Agenda item

To receive and note the findings of the Independent Review into the Policing of the Warwickshire Hunt.

The report related to the Independent Review, commissioned by the Commissioner, in response to public and stakeholder concerns regarding Warwickshire Police’s handling of road safety concerns surrounding the activities of the Warwickshire Hunt.  A copy of the reviewer’s report was attached at Appendix A.

The Commissioner introduced the report, referring to the review undertaken by David Peet, which had now completed and the findings published to the public.  He advised that the review had been undertaken in accordance with the Terms of Reference and had resulted in a number of learnings and recommendations for the Chief Constable, Warwickshire Police and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.  The Panel were advised that the Chief Constable had accepted the recommendations, some of which were already in place but it was highlighted there was more to do.

The Commissioner reiterated that the reviewer had been not been under any restrictions in relation to timings or participants of the review and had been provided with access to all documentation requested.  Mr Peet had spoken to a number of parties including those who had previously addressed Members at Police and Crime Panel meetings.  In conclusion, he felt that the review had been thorough, independent and well researched and would result in improving road safety matters around trail and drag hunting.

Councillor Gist referred to paragraph 2.7 on page 105 of the pack, which made reference to “…this relatively minor issue….”.  She felt strongly that when residents were directly affected by anti-social behaviour, it was not fair to describe it as minor.  The Commissioner agreed that this was an important issue, whilst acknowledging the competing demands the Police had to manage. 

The Chair asked for clarification on how the recommendations would be acted upon, noting that eleven of them applied to the Force and eight applied to the OPCC.  The Commissioner advised that the Chief Constable and he would be implementing the recommendations themselves and suggested that the Panel may consider monitoring progress.  It was noted that a lot of the proposals had already been actioned or were in progress.  Polly Reed advised that the recommendations had been converted into an action plan, with all ACC’s having input as to the activity to be taken forwards.  In addition, the work would feature on the holding to account schedule and would continue to be monitored.

Councillor Sinnott welcomed the ability to keep track of the recommendations and to be able to see tangible improvements.  He recognised that this was a serious issue and hoped feedback on the recommendations would be welcomed.

Councillor Edwards queried the language used, which she felt could have been stronger.  She also asked for clarification on Recommendation C which proposed that “The Force consider reviewing and updating its published list of Business Interests”. 

Polly Reed explained that with regard to the language used, the reviewer was not in a position to compel the force, only advise.  It was then the Commissioner’s choice to state their expectations and hold the Force to account.  Assurances were given that the recommendations had been accepted and evolved into tangible actions.  In response to the query relating to Recommendation C, the Panel were advised that this had already been actioned and completed.

Following a query raised about Gold Groups being operational, the Panel noted that the OPCC now received an invitation to gold group meetings, something which had not happened before, along with a list of all of the gold groups running.

Andrew Davies noted there had been an acknowledgement within the review of some areas not working correctly.  He asked the Commissioner how confident he was that all lessons had been learned and that this issue would not reoccur in the future.  The Commissioner recognised that it was not possible to make that statement about any crime, however, he felt that the proposals would strengthen the police response to anti-social behaviour and help to make it easier to report ASB, or other crimes.  He stated that he expected the police to uphold the law without fear or favour.

Andrew Davies agreed that nobody could predict the future and asked for further assurance that by adopting these measures, processes, procedures and governance, actions would be picked up.  The Commissioner reiterated that was the intention and highlighted that the report was independent.  He agreed that he needed to ensure his office undertook those actions in order to improve the policing and reporting of ASB in a positive way.

Following a question from the Chair, the Commissioner advised that he was pleased with the amount of research, inspection of documents and discussions with people inside and outside of the force.  He committed to ensuring the force stood up to this for the remainder of his term and welcomed the improvements made so far, including the introduction of a special point of contact and the education undertaken by control room staff.  He noted the important role the Rural Crime team played and acknowledged that more engagement was needed.  Finally, he welcomed the items that had been identified as requiring improvement.

Councillor Edwards noted that the author of the report was not present and queried the methodology used, including who had been interviewed and their seniority, access to paperwork and whether the reviewer had felt there were any gaps in the interview process.

The Commissioner gave assurance that Mr Peet had interviewed everyone he wanted to, with the OPCC office facilitating all requests.  Polly Reed supported this, advising that Mr Peet was not given any guidance on who to interview and he had not provided the office with a full list of those he had spoken to.  Mr Peet had contacted the office with requests for documents and there was nothing he had asked for that existed that he did not receive.  The Panel were assured that Mr Peet had been happy that he had access to everything he needed.  One of the reasons the review had taken longer than originally planned, was because the first round of interviews had resulted in further individuals Mr Peet wanted to speak to.

The Commissioner was aware that Mr Peet had spoken to senior officers at Warwickshire Police, as well as the ex-Chief Constable, new Chief Constable and officers at all levels of rank.

The Chair thanked the Commissioner for responding to questions and it was agreed that an update on the progress implementing all recommendations detailed in the report would be added to the Panel’s work programme for future monitoring.

Resolved that

1)    the report be noted; and

2)    an update on the progress of all recommendations would be added to the Panel’s work programme, with a view to receiving a report at the June 2025 meeting.