Durham PEEL 2018

This question was not subject to detailed inspection in 2018/19, and our judgment from the 2017 legitimacy inspection has been carried over. However, we reviewed a representative sample of 374 stop and search records to assess the reasonableness of the recorded grounds. We found that 94 percent had reasonable grounds recorded. Our assessment is based on the grounds recorded on the record by the searching officer and not the grounds that existed at the time of the search.

In our 2017 legitimacy report, we recommended that all forces should:

• monitor and analyse comprehensive stop and search data to understand reasons for disparities;
• take action on those; and
• publish the analysis and the action by July 2018.

We found that the constabulary has complied with some of this recommendation. But it doesn’t identify the extent to which find rates differ between people from different ethnicities and across different types of searches (including separate identification of find rates for drug possession and supply-type offences). It also isn’t clear that the constabulary monitors enough data to identify the prevalence of possession-only drug searches or the extent to which these align with local or force-level priorities.

We reviewed the constabulary’s website and found no mention of analysis it had carried out to understand reasons for disparities or explain subsequent action taken.

We will continue to monitor progress in this area.

Durham Constabulary is good at ensuring that its workforce behaves ethically and lawfully. It maintains a strong culture of ethical decision making. Officers and staff feel supported in making decisions.

The chief constable, through his code of ethics message, has personally reinforced its importance to all staff and officers. The code of ethics is also a routine part of recruitment for all new entrants. Officers and staff see the professional standards department as approachable. They also believe it does more than enforce standards, and actively prevents poor behaviour.

Supervisors are trained in open communications. The constabulary has internal and external ethics committees, which staff are encouraged to refer issues to. These provide robust oversight and feedback.

The constabulary has cleared in full the vetting backlog for its workforce. It has introduced ‘z’ cards that describe seven behavioural standards, to increase staff awareness of professional behaviour. The constabulary highlights misconduct cases in its quarterly newsletter, The Durham Standard, and in its internal web bulletin, the Midnight Circular.

The constabulary recognises the lack of a counter-corruption strategic assessment as a gap. It has dedicated an analyst to ensure completion of this important document. Its risk matrix approach identifies staff and officers at risk of corruption and is used to assess all the workforce. A confidential reporting system, ‘bad apple’, is being revised and re-introduced.

The constabulary takes abuse of position for a sexual purpose seriously. It has an action plan and a strategy to deal with this. It maintains strong relationships with agencies which support vulnerable victims of crime. This encourages a flow of information about this type of corruption.

This question was not subject to detailed inspection in 2018/19, and our judgment from the 2016 legitimacy inspection has been carried over.