Dyfed-Powys Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection 2018

Overall judgment

Dyfed-Powys Police has made a concerted effort to record crime more accurately since our 2014 crime data integrity inspection report. Most officers and staff have made progress in putting the victim at the centre of their crime-recording decisions. We also found the force has:

• recorded all but one of the modern slavery offences disclosed during investigations;
• recorded nearly every offence of taking or sharing indecent images of a young person;
• implemented all but one of the recommendations in our 2014 report; and
• introduced effective processes in the force communication centre (FCC) so that victims receive a good service from the staff taking their calls.

Despite advances, work remains to be done. We examined crime reports from 1 October 2017 to 31 March 2018. Based on this, we estimate that the force fails to record over 3,300 reported crimes each year. This is a recording rate of 87.8 percent (with a confidence interval of +/- 1.69 percent). The 12.2 percent of reported crimes that go unrecorded include sexual offences, public order and violence offences. It is a cause of concern that the recording rate for violent crime is only 84.4 percent (with a confidence interval of +/- 2.71 percent). The force must improve in these areas.

We consider that officers and staff not understanding the crime-recording rules leads to these failures. This is made worse by limited supervision to correct these decisions as soon as possible.

Summary of inspection findings

The force has improved its crime-recording processes since our 2014 report. We found that it has:

• developed a process where an incident, crime and allocation team (ICAT) deals with more crime reports and records more crimes at the point of reporting;
• an effective process for giving feedback to staff and officers who make poor crime-recording decisions;
• developed specific crime-recording training targeting the areas where officers and staff regularly make the same mistakes;
• made good progress implementing changes recommended in our 2014 report, fully completing all but one of these recommendations; and
• introduced processes to make sure it uses out-of-court disposals, such as cautions, youth cautions and community resolutions, appropriately.

The force crime incident registrar (FCR) and her deputy – responsible for oversight and audit of crime-recording arrangements – have both completed a national College of Policing course and are fully accredited. The FCR is supported by a small team that undertakes regular audits of reported and recorded crime. The deputy FCR and a small team of auditors and designated decision makers (DDMs) support the FCR’s work. We welcome the progress the force has made.

But we found that the force’s crime recording needs to improve in the following areas:

• There is not always supervisory oversight of crime-recording decisions arising from domestic abuse incidents.
• There is too often no crime recording bureau oversight of records opened as a crime incident but closed without a crime record being created.
• Where counter allegations are made, officers sometimes don’t record the crime or explain why a crime should not be recorded.
• The force must collect more information about the effect of criminality on identifiable groups within communities.

The force is currently under-recording:

• public order crimes;
• violence crimes, especially crimes of harassment, common assault and malicious communications; and
• domestic abuse-related crimes.

Incorrect recording decisions are often caused by officers and staff not understanding the crime-recording rules. Limited supervision of crime-recording decisions makes these errors worse.

These areas require improvement.

We note that the chief officer team is relatively new, and the deputy chief constable is overseeing a programme of improvements. This programme is governed by a comprehensive crime-recording action plan, designed to improve the service provided to crime victims in Dyfed-Powys.

The introduction of the ICAT has been positive. The force now creates more crime records close to the point of reporting and the team is conducting proportionate investigations. This has removed the need for officers to attend these crime incidents. We expect that this will help the force to improve its crime recording.

We found the FCC staff to be professional, courteous and helpful. They accurately recorded the details received during initial calls for service. And they consistently applied the THRIVES (threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability, engagement and safeguarding) risk assessment to decide on the response required.

These are welcome developments.

How effective is the force at recording reported crime?

Overall crime-recording rate

The force must do more to make sure it records all crime reports in accordance with the Home Office Counting Rules (HOCR).

We examined reports of crime the force received, and for which it had created an auditable record. The force told us that 86.2 percent of crime that it records (except fraud) comes through an auditable crime reporting route. This doesn’t mean that 86.2 percent of crimes reported to Dyfed-Powys Police come through these routes, but that 86.2 percent of crime is recorded this way.

We found that the force recorded 87.8 percent of these crimes (with a confidence interval of +/- 1.69 percent). We estimate the force is not recording over 3,300 reports of crime each year. These failings are potentially depriving many victims of the services they are entitled to.

Of a total of 1,372 reports of crime we audited, we found 349 crimes related to domestic abuse. Of these, the force had recorded 283. The 66 offences not recorded included violence offences, sexual offences and public disorder. The force had not considered safeguarding requirements in all cases and had completed an investigation in less than ten of these cases.

The force allocates most domestic abuse crimes to an officer to attend and make a crime-recording decision. In addition, officers should complete a DASH assessment in every domestic abuse case. We found that too often this was not happening, meaning that too many victims didn’t have proper consideration of their safeguarding needs. But we did find that the FCC call takers were conducting a THRIVES risk assessment every time. We also found that when officers created a crime record in a domestic abuse case, they explained on the crime record what safeguarding measures had been taken.

Because of not conducting DASH assessments in domestic abuse cases, the force doesn’t always consider and provide the safeguarding these most vulnerable victims require. This is concerning.

Domestic abuse often involves victims who are particularly vulnerable to further offences being committed against them. So it is vital to record reported crimes of domestic abuse.

The force’s crime-recording processes, and its workforce’s crime-recording knowledge, are contributing to its under-recording.

The force must improve its crime-recording processes. We found that:

• officers sometimes don’t record crimes when attending crime reports, because they don’t understand the crime-recording requirements, particularly where offences of harassment, common assault, public order and malicious communications are disclosed;
• officers and staff don’t always record a proper explanation for why they haven’t recorded a crime; and
• because there isn’t enough supervision, officers’ and staff’s crime-recording decisions aren’t challenged enough.

Response officers aren’t always sure of crime-recording requirements when dealing with complex crimes.

When third parties acting in a professional capacity make reports of crime to the force, officers and staff often fail to record the crimes.

Violence against the person

We found that the force records 84.4 percent of violent crimes reported to it (with a confidence interval of +/- 2.71 percent). This is lower than the overall crime-recording rate noted above. By our estimate, this means the force fails to record over 1,500 violent crimes that are reported to it each year. As violent crime can be particularly distressing for the victim, and many of these crimes involve injury, better recording of reported crime is particularly important.

In most cases where reported violent crimes were not recorded, we found this was because of:

• the processes for recording a reported crime (described earlier);
• officers and staff not properly understanding the crime-recording rules; and
• inadequate supervision of crime-recording decisions.

Victims of violence and serious violence often need a lot of support. This support comes from the police and other appropriate agencies, such as Victim Support. In these circumstances, crime recording is even more important. If the force fails to record a violent crime properly, it can mean victims aren’t referred to Victim Support. This deprives victims of the support they need and deserve.

Sexual offences

The force is good at recording reports of sexual offences. We found it records 93 percent of sexual offences that are reported to it (with a confidence interval of +/- 2.79 percent). We estimate the force is not recording over 70 reported sexual offences each year.

Despite the good performance the force can do better. We found that it had failed to record reports of sexual offences against both adults and children. These included reports of sexual assaults and of children being incited to engage in sexual activity.

As before, the force is under-recording sexual offences because of:

• poor processes for recording a reported crime;
• officers and staff not understanding crime-recording rules, particularly third-party reporting;
• officers not recording all the crimes disclosed to them by the same victim; and
• inadequate supervision of crime-recording decisions.

Significantly though, the force had recorded nearly every offence of taking or sharing indecent images of a young person. It recently provided training to all officers and staff, leading to this good performance.

Rape

Rape is one of the most serious crimes a victim can experience, so it is especially important that reports of rape are recorded accurately. It helps to make sure victims receive the service and support they deserve. And it helps the police identify the nature and extent of sexual violence in their local area.

We found that 62 out of 68 rapes reported to the force had been correctly recorded. These include reports from the force incident system and from investigations, involving vulnerable victims, conducted by specialist officers dealing with adult and child protection. The force had investigated all of these cases and provided safeguarding to every victim.

However, the force needs to improve its understanding and use of the Home Office classification N100. The N100 was introduced in April 2015. Its purpose is to explain why reported incidents of rape or attempted rape, whether they are reported by victims, witnesses or third parties, haven’t immediately been recorded as a confirmed crime. This can include instances where new information confirms the rape didn’t take place, or where the rape took place in another force area and was transferred to the relevant force to record and investigate.

From our audit, we found 17 N100s that should have been recorded. Of these, the force had recorded only 11. We also examined 20 occasions where the force completed N100 records. Of these, 19 were recorded correctly and one was correctly turned into a rape.

It is important the force improves the understanding of N100 classifications among its officers and staff for it to satisfy itself fully that it always takes the correct crime-recording decisions following a report of rape.

How efficiently do the systems and processes in the force support accurate crime recording?

Crime reports held on other systems

To be confident that vulnerable victims always get the support they need, the force must make sure that it always records crimes reported directly to its public protection teams.

We examined 50 vulnerable victim records: 25 adult records and 25 relating to children. We found 44 crimes that should have been recorded, but the force only recorded 37. The unrecorded crimes included a theft and a common assault against adults and five sex offences involving children. Four of these offences were committed against one victim.

Our examination of these records showed that safeguarding had been provided to each victim. The force took positive action in every case including, where appropriate, proportionate investigations.

We found that specialist detectives and staff in the central referral unit, who liaise directly with third-party professionals, clearly understood the crime-recording rules for offences reported by these professionals.

Modern slavery

Offences relating to modern slavery are an important and recent addition to the crimes that forces must record and investigate. So, we examined how well the force records reports of modern slavery offences. We also examined the force’s understanding of the origin of such reports.

We examined seven modern slavery referrals made to the force. We found that the force should have recorded seven modern slavery crimes and had recorded six of these. The force had also recorded every other crime disclosed during modern slavery investigations. This is a good result.

We also found that the force undertook safeguarding in all cases.

The force’s modern slavery lead works at local, regional, and national levels with other forces and interested parties. Officers understand modern slavery at a local level. The force gave us details of effective operations it had conducted. The force is considering the impact that Brexit will have on the border it shares with the Republic of Ireland. It is considering this impact in terms of modern slavery, among other things.

Timeliness

If the information the force gets at the first point of contact satisfies the national crime recording standard, the force should record crimes straight away, and in any case within 24 hours.

We found that, of the reports the force had recorded, it had only recorded the following number within 24 hours of receiving the report:

• 50 out of 62 reports of rape;
• 411 out of 532 reports of violent crime; and
• 151 out of 199 sexual offences (excluding rape).

This must improve.

Although some victims might be referred to support agencies in other ways, recording reported crimes late leads to delays in referring victims to Victim Support. This is unacceptable, as some victims would benefit from the early support this team can give.

Cancelled crimes

If additional verifiable information shows that a recorded crime didn’t take place, the crime record can be cancelled. We found that the force’s performance in this area needs to improve.

In Dyfed-Powys Police, only the FCR and her staff can cancel recorded crimes. This should be a good and effective process.

We reviewed a sample of cancelled records of rape, other sexual offences, violence and robbery. We found that the FCR had correctly authorised the cancellation of 12 out of 13 rape offences. DDMs working with the FCR had correctly cancelled:

• 18 out of 20 sexual offences;
• 18 out of 20 violence offences; and
• 3 out of 3 robbery offences.

If a crime has been cancelled or transferred to another force for investigation, victims should always know the status of their reported crime. If the force decides to cancel a recorded crime, the very least the victim should expect is an explanation of why the force decided this. We found that the force had informed victims of this decision on only 36 out of 41 occasions when it should have done.

Code of Practice for Victims of Crime

The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (Document) gives police forces clear guidance about the service they should give crime victims. We have concluded that the force is aware of its responsibilities under this code. In particular, after the force records a crime, it sends victims a standard letter with information about the offence which they have been subject to. At this point the force also refers the case to Victim Support, to give the victim further support and advice.

Staff are also aware of their responsibilities under the code. We found many examples of the force giving crime victims a good service, and sometimes an enhanced service.

Equality

We found that the force must improve how it collects information about the effect of criminality on identifiable groups.

Protected characteristics, such as gender, sexuality, disability, ethnicity, religion and age, don’t necessarily make someone more vulnerable to the risk of crime. However, it is important that the force records information about the victims’ characteristics. This helps to identify any patterns between different community groups and how vulnerable they are to (or how likely they are to report) different types of crime.

We found that the force collects equality information when recording hate crimes, but only obtains basic information in all other cases. Importantly, if the force fails to record this information on every occasion, it won’t be able to understand clearly whether its crime-recording decisions are consistent across different community groups. Therefore, this is an area for improvement.

Officer and staff survey

We carried out a survey of officers and staff in Dyfed-Powys Police about their experience of crime recording. Over 200 respondents took part. We were pleased that most respondents said the force’s approach to crime recording had improved since our 2014 inspection. And officers and staff do not feel any pressure to minimise the number of crimes recorded because of performance targets.

How well does the force demonstrate the leadership and culture necessary to meet the national standards for crime recording?

The force’s culture and leadership of crime recording is good.

Senior officers demonstrate strong leadership around crime-recording expectations. Messages from the chief constable and the chief officer group are clear and unequivocal. We found that most officers and staff relied on the victim’s initial account when making their crime-recording decisions, but the force still has work to do in this area. A small minority of officers and staff do not always rely on that initial account. Too often these officers would say that the victims weren’t harassed, alarmed or distressed and didn’t consider themselves crime victims. This was often despite the fact that victims had initially phoned the force in a distressed state to report a crime.

We found evidence of strong governance, with crime-recording standards included in the agenda for the deputy chief constable’s improvement group. The force has been implementing a crime data integrity action plan designed to serve victims better. This has included developing training products and using feedback to make sure that it improves understanding and compliance.

The force has made good progress with making changes recommended in our 2014 report. It has fully completed all but one of these recommendations. The force has also made good progress against the national action plan, introduced by the national policing lead on crime statistics following our 2014 report.

Conclusion

Dyfed-Powys Police has improved its crime-recording processes since 2014. However, it still needs to improve.

We welcome its strong leadership and the positive approach among most officers and staff toward victims. However, the force needs to further improve its crime-recording processes. It should also make sure that its staff and officers fully understand the crime-recording standards expected of them, and that it supervises these standards effectively.

What next?

We note that after our audit, the force immediately acted to make sure that every missed crime we found was retrospectively recorded and assessed for investigation. The force also began work to find out how it could further improve its crime recording. We welcome this and will continue to monitor progress.

As with all police forces, we may carry out another unannounced crime data integrity inspection of this force at any time.

Dyfarniad Cyffredinol

Mae Heddlu Dyfed-Powys wedi gwneud pob ymdrech i wella cywirdeb cofnodi troseddau ers Uniondeb Data Troseddu 2014 HMICFRS (Saesneg). Yn bwysig, mae mwyafrif y swyddogion a’r staff wedi gwneud cynnydd wrth roi’r dioddefwr ar flaen y gad yn eu penderfyniadau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau.

Canfuom fod y heddlu:

• wedi cofnodi pob trosedd o gaethwasiaeth fodern ond un a ddatgelwyd yn ystod ymchwiliadau;
• wedi cofnodi bron pob trosedd o wneud a dosbarthu delweddau anweddus o blentyn ifanc;
• wedi gweithredu’r holl argymhellion ond un a gyflwynir yn ein hadroddiad ar gyfer 2014;
• wedi sefydlu prosesau effeithiol yng nghanolfan gyfathrebu’r heddlu (FCC) er mwyn i ddioddefwyr dderbyn gwasanaeth dda gan y staff sy’n cymryd eu galwadau.

Er gwaethaf y datblygiadau hynny, mae gwaith i’w wneud eto. Gwnaethom archwiliad o adroddiadau troseddau am y cyfnod rhwng 1 Hydref 2017 a 31 Mawrth 2018. Yn seiliedig ar y canlyniadau hynny, rydym yn amcangyfrif bod yr heddlu’n methu â chofnodi dros 3,300 o droseddau a adroddir bob blwyddyn(Saesneg). Mae hyn yn cynrychioli cyfradd cofnodi o 87.8% (â chyfwng hyder o +/-1.69%). Mae’r 12.2% o droseddau a adroddwyd a aeth heb eu cofnodi yn cynnwys troseddau rhywiol, troseddau trefn gyhoeddus a throseddau treisgar. Mae’r gyfradd gofnodi ar gyfer troseddau treisgar yn peri pryder ar 84.4% yn unig (â cyfwng hyder o +/-2.71%). Mae rhaid i’r heddlu wella yn y meysydd hyn.

Credwn fod y methiannau hyn yn digwydd oherwydd nad yw swyddogion a staff yn deall y rheolau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau. Gall y methiannau hyn fod yn waeth oherwydd bod diffyg goruchwyliaeth i gywiro’r penderfyniadau hyn cyn gynted â phosibl.

Crynodeb o ganfyddiadau’r arolygiad

Mae’r llu wedi gwella’i brosesau cofnodi troseddau ers ein hadroddiad yn 2014. Yn benodol, canfuom fod yr heddlu wedi:

• datblygu proses lle mae tîm digwyddiad, trosedd a dosbarthu (ICAT) yn ymdrin â mwy o adroddiadau troseddau ac yn cofnodi mwy o droseddau ar y cyswllt cyntaf;
• trefnu proses effeithiol ar gyfer rhoi adborth i staff a swyddogion sy’n gwneud penderfyniadau gwael ynghylch cofnodi troseddau;
• datblygu hyfforddiant penodol ynghylch cofnodi troseddau yn edrych ar y meysydd lle mae swyddogion a staff yn aml yn gwneud yr un camgymeriadau;
• gwneud cynnydd da yn gweithredu’r argymhellion a gyflwynwyd yn ein hadroddiad yn 2014, yn gweithredu pob argymhelliad ond un; a
• sefydlu prosesau i sicrhau ei fod yn defnyddio gwarediadau y tu allan i’r llys, megis rhybuddiadau, rhybuddiadau ieuenctid a datrysiadau cymunedol, yn briodol.

Mae cofrestrydd troseddau’r heddlu (FCR) a’i dirprwy, sy’n gyfrifol am oruchwylio gofynion cofnodi troseddau, wedi cwblhau cwrs Coleg Plismona cenedlaethol ac wedi’u achredu’n llawn. Cefnogir ei gwaith gan dîm fach sy’n cynnal archwiliadau rheolaidd o droseddau a adroddir a’i gofnodir. Mae’r dirprwy FCR, tîm fach o archwilwyr a gwneuthurwyr penderfyniadau penodedig (DDMs) yn cefnogi gwaith y FCR. Mae’n galonogol gweld y cynnydd a wnaed gan yr heddlu.

Er gwaethaf y datblygiadau rhain, mae rhaid i’r llu wella ei berfformiad o ran cofnodi troseddau yn y meysydd canlynol:

• Nid oes goruchwyliaeth bob amser o benderfyniadau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau yn deillio o digwyddiadau cam-drin domestig.
• Yn aml, nid oes swyddfa fel petai ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau i oruchwylio cofnodion a agorwyd fel digwyddiad trosedd ond a gaewyd heb i gofnod trosedd gael ei greu.
• Ble gwneir cyhuddiadau cownter, nid yw swyddogion weithiau yn cofnodi’r trosedd neu esbonio pam na ddylai’r trosedd gael ei gofnodi.
• Mae rhaid i’r llu gasglu mwy o wybodaeth ynghylch effaith troseddoldeb ar grwpiau adnabyddadwy o fewn cymunedau.

Ar hyn o bryd, mae’r heddlu’n tan-gofnodi:

• troseddau trefn gyhoeddus;
• troseddau treisgar, yn enwedig troseddau aflonyddu, ymosodiad cyffredin a chyfathrebiadau maleisus; a

Achosir penderfyniadau anghywir ynghylch cofnodi troseddau yn aml o ganlyniad i’r ffaith nad yw swyddogion a staff yn deall y rheolau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau. Gall y goruchwyliaeth gyfyng o arolygu ar benderfyniadau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau wneud y camgymeriadau hyn yn waeth.

Mae angen gwelliannau yn y meysydd hyn.

Rydym yn nodRydym yn nodi bod tîm y prif swyddog yn weddol newydd, a bod y dirprwy brif gwnstabl yn goruchwylio rhaglen o welliannau. Llywodraethir y rhaglen hon gan gynllun gweithredu cynhwysfawr ynghylch cofnodi troseddau, wedi’i chynllunio i wella’r gwasanaeth a ddarperir i ddioddefwyr troseddau yn Dyfed-Powys.i bod tîm y prif swyddog yn weddol newydd, a bod y dirprwy brif gwnstabl yn goruchwylio rhaglen o welliannau. Llywodraethir y rhaglen hon gan gynllun gweithredu cynhwysfawr ynghylch cofnodi troseddau, wedi’i chynllunio i wella’r gwasanaeth a ddarperir i ddioddefwyr troseddau yn Dyfed-Powys.

Mae sefydlu ICAT wedi bod yn gadarnhaol. Mae’r llu yn creu mwy o gofnodion troseddau ar yr adeg adrodd ac mae’r tîm yn cynnal archwiliadau o ganlyniad. Mae hyn wedi tynnu’r angen i swyddogion fynychu’r digwyddiadau troseddau hyn. Rydym yn disgwyl y bydd hyn yn helpu’r llu i wella ei brosesau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau.

Canfuom fod staff y FCC i fod yn broffesiynol, yn gwrtais ac o gymorth. Cofnodwyd manylion yn gywir ganddynt yn ystod y galwadau cyntaf am wasanaeth. Gweithredwyd asesiad risg THRIVES (bygythiad, niwed, risg, archwiliad, peryglon, ymrwymiad a diogelu) ganddynt yn gyson i benderfynu ar yr ymateb a oedd ei hangen.

Mae’r datblygiadau hyn yn galonogol.

Pa mor effeithiol yw’r heddlu wrth gofnodi troseddau a adroddir?

Cyfradd gyffredinol ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau

Mae gan yr heddlu waith pellach i’w wneud er mwyn sicrhau ei fod yn cofnodi pob adroddiad am drosedd yn unol âRheolau Cyfrif y Swyddfa Gartref (HOCR).(Saesneg)
Gwnaethom archwilio adroddiadau am droseddau a dderbyniwyd gan yr heddlu, ac y crëwyd cofnod archwiliadwy ar eu cyfer(Saesneg)

Hysbyswyd ni gan yr heddlu bod 86.2% o droseddau a gofnodir (ac eithrio twyll) yn dod trwy lwybr archwiliadwy ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau. Nid yw hyn yn golygu bod 86.2% o droseddau a adroddir i Heddlu Dyfed-Powys yn dod trwy’r llwybrau hynny, ond bod 86.2% o droseddau a gofnodir yn y ffordd hon.

Canfuom fod yr heddlu wedi cofnodi 87.8% o’r troseddau hyn (â chyfwng hyder o +/-1.69%). Rydym yn amcangyfrif bod hyn yn golygu nad yw’r heddlu yn cofnodi dros 3,300 o adroddiadau am droseddau bob blwyddyn.(Saesneg) Mae’r methiannau hynny yn amddifadu llawer o ddioddefwyr o’r gwasanaethau y mae ganddynt hawl iddynt.

O’r 1,372 o adroddiadau am droseddau a archwiliwyd gennym, canfuom 349 a aseswyd gennym fel troseddau yn gysylltiedig â cham-drin domestig(Saesneg). O’r 349 o droseddau hyn, roedd yr heddlu wedi cofnodi 283. Roedd y 66 o droseddau nad oedd wedi’u cofnodi yn cynnwys troseddau treisgar, troseddau rhywiol a throseddau trefn gyhoeddus. Nid oedd yr heddlu wedi ystyried gofynion diogelu mewn pob achos ac roedd yr heddlu wedi cwblhau archwiliad mewn llai na deg o’r achosion hyn.

Mae’r heddlu yn dosbarthu’r mwyafrif o droseddau cam-drin domestig i swyddog i’w fynychu ac i wneud penderfyniad ynghylch cofnodi troseddau. Yn ychwanegol, dylai swyddogion gwblhau asesiad DASH mewn pob achos o gam-drin domestig. Canfuom nad oedd hyn yn digwydd yn aml iawn, yn golygu na chafodd gormod o ddioddefwyr ystyriaeth lawn o’u hanghenion diogelu. Ond, canfuom fod trinwyr galwadau y FCC wedi cynnal asesiad risg THRIVES bob tro. Canfuom hefyd pan oedd swyddogion wedi creu cofnod troseddu mewn achos o gam-drin domestig, roedd esboniad ar y cofnod troseddu o ba gamau diogelu a gymerwyd.

Oherwydd ni chynhaliwyd asesiadau DASH mewn achosion o gam-drin domestig, nid yw’r heddlu bob amser yn ystyried ac yn darparu y camau diogelu sydd eu hangen gan ddioddefwyr hyglwyf iawn. Mae hyn yn achos pryder.

Mae cam-drin domestig yn aml yn cynnwys dioddefwyr sy’n agored i droseddau pellach yn digwydd iddyn nhw. Felly, mae’n hollbwysig bod adroddiadau o droseddau cam-drin domestig.(Saesneg) yn cael eu cofnodi.

Mae prosesau’r heddlu ynghylch cofnodi troseddau, a gwybodaeth ei weithlu am gofnodi troseddau, yn cyfrannu at y ffaith bod yr heddlu yn tan-gofnodi adroddiadau am droseddau.

Mae rhaid i’r heddlu wella ei brosesau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau. Canfuom:

• nad yw swyddogion bob amser yn cofnodi troseddau pan fynychu adroddiadau am droseddau, oherwydd nad ydynt yn sicr o’r gofynion ynghylch cofnodi troseddau, yn enwedig lle mae troseddau sy’n ymwneud ag aflonyddu, ymosodiad cyffredin, trefn gyhoeddus a chyfathrebiadau maleisus yn cael eu datgelu;
• nad yw swyddogion a staff bob amser yn cofnodi esboniad dilys am pam na chofnodwyd trosedd; a
• gan fod diffyg goruchwyliaeth ynghylch cofnodi troseddau, nad yw penderfyniadau swyddogion a staff ynghylch cofnodi troseddau yn cael eu herio yn ddigon.

Nid yw swyddogion ymateb bob amser yn siŵr o ofynion ynghylch cofnodi troseddau wrth ymdrin â throseddau cymhleth.

Pan fydd gweithwyr proffesiynol trydydd parti yn gwneud adroddiadau o droseddau i’r heddlu, mae swyddogion a staff yn methu â chofnodi’r troseddau yn aml.

Trais yn erbyn y person

Gwnaethom ganfod bod 84.4% o droseddau treisgar a adroddir wrth yr heddlu yn cael eu cofnodi (â chyfwng hyder o +/-2.71%). Mae hyn yn is na’r gyfradd gofnodi troseddau gyffredinol a nodir uchod. Yn ôl ein hamcangyfrif, mae hyn yn golygu nad yw’r heddlu yn cofnodi mwy na 1,500 o droseddau treisgar a adroddir wrtho bob blwyddyn.(Saesneg) Gall trosedd treisgar fod yn ofidus iawn i’r dioddefwr, ac mae llawer o’r troseddau hyn yn cynnwys anafiad, felly mae’r angen am ddull gwell o gofnodi troseddau yn hynod o bwysig.

Yn y mwyafrif o achosion lle na chofnodwyd troseddau treisgar, canfuom mai’r prif achosion oedd:

• y prosesau sydd yn eu lle ar hyn o bryd ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau a adroddir (a ddisgrifiwyd yn gynharach);
• nid yw swyddogion a staff yn deall y rheolau ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau’n ddigonol; ac
• absenoldeb goruchwyliaeth ddigonol o benderfyniadau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau.

Mae dioddefwyr troseddau treisgar a dioddefwyr trais mwy difrifol yn aml yn galw am lawer o gefnogaeth. Mae’r gefnogaeth hon yn dod gan yr heddlu ac asiantaethau priodol eraill, megis Victim Support.(Saesneg) Yn yr amgylchiadau hynny, mae cofnodi troseddau yn bwysicach byth. Os bydd yr heddlu yn methu â chofnodi trosedd treisgar yn briodol, gall hyn olygu na fydd dioddefwyr yn cael eu cyfeirio at Victim Support. Gall hynny, yn ei dro, amddifadu’r dioddefwyr o’r gefnogaeth y maent ei hangen a’i haeddu.

Troseddau rhywiol

Mae’r heddlu yn dda yn cofnodi adroddiadau o droseddau rhywiol. Mae’r heddlu yn cofnodi 93% o droseddau rhywiol a adroddir wrtho (â chyfwng hyder o +/-2.79%). Rydym yn amcangyfrif nad yw’r heddlu yn cofnodi mwy na 70 o droseddau rhywiol a adroddir bob blwyddyn.(Saesneg)

Er gwaethaf y perfformiad da, mae angen i’r llu wella. Canfuom fod yr heddlu wedi methu â chofnodi adroddiadau o droseddau rhywiol yn erbyn oedolion a phlant. Ymysg y rhain, roedd adroddiadau o ymosodiadau rhywiol ac adroddiadau o droseddau yn ymwneud â gweithgarwch rhywiol gyda phlentyn.

Fel o’r blaen, mae’r heddlu yn tan-gofnodi troseddau rhywiol oherwydd:

• prosesau gwael am gofnodi trosedd a adroddir;
• nad yw swyddogion a staff yn deall y rheolau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau, yn enwedig adroddiadau gan drydydd partïon;
• nad yw swyddogion yn cofnodi pob un o’r troseddau a ddatgelir iddynt gan yr un dioddefwr; a
• diffyg goruchwyliaeth am benderfyniadau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau.

Ond, yn arwyddocaol, roedd yr heddlu wedi cofnodi bron pob trosedd o wneud a dosbarthu delweddau anweddus o blentyn ifanc. Darparwyd hyfforddiant yn ddiweddar i’w holl swyddogion a staff, yn arwain at y perfformiad da hwn.

Treisio

Mae treisio’n un o’r troseddau rhywiol mwyaf difrifol y gall dioddefwr ei brofi. Felly, mae cofnodi adroddiadau o’r fath yn gywir yn arbennig o bwysig. Mae’n helpu i sicrhau bod y dioddefwr yn derbyn y gwasanaeth y mae ganddynt hawl i’w ddisgwyl a’i haeddu. Mae’n caniatáu i’r heddlu nodi natur a maint trais rhywiol yn eu hardal leol.

O’r 68 o adroddiadau am dreisio y dylid wedi’u cofnodi, gwnaethom ganfod bod 62 wedi eu cofnodi yn gywir gan yr heddlu. Mae’r rhain yn cynnwys adroddiadau o system ddigwyddiadau’r heddlu ac o archwiliadau, yn cynnwys dioddefwyr hyglwyf, wedi’u cynnal gan swyddogion arbenigol yn ymdrin â diogelu oedolion a phlant. Roedd yr heddlu wedi archwilio pob un o’r achosion hyn a darparu mesurau diogelu i bob dioddefwr.

Gallai’r heddlu wella ei wybodaeth am sut mae’n defnyddio dosbarthiad N100 y Swyddfa Gartref. Wedi’i gyflwyno ym mis Ebrill 2015, mae’r N100 yn gofnod a grëwyd i esbonio pam nad yw achosion o dreisio neu geisiadau i dreisio a gofnodwyd, boed hynny gan ddioddefwyr, tystion neu drydydd partïon, wedi cael eu cofnodi ar unwaith fel troseddau a gadarnhawyd. Gall hyn gynnwys achosion lle mae gwybodaeth ychwanegol yn cadarnhau nad oedd y treisio wedi digwydd, neu pan ddigwyddodd y treisio mewn ardal heddlu arall ac felly fe’i trosglwyddwyd i’r heddlu perthnasol i’w gofnodi a’i ymchwilio.

O’n harchwiliad, canfuom 17 N100s y dylai’r heddlu wedi eu cofnodi. O’r ffigwr hwn, cofnodwyd 11 ohonynt yn unig. Gwnaethom adolygu 20 o gofnodion lle defnyddiwyd dosbarthiad N100. Ymhlith y rhain, cofnodwyd 19 yn gywir a throsglwyddwyd un i drosedd treisio.

Mae’n bwysig bod yr heddlu yn gwella dealltwriaeth ei swyddogion a staff o ddosbarthiadau N100 os yw’n mynd i ymfodloni’n llawn bod y penderfyniadau cofnodi cywir bob amser yn cael eu cymryd ynghylch adroddiadau am dreisio.

Pa mor effeithlon ydy’r systemau a phrosesau yn yr heddlu yn cefnogi cofnodi troseddau’n gywir?

Adroddiadau am droseddau a ddelir ar systemau eraill

Er mwyn bod yn hyderus bod dioddefwyr hyglwyf bob amser yn derbyn y gefnogaeth sydd ei angen arnynt, mae’n bwysig bod yr heddlu yn cofnodi troseddau a adroddir yn uniongyrchol i’w dimau diogelu’r cyhoedd bob amser.

Gwnaethom archwilio 50 o gofnodion dioddefwyr hyglwyf: 25 yn gysylltiedig â chofnodion oedolion a 25 yn gysylltiedig â chofnodion plant. O’r rhain, canfuom y dylai 44 o droseddau wedi’u cofnodi gan yr heddlu, ac o’r rhai hynny cofnodwyd 37 ohonynt. Roedd y troseddau ar goll yn ymwneud â lladrata, ymosodiad cyffredin ar oedolion a phump trosedd rhywiol ar blant. Roedd pedwar o’r troseddau hyn wedi’u cyflawni yn erbyn un dioddefwr.

Dangosodd ein harchwiliad o’r cofnodion hyn fod yr heddlu wedi darparu camau diogelu i bob dioddefwr. Cymerodd yr heddlu camau gweithredu cadarn mewn pob achos yn cynnwys, lle bo’n briodol, ymchwiliadau cymesuradwy.

Canfuom fod ditectifs arbenigol a staff yn yr uned atgyfeirio ganolog, sy’n cysylltu â gweithwyr proffesiynol trydydd parti yn uniongyrchol, yn deall yn glir y rheolau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau am droseddau a adroddir gan y gweithwyr proffesiynol hyn.

Caethwasiaeth fodern

Mae troseddau sy’n ymwneud â chaethwasiaeth fodern yn ychwanegiad pwysig a diweddar i’r troseddau y mae’n rhaid i’r lluoedd eu cofnodi a’u hymchwilio. Felly, gwnaethom adolygu pa mor dda ydy’r heddlu yn cofnodi adroddiadau am droseddau caethwasiaeth fodern. Gwnaethom hefyd archwilio dealltwriaeth yr heddlu o darddiad adroddiadau o’r fath.

Gwnaethom archwilio saith o atgyfeiriadau caethwasiaeth modern a wnaed i’r heddlu. Canfuom y dylai’r heddlu wedi cofnodi saith trosedd caethwasiaeth fodern ond o’r rhai hynny cofnodwyd chwech ohonynt. Roedd yr heddlu hefyd wedi cofnodi pob trosedd arall a ddatgelir yn ystod ymchwiliadau caethwasiaeth fodern. Mae hyn yn ganlyniad da.

Canfuom fod yr heddlu wedi cymryd camau diogelu mewn pob achos.

Mae gan yr heddlu arweinydd ar gyfer caethwasiaeth fodern sy’n gweithio ar lefelau lleol, rhanbarthol, a chenedlaethol â lluoedd eraill a phartïon eraill. Mae caethwasiaeth fodern yn cael ei deall gan swyddogion ar lefel leol. Darparwyd manylion inni ynghylch ymgyrchoedd effeithiol a gynhaliwyd gan y llu. Mae’r heddlu yn ystyried yr effaith a fydd Brexit yn cael ar y ffin y mae’n ei rhannu gyda Gweriniaeth Iwerddon. Mae’n ystyried yr effaith hon yn nhermau caethwasiaeth fodern, ymysg pethau eraill.

Amseroldeb

Os bydd yr wybodaeth a dderbynnir gan yr heddlu, ar ei gyswllt cyntaf, yn bodloni’r safon genedlaethol ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau, dylai’r heddlu gofnodi’r troseddau yn syth, ac mewn unrhyw achos, o fewn 24 awr.
Os bydd yr wybodaeth a dderbynnir gan yr heddlu, ar ei gyswllt cyntaf, yn bodloni’r safon genedlaethol ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau, dylai’r heddlu gofnodi’r troseddau yn syth, ac mewn unrhyw achos, o fewn 24 awr.

Canfuom, o’r adroddiadau am droseddau a gofnodwyd, ei fod ond wedi cofnodi’r ffigyrau dilynol o fewn 24 awr o dderbyn yr adroddiad:

• 50 o 62 o adroddiadau am droseddau treisio;
• 411 o 532 o adroddiadau am droseddau treisgar; ac
• 151 o 199 o adroddiadau am droseddau rhywiol (ac eithrio treisio).

Mae rhaid gwella hwn.

Er y gall rhai dioddefwyr gael eu cyfeirio at asiantaethau cymorth trwy ddulliau eraill, mae’r oedi wrth gofnodi troseddau a adroddwyd yn hwyr hefyd yn oedi atgyfeirio’r dioddefwyr i Victim Support. Mae hyn yn annerbyniol gan y byddai rhai dioddefwyr yn elwa o’r cymorth cynnar y gall y tîm hwn ei ddarparu.

Troseddau a ddilëir

Lle ceir gwybodaeth ychwanegol y gellir ei dilysu i ddangos nad oedd trosedd a gofnodwyd wedi digwydd, gellir ddileu cofnod y trosedd. Canfuom fod angen i’r heddlu wella ei berfformiad yn y maes hwn.

Mae Heddlu Dyfed-Powys yn gweithredu system lle mai’r FCR a’i staff yn unig yn gallu dileu troseddau a gofnodwyd. Dylai’r broses hon fod yn un dda ac yn effeithiol.

Gwnaethom adolygu sampl o droseddau a gofnodwyd ac a ddilëwyd o dreisio, troseddau rhywiol eraill, trais a lladrata. Canfuom fod y FCR wedi awdurdodi’n gywir i ddileu 12 o 13 o droseddau treisio. Roedd y DDMs a oedd yn gweithio gyda’r FCR wedi awdurdodi’n gywir i ddileu:

• 18 o 20 o droseddau rhywiol;
• 18 o 20 o droseddau trais; a
• 3 o 3 o droseddau lladrata.

Lle mae trosedd wedi’i ddileu neu ei drosglwyddo i lu arall i’w ymchwilio, dylai dioddefwyr bob amser wybod statws y trosedd a adroddwyd ganddynt. Yn achos penderfyniad gan yr heddlu i ddileu trosedd a gofnodwyd, y lleiaf oll y dylai’r dioddefwr ei ddisgwyl yw esboniad o’r rheswm dros y penderfyniad hwn. Canfuom fod yr heddlu wedi hysbysu dioddefwyr o’r penderfyniad hwn ar 36 o 41 achlysur yn unig pan ddylai wedi gwneud hyn.

Côd Ymarfer ar gyfer Dioddefwyr Troseddau

Mae’r Côd Ymarfer ar gyfer Dioddefwyr Troseddau (Document)(Saesneg) yn rhoi cyfarwyddyd clir i heddluoedd ynghylch y gwasanaeth y dylid ei ddarparu i ddioddefwyr troseddau. Rydym wedi dod i’r casgliad bod y llu yn ymwybodol o’i gyfrifoldebau o dan y côd hwn. Yn benodol, ar ôl i’r heddlu gofnodi trosedd, anfonir llythyr safonol i’r dioddefwyr sy’n rhoi gwybodaeth iddynt ynghylch y trosedd maent wedi’i brofi. Ar y pwynt hwn, mae’r heddlu hefyd yn atgyfeirio’r achos at Victim Support, i roi cefnogaeth a chymorth bellach.

Mae staff hefyd yn ymwybodol o’u cyfrifoldebau o dan y côd. Gwelsom sawl enghraifft o’r heddlu yn rhoi gwasanaeth da i ddioddefwyr troseddau, ac weithiau o wasanaeth uwch.

Cydraddoldeb

Canfuom fod rhaid i’r heddlu wella o ran ei broses o gasglu gwybodaeth ynghylch troseddau sy’n effeithio ar grwpiau adnabyddadwy o fewn cymunedau.

Nid yw nodweddion gwarchodedig, megis rhyw, rhywioldeb, anabledd, ethnigrwydd, crefydd ac oedran o reidrwydd yn gwneud i unigolyn yn fwy bregus i’r perygl o droseddu. Fodd bynnag, mae’n bwysig bod yr heddlu’n cofnodi gwybodaeth ynghylch nodweddion dioddefwyr troseddau. Mae hyn yn helpu nodi unrhyw batrymau a allai fodoli rhwng gwahanol grwpiau cymunedol a’u bregusrwydd i (neu eu tebygolrwydd cymharol o adrodd am) wahanol fathau o droseddau.

Canfuom fod yr heddlu’n cofnodi gwybodaeth gydraddoldeb pan gofnodi troseddau casineb, ond mae’n ond yn cael gwybodaeth sylfaenol mewn pob achos arall. Yn bwysig, os bydd yr heddlu yn methu â chofnodi gwybodaeth o’r fath ar bob achlysur, ni fydd yn gallu deall yn glir a yw ei benderfyniadau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau’n gyson ar draws gwahanol grwpiau cymunedol. Felly, mae hwn yn faes i’w wella.

Arolwg o swyddogion a staff

Gwnaethom gynnal arolwg o swyddogion a staff Heddlu Dyfed-Powys ynghylch eu profiad mewn cysylltiad â chofnodi troseddau. Cwblhaodd rhyw 200 o ymatebwyr yr arolwg. Roeddem yn falch o weld bod mwyafrif helaeth yr ymatebwyr o’r farn bod ymagwedd yr heddlu at gofnodi troseddau wedi gwella ers ein harchwiliad yn 2014. Nid yw swyddogion a staff yn teimlo o dan unrhyw bwysau i leihau nifer y troseddau a gofnodir ar sail targedau perfformiad.

Pa mor dda ydy’r llu yn arddangos yr arweinyddiaeth a’r diwylliant sydd eu hangen i ddiwallu’r safonau cenedlaethol ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau?

Mae’r diwylliant a’r arweinyddiaeth o ran cofnodi troseddau yn yr heddlu yn dda.

Mae uwch swyddogion yn arddangos arweinyddiaeth gref o ran disgwyliadau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau. Mae’r negeseuon gan y prif gwnstabl a grŵp y prif swyddog yn glir ac yn bendant. Canfuom fod y mwyafrif o swyddogion a staff yn dibynnu ar gyfrif cyntaf y dioddefwr wrth wneud penderfyniadau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau, ond mae dal gwaith i’w wneud yn y maes hwn. Nid yw nifer fach o swyddogion a staff bob amser yn dibynnu ar y cyfrif cyntaf hwnnw. Yn aml iawn, byddai’r swyddogion hyn yn dweud nad oedd y dioddefwyr wedi cael eu haflonyddu, eu dychryn neu eu gofidio ac ni welsom eu hunain fel dioddefwyr troseddau. Roedd hyn yn aml serch bod y dioddefwyr wedi ffonio’r heddlu yn y lle cyntaf mewn cyflwr gofidus i adrodd trosedd.

Gwelsom dystiolaeth o lywodraethu cryf, a safonau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau wedi’u cynnwys yn yr agenda ar gyfer grŵp gwelliant y dirprwy brif gwnstabl. Mae’r heddlu wedi bod yn gweithredu cynllun gweithredu uniondeb ynghylch data troseddau wedi’i gynllunio i wasanaethu dioddefwyr yn well. Mae hyn wedi cynnwys datblygu deunyddiau hyfforddiant ac yn defnyddio adborth i sicrhau ei fod yn gwella dealltwriaeth a chydymffurfiad.

Mae’r llu wedi gwneud cynnydd da yn gweithredu argymhellion a wnaed yn ein hadroddiad yn 2014. Mae wedi gweithredu pob argymhelliad ond un o’r argymhellion hyn. Mae’r llu hefyd wedi gwneud cynnydd da yn erbyn y cynllun gweithredu cenedlaethol, a ddatblygwyd gan yr arweinydd cenedlaethol ar ystadegau troseddu yn dilyn ein hadroddiad yn 2014.

Casgliad

Mae Heddlu Dyfed-Powys wedi gwella ei brosesau ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau ers 2014. Serch hynny, mae dal lle i’w wella.

Mae’r arweinyddiaeth gref a’r ymagwedd gadarnhaol ymhlith y mwyafrif o swyddogion a staff tuag at ddioddefwyr troseddau yn galonogol. Serch hynny, mae dal angen i’r heddlu wella ei brosesau ar gyfer cofnodi troseddau yn bellach. Dylai’r heddlu sicrhau fod ei staff a’i swyddogion yn deall yn llawn y safonau cofnodi troseddau a ddisgwylir ganddynt, a bod y safonau hyn yn cael eu goruchwylio’n effeithiol.

Beth nesaf?

Ar ôl ein hymchwiliad, nodwn fod yr heddlu wedi gweithredu ar unwaith i sicrhau bod pob trosedd a oedd ar goll wedi’i gofnodi a’i asesu wrth edrych yn ôl yn barod i’w ymchwilio. Dechreuodd yr heddlu waith hefyd i ganfod sut gallai wella ei brosesau ynghylch cofnodi troseddau yn bellach. Mae hyn yn galonogol a byddwn ni’n parhau i fonitro’r cynnydd hwn.

Gall y llu, fel yn achos pob heddlu, fod yn destun arolygiad uniondeb data trosedd dirybudd arall ar unrhyw adeg.