Malicious Communications Complaints - Last 3 Years
Keywords
Complaints, Public, Malicious, Communications, Year, Followed, Investigation, Plausible, Evidence, Generated, Criteria, Deciding, Begun, Abandoned, Cases, Allocated, Officer, Assessment, Circumstances, Threat, Harm, Risk, Vulnerability, Recorded, Crime, Outcome, Assess, Opportunities, Exhausted, Reviewed.
Publication Number
PUB 1086
FOI Reference Number
16605
Request Title
Malicious Communications Complaints - Last 3 Years
Date Range
2019 to 2021
Information Requested
1) In the last 3 years, how many complaints from members of the public about ‘Malicious Communications’ were received by Essex Police? Please divide per year.
2) How many of these complaints were followed up with an investigation – please divide per year.
3) Does Essex Police demand there must be some plausible evidence of ‘Mal Comms’ for an investigation to be generated?
4) What are the criteria for deciding on the evidence that would normally generate an investigation?
5) Of the investigations begun, how many were abandoned within 48 hours? What were the main reasons for an investigation being abandoned within 48 hours?
Disclosure with Exemptions
Full Disclosure
Information Correct as at
01 February 2022
Date of Disclosure
18 February 2022
Related Documents/Links
FOI 16605 Response
Having completed enquiries within Essex Police in respect of Section 1(1)(a), Essex Police does hold information relating to your request, Essex Police can confirm in respect of Section 1(1)(b) the following data:
Caveats:
The data is correct as at 01 February 2022.
Date Range: The time period covered is 3 years from 01 January 2019 to 31 December 2021 and shows recorded crimes of Malicious Communications.
For question 2, we have shown the number of cases allocated to an Officer for investigation following an assessment of the circumstances, particularly Threat, Harm, Risk and Vulnerability. The number allocated for further investigation reflect occasions where an assessment has deemed further investigation necessary. All investigations have some level of investigation.
For question 5, the recorded crime outcome of those filed within 48 hours has also been shown in response to the question about reasons the cases were abandoned in that period. Essex Police assess each report we get according to the threat, harm and risk posed, the vulnerability of those involved and the investigative opportunities available. This includes whether there are any witnesses, CCTV footage, or forensic opportunities. Where there are no investigative opportunities available to us, or they have been exhausted, a case may be filed. We never close a case so should new information come to light, then that will be reviewed.
1) In the last 3 years, how many complaints from members of the public about ‘Malicious Communications’ were received by Essex Police? Please divide per year.
The total number of Malicious Communications Complaints from 2019 to 2021 are listed below:
|
Year |
Number of Malicious Communications |
|
2019 |
9203 |
|
2020 |
10163 |
|
2021 |
11069 |
|
Grand Total |
30435 |
2) How many of these complaints were followed up with an investigation – please divide per year.
We have shown the number of cases allocated to an Officer for investigation following an assessment of the circumstances, particularly Threat, Harm, Risk and Vulnerability. The number allocated for further investigation reflect occasions where an assessment has deemed further investigation necessary. All investigations have some level of investigation.
|
Year |
No |
Yes |
Grand Total |
|
2019 |
402 |
8801 |
9203 |
|
2020 |
506 |
9657 |
10163 |
|
2021 |
418 |
10651 |
11069 |
|
Grand Total |
1326 |
29109 |
30435 |
3) Does Essex Police demand there must be some plausible evidence of ‘Mal Comms’ for an investigation to be generated?
Essex Police follow the College of Policing guidelines – please see below links:
Managing investigations (college.police.uk)
Charging and case preparation (college.police.uk)
4) What are the criteria for deciding on the evidence that would normally generate an investigation?
As above.
5) Of the investigations begun, how many were abandoned within 48 hours? What were the main reasons for an investigation being abandoned within 48 hours?
The total number of Malicious Communications Complaints filed within 48 hours are listed below:
|
Year |
Number of Complaints Filed |
|
2019 |
1292 |
|
2020 |
2018 |
|
2021 |
2136 |
|
Grand Total |
5446 |
Outcomes of Investigations filed within 48 hours are listed below:
|
Outcome |
Number Filed within 48 Hours |
Description |
|
Type 1 |
107 |
Charged/Summonsed/Postal Requisition |
|
Type 1A |
6 |
Charged/Summons - alternate offence. Offender has been charged under the alternate offence rule. |
|
Type 3 |
42 |
Caution Adult |
|
Type 5 |
1 |
Offender has died |
|
Type 8 |
100 |
Community resolution (Crime) |
|
Type 10 |
1 |
Formal Action Against Offender is not in the Public Interest (Police) |
|
Type 11 |
2 |
Prosecution Prevented-Named Suspect Identified But Is Below The Age Of Criminal Responsibility |
|
Type 12 |
3 |
Prosecution Prevented-Named Suspect Identified But Is Too Ill (Physical Or Mental Health) To Prosecute |
|
Type 13 |
2 |
Prosecution Prevented-Named Suspect Identified But Victim Or Key Witness Is Dead Or Too Ill To Give Evidence |
|
Type 14 |
1107 |
Evidential Difficulties Victim Based- Suspect Not Identified: Crime Confirmed But The Victim Either Declines Or Unable To Support Further Police Investigation To Identify The Offender |
|
Type 15 |
585 |
Named Suspect Identified: Victim Supports Police Action But Evidential Difficulties Prevent Further Action |
|
Type 16 |
2360 |
Named Suspect Identified: Evidential Difficulties Prevent Further Action: Victim Does Not Support (Or Has Withdrawn Support From) Police Action |
|
Type 17 |
8 |
Prosecution Time Limit Expired: Suspect Identified But Prosecution Time Limit Has Expired |
|
Type 18 |
1046 |
Investigation Complete; No Suspect Identified. Crime Investigated As Far As Reasonably Possible-Case Closed Pending Further Investigative Opportunities Becoming Available |
|
Type 20 |
50 |
Further action resulting from the crime report will be undertaken by another body or agency subject to the victim (or person acting on their behalf) being made aware of the act to be taken |
|
Type 21 |
2 |
Further investigation resulting from crime report which could provide evidence sufficient to support formal action against the suspect is not in the public interest - police decision. |
|
Type 22 |
24 |
Diversionary, educational or intervention activity, resulting from the crime report, has been undertaken and it is not in the public interest to take any further action. |
Every effort is made to ensure that the data provided by Essex Police is accurate and complete. However, Essex Police systems are designed primarily for the management of individual cases and not for the purposes of providing data to answer specific FOI enquiries. Please note although data can be extracted from a number of sources via database queries, the results may be subject to inaccuracies. Care should be taken to understand our return when considering the interpretation or further use of the data.
The Force Information Management Board chaired by the Deputy Chief Constable has oversight of the Force wide programme of work to improve the quality of Force data. This work has identified data quality leads in all key areas of the business including the Crime and Public Protection Command. Liaison between the Force Data Quality Team and the Crime and Public Protection Command lead for data quality will identify and resolve issues through a variety of mechanisms to ensure regular and appropriate supervisory oversight.