Crime Recording

Much of the academic literature exploring the sources of attrition in rape cases focuses on the police crime recording stage, particularly the process of a rape allegation being recorded and later being cancelled, this process was formerly known as ‘no criming’ . When an allegation is recorded as such, the 4

investigation ceases and the case is discontinued. Much controversy has been raised over the practice of no criming with allegations that the police use such a disposal in an overzealous fashion to filter out cases. Earlier research into the practice of no criming for rape cases found the rate at which cases were no crimed was 45% (Gregory and Lees, 1999). Gregory and Lees (1999) witnessed police losing cases that they had no intention of investigating by recording them as a no crime. Not only would they no longer have to investigate the crime, but it would not be recorded as an undetected crime as it was not seen as a crime at all. They suspect the ‘no criming’ rates were even higher as some victims who complained to the police never ended up on the books at all. Similarly, Kelly et al. (2005) concluded the recording of a ‘no crime’ was rampantly misused as a dustbin for cases the police did not want to investigate (See Section 2.2.2).

At present, the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime (2019) which took effect from April 2019 sets out the rules on when a case that has been recorded as a crime can later be removed from police records. The rules stipulate that when one of the five criteria contained in Section C of the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime is met the crime can be cancelled or transferred. The first criteria is when a crime is committed outside the jurisdiction of the force, the crime is then transferred to the appropriate force (C1). The third is when there is a duplicate record so is cancelled (C3), the fourth is when the crime was recorded in error and is then cancelled (C4), the final criteria does not apply to rape offences (C5). The second criteria

At the time of the completion of my fieldwork ‘no criming’ was still the term

4

documented in the Home Office crime recording rules, thus discussions of my findings may use the term 'no crime’ to accurately reflect the language that was used in the interviews. Although the terminology in the counting rules has changed from no crime to cancelled or transferred the remainder of the rules remains unchanged, it is solely the name of the term that has changed. Findings around the process of ‘no criming’ are still relevant under the new cancelled crime recording as it refers to the same process.

contained in C2 is the one closely associated with false allegations which states when a crime can be cancelled, ‘Where following the report and recording of a crime additional verifiable information (AVI) is available that determines that no notifiable offence has occurred the crime may be removed’ (Home Office, 2019). There is no official definition of a false allegation. Rather, this is an administrative rule outlining when a recorded offence can be cancelled, thus ceasing any further action. The Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime (2019) only describe when a suspected false allegation can be cancelled, not what such a situation actually entails. Saunders (2012) found that when police officers use the term false allegation it is not synonymous with a no crime or any official crime recording category. The same sentiment is mirrored within my own findings.

The rules go on to stipulate that decision making for all offences of rape to be cancelled where the C2 criteria stipulating additional verifiable information must be present, is considered should only be taken by a force crime registrar (FCR) (Section C, General Rules). Such a situation occurs when a detective inspector feels evidence pertaining to the fact that the allegation may not have occurred is found they can refer the case to the FCR to be cancelled. The crime registrar is in turn accountable to the senior management of a police 5

force (see section 2.2.2 for more detail on no criming rates).

My findings in relation to the practice of cancelling/no criming show significant improvement since the earlier studies referred to in the use of such a disposal. From the practices espoused from the participants I interviewed, there are very stringent standards applied to when it is appropriate that a case can be cancelled/no crimed. The rules detailed above appear to be carried out as standard practice, providing further evidence that any individual scepticism is halted by the internal procedures of the police. For each of the vignettes, I asked my participants if they think the case should end up as a no crime and

The role of a crime registrar is explained as, ‘Each force has a crime registrar who is

5

responsible for overseeing compliance with the crime recording process. He or she is the final arbiter for the force when deciding whether or not to record a crime or make a decision cancel a crime… All forces also designate a senior officer (of chief officer rank, usually the deputy chief constable) as being responsible for overseeing the force’s approach to crime recording’ (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, 2017)

how likely they felt that it would be recorded in that way. It was never seen as a desirable outcome to record the scenario as a no crime. With regards to how likely the participants thought the case would be to end up as a no crime across the vignettes the participants felt it was highly unlikely. The only circumstances where it would be legitimate to no crime an offence is when there is independent verifiable evidence proving that the offence could not have occurred, in line with the crime recording rules (Home Office, 2019). This could include CCTV images of the victim in a different location to where she claimed the offence took place. As stated by Female officer 29 (Detective inspector, SOIT, Police Force 4): 

Cases can only (be no crimed) if there is additional verifiable information to say that it was untrue. Not many do these days. You have to go to a force crime registrar whereas, previously we used to make those decisions on division. 

In the past, a senior detective could record an offence as a no crime. Now, the process of reaching the disposal is more time consuming. This could explain why it is not used as much. At times it felt as though the participants were almost confused as to why I was asking them about no criming. Showing this recording is not something they would normally come across or even consider. Male officer 22 (Detective inspector and a crime registrar during his career, Police Force 2) explains:

You wouldn’t no crime it, that would be more work than to take it to court. Discontinuance in terms of the police, yes, they would stop the investigation but, in terms of the suspect, there would be a decision making process by the cops: Do we think there is enough evidence to go for it? Sometimes there’s not.

He then went on to explain:

You can no crime a murder easier than a rape. Not all of them meet the threshold of no criming. I would turn down far more than not to no crime it than the ones I did. My mate who took my job has been checked on his no crimes for rape, he has kept a list of all those he’s no crimed this last year, there was a total of seven in Police Force 2, that’s no number is it?

Nonetheless, a number of participants acknowledged that ‘no criming’ in the past before the rules governing crime recording were overhauled was used as an easy way to dispose of cases they felt were weak, in line with the suggestions from previous research mentioned above. As Female officer 2 (Sergeant, STO, Police Force 1) explains:

It should never have been (no crimed) because a crime has been committed whether it has been pursued or not. Quite a lot of the problem, historically people thought that was okay to do it, I think people of a certain rank knew that it wasn’t okay and knew we were just fiddling figures, but no it shouldn’t ever be no crimed.

The process of no criming (now termed cancelling crimes) has significant scrutiny to ensure that only false allegations where it can be proved the offence did not take place are recorded as such. This is reflected in the approach the participants espoused in relation to the option of no criming offences. The practice portrayed in relation to the vignettes is that if a victim alleges a rape it is recorded as a crime accordingly and an investigation will commence. My finding based on my participants’ accounts of practice suggest an absence of an implementation gap in relation to the change in policy for cancelled crimes (see section 2.8 for implementation gap).