A total of 45 minutes will be allowed for questions from the public to the
Police and Crime Commissioner and the Panel.
Better responses can be provided when we receive advance notice of
questions. Therefore it would be helpful if questions could be submitted by
noon on 26 June to allow substantive answers to be provided. If you intend
asking a question of the Commissioner or the Panel under this section of the
agenda please can you contact Matthew Evans prior to the meeting by calling
0330 22 22538 or email pcp@westsussex.gov.uk.
The questioner will be able to ask his/her question at the meeting, to which
the Commissioner will provide a verbal response. On hearing the response,
the questioner will have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question
(one further question, which must be on the same subject as the original
question). Supplementary questions, due to their nature, need not be
submitted in advance. Members of the Panel may be allowed to pose follow-up
questions, at the discretion of the Chairman. In the event that the
questioner is unable to attend the Chairman can ask the question on their
behalf.
Questions can be posed to the Commissioner or to the Panel.
Questions to the Commissioner:
• Should relate to the role of the Commissioner, (strategic/policy
issues), and not to operational matters or to individual grievances.
• Must not be defamatory, frivolous, vexatious or offensive
• Must not require the disclosure of confidential information
Questions to the Panel:
• Should relate to the role of the Panel (which is to hold the PCC to
account).
• Must not be defamatory, frivolous, vexatious or offensive
• Must not require the disclosure of confidential information
Minutes:
9. The Chairman introduced the public question time which was an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions of the Panel and the Commissioner. Eight questions had been received by the deadline.
10. Question 1 – The first question received was for the Commissioner, the questioner was unable to attend the meeting and the Chairman posed the question which queried the Commissioner’s expenditure on a cartoon depiction of the Police and Crime Plan and whether this represented value for money. The Commissioner said that it did represent value for money and explained that a detailed response had been provided to the questioner in response to a freedom of information request received in May. The Panel asked that when a question was received that the Commissioner had previously responded to, a copy of that response should be shared with the Panel.
11 Question 2 – The second question received was for the Commissioner and the questioner was in attendance to ask a question which asked what criteria the Commissioner used to grant personal meetings to residents who had written to her. The Commissioner explained that she had no policy regarding appointments but had a comprehensive programme of community engagement to ensure that she was able to talk to residents of Sussex about the Police and Crime Plan and priorities for Sussex. The questioner was advised to contact the Commissioner’s Office if there was any further information to raise relating to earlier correspondence.
12 Question 3 – The third question received was for the Commissioner, the questioner was unable to attend. The Commissioner was asked about the enforcement of 20mph speed limits in Sussex. The Commissioner responded to explain that the question related to operation policy o Sussex Police, acknowledged that the issue was significant to a number of residents and that she would facilitate a full response to the questioner from the Police. The issue had been raised a performance and accountability meeting and appropriate traffic calming was expected to be implemented in 20 mph zones to obviate the need for enforcement. The Panel explained that often the response of Sussex Police had been that a 20 mph limit was impossible to enforce and it therefore fell to the County Councils to address such issues. The Commissioner was asked for a clear policy on how speed limits would be monitored and problem areas addressed.
13. Question 4 – The fourth question received was for the Commissioner, the questioner was unable to attend. The Commissioner was asked about the role of Sussex Police during the anti-fracking protests at Balcombe in 2013 and the perfection that it had acted in the interests of the site operator. The Commissioner explained that the Police had to achieve a balance between allowing protest to take place whilst ensuring that the site operator was able to undertake their lawful and licensed activities. The Commissioner referred to the performance and accountability meeting in September 2013, which focussed on the policing of the protests. The Panel queried: the number of protesters charged with offences that had been acquitted; the public perception of undercover policing activities at the protests; and if any information derived from these activities had been shared with the site operator. The Commissioner responded to explain that the arrests has been evaluated in the review conducted into the operation which was available on the Sussex Police website and that she was unable to provide detail of the sharing of information, obtained through undercover operations, with the site operator. It was the contention of some members of the Panel that the claim in question that fracking was unpopular with the majority of people across Sussex was not substantiated by strong evidence.
14. Question 5 – The fifth question received was for the Commissioner, the questioner was unable to attend. The Commissioner was asked for details regarding prosecutions for speeding in 20mph zones in Chichester and Bognor Regis. The Commissioner confirmed that the question related to operational matters of Sussex Police but she would ensure a full response was provided to the questioner. The Panel noted that the enforcement of 20mph speed limits was an issue of interest to the public and clarify was required about the role of the Commissioner and how she was able to coordinated with local authorities and influence speeding issues. The Commissioner referred to the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership and explained that she would work to ensure that the Partnership was performing effectively.
15 Question 6 – The sixth question received was for the Commissioner, the questioner was unable to attend. The Commissioner was asked about the right to silence and self-incrimination. The Commissioner confirmed that the question was operational and required a large amount of detail. Sussex Police would be asked to provide a response. The Panel requested sight of the response that was sent to the questioner.
16 Question 7 – The seventh
question was for the Commissioner and the questioner was in
attendance to ask a question on the processing of crime statistics.
The Commissioner confirmed that the information
requested was very detailed and that she would request a response
from Sussex Police. A review of crime statistics and reporting was
currently taking place and the results of this review would be
available in October. The Commissioner had raised issues concerning
crime reporting and statistics in performance and accountability
meetings with the Chief Constable.
In a supplementary question the questioner asked the Commissioner
to consider the introduction of a
Red/Green/Amber system to report on the latest statistics relating
to individual wards. The Commissioner would pass the
suggestion on. The Panel raised concerns about the public
perception of increases in crime statistics and the impact on
community safety. It was felt that more information about the
processing and compilation of crime figures would assist public
understanding of any perceived increases. The increase
in reporting of crime, particularly hate crime, was an objective of
Sussex Police.
17 Question 8 – The eighth question was for the Commissioner and the questioner w as in attendance to ask a question on domestic violence strategies to support victims and witnesses. The Commissioner confirmed that domestic violence was a key priority and that Sussex Police had achieved White Ribbon status. Work had been undertaken to seek to clarify pathways between all agencies with a responsibility in the field including the criminal justice system. Innovations in victim support included the establishment of a victim support partnership. As a supplementary question the questioner asked how strategies were raising awareness of domestic violence support and establishing access points for victims. It was acknowledged that this was a complicated area with a number of different organisations operating within domestic abuse. Victims did not necessarily have to go directly to the Police but could access support services including Worth in West Sussex, Rise in Brighton and Hove and Refuge in East Sussex. It was recognised that these organisations were raising awareness of support available.