Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Croxton and Cllr Scollard.

The minutes of the Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee held on Wednesday 24 October 2024 were agreed and signed by the Chair subject to a minor amendment under item 23 – Topic Review Group Progress report. It read Cllr Helen Ashenden, but should have stated Cllr Derek Ashenden – the Committee Services Officer agreed to amend.

Cllr Pearton declared an interest as his daughter was a psychologist for the prison service.

The Youth Justice Service Manager (KCC) introduced himself and gave the committee a presentation on the overview of the work carried out by the Youth Justice Team in North Kent. The following key points were raised:

·        The Youth Justice Team oversee children aged 10 – 17.

·        The Youth Justice Service was a partnership under the Crime and Disorder Act – a number of those being statutory partners such as the Police. Those professionals then come together to address the issues that cause children to be involved in offending and anti-social behaviour to ultimately divert children away from the criminal justice system.

·        The aim was to achieve intervention outside of the criminal justice system.

·        Outcome 22 was a deferred sentence meaning if a child commits an offence and it was low-level, an intervention would be offered to the child and their family. If the child engaged with the intervention, therefore lowering the risk of them entering the criminal justice system, there would be no criminal charge.

·        Community resolution was also an out of court disposal and involved intervention with the family and child.

·        Youth Cautions and Youth Conditional Cautions (Statutory Outcomes) will be used the first time a child enters the criminal justice system.

·        These decisions get made (and the outcome of those decisions in respect of the child) at an out of court disposal panel chaired by the police. It was multi-agency and aimed to divert children from future involvement. An assessment was completed on the child in respect of their offence.

·        The Youth Justice Service Manager worked with children subject to statutory outcomes from the police and the courts.

·        There was guidance around sentencing in relation to children with most cases being heard in the Youth Court. This was a closed court, and the magistrates were specifically trained to deal with youths and youth matters. If the offence was more serious, then the case would be heard in the Crown Court. The principal aim of the Youth Justice System was to prevent offending and to consider the welfare of the child.

·        The purpose of sentencing.

·        There was also a duty to work with the victims of youth crime. When a child comes into the service, the team act as a liaison with the victim to attempt direct reparation.

·        The Committee were presented with the court process including sentencing and beyond.

·        The Youth Justice Service can work with children for up to 25 hours a week.

·        The Committee were presented with the Asset Plus Assessment which considered factors of personal, family and social environments, previous offences and anti-social behaviour, positive factors that could be built upon as the foundation of change, and a self-assessment completed by the parents and the child – a conclusion will then be drawn including the pathway and planning for intervention.

·        The Scaled Approach, Referral Orders and Youth Rehabilitation Orders were explained to the Committee.

·        If a child has been charged with an offence and bail has been refused, they would be remanded to local authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The Strategic Manager provided the Committee with an update on the topic review ‘Anti-Social Behaviour Involving Young People’ and advised that as part of the review, the group issued surveys to secondary schools within the borough to identify how they deal with anti-social behaviour.

The survey was issued to establish what schools had in place should one of their pupils be identified as being involved in ASB. The survey was sent to all secondary schools in the area and eight responses were received – all advised that if their students had been involved in anti-social behaviour, they would want to know. The review group wanted to establish whether schools had established policies and procedures in place that address anti-social behaviour within the community. Four schools had policies in place that they felt adequately addressed it, and four did not. It was important to identify the gap and look at why four did not have one in place, and to determine whether the group could assist them.

The four schools that did have a policy in place were asked if they would share their policies for the topic group to review – if appropriate, these could be shared as good practice. Case studies had also been provided.

Schools were asked if they enlisted the help of external agencies. If a child’s behaviour was causing issues within the community, particularly when they were in school uniform, historically this would be dealt with by the school itself. However, given the nature of item four, there was a lot of external expertise and support that could be provided. 5 of the schools advised that they did bring in external organisations to help, but three did not enlist the help of anyone outside of the school – there was potential for the group to do some work with the three schools who didn’t. The Child Centred Policing Team do a lot of work with schools and the group wanted to encourage the take up of that. Six schools who had been made aware of anti-social behaviour advised that this had correlated with poor conduct in school.

The topic review group wanted to look at where they could assist schools and whether there were any interventions or programmes that could made available to them. Acknowledgement was made to the cutting of funds to Youth Services across Kent, and that they had caused significant detachment and outreach issues.

Schools were asked if they had any plans or projects in the pipeline regarding ASB within the community and eight responses were received – mostly assemblies being delivered. The demand on schools was immense and some answered ‘non-applicable’, which could have meant that they did not have the resources to be able to deliver these projects.

The Chair noted that the topic review had been slightly delayed, noting a change in membership, but asked that the topic review be completed by the end of April 2025.

The Strategic Manager advised they would follow up with schools about engagement to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

The link to the agenda of the meeting of the Kent & Medway Police and Crime Panel held on 04 February 2025 July is below:

(Public Pack) Agenda Document for Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel, 04/02/2025 10:00

The agenda for the latest meetings of the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel held on 04 February 2025 was presented to the Committee.

The Chair asked that Members raised any issues they wanted discussed at the next Panel meeting with Cllr Mochrie-Cox.

The minutes were noted.

To move, if required, that pursuant to Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded from any items included in Part B of the agenda because it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted that if members of the public are present during those items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act. Part B Items likely to be considered in private.

Part B

Items likely to be considered in private

Resolved that pursuant to Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public be excluded during the following item of business because it was likely in view of the nature of business to be transacted that, if members of the public were present during the item, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.

The Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee considered and discussed in detail the Part B information pertaining to the Strategic Assessment 2024 (Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations).

The Strategic Manager provided the committee with further information which needed to remain confidential at this stage.

The committee noted the report.

The Chief Inspector and Acting Inspector gave the Kent Police Operational Update.

The Crime and Disorder Scrutiny Committee considered and discussed the Part B information relating to the update which needed to remain confidential at this stage.

The Committee noted the update.