Report of investigation into Victoria Police crime records and statistical reporting

Ordered to be printedVictorian Government Printer

May 2011Session 2010–11

P.P. No. 30

2

3

OPI Lett er of transmitt al

To

The Honourable the President of the Legislative Council (Vic)

And

The Honourable the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly (Vic)

This report is presented to Parliament in accordance with section 28(2) of the Police Integrity Act 2008. It sets out the results of an investigation I commenced on the recommendation of the Victorian Ombudsman. In his report to Parliament titled Crime statistics and police numbers, the Ombudsman said he had received information:

…that some police misuse the recording procedures on cleared crime to make it appear that more crime has been successfully solved than is actually the case.

In the course of investigating that allegation, my investigators identifi ed further signifi cant defi ciencies in the way in which crime data is recorded by Victoria Police.

Michael Strong

DIRECTOR, POLICE INTEGRITY

4

Foreword

Crime statistics are used by Governments and the community as an important indicator of police performance. The demand for statistical data on crime management is driven by an assortment of needs, including measuring the eff ectiveness of national and local crime reduction strategies and determining the allocation of resources. Public confi dence in crime data collection processes and the accuracy of published crime statistics is integral to public confi dence in the policing services delivered by Victoria Police.

This investigation examines the way data is recorded on Victoria Police’s Law Enforcement Assistance Program (LEAP), particularly as it relates to crime clearance rates. I commissioned the investigation in August 2009, following a referral from Ombudsman Victoria relating to an allegation that some police were involved in the falsifi cation of police records relevant to crime clearance rates and fi nalisation of crime records.1

The investigation initially focused on one of the processes that result in a crime being recorded as ‘cleared’ - the Intent to Summons process. Although the investigation revealed evidence some police were using the process inappropriately to clear crime, the evidence does not establish that this was done corruptly to falsify crime clearance rates. Nevertheless, the investigation exposed that the Intent to Summons process used by Victoria Police is open to manipulation. Signifi cant fl aws in the system are exacerbated by a lack of clear policies and instructions and inadequate monitoring processes.

In early September 2010, I forwarded my initial fi ndings to Victoria Police. The response to those fi ndings opened up further lines of inquiry for the Offi ce of Police Integrity (OPI).

In mid September 2010, in an att empt to clarify what appeared to be complex statistical analysis issues, Victoria Police provided OPI with a comprehensive data set from LEAP. The data set comprised more than six million unit records dating from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 2010. That data set and subsequent additions to it were then subjected to further comprehensive analysis.

That analysis confi rmed that there are problems with the Intent to Summons process and concluded that while the system is open to misuse and abuse, the evidence does not establish that the misuse is widespread. Of a total average of 380,000 reported

1 Victoria Police Corporate Statistics states ‘Cleared crime’ refers to all offences recorded on LEAP [Law Enforcement Assistance Program] that have resulted in: one or more offenders being processed for the offence; an investigation revealing that no offence has occurred; the complaint being withdrawn; or the perpetrator was known but for legal and/or other reasons could not be charged (e.g. under age or deceased). Release date: 9 August 2009. Last updated Thu 21 January 2010 http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?a=internetBridgingPage&Media_ID=59806

5

crimes a year, the number of crime incidents that may have been wrongly identifi ed as having been ‘cleared’ or ‘solved’ could be between 8,500 and 15,000 depending on the year.

Because the misuse and abuse of the Intent to Summons process occurred in the context of systems defi ciencies, lack of clear policy, inadequate monitoring and, in some cases, tacit approval by middle management, it cannot be established to the requisite standard of proof that the misuse and abuse involved the commission of crimes. Notwithstanding this, the importance and sensitivity of crime statistics demand that any manipulation of the data that produces them must be viewed seriously and be promptly addressed. Rather than pursuing individuals Victoria Police’s focus should be on removing opportunities for further misuse and abuse.

Of much more signifi cance to the investigation, the further data analysis conducted by OPI revealed anomalies in the way crime is recorded on LEAP. These anomalies impact on the data Victoria Police provides to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and annual performance reporting to the Victorian community. The anomalies are caused by the lag or gap between when a crime is reported to police, how it is recorded, and when a record is created on LEAP. When viewing Victoria Police crime clearance rates over time, particularly in relation to some crime types, there is a signifi cant and cumulative distortion of crime clearance rates. So concerning was this discovery, I undertook to have these fi ndings independently reviewed. A review by a statistician from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research confi rmed my analyst’s fi ndings.

Further investigative work has been undertaken since the independent review which casts even more doubt on the integrity of data within LEAP that is used to calculate crime clearance fi gures. This further work suggests the early analysis of the extent of the distortion of clearance rates based on initial data was probably underestimated.

It should be noted that OPI investigators found no evidence of deliberate wrongdoing by any individual in relation to the broader systemic issues. Many decisions that resulted in these anomalies and the subsequent distortion of crime clearance rates were probably made in good faith. It is doubtful evidence of the distortion would have ever come to light without the capacity to conduct a comprehensive examination of the data on LEAP from a longitudinal perspective.

Since OPI investigators made their initial fi ndings in relation to problems with the way crime is recorded on LEAP, we have engaged with Victoria Police in a collaborative and cooperative process to validate our conclusions. In a lett er to me dated 10 March 2011, Chief Commissioner Simon Overland indicated his intention to review the Intent to Summons process from ‘end to end’. He advises Victoria Police is also examining broader issues associated with crime clearance rates, and confi rmed his commitment to ensuring community confi dence in the integrity of any and all statistics provided by Victoria Police.

6

The length of time taken to complete this investigation indicates some of the complexities of the issues. This report att empts to explain those issues in a straightforward manner. More detailed information of a technical nature has been forwarded to Victoria Police for their information. As the report deals with a number of technical issues related to LEAP and statistical analysis, an extensive glossary of terms has been included at the end of the report.

I note that in March 2011, as this investigation was in its concluding stages, there was signifi cant media att ention given to the disparity between an internal Victoria Police document and public statements made by senior police regarding the incidence of assaults in the Melbourne Central Business District. I am aware that the matt er has been referred to Ombudsman Victoria for investigation. Although the media coverage identifi es the public interest in ensuring public reporting of crime is accurate, the issues raised in relation the number of assaults in the Melbourne Central Business District are outside the scope of this investigation. I propose to wait until the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation before determining what, if any, action OPI will take.

7

Contents

OPI Letter of transmittal 3

Foreword 4

Contents 7

Tables and Figures 10

Key findings 11

Key Recommendations 12

Part One – Background and Methodology 13

Ombudsman’s investigation 13

Methodology 14

Preliminary data analysis 14

Targeted review 14

Preliminary findings 14

Further statistical analysis 14

Independent review of statistical analysis 14

Further investigative inquiries 15

Natural justice 15

Part Two – Recording crime 16

The LEAP database 16

What constitutes a crime? 16

Recording crime 17

Central Data Entry Bureau 19

Entering data on LEAP 20

Crime clearance rates 21

8

Part Three – The impact of date fields on published crime statistics 22

Victoria Police crime statistical reporting 22

Australian Bureau of Statistics 22

Victoria Police publications 24

Relevant date fields on LEAP 24

Create date 24

Report date 24

Victim seen date 25

Result date 26

Logical date sequences 26

What the data reveals 26

Differences between [victim seen date] [report date] and [create date] 26

Crime clearance rates and duration 30

The impact of residual crime 30

Residual crimes and offence categories 34

Impact on statistical reporting 36

Examples of differences between [victim seen date], [report date], [create date] and impact of residual crime on single year clearance figures 36-37

Impact on accuracy of performance reporting 39

Victoria Police response to the data analysis 41

Conclusion 43

Part Four – The Intent to Summons process 44

A five-step process 44

Brief authorisation process 45

Consequences 46

Overview of Intent to Summons findings 48

Legitimate intention to summons 48

Doubtful intention to summons 48

No real intention to summons 49

Extent of the problem 49

Action required 50

9

The Intent to Summons investigation 51

Background 51

2007 LEAP audit 51

Focus of the investigation 53

Flaws in the system 53

Case studies 54

Case study 1 – ‘Loading’ known offenders 54

Case study 2 – Identifying a modus operandi 55

Case study 3 – Clearing volume crime 57

What the case studies reveal 58

Data analysis 58

Conclusion 60

Part Five – Conclusion 62

Language 64

Abbreviations 64

Glossary of terms 64

Appendix One – Own motion determination 67

Appendix Two – Incident Field Report 68

Appendix Three – Victoria Police Manual – Procedures and Guidelines – Reporting a crime on LEAP 69

Appendix Four – Intent to Summons form 75

Appendix Five – Letter from Chief Commissioner 76

Appendix Six – OPI’s comments on Chief Commissioner’s letter 85

10

Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Three-tiered crime 17

Figure 2: LEAP recording process 18

Figure 3: Central Data Entry Bureau fax machines 19

Figure 4: Sorted forms waiting for data entry 19

Figure 5: Data entry operators’ work stations 20

Table 6: Outcome of investigation at 30 days codes Australian Bureau of Statistics 23

Figure 7: Report date 25

Figure 8: Victim seen date 25

Figure 9: Percentage of crime records with [create date] equal to or one day after [report date] 27

Table 10: Percentage of crimes with [create date] equal to or one day after [report date] 27

Table 11: Gap (in years) between [report date] and [create date] (report date range 1993/94 – 2009/10) 28

Table 12: Gap between [victim seen] and [report date] 29

Table 13: Residual crime as a percentage of entered crime 30

Figure 14: Numbers of entered crimes and residual crimes 31

Figure 15: Cleared and un-cleared components of all crimes 32

Figure 16: Cleared and un-cleared ratio for residual crimes 32

Figure 17: Cleared residual crime as a percentage of all cleared crime 33

Table 18: Total and cleared crime statistics for all crimes and residual crimes 34

Table 19: Offence categories and residual crimes 35

Table 20: Variable date impact on duration for all cleared crime 38

Figure 21: Variable date impact on duration for all cleared crime 39

Table 22: Comparative performance results for crimes against the person 40

Table 23: Comparative performance results for property crime 40

Figure 24: Residual crime versus residual incidents 42

Figure 25: The Intent to Summons process 47

Table 26: Matters ‘Pending Authorisation’ May 2010 52

Table 27: Reasons for non-authorisation 59

Table 28: Non-authorisation rates for crimes against the person 59

11

Key findings

1. Victoria Police is unable to produce accurate crime clearance statistics to the Victorian Government, the Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics and the Victorian community. This is due primarily to inherent fl aws in the design of LEAP and the outmoded and fl awed systems for entering data onto it, rather than the intentional wrongdoing of any individual.

Some of the contributing factors and risks include:

• Reliance on confusing paper-based forms that have to be fi lled out manually before being faxed to a Central Data Entry Bureau for manual entry by data processing offi cers.

• Uncertainty and inaccuracy about the date that a crime is reported or becomes known to police.

• Some crimes are only forwarded for entry onto the LEAP database when a suspect has been processed.

2. In addition to the general fl aws in recording crime and the LEAP database, there are specifi c fl aws in the current Intent to Summons process used by Victoria Police. Although the overall impact on Victoria Police crime clearance rates is statistically insignifi cant, it is a process open to manipulation.

3. The overall impact of these fl aws distorts crime clearance durations and crime clearance rates published by Victoria Police. This distortion makes it appear not only that, in any one fi nancial year, Victoria Police is successfully and rapidly ‘clearing’ more crime than is actually the case, but also that less crime is occurring than is actually the case.

4. These fl aws also result in the misclassifi cation of data provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in relation to investigations fi nalised within 30 days of a crime being reported or becoming known to police.

12

Key Recommendations

It is recommended that Victoria Police:

1. Take urgent steps to align Victoria Police crime statistical reporting with national standards based on the actual date that an off ence is reported or becomes known to police.

2. Ensure future reporting to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Victorian community uses the same parameters.

3. Provide writt en advice to OPI by 30 September 2011 regarding what short and long-term strategies will be implemented to rectify the other problems identifi ed in this report.

As discussed in the Crime statistics and police numbers report by Ombudsman Victoria, it is also recommended that:

4. Consideration is given to establishing a unit external to and independent of Victoria Police to compile, analyse and publish crime statistics.

13

Part One – Background and Methodology

Ombudsman’s investigationIn March 2009, the Victorian Ombudsman tabled a Parliamentary report titled Crime statistics and police numbers which detailed the fi ndings of his investigation into concerns raised by Mr Ted Baillieu MLA, now Premier, regarding administrative practices relating to crime statistics and police numbers.

In that report, the Ombudsman noted:

… the antiquated, time-consuming administrative practices for recording crime … and the outdated information technologies that are unsuited to a twenty-fi rst century approach to policing.2

The Ombudsman described the current systems and included in his recommendations that in future the use of manual forms for recording crime data should be eliminated. The Ombudsman also noted an anomaly with one of the systems, unique to Victoria Police, in relation to what is known as the Intent to Summons process. He said:

It was brought to my att ention that some police misuse the recording procedures on cleared crime to make it appear that more crime has been successfully solved than is actually the case. The way this is done, it was explained to me, is when an off ender has been apprehended and processed for certain off ences, unrelated off ences for which no off ender has yet been apprehended or interviewed, are added on to the fi le for the apprehended off ender (without their knowledge) in order to ‘clear up’ more crime ...

My investigation identifi ed one specifi c example which may well have involved falsifi cation of offi cial police records. Further investigation is required to determine whether this is a widespread practice.3

The Ombudsman went on to recommend, amongst other things, that:

…the Offi ce of Police Integrity investigate falsifi cation of police records associated with Victoria Police practices in relation to clearance rates and fi nalising crime reports as identifi ed in this investigation.4

As a result of the Ombudsman’s investigation, OPI commenced this investigation.

2 Ombudsman Victoria, March 2009, Crime statistics and police numbers p83 Ombudsman Victoria, March 2009, Crime statistics and police numbers pp56,574 Ombudsman Victoria, March 2009, Crime statistics and police numbers p57

14

The Director’s own motion determination that established the scope of the investigation is att ached to this report as Appendix One.

MethodologyThe OPI investigation commenced in August 2009. The fi rst stage of the investigation involved a detailed analysis of LEAP data to determine the focus of the investigation.

Preliminary data analysis

OPI analysts initially obtained LEAP data from Victoria Police relating to all reported crime incidents included in an Intent to Summons that were not authorised to proceed between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2008. Subsequently data from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 was also obtained to enable a trend analysis to be undertaken.

Targeted review

OPI investigators selected 27 matt ers for targeted review. These matt ers formed the basis of the case studies used in this report.

Preliminary findings

In August 2010, Victoria Police was provided with initial fi ndings. The response to those fi ndings opened up further lines of inquiry.

Further statistical analysis

On 13 September 2010, Victoria Police provided OPI with LEAP data relating to 6,149,815 unit records (representing 6,860,067 off ences) and 724,722 transactional records of crimes dealt with by the Intent to Summons process. The data covers a 17 year period from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 2010. Subsequently additional data in relation to these unit records has been requested and provided. This report is based on analysis of all the data received pertaining to LEAP records created prior to 1 July 2010.

Following the initial receipt of the additional data, OPI undertook further statistical analysis which focused on the fi nalisation of all crime reports, not just those dealt with by the Intent to Summons process. That further analysis identifi ed signifi cant concerns in relation to the distortion of crime statistical reporting, when crime that is reported in one fi nancial year is not recorded on LEAP until the next or a subsequent fi nancial year. This phenomenon is called for the purposes of this report residual crime.

Independent review of statistical analysis

In February 2011, in order to validate the fi ndings of the further analysis regarding crime statistics more generally, OPI arranged to have the methodology, analysis and fi ndings independently reviewed and assessed by the New South Wales Bureau of

15

Crime Statistics and Research. The independent review confi rmed the OPI methodology was sound and that the data interrogation outcomes were correct.

Further investigative inquiries

Following the independent review, OPI undertook further inquiries and inspected Victoria Police’s Central Data Entry Bureau. This led to a request for data not previously seen by OPI. The additional data indicates the earlier results underestimated the extent of the problem in relation to inaccurate data for crime clearance durations.

Natural justice

OPI provided a technical briefi ng regarding the results of statistical analysis to members of the Victoria Police Business Services Department on 4 April 2011. A draft copy of this report was forwarded to the Chief Commissioner on 21 April 2011. His lett er is att ached in full as Appendix Five and OPI’s comments in relation to his lett er is att ached as Appendix Six.

16

Part Two – Recording crime

The LEAP databaseVictoria Police introduced LEAP on 1 March 1993. LEAP was created to store information about every crime brought to the notice of police, including details of incident locations, vehicles involved, victims, witnesses, and suspects. LEAP also contains information relating to family incidents and missing persons.5

Although Victoria Police maintains LEAP was not originally designed to do so, LEAP is used to produce crime statistics and conduct data analysis.6 Among the statistics produced by LEAP are crime clearance numbers.

What constitutes a crime?Crimes recorded by Victoria Police have three tiers: incidents, sub-incidents and charges.

• An incident is a single event or occurrence.

• A sub-incident describes specifi c and distinct courses of criminal conduct within an incident.

• Crimes represent the actual off ences an off ender can be charged with, whether through a process of arrest, summons or warrant. All crimes must be linked to a sub-incident.7

In some publications, Victoria Police use the terms ‘off ence’ and ‘crime’ interchangeably. One incident can have many sub-incidents and one sub-incident can give rise to multiple crimes or off ences and associated charges. This is best illustrated by the following example.

A young person commits a residential burglary armed with a knife. In the course of the burglary, the youth assaults a resident and steals cash. When arrested, the youth is found in possession of other stolen property from an unrelated burglary.

The sub-incidents and crimes that fl ow from this incident are depicted in Figure 1.

5 Victoria Police – Corporate Statistics. Release date: Wed 20 June 2007. Last updated: Thu 22 October 2009. http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=781. Accessed 2 March 2010

6 Victoria Police – Corporate Statistics. Release date: Wed 20 June 2007. Last updated: Thu 22 October 2009. http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=781. Accessed 2 March 2010

7 Victoria Police LEAP Management Unit Training Manual, Incident, Sub-Incident and Charge Recording. Version 1, last updated: 26 July 2003

17

Figure 1: Three-tiered crime

Incident

Sub-IncidentAggravated Burglary(possess offensive

weapon)

Crimes

Sub-IncidentIntentionallyCause Injury

Crimes

Sub-IncidentHandle Stolen

Goods

Crimesx 4

Each of the crimes or off ences constitute a separate ‘count’ in statistical terms. In this example there will be a count of one associated with the sub-incident to do with aggravated burglary and a count of four for the ‘handle stolen goods’ sub-incident. A total count of fi ve will be added to the number of crimes against property published in annual crime statistics. A count of one will be added to the number of crimes against the person published or reported in the same year.

Recording crimeCitizens report crime in a variety of ways - over the phone, in person at a police station, or directly to police at the scene of a crime. Police can also become aware of a crime without being notifi ed by a member of the public, for example on patrol or as part of an investigative process. Police-detected crimes include possessing drugs or weapons or failing to appear on bail.

Once police are informed or become aware that an incident involving one or more potential crimes has occurred, the matt er should be recorded on LEAP as soon as possible. Until 2005, all entries on LEAP were made by manually completing an Incident Field Report (see Appendix Two). The form was then faxed to data entry operators in the Central Data Entry Bureau for entry on to LEAP. Figure 2 illustrates the typical LEAP recording process.

18

Figure 2: LEAP recording process

1.Incident occurs

2.Victim notifies police about crime incident

3.Victim seen(Optional)

Alternate 2. Police become

aware crime has occurred

4. Entry made in running sheet

or day book

6.Police

Supervisor checks report

7.Report faxed

to Central Data Entry Bureau

5.Police complete

Incident Field Report

8.Faxed forms

manually sorted and collated at Central Data Entry Bureau

9.Data entered

onto LEAPby data entry

operator

11.Result recorded

10.Crime processed.Progress notes added to LEAP

In 2005, LEAP Electronic Data Recording (LEDR) was introduced to enable certain crimes to be initially electronically recorded at regional crime desks. The information is checked by the manager of the crime desk before being uploaded onto LEAP. Although investigators can update the LEAP case progress narrative, other updates to LEAP records can only be made by Central Data Entry Bureau staff . Crimes able to be entered through LEDR relate to high volume property crimes (see Appendix Four). LEDR-initiated crime reports now comprise more than 40% of all crimes recorded on LEAP.

19

Central Data Entry BureauThe Central Data Entry Bureau was established in 1993. OPI is advised its policies and procedures have been largely unchanged since that time. Faxed Incident Field Reports are received 24 hours a day, seven days a week using 10 fax machines that operate continuously.

Figure 3: Central Data Entry Bureau fax machines

Once the forms have been faxed, they are manually sorted into priorities and districts by a junior public servant.

Figure 4: Sorted forms waiting for data entry

20

Approximately 1200 forms are faxed to the Central Data Entry Bureau on a daily basis. These forms include Use of Force Forms which are separated from the other forms and dispatched in hard copy format to the Police Academy through the DX mail (document exchange) system.

Figure 5: Data entry operators’ work stations

Data entry operators work shift work to ensure data entry can occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In March 2011, OPI investigators were told there had been a number of recent resignations. Of 52 data entry staff available for rostering, approximately 16 work morning shift, 11 afternoon shift and four people work night shift. In addition to entering data from hard copy forms, operators receive notifi cations of theft of motor vehicles and missing persons over the telephone. These notifi cations are then followed up with a faxed report.

Entering data on LEAPThe majority of work undertaken by data entry operators involves them transcribing information from forms including the Incident Field Report. OPI investigators were told some data entry undertaken by Central Data Entry Bureau staff is more complex. For example, only appropriately experienced data entry operators can enter data in relation to family violence matt ers. The forms associated with responses to family violence now run to fi ve pages, each page containing multiple fi elds. It may take an experienced person up to 20 minutes to complete the data entry for a family violence matt er.

Errors in faxing or defi ciencies in the paper work such as illegible handwriting are followed up by a ‘chaser’ faxed from the Central Data Entry Bureau to the manager

21

of the work unit that sent the forms. According to the Ombudsman, the Central Data Entry Bureau sends up to 600 chasers a month.8

The capacity for data entry operators to identify errors and take steps to rectify them is seen to be an important part of the quality assurance process.

Crime clearance ratesThe Victoria Police defi nition of cleared crime is referred to in the Language section of this report on page 64. In simple terms, cleared crime refers to matt ers that are considered to have been dealt with or which are resolved. Police have a hierarchy of options available for dealing with a suspect. The options range from issuing a caution or offi cial warning, issuing a penalty infringement notice, issuing a summons for a person to appear before a court to face charges, charging and bailing a person, and charging and remanding a person in custody.

The crime clearance rate is usually expressed as a percentage, and is calculated by dividing the number of crimes that are ‘cleared’ by the total number of crimes recorded. For example, crime statistics published by Victoria Police for 2009/2010 indicate that:

The single year clearance rate for 2009/2010 is 46.3% (up 0.2 percentage points from the clearance rate recorded in 2008/2009). This is the highest single year clearance recorded since the implementation of LEAP.

Victoria Police processed a total of 170,614 alleged off enders in 2009/2010, an increase of 0.9% compared with the 169,064 processed in 2009/2010 ...9

In Victoria Police, those entries that alter the status of the crime from ‘unsolved’ to ‘solved’ and result in a crime incident being considered ‘cleared’ are as follows:

• Caution Not Authorised • Other• Complaint Withdrawn • Offi cial Warning - Not Authorised• Intent To Summons • Penalty Infringement Notice - • No Off ence Disclosed Not Authorised• Off ender Processed • Summons Not Authorised

Any one of the entries listed above is counted as a cleared crime. OPI investigators were advised for statistical ‘counting’ purposes, a crime incident can only be cleared once. Any subsequent change to the data fi eld, for example changing an ‘Intent to Summons’ to ‘Summons Not Authorised’ for a crime incident does not aff ect the original ‘cleared’ or ‘solved’ status.

8 Ombudsman Victoria, March 2009 Crime statistics and police numbers p699 Victoria Police. Crime Statistics 2009/2010, Executive Summary, Statewide crime statistics 2009/2010, Overall

crime

22

Part Three – The impact of date fields on published crime statistics

Crime statistics are important for a number of reasons. Understanding the prevalence of crime and crime trends enables the effi cient allocation of police resources. Published crime statistics also inform the public and the Government about the effi ciency of police in responding to and resolving crime. Critical to the issue of effi ciency is knowing accurately when police fi rst become aware of a crime. This is also when the ‘clock starts’ to record police response times.

This investigation has revealed Victoria Police uses diff erent date fi elds to mark the start of the clock running depending on the audience of the published statistics. The investigation has revealed none of the current date fi elds in LEAP are a reliable indicator of when a crime is reported to police or when police fi rst become aware a crime has occurred.

For convenience, date fi elds in LEAP are referred to in square brackets as follows: [date fi eld].

Victoria Police crime statistical reportingVictoria Police crime statistics are published in two key areas. The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes information provided by Victoria Police relating to victims of crime and off enders per calendar year. Victoria Police also publishes fi nancial year crime statistics on its website, in its Annual Report and in Annual Crime Statistics Reports.

Australian Bureau of Statistics

The Australian Bureau of Statistics collects in aggregate form the crime records data held by police agencies within each State and Territory. It records and publishes the status of investigations as ‘Outcome of Investigations at 30, 90 and 180 days’. In the following table, codes 310 – 329 and 410 – 412 relate to cleared crime.10

10 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Recorded Crime – Victims Australia 2008 – Explanation Notes

23

Table 6: Outcome of investigation at 30 days codes Australian Bureau of Statistics

Code Investigation not fi nalised

100 Investigation not fi nalised

111 Investigation continuing

121 Investigation pending/suspended

Investigation fi nalised - no off ender proceeded against

210 No off ender proceeded against

211 Unable to proceed

212 Lapsed

213 Finalised as not solved/unsolved

214 Withdrawn by the victim

215 Instruction of the prosecuting authority

216 No crime

217 Informal caution or informal warning

218 Transferred to another state/territory

219 Investigation fi nalised – no off ender proceeded against

Investigation fi nalised – off ender proceeded against

310 Court action

311 Charge

319 Other court proceedings

320 Non-court action

321 Conference

322 Formal caution or formal warning

323 Counselling (includes drug diversion schemes)

324 Penalty notices

329 Other non-court action

Miscellaneous fi nalisations

410 Additional off ences

411 Duplicate record

412 Off ence has been superseded

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics manual the reference date for recording outcomes of investigations is the date that an off ence is reported or becomes known to police. 11

11 Australian Bureau of Statistics Recorded Crime – Victims Statistics Manual 2009 p12

24

Victoria Police provides annual data extracts relating to both victims and off enders. This includes information in relation to the Outcome of Investigation 30 days after the date recorded in LEAP as the [report date], defi ned below.

Victoria Police publications

Victoria Police reports to Government about performance targets on a quarterly basis and in its Annual Report. Two of its performance targets relate to:

• Proportion of crimes against the person resolved within 30 days (56%)• Proportion of property crime resolved within 30 days (20%) 12

In reporting on its performance targets to Government, as with reports to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Victoria Police uses the date recorded in LEAP as the [report date].

It is logical to have the starting point for the performance measurement as the date and time police are notifi ed a crime has been committ ed or the date and time police detect a crime has occurred. Accordingly, the Victoria Police Manual requires that employees taking LEAP reports should:

Submit the report for checking as soon as possible before completion of the shift. Where a supervisor is unable to check reports by the next day, fax the report to CDEB [Central Data Entry Bureau] prior to the end of the shift with the case status marked ‘Active’. 13

Supervisors are required to ensure reports are faxed to Central Data Entry Bureau as soon as possible. The Central Data Entry Bureau aims to enter LEAP reports within four hours of receiving the fax for 90% of forms.

Victoria Police also publishes crime statistics in a stand-alone document annually.14 These documents contain detailed information about crime records entered on LEAP during the fi nancial year and include comparative data from the previous fi nancial year. In these reports the date used to report clearance duration is the date the LEAP record is created, the [create date].

Relevant date fi elds on LEAP

Create date

Once a report is created in LEAP the database automatically generates a [create date]. The [create date] is the date the data is being entered into LEAP. The [create date] cannot be altered. All other relevant dates including [report date] can be subsequently changed.

12 Victoria Police Business Plan 2010-201113 See Appendix Three14 Victoria Police. Crime Statistics 2009/2010

25

Report date

Victoria Police advise that for reporting purposes to Government and the Australian Bureau of Statistics the report date they use is the [report date] att ached to the Field Incident Report. This investigation has revealed some police interpret the [report date] as the date the investigator is completing the paperwork. Others interpret the [report date] as the date a crime is reported to police. The [report date] is transcribed by the data entry operators from the Field Incident Report, as marked in Figure 7.

It should be noted each of the forms that may be subsequently submitt ed to the Central Data Entry Bureau for updating off ender details or adding sub-incidents as an investigation progresses has a similar fi eld for [report date]. (For example, see Appendix Four.) OPI investigators noted that although data entry offi cers are advised not to alter the Field Incident Report [report date], it is possible to overwrite the report date, so long as the new date is not later than the date the record is being updated.

Figure 7: Report date

COMPLETE FIELDS ON ALL REPORTS IN BLOCK LETTERS ONLY

REPORT BY

MEMBER NAME

MEMBER

Reg. No.

MEMBER

STATION

REPORT

DATE

REPORT

TIME

PRINCIPAL VICTIM

FAMILY NAME

Victim seen date

The [victim seen date] is transcribed by the data entry operators from the Field Incident Report, as marked in Figure 8. Not all records will have a [victim seen date] recorded because not all crimes have a known victim and in some instances a victim may report a crime over the phone.

Figure 8: Victim seen date

CASE PROGRESS

Victim seen at hrs on Scene visited at hrs on

Fingerprints Yes No Other Members Attending

26

Result date

The [result date] is the date recorded on LEAP and used for statistical and reporting purposes as the date when the incident outcome was known. When a matt er is fi rst recorded on LEAP the result defaults to ‘Unsolved’ and the [result date] defaults to the [create date]. This will change if a matt er is cleared or resolved. A matt er is cleared when, for example, a suspect is arrested and charged, a warning is issued, a complaint is withdrawn or the Intent to Summons process is started.

For cleared matt ers, the [result date] will be the date data is entered to clear the crime. This is when information from an Add/Update Off ender/Caution/Intent to Summons Form is entered on LEAP. (See Appendix Four.)

Logical date sequencesThe logical impact on dates recorded in LEAP if Victoria Police policies and procedures are being implemented and the Central Data Entry Bureau is meeting its performance targets is that:

• In all cases we would expect to see the [report date] and [create date] as the same date give or take a 24 – 48 hour margin for delays either at the police station (or work unit) or at the Central Data Entry Bureau.

• Where a victim reports an incident in person to police, the [victim seen date] [report date] and [create date] should be the same, subject to the earlier proviso for understandable delays of up to 24 - 48 hours. (Note: The [victim seen date] fi eld was populated in approximately 76% of crime records examined by OPI.)

• Where a victim reports an incident over the phone to police, the [report date] and the [create date] should be the same and, if the victim is seen in person, the [victim seen date] should be some later date.

• In all cases the [report date] and [create date] should equate with or precede the [result date].

What the data reveals It should be noted that the following data analysis is based on crimes rather than incidents or sub-incidents. This is because Victoria Police statistical reporting is based on crimes.

Differences between [victim seen date] [report date] and [create date]

The following fi gure illustrates the percentage of crimes with a [create date] equal to or one day after the [report date].

 

27

Figure 9: Percentage of crime records with [create date] equal to or one day after [report date]

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

The following table indicates the numbers of total crimes dealt with.

Table 10: Percentage of crimes with [create date] equal to or one day after [report date]

Financial year Total crimesCrimes entered into LEAP by following day

Percentage of crimes entered into LEAP by following day

1993/94 390,337 283,637 73%

1994/95 379,883 178,862 47%

1995/96 404,852 229,054 57%

1996/97 411,531 278,953 68%

1997/98 420,673 270,183 64%

1998/99 436,484 239,645 55%

1999/00 438,387 273,231 62%

2000/01 453,861 282,194 62%

2001/02 442,754 299,274 68%

2002/03 420,799 255,562 61%

2003/04 398,632 295,960 74%

2004/05 376,902 275,435 73%

2005/06 376,564 277,896 74%

2006/07 379,230 282,057 74%

2007/08 379,721 275,873 73%

2008/09 383,090 240,263 63%

2009/10 366,367 233,885 64%

TOTAL 6,860,067 4,471,964 Av. 65%

28

This data illustrates that there are some compliance issues with Victoria Police policy. The policy requires LEAP reports to be forwarded as soon as possible before completion of the shift. The data also illustrates that the number and percentage of crime reports entered into LEAP by the following day have dropped signifi cantly in the past two years. Although Victoria Police advises 85% of all crimes are recorded on LEAP within 48 hours of being reported to police, OPI’s analysis of 2009/2010 data indicated only 71% of crimes were entered into LEAP within two days of the [report date]. These fi gures are despite the 40% of crimes that are entered on LEAP directly through LEDR.

According to information provided by Victoria Police, delays can be explained by resourcing problems within the Central Data Entry Bureau and the increasing complexity of some of the data entry requirements, for example family violence reports. They also advise delays can occur due to resourcing issues in operational areas and a small percentage of ‘late’ reporting may occur because of the sensitive nature of an investigation.

The next table quantifi es the extent of the gaps between [report date] and [create date].

Table 11: Gap (in years) between [report date] and [create date] (report date range 1993/94 – 2009/10)

Gap (years) between [report date] and [create date] Number of sub-incidents Percentage of all

sub-incidents

< -5.5 years 52 0.0008%

-5.5 to -4.5 years 8 0.0001%

-4.5 to -3.5 years 15 0.0002%

-3.5 to -2.5 years 24 0.0004%

-2.5 to -1.5 years 69 0.0011%

-1.5 to -0.5 years 481 0.0078%

-0.5 to less than 0.0 years 4,409 0.0717%

0.0 to 0.5 years 6,018,077 97.8579%

0.5 to 1.5 years 101,348 1.6480%

1.5 to 2.5 years 16,017 0.2604%

2.5 to 3.5 years 4,627 0.0752%

3.5 to 4.5 years 2,218 0.0361%

4.5 to 5.5 years 1,093 0.0178%

5.5 to 10.5 years 1189 0.0193%

10.5 to 15.5 years 166 0.0027%

> 15.5 years 21 0.0003%

TOTAL 6,149,814 100.0000%

29

The results of the gap analysis between [report date] and [create date] identifi es the extent of the compliance issues with implementing Victoria Police policy but, by itself, does not provide evidence of an impact on crime statistics. The great majority of reports, nearly 98%, are entered within six months. It is also worth noting that 5,058 sub-incidents (0.1%) have a [create date] that precedes the [report date]. The only plausible explanation for this is that the [report date] fi eld was updated during the course of an investigation. This demonstrates some unreliability with the [report date] fi eld and fl aws in quality assurance mechanisms.

The next table examines the gap between when a victim is seen and the [report date].

Table 12: Gap between [victim seen] and [report date]

All crimes where

[victim seen] date precedes

or is the same as

[report date]

Average gap (days)

All crimes where [victim

seen date] precedes

[report date]

Average gap (days)

Percentage of crimes

with a gap

1993-1994 306,488 3.5 24,473 44.1 8.0%

1994-1995 301,021 6.5 31,311 62.4 10.4%

1995-1996 322,692 7.1 32,485 70.4 10.1%

1996-1997 334,390 7.9 31,421 84.1 9.4%

1997-1998 344,796 9.0 36,258 86.0 10.5%

1998-1999 357,983 7.0 35,321 70.6 9.9%

1999-2000 364,458 6.8 32,197 77.2 8.8%

2000-2001 389,492 5.5 31,060 69.5 8.0%

2001-2002 374,035 10.0 31,411 118.8 8.4%

2002-2003 345,783 10.6 32,895 111.5 9.5%

2003-2004 296,540 10.5 34,596 89.6 11.7%

2004-2005 260,276 6.1 36,201 44.2 13.9%

2005-2006 233,545 22.8 37,656 141.7 16.1%

2006-2007 231,541 8.0 40,655 45.6 17.6%

2007-2008 234,072 8.4 43,270 45.7 18.5%

2008-2009 222,190 7.5 41,481 40.3 18.7%

2009-2010 208,337 7.0 39,590 36.9 19.0%

TOTAL 5,127,639 Av. 8.3 592,281 Av. 71.9 Av. 11.6%

This table demonstrates the unreliability of [report date] as an indicator of when Victoria Police became aware a crime had been committ ed. Victoria Police state the [victim seen date] was not designed for use in statistical analysis and is not subject to any date validation mechanisms. Despite this, if the [victim seen date] precedes any

30

other date, it is logically a bett er indicator of when police became aware an incident had occurred than either the [report date] or [create date], which are the dates that Victoria Police currently use for statistical reporting.

The impact on clearance durations is discussed further below.

Crime clearance rates and duration

The impact of residual crime

As stated previously, for the purposes of this report residual crime refers to a crime where the [report date] of the crime occurs in a previous fi nancial year but the [create date] is in another fi nancial year. One or more of these crimes may be att ached to a single incident. For 90% of residual crimes, the [create date] equals the [result date]. Published statistics indicate these crimes were ‘solved’ or ‘cleared’ on the same day they were reported or became known to police.

The next table illustrates instances of residual crime as a proportion of entered crimes.

Table 13: Residual crime as a percentage of entered crime

Financial year Entered crimes Residual crimesResidual crimes

as a percentage of entered crimes

1993/94 390,337 4,942 1.3%

1994/95 379,883 12,053 3.2%

1995/96 404,852 11,509 2.8%

1996/97 411,531 13,531 3.3%

1997/98 420,673 16,051 3.8%

1998/99 436,484 14,024 3.2%

1999/00 438,387 15,348 3.5%

2000/01 453,861 14,967 3.3%

2001/02 442,754 15,461 3.5%

2002/03 420,799 18,144 4.3%

2003/04 398,632 18,468 4.6%

2004/05 376,902 19,874 5.3%

2005/06 376,564 22,681 6.0%

2006/07 379,230 21,884 5.8%

2007/08 379,721 21,545 5.7%

2008/09 383,090 21,662 5.7%

2009/10 366,367 19,693 5.4%

TOTAL 6,860,067 281,837 Av. 4.1%

31

This data demonstrates that for the last fi ve years an average of 5.7% of entered crimes (more than 20,000 crimes per year) were reported to police in a previous fi nancial year, but not recorded on LEAP, and therefore not reported in previous reports to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Victorian Government or the Victorian community.

The next fi gure demonstrates that as the number of residual crimes has increased, the number of entered crimes has decreased.

Figure 14: Numbers of entered crimes and residual crimes

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

Reported Crimes Residual Crimes

Num

ber o

f Crim

es

Num

ber o

f Res

idua

l Crim

es

Again this, by itself, is not necessarily a matt er of public interest. The importance of the lag or gap becomes apparent on closer analysis of the data in relation to cleared crimes. The next fi gure illustrates the cleared and un-cleared ratio for all crimes.

…as the number of residual crimes has increased, the number of entered crimes has decreased.

32

Figure 15: Cleared and un-cleared components of all crimes

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000Cr

imes

Cleared crimes Un-cleared crimes

The next fi gure illustrates the cleared and un-cleared ratio just for residual crimes.

Figure 16: Cleared and un-cleared ratio for residual crimes

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Crim

es

Un-cleared residual crimes Cleared residual crimes

As can be seen, the number of residual crimes is increasing over time as is the proportion of those crimes that are cleared. The rate of clearance of residual crimes is also consistently higher than the rate of clearance for all crimes.

The rate of clearance of residual crimes is also

consistently higher than the rate of clearance for all crimes

33

Data analysis by OPI for 2007/08 indicates 95% of residual crimes were cleared by an off ender being processed, compared with 84% of other cleared crimes. This suggests that residual off ences are those held aside by police and not faxed to the Central Data Entry Bureau until the crime is cleared by an off ender being charged.

The next fi gure demonstrates the ratio of cleared residual crimes as a percentage of all cleared crimes each year.

Figure 17: Cleared residual crime as a percentage of all cleared crime

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Cleared residual crimes as % of all cleared crimes

As can be seen from the following table, residual crimes have for each of the last fi ve years accounted for more than 11% of all cleared crimes.

…residual offences are [possibly] those held aside by police and not faxed to the Central Data Entry Bureau until the crime is cleared by an offender being charged.

34

Table 18: Total and cleared crime statistics for all crimes and residual crimes

Financial year Total crimes

Cleared crimes (as reported

by Victoria Police)

Cleared residual crimes

Cleared residual

crimes as a percentage

of all crimes

Cleared residual

crimes as percentage of cleared

crimes

1993/94 390,337 146,920 3,858 1.0% 2.6%

1994/95 379,883 154,598 10,675 2.8% 6.9%

1995/96 404,852 163,003 10,461 2.6% 6.4%

1996/97 411,531 158,232 12,461 3.0% 7.9%

1997/98 420,673 168,342 14,259 3.4% 8.5%

1998/99 436,484 176,102 12,258 2.8% 7.0%

1999/00 438,387 171,181 13,465 3.1% 7.9%

2000/01 453,861 164,828 13,548 3.0% 8.2%

2001/02 442,754 168,119 14,000 3.2% 8.3%

2002/03 420,799 173,753 16,510 3.9% 9.5%

2003/04 398,632 173,459 17,384 4.4% 10.0%

2004/05 376,902 170,908 19,200 5.1% 11.2%

2005/06 376,564 168,142 22,055 5.9% 13.1%

2006/07 379,230 168,659 21,324 5.6% 12.6%

2007/08 379,721 164,986 21,023 5.5% 12.7%

2008/09 383,090 176,491 20,824 5.4% 11.8%

2009/10 366,367 169,709 19,132 5.2% 11.3%

TOTAL 6,860,067 2,837,432 262,437 Av. 3.8% Av. 9.2%

These fi gures demonstrate that an increased proportion of all cleared crimes are residual crimes.

Residual crimes and offence categories

The impact of residual crimes on clearance fi gures becomes even greater on closer examination of particular off ence types. The next table indicates the number and percentage of residual crimes in off ence categories.

35

Table 19: Offence categories and residual crimes

Off ence category Residual crimes Percentage of residual crimes

Deception 79,027 28.0%

Justice Procedures 35,480 12.6%

Theft (Other) 25,712 9.1%

Assault 24,227 8.6%

Handle Stolen Goods 18,916 6.7%

Sex (Non Rape) 12,752 4.5%

Property Damage 12,518 4.4%

Other 9,914 3.5%

Drugs (Poss/Use) 8,452 3.0%

Weapons/Explosives 8,024 2.8%

Theft From M/Car 7,406 2.6%

Theft (Shopsteal) 6,664 2.4%

Behaviour In Public 6,221 2.2%

Drugs (Cult/Man/Traf) 4,078 1.4%

Burglary (Res) 4,010 1.4%

Harassment 3,653 1.3%

Burglary (Other) 3,340 1.2%

Regulated Public Order 2,794 1.0%

Theft Of M/Car 2,339 0.8%

Rape 1,384 0.5%

Going Equipped To Steal 1,130 0.4%

Theft (Bicycle) 1,057 0.4%

Robbery 843 0.3%

Arson 794 0.3%

Abduction/Kidnap 522 0.2%

Burglary (Agg) 404 0.1%

Homicide 176 0.1%

TOTAL 281,837

The nature of the distribution of residual crimes indicates that the impact of distortion particularly on clearance rates is more signifi cant in relation to some off ence categories.

For example, Victoria Police’s published Crime Statistics for 2009/2010 indicate a single year clearance rate for Deception of 77.9%, but 27% of these matt ers were in fact off ences that occurred prior to 1 July 2009. Similarly, Theft (other) has a reported single year clearance rate of 22%, but 7.8% of these off ences occurred prior to the reporting period.

36

Impact on statistical reporting

The two clearance statistics that Victoria Police report on are:

• Single year clearances for crimes, which are calculated on [create date] and a cleared [result date] occurring in the same fi nancial year. These are reported annually in crime statistics published by Victoria Police.

• Thirty day clearance, which is calculated from the incident [report date] and the sub-incident cleared [result date]. These are reported to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Victorian Government as part of Victoria Police’s performance measures.

The following examples demonstrate issues with the annual crime statistics published by Victoria Police.

Examples of diff erences between [victim seen date], [report date], [create date] and impact of residual crime on single year clearance fi gures

Example 1

Off ence – Theft, 53 counts.[commit date/s] – 9/09/04 to 13/09/06[victim seen date] – 21/11/06[report date] – 21/05/09[create date] – 22/05/09[result date] – 22/05/09Crime genuinely known by 21/11/06

Outcome: In this case the crimes occurred over a two year period. The police are notifi ed in November 2006, but no records are created on LEAP until 2009. As a result, the published record of total crimes for 2006 is understated by 53. In 2009, the published record of reported crime is overstated by 53, but each of these crimes is cleared in a single day. As Victoria Police reports to the Australian Bureau of Statistics using [report date], these 53 crimes will be published in the Australian Bureau of Statistics for year ending 30 June 2009 as having been solved on the same day they were reported to police when in fact it took at least 913 days (per crime).

Example 2

Off ence – Make threat to kill, one count.[commit date/s] – 18/06/06 to 22/09/06[victim seen date] – 22/09/06[report date] – 22/09/06[create date] – 21/10/08[result date] – 21/10/08Crime genuinely known by 22/09/06

37

Outcome: In this case the matt er will not be included in Australian Bureau of Statistics reports based on [report date], but as Victoria Police uses [create date] as the reference point for its annual crime statistics published on its website, it will appear in 2008 statistics as a single day clearance, even though clearance duration is at least 760 days.

Example 3

Off ence – Theft, one count.[commit date/s] – 1/03/2007 to 31/05/2007 [report date] – 30/05/2007 [create date] – 6/10/2007 [result date] – 6/10/2007 Crime genuinely known by 30/05/2007

Outcome: Similarly this crime will be included in crime statistics for 2007 as a single day clearance obtained for off ence where clearance duration is at least 129 days.

38

The next table demonstrates the impact on clearance durations using the various reference points available in LEAP.

Table 20: Variable date impact on duration for all cleared crime

Financial year

Number of cleared

crimes

Average clearance duration

(days) based on

[create date]

Average clearance duration

(days) based on

[report date]

Average clearance duration

(days) between

[victim seen date] and

[report date]

Average clearance duration

(days) based on [victim

seen date]

Percentage increase to clearance duration based on [victim

seen date]

1993/94 69,391 43.5 58.3 11.9 70.2 161%

1994/95 77,107 33.8 60.8 22.5 83.3 247%

1995/96 79,828 36.9 66.5 23.4 89.9 243%

1996/97 81,584 37.7 70.9 28.3 99.1 263%

1997/98 87,925 37.3 79.5 31.5 111.0 297%

1998/99 95,229 40.6 73.5 22.2 95.7 236%

1999/00 92,874 43.8 86.3 21.2 107.5 246%

2000/01 99,068 48.7 88.0 18.2 106.1 218%

2001/02 100,876 44.1 86.3 18.2 104.5 237%

2002/03 103,755 39.8 95.3 21.6 116.9 294%

2003/04 96,220 36.1 100.1 26.5 126.6 350%

2004/05 94,642 37.6 102.1 12.9 114.9 306%

2005/06 89,229 40.4 129.2 54.1 183.3 453%

2006/07 87,461 38.8 128.0 17.5 145.5 375%

2007/08 85,202 36.6 122.8 21.2 144.0 394%

2008/09 83,096 30.1 105.6 16.8 122.3 407%

2009/10 77,594 14.5 90.7 15.3 106.0 729%

TOTAL 1,501,081 Av. 38.0 Av. 91.6 Av. 22.6 Av. 114.2 Av. 300%

The trend analysis below demonstrates the diff erence in the average length of time it takes to ‘clear’ or ‘solve’ a crime depending on which LEAP date is used as the reference point. According to annual crime statistics published by Victoria Police for 2009/2010 it took on average 15 days to clear a crime. According to OPI analysis based on [victim seen date] it is more accurate to say it took on average 106 days to clear a crime.

It should be noted that the anomaly in average clearance durations for 2005/2006 is caused by what appears to be a data entry error where the [victim seen date] was recorded as 1960. This apparent anomaly indicates gaps in quality control measures.

39

Figure 21: Variable date impact on duration for all cleared crime

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Days

Average clearance dura on (days) based on [create date]

Average clearance dura on (days) based on [report date]

Average clearance dura on (days) based on [vic m seen date]

As can be seen, there are signifi cant diff erences in calculating clearance duration depending on which date in LEAP is chosen as the reference point.

Impact on accuracy of performance reporting

In its Annual Report, Victoria Police publishes performance measure results against targets that are set out in the Victoria Police Business Plan. In the course of this examination OPI was informed that timeliness results published by Victoria Police in its Annual report are based on an 11-month fi nancial year (1 July – 31 May). The [report date] is used as the reference date.

Victoria Police advise that June data is not included to eliminate a clearance rate ‘bias’. They argue that off ences in the last month of any fi nancial year do not have the opportunity to be cleared. They do not take measures to eliminate this bias, for example by generating the performance statistics at least one month after the end of the year or by reporting on data from 1 June to 31 May.

Although OPI initially used the same counting rules as Victoria Police, it was unable to replicate the fi gures published in its Annual Reports. This may be because LEAP is considered to be a dynamic database that is constantly being refreshed with additional data.

40

OPI examined the published results for the last four years using a 12 month calculation for:

• the proportion of property crime resolved within 30 days • the proportion of crimes against the person resolved within 30 days.

Any bias was eliminated because the data OPI examined was provided two months after the end of the fi nancial year ending 30 June 2010.

Table 22: Comparative performance results for crimes against the person

Financial year

Government target

Business plan results

published by Victoria Police

OPI 12 month assessment

based on [report date]

OPI assessment based on

[victim seen date] where

[victim seen date] is earlier than or

the same as [report date]

2009/10 56% 52.4% 52.3% 48.2%

2008/09 56% 53.2% 51.0% 46.7%

2007/08 56% 52.9% 50.9% 47.1%

2006/07 56% 54.1% 51.8% 48.3%

As can be seen, OPI calculations for crimes against the person that are resolved within 30 days using [victim seen date] vary signifi cantly from results published by Victoria Police.

Table 23: Comparative performance results for property crime

Financial year

Government target

Business plan results

published by Victoria Police

OPI 12 month assessment

based on [report date]

OPI assessment based on

[victim seen date] where

[victim seen date] is earlier than or

the same as [report date]

2009/10 20% 20.4% 18.3% 16.8%

2008/09 20% 21.5% 18.2% 17.6%

2007/08 20% 19.1% 17.5% 17.1%

2006/07 20% n/a 18.1% 18.3%

The diff erence is less marked for property crime clearance rates but demonstrate results that do not meet the performance target.

41

Victoria Police response to the data analysisFollowing the technical briefi ng regarding the results of OPI’s statistical analysis to members of the Victoria Police Business Services Department on 4 April 2011, Victoria Police responded to some issues in writing. The rationale for using the [create date] for its annual statistical reporting to the Victorian community since LEAP’s inception in March 1993 is as follows:

The decision to use this date was based on sound principles, namely that using this date ensures that all crime is accounted for consistently. The ‘create’ date is the fi rst occasion that Victoria Police management can use crime data for tasking and coordination purposes.

‘Create’ date is a system generated time stamp and cannot be altered. On the other hand ‘report’ date can logically be any date before or equal to ‘create’ date. For instance if a report was made 3 years ago and (for some reason) did not get created until today, then ‘create’ would count it in current annual statistics, but ‘report’ (for the same period) would miss the crime (and it may never be counted).

In preferring the use of [create date] to [report date], Victoria Police state that LEAP was created primarily for operational purposes and that crime statistics are merely a by-product. It was explained that:

…‘report’ date is ... a manually keyed in fi eld and can be updated and therefore is not necessarily a consistent record. Delays in data entry or submission of reports could result in a delay in the crime being recorded and the ‘report’ date could consequently prove inaccurate when counting crime within a specifi ed period of time. A ‘report’ date is subject to interpretation by members as to when the crime was recorded or when the member compiled the report

Notwithstanding these defects, Victoria Police go on to say:

The ‘report’ date has tactical application in that having received the report, police do not need to wait for the off ence to be created in LEAP before taking action and this is why the 30 day clearances are based on ‘report’ date. These statistics are reported to the Government and ABS [Australian Bureau of Statistics] by Victoria Police

In relation to the trend data for residual crime, Victoria Police prepared the following graph to indicate residual incidents are in fact decreasing.

42

Figure 24: Residual crime versus residual incidents

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

OPI Residual Crime % Incident Based Residual %

Trend (OPI Residual Crime %) Trend (Incident Based Residual %)

While this may be the case, OPI’s point is the impact of residual crime on single year clearance rates. Victoria Police reports these fi gures at the crime or off ence level. It therefore makes sense to look at the residual problem in relation to crimes not incidents.

43

ConclusionEven though LEAP was originally designed as a case management system, it is the only source Victoria Police can use to derive and publish crime statistics. None of the current LEAP reference dates accurately refl ect when police become aware of or are notifi ed about a crime. As a result no accurate picture is able to be drawn about how long it takes for police to clear crime.

Given the paper–based system utilised by Victoria Police, it may be understandable that some police at a local level wait until they have suffi cient evidence to process an off ender before forwarding notifi cation of a crime for entry in LEAP. The evidence establishes that police do not rely on LEAP for tasking and coordination. Work is clearly undertaken at a local level to resolve crimes, but that work is not recorded on LEAP until the matt er is fi nalised. Ensuring all crimes are recorded as soon as possible after they have been reported or detected would provide bett er transparency and accountability and enable police to monitor performance.

The Victorian community is entitled to have an accurate record of how long it takes for police to process off enders and resolve matt ers. This information is critical to an understanding of the effi ciency of police.

The Victoria Police rationale for using [create date] as the reference date for reporting crime statistics to the Victorian community is fl awed. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has established rules for revising crime statistics that would enable Victoria Police to retrospectively capture crime that occurred in a previous fi nancial year, without distorting annual reported crime and crime clearance fi gures.

In its initial response Victoria Police acknowledged that there are opportunities to improve data recording processes and increase both the quality and quantity of data it records. It needs to avail itself of those opportunities as a matt er of urgency.

44

Part Four – The Intent to Summons process

The Intent to Summons process was introduced by Victoria Police in 1998. The process was introduced for two main reasons:

• fi rstly to record that a particular suspect had been linked to one or more reported crimes and

• secondly to indicate that the suspect was going to be processed for those crimes.

It was considered important to record that there was a nexus between a suspect and particular crime reports for intelligence purposes and it was considered effi cient to provide an early indication that the matt er was being progressed, because the actual time to prepare a brief of evidence and arrange for it to be authorised can be lengthy.

A five-step process

Criteria

a. A person is identifi ed as a suspect in relation to one or more reported crimes b. the person has been interviewed in relation to those reported crimes, but has

left the police station before being charged with any crime and c. an investigator intends to summons the person before a court to face charges

relating to those reported crimes once all the evidence has been collated.

Step One: Once the criteria are met, the investigator notifi es his or her intention to summons the suspect by completing an Add/Update Off ender/Caution/Intent to Summons Form (Intent to Summons Form).15 (See Appendix Four.) This form is then faxed to the Victoria Police Central Data Entry Bureau for entry onto LEAP.

Step Two: LEAP records will indicate the crime incident is ‘Solved’ - ‘Pending Authorisation’. An Intent to Summons Report will be generated which the investigator is required to att ach to a ‘brief of evidence’. The Intent to Summons Report identifi es the suspect and each of the crime sub-incidents for which it is intended he or she will be summonsed to court to face charges. (See Appendix Three.)

Step Three: The investigator is then required to collate the evidence against the accused in a ‘brief of evidence’. The brief of evidence will include witness statements, exhibits, records of interviews and other information which establishes the case against the accused.

15 The Intent to Summons Form records crimes (sub-incidents) for which the case officer intends to summons suspect to appear at court. It does not record a list of charges that might be laid in relation to those crimes. In some circumstances, multiple charges may be laid in relation to the same crime (sub-incident)

45

Step Four: Once compiled, the brief of evidence, with the Intent to Summons Report att ached, must be forwarded to the investigator’s supervisor for authorisation.

Step Five: If the supervisor authorises the brief of evidence, the investigator will be directed to issue criminal charges against the accused by way of summons. The decision of the supervisor is recorded on the Intent to Summons Report and forwarded for processing so the LEAP entry can be updated from ‘Pending Authorisation’ to ‘Off ender Processed’. There is no change to the data that records the crime incident as ‘Solved’.

Alternative Step Five: In some circumstances, a supervisor may decide that some or all of the proposed charges should be ‘Not Authorised’. If a brief of evidence is ‘Not Authorised’ to proceed, the investigator’s supervisor is required to explain his or her reasons in writing. The Intent to Summons Report must be endorsed ‘Not Authorised’ then forwarded to the Central Data Entry Bureau to enable LEAP to be updated from ‘Pending Authorisation’ to ‘Summons Not Authorised’. No matt er what reason is chosen for non-authorisation, there is no change to the data that records the crime as ‘Solved’. 16

At this stage, the suspect may not even be aware he or she has been formally linked to the particular crime.

Brief authorisation process

Police with authority to authorise a brief (generally the investigator’s supervisor) include any of the following:

• Senior Sergeant or above• Station manager, or• Police members approved by Divisional Managers (approval must be in writing

and given to specifi c police members only).17

The investigator’s supervisor must check each brief of evidence for accuracy and ensure there is suffi cient admissible evidence to cover all points of proof relevant to each charge. Before authorising the brief, the supervisor must be satisfi ed not only with the quality and suffi ciency of the evidence, but also that there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction being secured.

16 Victoria Police LEAP Management Unit August 2007 ‘Intent to Summons’ for all crime briefs17 Victoria Police Manual (VPM), Instruction 116-1, Briefs of evidence, Authorising briefs of evidence, Authority

to proceed with a prosecution, Who may authorise a brief of evidence. Originally issued 11 July 2003. Last updated 06 October 2008. Also Victoria Police Manual – Policy Rules, Briefs of Evidence, Checking and Authorising Briefs, Authorisation process. Issued 22 February 2010

46

Legitimate reasons for which a supervisor can choose to not authorise the issue of a summons for a particular crime include:

• The suspect is under age (not criminally liable)• The suspect is deceased• The identity of the suspect cannot be established• Insuffi cient evidence exists to charge the suspect• The complaint against the suspect has been withdrawn• The suspect has been exonerated• The suspect has a mental impairment• A caution notice has been issued to the suspect• A Penalty Infringement Notice (PIN) has been issued to the suspect• The suspect has already been processed.18

Consequences

One of the consequences of fi ling an Intent to Summons Form is that the reported crimes identifi ed on the form are recorded on LEAP as having been ‘solved’. From a statistical perspective, solved crimes are considered to have been ‘cleared’.

The next fi gure represents the how the Intent to Summons process relates to LEAP.

18 LEAP – Victoria Police – Intent to Summons Report (LAZ02A)

47

Figure 25: The Intent to Summons process

1.INVESTIGATORSubmits Intent to Summons Form

2.CLEARED

Sub-Incident Status‘Pending Authorisation’

3.INVESTIGATOR

Submits Brief of Evidence and Intent

to Summons Report

4.AUTHORISING

OFFICER

4.CHARGES

AUTHORISED

4.CHARGES

NOT AUTHORISED

INVESTIGATORSubmits Intent to Summons Report

INVESTIGATORSubmits Intent to Summons Report

Sub-Incident Status‘Offender

Processed’

Sub-Incident Status ‘Summons

Not Authorised’

A crime can only be cleared once. Once a crime has been ‘cleared’ its status does not change. The nominated crime remains ‘cleared’, regardless of whether the investigator actually prepares a brief of evidence for authorisation or whether the brief of evidence is eventually ‘authorised’. In some instances the suspect person may be exonerated, but the crimes he or she was accused of committ ing through the Intent to Summons process will continue to be ‘cleared’.

48

Overview of Intent to Summons fi ndingsBetween 1 July 1998 and 30 June 2010, police fi led Intent to Summons Forms in relation to a total of 784,466 reported crimes, representing 16.2% of all reported crimes. Statistical reporting by Victoria Police during this period recorded these 784,466 reported crimes as having been ‘solved’ and therefore cleared. However for 155,678 or 19.8% of these reportedly ‘cleared’ crimes, (3.2% of all off ences) no individual was ever summonsed to appear before a court to face relevant charges. The OPI investigation identifi ed three sets of circumstances that explain the discrepancy between the number of cleared crimes and the number of charges actually heard by a court.

Legitimate intention to summons

A legitimate Intent to Summons can be demonstrated when:

• An investigator has interviewed a suspect and questioned the suspect about particular crime incidents.

• The investigator has formed the view a suspect is involved in those reported crime incidents, but has allowed the suspect to leave before charging the suspect with those particular crime incidents.

• The investigator has then fi led an Intent to Summons Form.• The investigator has collated the evidence that demonstrates there are reasonable

grounds to consider the suspect has committ ed the nominated crimes.• The investigator has submitt ed documentation sett ing out this evidence to his or

her supervisor, recommending authorisation to proceed to bring the suspect before a court by way of summons.

In these cases, despite there being good evidence that links the suspect to the reported crime incident or incidents and despite the investigator’s recommendation that the brief be authorised, the investigator’s superior has decided not to authorise proceedings against the suspect for each of the crimes identifi ed in the brief. A range of legitimate reasons is set out in the previous section (under Brief authorisation process). In these circumstances it is appropriate to consider the relevant crimes as ‘solved’ and thus ‘cleared’ even though no-one is brought before a court to face charges for the incidents.

Doubtful intention to summons

OPI investigators found a second set of circumstances that exposed fl aws in the way police can use the Intent to Summons process. In some instances, a case offi cer may have a legitimate basis for linking a person as a suspect to reported crime incidents but may know at the time of fi ling the Intent to Summons Form that there is probably insuffi cient evidence to summons the person to face criminal charges.

For example, circumstances can arise in relation to crimes against the person such as assault or rape where the person reporting the crime has identifi ed an alleged off ender and the nexus between a reported crime incident and a suspect is clear. However

49

issues such as confl icting versions of events, the absence of independent witnesses or anticipation of a defence argument, such as self-defence, means there is insuffi cient evidence to support a criminal prosecution. In these cases an investigator may submit a comprehensive brief of evidence but recommend that the brief not be authorised. In these circumstances the Intent to Summons process is used to link a suspect to a crime but it is questionable whether the crime should be truly considered to be ‘solved’ and thus ‘cleared’.

No real intention to summons

OPI investigators examined other cases where the Intent to Summons process appeared to have been used as a tool just to clear crimes. These matt ers generally related to high volume crimes such as theft, where there is typically no information to identify a suspect at the time the crime is reported. Many of these cases have generally low clearance rates.

In the cases examined by OPI, some police appear to have abused the Intent to Summons process by ‘loading’ known off enders with crimes that could be ‘writt en off ’. On the face of the documentation in the cases examined by OPI, the Victoria Police investigator had no real evidence to link the suspect with the crimes. The documentation, or lack of documentation, accompanying the brief of evidence in these matt ers demonstrates that the investigator had no genuine intention of summonsing the person to face charges for the crime incidents identifi ed in the Intent to Summons Form at the time the form was fi led. In several cases examined by OPI, a brief of evidence had not been prepared and the suspect had not been interviewed about the crimes.

The investigator’s supervisor was provided with a recommendation not to authorise the summonsing of the person and an invitation to endorse the investigator’s decision to ‘write off ’ the crimes against the alleged off ender. In these cases, the eff ect was to credit the investigator and his or her supervisor and their work unit with having solved crimes which should have remained ‘active’.

Extent of the problem

The investigative work conducted by OPI has been unable to determine the extent to which the current Intent to Summons process is used merely for the purposes of linking suspects to crimes, rather than initiating a proposed prosecution. The LEAP management unit purportedly encourage the use of the process so long as a suspect has been interviewed in relation to the crime, even though there may be insuffi cient evidence to actually charge the person.

OPI statistical analysis indicates that the use of Intent to Summons process varies according to the type of crime under investigation. Where an Intent to Summons has been used the proportion of crimes not authorised also varies in accordance with

50

the type of crime. In some areas the non-authorisation of proceedings by Intent to Summons is more prevalent than others.

It also impossible to determine whether any individual has deliberately abused the Intent to Summons process for its impact on crime clearance rates. Current systems in place within Victoria Police are inadequate to distinguish those off ences for which there is a genuine suspect and for which there is a genuine Intent to Summons from those where there is no real evidence to support an Intent to Summons yet the crime is purportedly ‘solved’.

Action requiredUsing the Intent to Summons process to accomplish three separate and distinct tasks impacts on the integrity of the system and has potentially compromised the statistics published by Victoria Police. The intended benefi ts of the Intent to Summons process were to establish a nexus between a suspect and a crime and give an early indication a brief was being prepared. The OPI investigation has revealed there have been unintended consequences of the process and that the process is vulnerable to misuse and potential abuse.

In addition to corrupting data holdings, inappropriately classifying crime as ‘solved’ based on suspicion rather than evidence reduces the likelihood of further investigative action. Wrongly ascribing a crime to an innocent party not only maligns an inappropriately accused individual, it falsely misleads the victim of the crime (and the community) into thinking the matt er is resolved. It is also likely to complicate prosecutorial processes in the event the actual perpetrator is later identifi ed.

Victoria Police must rectify practices in relation to processing and fi nalising matt ers to ensure published crime clearance numbers accurately represent the eff ort currently undertaken by Victoria Police to identify suspects, process alleged off enders and resolve and fi nalise reported crime incidents.

51

The Intent to Summons investigation

BackgroundConcerns about Victoria Police’s Intent to Summons process are not new.

2007 LEAP audit

In 2007, Victoria Police became aware of issues with the Intent to Summons process through its Police Record Services Division. This Division issues National Police Certifi cates, on request, as part of pre-employment probity checks used by some employers. The certifi cates contain:

…criminal history information where fi ndings of guilt have been recorded together with details of matt ers currently under investigation or awaiting court hearing.19

Where an application for a National Police Certifi cate is made more than three months after the applicant is named as an alleged off ender in an Intent to Summons Form, staff in the Police Record Services Division are required to undertake enquiries to establish the status of any matt er currently under investigation. In 2007, the Division had become overloaded with trying to follow up Intent to Summons entries ‘Pending Authorisation’ prior to issuing National Police Certifi cates.

As a result of concerns about the backlog, the Victoria Police’s Corporate Management Review Division conducted an audit of LEAP to identify records where an Intent to Summons Form had been processed but the matt er was still ‘Pending Authorisation.’ The audit found that since the inception of the Intent to Summons process in 1998, there were more than 46,000 entries that were still ‘Pending Authorisation’.20 This meant in excess of 46,000 crimes had been recorded as solved and the fi gures included in crime clearance numbers but LEAP had not been updated to refl ect any outcome of the brief authorisation process.

The 2007 LEAP audit also identifi ed that the failure to fi nalise matt ers subject to the Intent to Summons process impacts on Victoria Police responsibilities in relation to the destruction of fi ngerprints. Section 464O of the Crimes Act 1958 requires Victoria Police to destroy the fi ngerprints of anyone who has not been charged with an off ence within six months from the date his or her fi ngerprints were collected. Failure to comply with this section exposes Victoria Police to a Level 10 fi ne ($1000).

As a result of the 2007 LEAP audit, Victoria Police embarked on a number of strategies to address the problem. This included the introduction of a new data entry fi eld that

19 Victoria Police Application form and Instructions p420 Victoria Police Report 9 November 2009 CMRD Audit of LEAP – Intent to Summons p2

52

enabled local managers to consider whether to ‘write off ’ a matt er where there was insuffi cient information to determine whether in fact a brief of evidence had ever been prepared. This fresh option was introduced because many of the records (mostly older records) could not be fi nalised because:

• records had been destroyed under document destruction policies • investigators had left Victoria Police and no other information was available• there was no record that a brief was ever submitt ed• there were records indicating briefs were submitt ed for authorisation but the

authorisation process had not been completed or • matt ers had not been prosecuted because of work management failures.21

Victoria Police eff orts, driven by the Corporate Management Review Division, were focused on reducing the number of ‘Pending Authorisation’ entries. There is no evidence to suggest consideration was given to whether the Intent to Summons process was being misused or whether crime clearance numbers were misleading or open to manipulation.

While there has been signifi cant improvement in the number of outstanding entries since the 2007 internal audit, it still remains an issue for Victoria Police. As at 21 May 2010, 13,121 entries were identifi ed as ‘Pending Authorisation’.22

Table 26: Matters ‘Pending Authorisation’ May 2010

Duration Number of sub-incidents

121 – 150 days 669

151 – 180 days 1,896

181 – 210 days 1,357

211 – 240 days 1,079

241 – 270 days 1,006

271 – 300 days 807

301 – 330 days 659

331 – 365 days 612

366 – 730 days (between 1 and 2 years old) 2,985

731 – 1095 days (between 2 and 3 years old) 1,095

1096 days – 5 years old 956

TOTAL 13,121

21 Victoria Police Report 9 November 2009 CMRD Audit of LEAP – Intent to Summons p222 The figure of 13,121 does not include Intent to Summons entries created between 01/01/2010 – 21/05/2010.

Had those entries been included, it would be reasonable to expect a significant increase in the number of matters with ‘Pending Authorisation’ status

53

Focus of the investigationIt is clear that any att empt to wrongfully boost crime clearance rates occurs in matt ers that are not authorised to proceed to summons. That is, where a supervisor decides there are good reasons not to proceed. These reasons might include insuffi cient evidence to link the suspect with the crime, even though the crime will have been recorded as cleared.

Accordingly, the focus of the initial OPI investigation related to those matt ers that had been cleared through the Intent to Summons process but were subsequently not authorised to proceed. It should be noted that in many cases the decision not to authorise the issuing of a summons against a particular individual can be made even though it is still appropriate to consider the crime cleared. For example, a matt er will not be authorised to proceed despite substantial and persuasive evidence where the suspect has died, or where the person has a cognitive impairment.

OPI intelligence analysts examined data to identify anomalies in matt ers that were not authorised to proceed. This in turn focused the direction of OPI investigators who examined a targeted sample of cases in detail.

Flaws in the systemFlaws in the system were soon obvious. It was clear the Intent to Summons process was used by some Victoria Police investigators to merely record that a particular person was suspected of committ ing a crime. The quality of evidence upon which the Victoria Police investigator based his or her ‘suspicion’ varied signifi cantly.

In some instances OPI investigators found no evidence to objectively link a named suspect with a crime that had been ‘cleared’. In other cases the evidence was scant. In many, any documentation that was presented to the investigator’s supervisor included a recommendation not to authorise the issuing of a summons.

In the majority of profi led cases it was clear that, at the time the Intent to Summons was fi led, there was litt le or no prospect of obtaining suffi cient evidence to proceed against the named suspect and never any real intention to summons the person.

Although the investigation revealed evidence some police were using the process inappropriately to clear crime, the evidence does not establish that this was done corruptly to falsify crime clearance rates. It is clear, nevertheless, that fl aws in the current system create the potential for the deliberate falsifi cation of records.

The extent to which these fl aws have been exploited is impossible to assess. The use of the Intent to Summons process varies in relation to the type of crime under investigation. In any one year approximately an average of 16% of all crimes are dealt with by the Intent to Summons process. Of these, approximately 20% are not authorised to proceed. This equates to approximately 2 – 4% of all matt ers. Although

54

the actual impact on overall crime clearance rates is small, if there are approximately 380,000 crime incidents in a year, between 8,500 and 15,000 crimes each year may have been wrongly recorded as ‘cleared’ or ‘solved’.

Currently three processes are collapsed into a single process when a Victoria Police investigator decides to use the ‘Intent to Summons’ process:

1. The identifi cation of a nexus between a suspect and a particular crime.2. Notifi cation that a brief is being prepared to summons a person to court to face

charges in relation to that particular crime.3. The recording of a crime as ‘cleared’ for statistical reporting purposes

The current links between these processes should be severed. It may be appropriate for police to have an easy way of identifying a nexus between a suspect and a crime, but identifying a suspect falls well short of solving or resolving the crime and should not impact on crime clearance numbers. Victoria Police should independently monitor matt ers ‘Pending Authorisation’ as this is a productivity and effi ciency indicator. Finally, the decision that a crime is eff ectively solved or a matt er resolved should be made by a supervisor only after all the investigative processes have been exhausted. The supervisor’s decisions should be subject to regular quality assurance audits.

Case studiesThe following case studies are indicative of inappropriate practice identifi ed during the OPI investigation.

Case study 1 – ‘Loading’ known offenders

In the course of investigating a number of reported burglaries and thefts from motor vehicles, detectives from a regional Crime Investigation Unit (CIU) executed a search warrant on a suspect’s residence. After retrieving a quantity of stolen property, the man was arrested and taken into custody for questioning.

During the interview, the man admitt ed he had committ ed some burglaries and other property related off ences, but denied he had any involvement in a number of other off ences that were put to him. At one stage he told the investigators that he was not the only person in the vicinity committ ing these types of crimes. The man was subsequently charged with 20 off ences including seven relating to theft from motor vehicles. He eventually pleaded ‘guilty’ to the majority of the off ences with which he had been charged.

The day after he was interviewed, a diff erent detective from the same CIU submitt ed an Intent to Summons Form in relation to same suspect for a further 54 off ences, which included 36 theft from motor vehicle off ences and 11 burglary-related matt ers. The man was not interviewed in relation to the additional off ences. Documentation forwarded to the detective’s supervisor consisted of a brief head (single page) recommending ‘non-

55

authorisation’ and the computer generated an Intent to Summons Report listing the sub-incident numbers, alleged off ences and the victims’ names. There was no other evidentiary material.

All the additional 54 off ences were ‘Not Authorised’ by the detective’s supervisor.

OPI investigators interviewed the supervisor who endorsed the Intent to Summons Report for the 54 off ences that were ‘Not Authorised’. He told OPI investigators that he believed it was still appropriate to use the Intent to Summons process even if there was never any intent to summons the person but merely a belief a suspect had committ ed an off ence. He indicated that he understood the eff ect of completing an Intent to Summons Form and endorsing an Intent to Summons Report as ‘Not Authorised’ would ‘to some extent’ categorise the crime as ‘solved’. He went on to say he believed the practice he had adopted was commonplace throughout Victoria Police.

This case study illustrates the manner in which the Intent to Summons process can be abused. OPI investigators were unable to fi nd any evidence or intelligence that established a nexus between the accused and the 54 crimes linked to him through the Intent to Summons Process.

Case study 2 – Identifying a modus operandi

Following a signifi cant increase in reports of thefts from motor vehicles at a particular suburban police station, an intelligence analysis was undertaken to identify any off ence trends, areas for targeted patrols and possible suspects. In identifying three possible suspects, the intelligence report acknowledged that there could be other suspects as yet unidentifi ed.

Sometime later, police arrested a man who was acting suspiciously. A search revealed he was in possession of property believed to have been stolen from motor vehicles. Local detectives interviewed the man who admitt ed he had been involved in six incidents involving thefts from motor vehicles earlier that morning. The man, a heroin addict, was one of the three suspects identifi ed by the intelligence analysis.

Following a search of his residence, detectives recovered further stolen property and a handwritt en diary containing dates and cash amounts. The suspect admitt ed that this diary was a personal record of monies stolen and banked by him over the previous 10 months. He admitt ed the money came from thefts from motor vehicles but he was unable to recall or identify particular crime incidents. His personal records indicated that he had stolen several thousand dollars during this period.

He was eventually charged with 11 off ences, including an off ence that dealt with the theft of monies from ‘unknown persons’. This charge was a ‘catch all’ charge relating to the monies recorded in his diary which he acknowledged he had stolen.

56

A Tactical Intelligence Offi cer was then assigned to conduct an analysis of any unsolved crime reports relating to thefts from motor vehicles based on general criteria derived from the suspect’s interview and his diary entries. This process linked the suspect to 260 unsolved crime reports relating to thefts from motor vehicles committ ed within the vicinity and which correlated with the suspect’s diary records during the previous 10 months. The Intelligence Offi cer provided a report to an investigator. The investigator took the intelligence report at face value and did not interview the suspect in relation to the additional 260 off ences. Despite the fact there was no prospect of gaining suffi cient evidence to summons the suspect on any of the 260 off ences, the investigator submitt ed an Intent to Summons Form identifying the suspect as the alleged off ender for each of the 260 off ences. As was expected, the Intent to Summons Report was ‘Not Authorised’ by the investigator’s supervisor.

In contrast to the previous case study, signifi cant intelligence analysis work was undertaken to link the suspect in this case to the 260 additional off ences. Yet the intelligence analysis was based on criteria that were not particularly exclusive or unique. The original intelligence analysis had identifi ed two other suspects with a similar modus operandi. It may be reasonable to consider the suspect in this case as possibly being involved in some, even the majority, of the 260 off ences, but it was not reasonable to consider him the only suspect. Despite this, the investigator did not undertake any additional investigative work into the 260 crimes prior to commencing the Intent to Summons process. He told OPI investigators that he had relied entirely on the work done by the Intelligence Offi cer. He said he understood it was appropriate to use the Intent to Summons ‘non authorisation’ process to enable a nexus to be created between a suspect and a crime. He said the investigation of an off ence could be reactivated at any time if further information came to light.

OPI investigators interviewed the Crime Manager who endorsed the Intent to Summons Report in this case, ‘not authorising’ the 260 additional off ences. In the course of the OPI interview the Crime Manager disclosed that he had been operating under a misconception regarding the Intent to Summons process. He said he did not realise that once an Intent to Summons Form was submitt ed the crime was automatically ‘solved’ and would appear as ‘cleared’ crime no matt er what decision was made in the brief authorisation process. The Crime Manager said that until shortly before his interview with OPI, he had wrongly assumed that once the matt er was ‘Not Authorised’ its status would revert back to ‘unsolved’ and would not be considered ‘cleared’ for statistical purposes. He admitt ed the eff ect of the Intent to Summons process involved a distortion of crime clearance rates.

57

Case study 3 – Clearing volume crime

During a three year period, one investigator submitt ed an Intent to Summons Form for 167 crimes incidents that were subsequently ‘Not Authorised’ to proceed to prosecution.

An examination of cases involving this investigator indicated when he was interviewing a suspect over a particular matt er he would regularly ask the suspect about unrelated, unsolved burglaries. Despite denials from the suspects, the investigator would later submit an Intent to Summons Form based on what he referred to as ‘circumstantial evidence based on modus operandi’ in relation to the unsolved burglary off ences. On one occasion the investigator submitt ed an Intent to Summons Form in relation to two unrelated suspects for the same off ence several weeks apart. In the case of one off ender, 98 crimes were the subject of ‘non-authorisation’.

This investigator had also previously worked in a CIU where the supervisor of the unit was responsible for the ‘non-authorisation’ of a total of 113 off ences against 10 individual off enders.

In response to questioning by OPI investigators, the investigator admitt ed he knew the Intent to Summons process impacted on crime clearance rates, but he denied any suggestion that this was his motivation for regularly using the process. Although he had insuffi cient evidence to charge a suspect with an off ence and no real intention to summons a suspect to appear before a court, he told OPI investigators he believed it was the right thing to put forward all the off ences he believed a suspect had committ ed and that it was then up to someone else to decide whether to proceed or not. The investigator explained that it had been his understanding and practice to include all the sub-incidents that ‘you believe an off ender has committ ed’ in the Intent to Summons process.

In response to questioning from OPI investigators, the investigator’s former supervisor said:

…it used to be a practice where, if we got one of our well known recidivist off enders in who had been obviously doing a large number of burglaries, that we would clear as many burglaries as we could....believing that he was the off ender

When asked what ‘believing that he was the off ender’ was based on, he said MO [modus operandi] and experience.

The supervisor told OPI investigators that he did not fully appreciate the problems associated with the Intent to Summons process until sometime in 2008, following the Corporate Management Review Division’s LEAP audit of outstanding Intent to Summons entries.

Since becoming aware of the issues, the Supervisor told OPI investigators he had taken steps to familiarise himself more thoroughly with the Intent to Summons process.

58

He said he had become aware that the LEAP crime report entry is altered from ‘unsolved’ to ‘solved’ as soon as the Intent to Summons was submitt ed. He said he had taken action to strengthen the process within his own CIU by requiring:

…something else to tie them in other than just the MO [modus operandi]. So it might be there’s some video footage, there’s … a witness has picked him – picked someone who looks similar … in a photo folder or ID [identifi cation] parade or whatever.

What the case studies revealThe case studies demonstrate that the original objectives of implementing the Intent to Summons process have not been achieved. The process may be a mechanism for indicating a nexus between a suspect and a crime but it appears the process does not accurately record whether a matt er is being actively progressed.

Of most concern is the practice of ‘writing off ’ crimes as ‘cleared’ based on suspicion rather than evidence. In each of the case studies the investigators had no intention of summonsing the alleged off ender to appear at court. By engaging in this practice, the investigators, their supervisors, and their work units were credited with having solved crimes which should have remained ‘active’.

Suspicion is not evidence and a personal view remains exactly that, until it can be supported by objective, credible and admissible evidence. Modus operandi evidence rarely provides suffi cient evidence to commence a criminal prosecution unless the ‘similar fact’ evidence is so striking there is no other rational hypothesis from the evidence other than that the suspect is guilty.23 In the case studies the modus operandi of suspects was neither unique nor consistent across the crimes that were ‘cleared’ using the Intent to Summons process.

In some instances a suspect was not even interviewed in related to off ences he or she was accused of committ ing. Although no one interviewed by OPI admitt ed deliberately falsifying records to boost crime clearance rates, the following statistical analysis illustrates the potential for the system to be abused in this way.

Data analysisAlthough the majority of matt ers dealt with using the Intent to Summons process do result in criminal charges, a signifi cant number do not, yet are still considered to have been ‘cleared’.

Between 2005 and 2009, investigators from 675 diff erent work units (some of which no longer exist) linked 134,055 suspects to 304,686 crimes using the Intent to Summons

23 Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461 at 483; 127 ALR 99

59

process. Of the 304,686 crimes, 87,596 (28.8%) were ‘Not Authorised’ to proceed to prosecution for the following reasons:

Table 27: Reasons for non-authorisation

Intent to Summons 2005 - 2009

Reason for non-authorisation Crimes (sub-incidents) Percentage of crimes

Underage 209 0.24%

Penalty Infringement Notice (PIN) issued 337 0.38%

Mental Impairment 552 0.63%

Deceased 656 0.75%

No Identity 1,409 1.61%

Processed via other sub-incident 2,306 2.63%

Exonerated 2,640 3.01%

Caution Issued 3,221 3.68%

Other 5,892 6.73%

Complaint Withdrawn 12,171 13.89%

Insuffi cient Evidence 58,203 66.44%

TOTAL 87,596 100.00%

Almost half the suspects processed for crimes against the person were dealt with using the Intent to Summons process, but a disproportionately high number (about 40%) of those matt ers were ‘Not Authorised’ for prosecution.24

This issue has even more signifi cance given the Government’s performance target that 56% of crimes against the person will be resolved within 30 days of the crime being reported to police.

Table 28: Non-authorisation rates for crimes against the person

Intent to Summons 2005 - 2009

Off ence category Sub-category Crimes reports Percentage not auth’d

Crime against the person Homicide 333 27.93%

Rape 2,871 69.28%

Sex (non rape) 8,804 46.21%

Robbery 3,477 42.22%

Assault 76,945 38.86%

Abduction/Kidnap 465 55.48%

TOTAL 92,895 Av. 40.66%

24 Crimes against the person include offence categories of Homicide, Rape, Sex (non rape), Robbery, Assault, and Abduction/Kidnap

60

Because crimes against the person often involve parties who are known to each other, the facts in issue may ultimately turn on consent or self-defence rather than the identity of the off ender. If after a comprehensive investigation those issues cannot be resolved to the requisite standard, it is entirely appropriate for the evidence to be assessed for completeness by a supervisor with a view to concluding the investigation.

Given the impact on performance targets it is even more important this assessment is made at the conclusion of the investigation, once all the evidence has been collated and can be objectively assessed.

ConclusionThe Intent to Summons process requires review. It was developed to link reported crimes to suspects who were to be charged by summons for those crimes. It is currently the only mechanism on LEAP police can use to record a nexus between a suspect and particular crime incidents. Although it is impossible to determine the extent of this practice, it is clear some in Victoria Police are using the process solely for this purpose, without suffi cient evidence to ever lay charges and without any real intent to summons the person. Identifying a potential suspect for a crime falls far short of solving the crime, yet this is the eff ect of fi ling an Intent to Summons Form.

Problems with the Intent to Summons process are not new to Victoria Police. An internal audit in 2007 identifi ed more than 46,000 crimes ‘Pending Authorising’ where an Intent to Summons Form had been fi led but the matt er had not been fi nalised.

This investigation has established that some police have misused the Intent to Summons recording procedures within Victoria Police. Although the impact on crime clearance rates is not substantial, the numbers published by Victoria Police of crimes solved or ‘cleared’ are misleading and inaccurate.

The use of the Intent to Summons process to record a nexus between a suspect and a number of off ences without suffi cient evidence to support a prosecution distorts crime clearance numbers, making it appear that more crime has been solved than is actually the case. In addition to misleading the public, in particular victims of crime, the eff ect of ‘writing off ’ crime incidents against a known off ender potentially allows ‘copy cat’ criminals or individuals with similar modus operandi to go undetected. The misuse of the process has been allowed to go unchecked or undetected by defi ciencies in the monitoring and auditing att ention given to the Intent to Summons process (including the statistical counting rules).

Police interviewed by OPI investigators said they believed it was legitimate to use the Intent to Summons process for intelligence purposes to record that a suspect may have committ ed a number of off ences, despite a lack of substantive evidence.

Police often have a sound basis for suspecting a person has committ ed more off ences than, on the available evidence, can be proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ - the

61

standard of proof required in criminal courts. The issue is if, or how, that suspicion should be recorded. OPI investigators understand the Intent to Summons process is the only means investigators have for recording on LEAP that there is a nexus between a particular suspect and relevant crimes. Yet using the Intent to Summons process just for this purpose not only misleads victims of crime and extinguishes the possibility of further investigation, it also distorts crime clearance numbers.

Only a minority of police OPI investigators interviewed said that they were aware that fi ling an Intent to Summons had this impact on clearance rates or crime statistics. Yet under current Victoria Police systems, anyone who does understand the impact of fi ling an Intent to Summons on cleared crime fi gures could manipulate and misrepresent crime management data, with litt le chance of being caught out.

It appears the implementation of the Intent to Summons process in 1998 was not thought through. In particular, the decision to count the LEAP entry of an Intent to Summons as a ‘solved’ crime incident was misconceived.

The lack of any user-friendly inquiry function for middle managers to monitor Intent to Summonses has also contributed to problems with the process. It is disturbing that it took until 2007 to discover that there were some 46,000 Intent to Summons ‘Pending Authorisation’. Some action has been taken to address the outstanding matt ers, but in December 2009 the LEAP Management Unit advised there were 5,145 Intent to Summons entries created between 1 October 2007 and 31 May 2009 still ‘Pending Authorisation.’25 The impact of the delay on processing an Intent to Summons poses signifi cant risks for Victoria Police.

25 Victoria Police email December 2009 p1

62

Part Five – Conclusion

In March 2009, Victoria Police rejected a recommendation by the Ombudsman that there should be a review of the methodology for clearance rates and fi nalising crime reports by saying ‘that the current arrangements for fi nalising a crime report are adequate, and that a review is not required’. 26

That position is untenable given the fi ndings of this investigation.

Victoria Police must take immediate steps to ensure it has an accurate way of recording the date police are notifi ed of a crime or become aware a crime has been committ ed. The current defi ciencies cast doubt on the accuracy of statistics dealing with the number of crimes cleared within a given time period.

Systems must be improved to ensure electronic crime records are initiated as soon as possible after police are notifi ed of a crime or become aware a crime has occurred.

The amount of reported crime and how much is ‘solved’ is information in which the community has a legitimate interest. It informs public discussion of law and order issues. It is incumbent on Victoria Police to ensure the data it provides to the community is based on fact and not ‘speculation’. The integrity of the LEAP database and the statistics derived from it will continue to att ract a great deal of external scrutiny.27 Processes supporting data entry must be subjected to regular and stringent internal audit to ensure data is accurate and does not mislead the community.

This investigation has demonstrated that the current arrangements for fi nalising a crime report are not adequate. The production of crime statistics to demonstrate performance outcomes in the highly-charged environment of politics, media, and community concerns, as well as internal expectations, puts police and their managers under considerable pressure.

Current Victoria Police systems are inadequate to protect individuals from consciously or unconsciously succumbing to this pressure and interpreting rules and procedures in a manner not originally intended.

The integrity of LEAP data and the accurate reporting of cleared crime are of public importance. The lack of a reliable reference date that identifi es when police become aware a crime has occurred impacts on statistical reporting and means there is no reliable way to calculate police effi ciency. The shortcomings exposed by this investigation require urgent att ention.

26 Ombudsman Victoria, March 2009, Crime Statistics and Police Numbers p5727 Office of Police Integrity March 2005 Investigation into Victoria Police’s Management of LEAP March 2005 p. 24

63

It should be noted that the Ombudsman has recommended that:

…the Victorian Government give consideration to establishing a unit external to and independent of Victoria Police to develop and maintain statistical databases on crime; to monitor trends in crime and publish regular reports on crime trends; and with a capacity to audit crime statistics and crime recording practices.28

Implementation of this recommendation would resolve some of the issues identifi ed in this report, particularly in relation to providing quality assurance. It would also achieve bett er transparency and accountability for monitoring police performance.

28 Victoria Ombudsman 2009 Crime Statistics and police numbers p90

64

Language

AbbreviationsCIU Crime Investigation Unit

COMPSTAT COMParison of STATistics

LEAP Law Enforcement Assistance Program

LEDR LEAP Electronic Data Recording

OPI The Offi ce of Police Integrity

VPM Victoria Police Manual

Glossary of terms

Central Data Entry Bureau

The Central Data Entry Bureau is located in the Victoria Police Centre in Melbourne. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Reportedly having 70 staff in March 2009,29 as at March 2011, there were approximately 40 staff available to work day, afternoon and night shift rosters. These data entry operators transcribe information to the LEAP database from hard copy forms received by fax from around the State.

cleared crime

Victoria Police defi nes ‘cleared crime’ as follows:

Cleared crime refers to all off ences recorded on LEAP that have resulted in: one or more off enders being processed for the off ence; an investigation revealing that no off ence has occurred; the complaint being withdrawn; or the perpetrator was known but for legal and/or other reasons could not be charged (e.g. under age or deceased).30

create date

The [create date] refers to the date a record relating to a sub-incident is fi rst created in LEAP. The fi eld for [create date] is automatically generated when a data entry operator commences entering data for a new sub-incident. Once the [create date] fi eld is populated in LEAP it is not able to be changed.

29 Ombudsman Victoria, March 2009 Crime statistics and police numbers p6530 Victoria Police – Corporate Statistics. Release date: 9 August 2009. Last updated: Thu 21 January 2010.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=781

65

crime

A ‘crime’ refers to a matt er recorded on the LEAP database as a sub-incident. An incident may have multiple sub-incidents and a sub-incident may have multiple crimes att ached to it. Each crime has a single count for statistical purposes in relation to crime prevalence. (See discussion under heading What constitutes a crime?) Victoria Police use crime and off ence interchangeably.

incident

An incident or event is an occurrence that gives rise to an allegation that one or more crimes have been committ ed (for example someone punches and injures someone else).31

Incident Field Report

An Incident Field Report is a form completed by a member of police. (See Appendix Two.) It is then checked by a supervisor before being faxed to Victoria Police’s Central Data Entry Bureau for transcribing onto LEAP. All crimes recorded on LEAP (other than crimes recorded through LEDR), require an Incident Field Report to be completed. Traffi c off ences, off ences related to drunkenness or drunk and disorderly behaviour where these are the only off ences, or off ences where action is taken by the issuing of an Infringement Notice, are not required to be recorded on LEAP. (See the Victoria Police Manual – Procedures and Guidelines Reporting a crime on LEAP att ached as Appendix Three.)

Intent to Summons

The Intent to Summons process was introduced in 1998. It commences with the fi ling of an Add/Update Off ender/Caution/Intent to Summons Form (Intent to Summons Form). (See Appendix Four.) The process is described in detail in Part Four of this report.

LEAP Electronic Data Recording (LEDR)

With the introduction of LEDR in 2005, certain crimes have been able to be entered electronically on LEAP through regional crime desks. Crimes able to be entered through LEDR are criminal damage, burglary, aggravated burglary, theft, theft from a motor vehicle, and theft of a bicycle. (See Appendix Three.)

suspect

The term ‘suspect’ includes a person nominated as an off ender or alleged off ender in Victoria Police documentation.

31 Victoria Police use the term ‘incident’, New South Wales Police use the term ‘event’

66

report date

The [report date] is a fi eld in an Incident Field Report (See Appendix Two). It is manually fi lled out by the member of police who is completing the Incident Field Report. Once the Field Incident Report has been faxed to the Central Data Entry Bureau, information in the [report date] fi eld is transcribed by a data entry offi cer into the corresponding LEAP fi eld.

result date

The [result date] is the date recorded on LEAP and used for statistical and reporting purposes as the date when the incident outcome was known. When a matt er is fi rst recorded on LEAP the result defaults to ‘Unsolved’ and the [result date] defaults to the [create date]. This will change if a matt er is resolved. A matt er is resolved when, for example, a suspect is arrested and charged, a warning is issued, a complaint is withdrawn or the Intent to Summons process is started.

residual crime

For the purposes of this report ‘residual crime’ refers to a crime that is reported in one fi nancial year but is not recorded on LEAP until the next or a subsequent fi nancial year.

victim seen date

The [victim seen date] is a fi eld in the Incident Field Report that has a corresponding LEAP fi eld, indicating where a victim and a police investigator had face to face contact. This fi eld is not populated in all crime records as not every crime will have a known victim associated with it. Of all the records examined by OPI, 76% recorded a [victim seen date].

67

Appendix One – Own motion determination

68

Appendix Two – Incident Field Report

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY ATTRACT LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE AND/OR PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT IN ERROR TELEPHONE VICTORIA POLICE 03 9247 6471

Template Revised 06/07

INCIDENT FIELD REPORT INCIDENT FAX SEQUENCINGPage No. / Total No. of Pages / VP Form L1

INDICATE THE QUANTITY OF EACH REPORT FAXED WITH THIS INCIDENT FIELD REPORT CHECKED BY SUPERVISOR

OFFENCE AGAINST PERSON (L2A) SCARS/MARKS/TATOOS (L11) VP401 VP402 VP404 InitialsOFFENCE AGAINST PROPERTY (L2B) PERSON WHEREABOUTS DESIRED (L12) BAIL (L22) VEHICLE THEFT (L5) VEHICLE WHEREABOUTS DESIRED (L13) VEHICLE CLEARANCE/INTEREST (L23) THEFT FROM MOTOR CAR (L6) ADD/UPDATE OFFENDER, CAUTION, ITS (L14A) MULTIPLE SUB-INCIDENT (L24) BICYCLE THEFT/INTEREST (L7) DRUG REPORT (L15) DPCSA DRUG (CAUTION ONLY) (L25A) Reg. No.OTHER NAMES (L8) FAMILY VIOLENCE REPORT (L17) FIRE REPORT (L26) PROPERTY (L9) MISSING PERSON OR ESCAPEE (L18) SHOPSTEAL CAUTION (L27)

PERSON PHYSICAL DESC. (L10)

COMPLETE FIELDS ON ALL REPORTS IN BLOCK LETTERS ONLYREPORT BYMEMBER NAME

MEMBERReg. No.

MEMBERSTATION

REPORTDATE

REPORTTIME

PRINCIPAL VICTIMFAMILY NAME

Cross Box if supplementingan existing incident

AND provide the INCIDENT No.

BRIEF SUMMARYOF INCIDENT:Do NOT include Victim’s names, street or vehicle numbers or other confident information

STOLEN PROPERTY VALUE

$DAMAGED PROPERTY VALUE

$CRIME SCREENING(Cross if answer YES)

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11

CASE PROGRESS

Victim seen at hrs on Scene visited at hrs on

Fingerprints Yes No Other MembersAttending

Witness Yes No SpecialistSquads notified

CIU notified at hrs on per: Det. Reg. No.Reg. No. Assigned To Investigate

Stationedat

[Stationed at must be completed to indicate station/unit responsible for investigation, even if Reg. No. Assigned to Investigate is unknown.]

INVESTIGATION STATUS Active Pending Completed [ONLY Supervisor to complete Investigation Status]

ONLY FOR CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

VictimName:

VictimName:

Given Copy L1 or Victim Guide: Yes No Yes No

Wants notification of investigation (incl. bail)

ANDif notification is wanted

then send to:

Yes No Unknown Yes No UnknownL2A (address/phone) OR Other (for safety

reasons) AND the specific address/phone/etc is: L2A (address/phone) OR Other (for safety

reasons) AND the specific address/phone/etc is:

CASE PROGRESS NARRATIVE [Include all investigations undertaken and all other details of the incident not elsewhere described on attached forms]

69

Appendix Three – Victoria Police Manual – Procedures and Guidelines – Reporting a crime on LEAP

1

Victoria Police Manual – Procedures and Guidelines

Reporting a crime on LEAP Source policy

These Procedures and Guidelines support and must be read in conjunction with thefollowing:

VPMP Crime reporting and investigations

ApplicationProcedures and Guidelines are provided to support the interpretation and applicationof rules and responsibilities. They include recommended good practices andassessment tools to help employees make lawful, ethical and professional decisions.Employees should use the Professional and ethical standards to inform the decisionsthey make to support interpretation of Procedures and Guidelines.

Procedures and Guidelines are not mandatory requirements on their own. However,where rules and responsibilities state that employees must have regard to Proceduresand Guidelines, the Procedures and Guidelines must be used to help make decisions insupport of the rules.

Procedures and guidelines

1. Reporting a crime on LEAP

Requirement to report a crime on LEAP The VPMP Crime reporting and investigations require the reporting member tocomplete and submit all relevant LEAP reports and LEDR entires in accordance withthe following guidelines:

All crimes recorded on LEAP require the following reports:- Incident Field Report [L1]- applicable Sub incident reports

LEDR may be used to record reports of certain property crimes such as:- Criminal damage- Burglary- Aggravated burglary- Theft- Theft from a motor vehicle- Theft of a bicycle

70

Victoria Police Manual - Guidelines – Reporting a crime on LEAP

- Attempts of the above offences

Refer to the LEDR Resources intranet site for advice about the use of LEDR toreport crime.

LEAP reports are not required for the following offences:- drunkenness and drunk and disorderly offences committed by adults where

these are the only offences alleged- traffic offences, except for child cautioning incidents- any offence where the only action taken is the issue of an Infringement Notice,

except for unpaid liquor offence Infringement Notices

Recording the investigating member The employee completing LEAP or LEDR reports should record themselves as theinvestigating member unless any of the following apply:

they are a uniform members and the investigation will be conducted by a detective

the incident occurred in another police station's response zone

they are incapable of doing the investigation.

Supplementary reports Submit supplementary information, which changes any information previouslyrecorded on LEAP or LEDR, on the same type of report as initially used. Beforesubmitting a supplementary report:

access LEAP to view the original record

mark the new reports as 'supplementary' and endorse with the relevant incidentnumbers

submit the supplementary report to a supervisor for checking and submission toCDEB, as required.

2. Responsibilities for completing LEDR reports The employee taking the report is to complete all fields within LEDR and submitthe reports to Crime Desk as soon as possible but before the completion of theshift.

The Manager, Crime Desk is to:- ensure the LEDR report is accurate and sufficient information is supplied in the

narrative- submit the completed LEDR report onto LEAP marked as "active" or "pending",

where appropriate- nominate the reporting member as the investigator for all matters marked

"pending"

2

71

Victoria Police Manual - Guidelines – Reporting a crime on LEAP

3. Responsibilities for completing LEAP reports

GeneralEmployees taking LEAP reports –

Complete all relevant fields on the LEAP report with the information available atthe time.

Submit the report to a supervisor for checking as soon as possible beforecompletion of the shift. Where a supervisor is unable to check reports by the nextday, fax the report to CDEB prior to the end of the shift with the case statusmarked 'Active'.

Supervisors –

Ensure an investigator has been assigned where appropriate.

Ensure case progress narratives have been correctly assessed and marked.

Ensure reports are faxed to CDEB as soon as possible and hard copies are filedaccording to local instructions.

Where a telephone report has been taken, ensure that a letter acknowledgingreceipt of the report has been sent to the complainant.

Make an appropriate notation of LEAP where a conflict of interest issue is raised.

Unsworn employee taking LEAP reports Unsworn employees may take LEAP reports under the following conditions:

The unsworn employee is authorised by a Work Unit Manager to take LEAPreports.

The unsworn employee is under the supervision of a police member whencompleting the LEAP report.

The police member is recorded as the 'reporting member'. The unsworn employeeis to record their name and number of the first line of the case progress narrativeas the report taker.

A supervisor is notified where an incident requires urgent attention.

The supervisor nominates an appropriate investigating member.

Taking a LEAP report for an incident occurring in another police station's response zone

Take the LEAP report in accordance with the general guidelines above.

3

72

Victoria Police Manual - Guidelines – Reporting a crime on LEAP

Do all possible investigation at the time of completing the report.

Record the results and any other relevant information in the case progressnarrative.

Notify the relevant CIU or station. Record the notification in the case narrative orthe 'CIU notified' field. If notification is by telephone, also include the receivingemployee's registered number.

Taking a LEAP report where all information is not available and submission may be delayedEmployees taking LEAP reports –

Consult with a supervisor.

Obtain the outstanding information as soon as possible.

Supervisors –

Examine the incomplete report to determine the viability of sending it to CDEB atthat stage.

Ensure that the outstanding information is obtained as soon as possible. Directanother employee to obtain the outstanding information if the reportingemployee's commitments may cause an unreasonable delay.

4. Submitting LEAP reports to CDEB

Work Unit Managers Create station instructions for:

faxing of LEAP reports to CDEB

checking of faxed reports to ensure a LEAP entry has been made, including themarking of reports with the relevant incident number

filing of original LEAP reports according to current retention of record instructionsand subject to regular inspection.

Immediate entry to CDEB via telephone Telephone LEAP reports relating to theft of a motor vehicle and missing persons toCDEB immediately. Endorse reports with "Phoned In" and the incident numberbefore submitting for checking in the usual manner.

The following reports may also be telephoned to CDEB:- crimes reported by telephone- armed robberies and other serious crimes

4

73

Victoria Police Manual - Guidelines – Reporting a crime on LEAP

- 'hot crimes' incidents that should be brought to the immediate attention ofothers.

When telephoning a LEAP report to CDEB, the reporting employee should:- complete hard copies of the LEAP reports and fax them to CDEB in the usual

manner- record the incident number given by CDEB and 'phone direct' onto the L1.

CDEB 'chaser' reports Where a LEAP report cannot be entered onto the system because of a deficiency,CDEB will send a 'chaser' report to the relevant Work Unit Manager. Where thisoccurs, the Work Unit Manager should:

take steps to ensure the problem is addressed

ensure CDEB a re notified within 48 hours of the receipt of the 'chaser'

ensure the 'chaser' reports are recorded in the station correspondence register.

5. Giving information to victims

Employee taking a LEAP report Provide principal victims with a copy of the 'Notice to the Victim' information onthe Form L1

For crimes against the person have the principal victim acknowledge receipt of the'Notice to the Victim' by signing the Form L1.

Where appropriate, record the names of secondary victims on an 'Other Names'report [Form L8] and advise each secondary victim to contact the Victims Referraland Assistance Service.

6. LEAP case management

Record of an investigationAn investigation is initially recorded on the 'Case Progress' section of the Form L1.

Investigating members should maintain a chronological and progressive record ofthe investigation by directly entering details onto the LEAP case progress narrativescreen of by submitting supplementary reports.

Where there is no access to a LEAP terminal, details may be telephoned to CDEB.

For major complex investigations, a summary outlining the general progress of aninvestigation may be provided (in the initial entry and on going investigation),instead of a complete record, where:

5

74

Victoria Police Manual - Guidelines – Reporting a crime on LEAP

- recording details may compromise the investigation (e.g. ESD investigations,major drug trafficking investigations, homicide investigations)

- comprehensive initial reporting and updating is impractical (e.g. major fraudinvestigations).

LEAP case progress statusSupervisors are responsible for:- indicating the case progress on the initial Form L1 before faxing to CDEB and

ensuring that the case narrative is update as required- ensuring that all reasonable enquiries and avenues of investigation have been

recorded by the investigating member, taking into account the nature andseriousness of the offence.

Further advice and information For further advice and assistance regarding these Procedures and Guidelines, contactyour supervisor or local training officer.

Update history

Date of first issue

22/02/10

Date updated

Summary of change Force file number

6

75

Appendix Four – Intent to Summons form

ADD or UPDATE OFFENDER / CAUTION / ITS / NTA FAX SEQUENCING Page No. / Total No. of Pages /

VP Form L14A

REPORT DATE

MEMBER REG. NO

MEMBER STATION

NB: In an arrest & CHARGE case, VP Forms 401 / 404 and

ADD/UPDATE OFFENDER NAME DETAIL L22 Bail (if applicable) must always accompany this form

MNI No.

Cross if Business name

1st Name

FAMILY NAME

2nd Name

DOB

Sex: Male Female Ethnic Appearance

ARE YOU OF ABORIGINAL AND/OR TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER (T.S.I.) ORIGIN? Aboriginal T.S.I. Both Neither Not Stated/Unknown

Flat No.

Street No.

Street Name & Type

TOWN/ SUBURB

State

Postcode

Home Phone

Bus Phone

Other Phone

Occupation

Country of Birth

Nationality

Interpreter Required? Yes No

Height

cm

Weight

kg

Note: If you have already entered the description via E*Justice Attendance then do not complete descriptions below, and endorse attendance number.

E*JS Attendance No.:

Interview Date:

COMPLEXION BUILD

HAIR COLOUR Unknown Black Brown Auburn/Lt. Brown. Red/Ginger Blond Grey White Abnormal Colour

FACIAL

HAIR LENGTH Unknown Long Shoulder Collar Short Crew Partially Bald Extensively Bald Totally Bald Other

HAIR

HAIR STYLE Unknown Straight Curly Afro Braided Tied Back Mohawk Dreadlocks Flat Top Wig/Toupee Wavy Other

EYE COLOR Unknown Grey Black Brown Red Green Hazel Blue Dual Eye Colour

SPEECH

Unknown Fair Ruddy Tanned

Olive Dark Black Other

TEETH

Unknown Obese Solid Medium Thin

Unknown Moustache Beard Beard & Moustache Side Burns

Side Burns & Moustache No Facial Hair Unshaven Other

GLASSES Unknown Glasses Sunglasses Other

Unknown Accent Confident Slow/Hesitant Lisp

Mumbles Soft Spoken Stutters Other

Unknown Natural All False False Upper False Lower Partial denture Diamond Set

Painted/Tattooed Gold Tipped None Decayed/Dirty Gap Top Gap Bottom Chipped

DISTINGUISHING FEATURES (Not Recorded in E*JS) MARITAL STATUS Unknown

Involuntary Movement Missing Body Part Deformed Body Part Lame Artificial Aid

Deaf Dumb Blind Acne Skin Disease Mentally Handicapped

Albino Freckled Pierced Ears Pierced Nose Teeth Braces Pregnant

Dwarfed Harelip Scar Birth/Other Body marks Turned Eye Other Eye Defect Other

Unknown Divorced Defacto Married Single Widowed Separated

CAUTION DETAILS

DATE CAUTIONED

CAUTIONED BY REG. NO

CAUTIONING MBR. STATION

If supplementing an existing sub-incident, then supply SUB-INCIDENT No.

and

Victim Surname:

Cross a box to indicate the type of process (Intent To Summons or Notice To Appear), and complete Date, Informant Reg.No. and Station

ITS INTERVIEW DATE NTA SERVICE DATE

INFORMANT

REG. NO.

INFORMANT

STATION

Endorse the SUB-INCIDENT No. & Victim Surname for each Sub-Incident against which there is intent to proceed by charge (by Summons or NTA). For each SUB-INCIDENT that does not exist, submit applicable INCIDENT / SUB-INCIDENT Forms and endorse the victim’s Surname below. S U B - I N C I D E N T N o . V I C T I M S U R N A M E S U B - I N C I D E N T N o . V I C T I M S U R N A M E

Endorse printer ID at which “Intent to Summons (ITS)” or "Notice to Appear (NTA)" report will be printed. Submit report with brief for authorisation, and after authorisation or non-authorisation fax report to CDEB. R

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY ATTRACT LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE AND/OR PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT IN ERROR TELEPHONE VICTORIA POLICE 03 9247 6471 Revised 1/1/10

76

Appendix Five – Letter from Chief Commissioner

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Appendix Six – OPI’s comments on Chief Commissioner’s letter

86

OPI comment

OPI’s key fi nding in this report is that Victoria Police does not have a reliable reference date for corporately recording when crimes become known to police. As a consequence Victoria Police also does not have an accurate way of determining or reporting how long it takes to resolve crimes.

Nothing in this response has caused OPI to retract that key fi nding, therefore no further investigation is warranted.

OPI’s specifi c criticism of the Intent to Summons process is not linked to concerns in relation to crime statistics except insofar as OPI’s initial investigation of the Intent to Summons process led to a much broader examination of data which exposed the problems in relation to crime statistics.

OPI accepts LEAP statistical analysis over the last 18 years is consistent and that the primary purpose of LEAP was not to provide data for statistical reporting. Nevertheless, LEAP is the only source Victoria Police has for corporately recording and reporting crime statistics and it is unable to do that accurately.

87

88

OPI comment

OPI took into consideration all the information provided by Victoria Police in preparing this report. In relation to date fi elds in LEAP, OPI’s analysis confi rms the problems with [report date] and confi rms that not one of the date fi elds in LEAP provides an accurate reference date for reporting crime statistics. OPI’s method using all sub-incidents is consistent with that used by Victoria Police to report to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Victorian Government.

The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research was engaged to examine OPI’s methodology. As part of that examination, access to Victoria Police data held by OPI was provided on a confi dential basis. The outcome of the examination by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research was a validation of OPI’s methodology.

In determining the percentage of crimes recorded on LEAP within 48 hours, OPI understands Victoria Police use date and time fi elds. OPI’s analysis was based on up to two calendar days.

89

OPI comment

OPI’s key concerns with the Intent to Summons process are that it was established to achieve multiple aims and it has had unintended consequences that expose Victoria Police to the risk that it will be abused to distort crime clearance numbers. OPI confi rms the impact of improper use of the Intent to Summons process has litt le statistical impact on crime clearance rates. The investigation exposed that the process does impact on crime clearance durations. It should be noted victim-related information Victoria Police provides to the Australian Bureau of Statistics for crimes cleared within 30 days which includes crimes cleared through the Intent to Summons process, has the potential to be misleading.

90

OPI comment

It is in the public interest to know when crimes, including series of crimes, are reported to police, and how long it takes police to resolve each crime. Victoria Police is unable to provide that information. The examination by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research validated OPI’s analysis of the impact of residual crime on both crime rate and clearance duration.

91

OPI comment

When concerns about ‘conditional probability’ were raised at offi cer level, OPI agreed to delete this paragraph in order to avoid confusion for the lay reader.

92

OPI comment

OPI’s concerns with [report date] are not limited to these examples. All the problems with [report date] are explored in the body of the report.

93

OPI comment

OPI acknowledges that rectifying the problems identifi ed in this report will require signifi cant resources and commitment.

94

OPI comment

Please refer to previous comments.

OPI comment

Recommendation 3 is based on the recognition that Victoria Police is responsible for both developing and implementing solutions to the problems identifi ed in this report. OPI remains committ ed to working collaboratively with Victoria Police to support this aim.