%20School%202018%20briefing%20FINAL.pdf
[24] Problem behaviours include being yelled at, being put down and/or humiliated, being hit, kicked, pushed or slapped, having sent or received photos or films of each other naked, being threatened if you didn't do something your partner wanted, being constantly checked up on, being forced into sex, and being forced into marriage.
[25] Heeks M, Reed S, et al (2018) The economic and social costs of crime, Home Office Research Report 99 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-economic-and-social-costs-of-crime
[26] Local Safeguarding Children Board Annual Report 2018/19. https://www.bhscp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/Annual-Report-2018-19.pdf
[27] Families, Children and Learning Annual Report 2018/19. https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/brighton-hove.gov.uk/files/FCL%20Annual%20report%202019_0.pdf
[28] Youth Justice Board (2017) Effective practice in youth justice. Prevention in youth justice.
[29] Hughes N, Ungar M et al (2020) Health determinants of adolescent criminalisation. The Lancet: Child and Adolescent Health. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(19)30347-5/fulltext
[30] Derived from Youth Justice Statistics Open Data
[31] Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (2019) Risk assessment of offenders https://www.gov.uk/guidance/risk-assessment-of-offenders
[32] Tamlyn Cairns Partnership (2019) Findings from the Liaison & Diversion HNAs in South East Region.
[33] Home Office (2018) Serious Violence Strategy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/serious-violence-strategy
[34] These selected serious violent offences include: homicide; attempted murder; threats to kill; assault with injury/assault with intent to cause serious harm; robbery; and rape/serious assault.
[37] Temporal and geographic patterns of stab injuries in young people: a retrospective cohort study from a UK major trauma centre, British Medical Journal, 2018
[38] Children’s Society; Counting lives – responding to children who are criminally exploited, 2019
[39] County Lines research project; JH Consulting / St. Giles Trust / Missing People, 2018
[40] Home Office, Serious and Organised Crime Strategy, 2018
[41] The King’s Fund; How serious are the pressures in social care?, 2015
[42] PHE Prevalence estimates 2016/17, cited in Substance Misuse JSNA topic summary 2019. http://www.bhconnected.org.uk/sites/bhconnected/files/Substance%20misuse%20%28Adults%29.pdf
[43] National Crime Agency; County lines violence, exploitation & drug supply national briefing report, 2017
[44] Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner strategic plan, 2019-21
[45] Brighton & Hove locality review outcome, Violence & Vulnerability Unit, 2018
[46] Home Office, 2016, Modern Crime Prevention Strategy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modern-crime-prevention-strategy
[47] Foster J (2014) Alcohol, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault, Institute for Alcohol Studies. http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/IAS%20report%20Alcohol%20domestic%20abuse%20and%20sexual%20assault.pdf
[48] Heise L and Fulu E (2014) What works to prevent violence against women and girls?
[49] ONS, Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2019 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2019
[50] Flatley J (2016) Intimate personal violence and partner abuse. ONS https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015/chapter4intimatepersonalviolenceandpartnerabuse
[51] Gilchrist, E. et al. Domestic Violence. Current Issues in definitions and interventions with perpetrators in the UK. Forensic Psychology. 2013.
[52] Foster J (2014) Alcohol, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Assault, Institute for Alcohol Studies. http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/IAS%20report%20Alcohol%20domestic%20abuse%20and%20sexual%20assault.pdf
[53] Cho Hyunkag et al, An ecological understanding of the risk factors associated with stalking behaviour: Implications for social work practice, Journal of Women & Social Work 2012;27(4):381-390
[54] ONS, Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2019 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2019
[55] This includes partner or family non-physical abuse, threats, force, sexual assault or stalking.
[56] Problem behaviours include being yelled at, being put down and/or humiliated, being hit, kicked, pushed or slapped, having sent or received photos or images of each other naked, being threatened if you didn't do something your partner wanted, being constantly checked up on, being forced into sex, and being forced into marriage.
[57] Domestic abuse prevalence and trends, England and Wales: year ending March 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseprevalenceandtrendsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2019
[58] The Femicide Census: 2017 findings. 2018 https://www.womensaid.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-influencing/femicide-census/
[59] World Health Organisation (2013) Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/85239/9789241564625_eng.pdf?sequence=1
[60] Intimate personal violence and partner abuse https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/compendium/focusonviolentcrimeandsexualoffences/yearendingmarch2015/chapter4intimatepersonalviolenceandpartnerabuse
[61] Wheller K, Wire J. Domestic abuse risk factors and risk assessment: Summary of findings from a Rapid Evidence Assessment, College of Policing; 2014
[62] https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/progress-notes/201902/alarming-effects-childrens-exposure-domestic-violence
[63] ONS, Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, year ending March 2015 - Appendix Tables, Appendix table 4.34, 2016
[64]
Hester M. Who does what to whom?
Gender and domestic violence perpetrators in English police
records.
Eur J Criminol. 2013 Apr 16; 10(5):623-637
[65] Brighton & Hove City Council & East Sussex County Council, ‘Domestic Violence and Abuse Perpetrator Profile’, 2018. Unless otherwise stated police data used is April 2015 – March 2018.
[66] Dr Lorraine Sheridan. The National Stalking Survey. University of Leicester. 2004-13
[67] http://www.bhconnected.org.uk/sites/bhconnected/files/Stalking%20and%20Harassment%20JSNA%20Summary%2026112018.pdf
[68]Cho Hyunkag et al, An ecological understanding of the risk factors associated with stalking behaviour: Implications for social work practice, Journal of Women & Social Work 2012;27(4):381-390
[69]New guidelines on child anti-social behaviour (2013) https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/new-guidelines-on-child-antisocial-behaviour/
[70] ‘ASB crimes’ refers to a grouping of police recorded crimes made up of: criminal damage, common assault, harassment, public order and affray
[71] Crime Survey England & Wales, year ending Mar 2019, Supplementary tables https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesannualsupplementarytables
[72] CADDIE database
[73] Home Office (2018) Hate Crime, England & Wales, 2017/18. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2017-to-2018
[74] Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Office for National Statistics and Ministry of Justice. (2013) An overview of hate crime in England and Wales. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-hate-crime-in-england-and-wales
[75] Taken from attrition data spreadsheet obtained from Sussex Police. Some double counting has been accounted for, but a small number of crimes will be counted twice.
[76] Louise Casey “Review into Opportunity and Integration” December 2016
[77] Hello E, Scheepers P et al (2002) https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/3041884/ScheepersP-education.pdf
[78] Commission For Countering Extremism “Challenging Hateful Extremism” October 2019
[79] Police performance data.
[80] See Section 4.1 for further information relating to this increase
[81] The ethnicity category ‘White – North European’ used by Sussex Police includes White British, but no further breakdown is currently available from this data for victim ethnicity.
[82] Racial Harassment Forum, Brighton & Hove, ‘Hate Crime & Incidents’, April 2018
[83] Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Research Report 102 ‘Causes and motivation of hate crime’, 2016
[84] Police performance data.
[85] See Section 4.1 for further information relating to this increase
[86] Switchboard Health & Inclusion Project, LGBTQ+ People of Faith: Prejudice & Community Cohesion in Brighton & Hove, 2019. https://www.switchboard.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/LGBTQ-Faith-Report-1.pdf
[87] Stonewall and YouGov (2017) LGBT in Britain: Hate crime and discrimination https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_hate_crime.pdf
[88] Police performance data.
[89] See Section 4.1 for further information relating to this increase
[90] The ethnicity category ‘White – North European’ used by Sussex Police includes White British, but no further breakdown is currently available from this data for victim ethnicity.
[91] HM Government Equalities Office ‘National LGBT Survey: Summary Report’, 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721704/LGBT-survey-research-report.pdf
[92] Police performance data.
[93] See Section 4.1 for further information relating to this increase
[94] Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Research Report 102 ‘Causes and motivation of hate crime’, 2016
[95] Police performance data.
[96] Speakout Consultation with Learning Disabilities July 2017
[97] Commission for Countering Extremism, ‘Statistical Summary of Responses from our Call for Evidence’ July 2019
[98] Defined as campaigns/ disruptions/ local authority led Counter Extremism projects/ events/ signposting
[99] Home Office: 7 March 2019; ‘Operation of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 and subsequent legislation: Arrests, outcomes, and stop and search, Great Britain, quarterly update to December 2018; Statistical Bulletin 05/19.’ The data is from a live database. Given the number of cases still to be resolved in 2018, the current charge rate is likely to change and may be lower.
[100] Ibid.
[101] Trials in 2018 will include a number of persons arrested and charged in a previous year.
[102] The Telegraph, 23/01/2019 accessed on 9/04/2019 at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/23/police-counter-terror-investigations-highest-ten-years/
[103] Sadique, K., Tangen, J., Perowne, A. and Tell MAMA (2018) The Importance of Narrative in Responding to Hate Incidents Following ‘Trigger’ Events. Great Britain: TELL MAMA.
[104] The proportion was considerably higher in France (49%) and Germany (53%).
[105] Threat levels were raised to the highest ie. ‘Critical’ for two brief episodes (23rd - 27th May 2017; and 15th -17th September 2017) following Manchester and Parsons Green incidents in the UK.
[106] For instance, perpetrators of 2017incidents carried out attacks without joining a group abroad or making concrete links to terrorist groups.
[107] ONS, Focus on Property Crime, 2014-15, 2015
[108] Home Office. Opportunity/Security as a driver of crime. Discussion paper. January 2015.
[109] https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/who-we-are/publications/173-national-strategic-assessment-of-serious-and-organised-crime-2018/file
[110] Crime in England & Wales, year ending December 2018, tables on fraud and computer misuse derived from Crime Survey England and Wales https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesexperimentaltables
[112] Latest available twelve month period. Ranking based on crime ‘rate’ per 1,000 residents
[113] Because there remains an emphasis on encouraging reporting of sexual offences, it does not necessarily follow that a low rank is ‘good’ and a high rank is ‘bad’.
[114] ONS theft offences group
[115] Comparative/benchmarking data are not available.
