Consultation outcome

Serious Violence Reduction Orders (accessible version)

Updated 9 August 2021

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

This consultation begins on Monday 14 September 2020.

This consultation ends on Sunday 8 November 2020.

About this consultation

To: This is a consultation open to the public and targeted at directly affected parties, including law enforcement, criminal justice, community groups and organisations with a direct interest in the proposals.

Duration: From Monday 14 September 2020 to Sunday 8 November 2020.

Enquiries (including requests for the paper in an alternative format) to:

Email: SVRO.consultation.responses@homeoffice.gov.uk

How to respond: Please respond by Sunday 8 November 2020.

Complete the online form.

Email: SVRO.consultation.responses@homeoffice.gov.uk

Response paper: A paper summarising the responses to this consultation will be published. The response paper will be available online at GOV.UK.

Introduction

Every knife crime is a tragedy, and any victim is one too many. The Government is taking action on every level to cut crime and make our streets safer, but we know there is much more to do to protect the public and end the scourge of serious violence.

The case for urgent action is clear. In the year to March 2020 alone 256 people were stabbed to death in England and Wales. Recorded knife crime rose to 46,265 in the same period, with a staggering 4,547 weapons offences committed by children last year. Thousands of people are seeking hospital treatment for stab wounds each year, with some offences never reported.

To save lives and prevent injury we must stop serious violence from happening in the first place. Too many people who carry knives and weapons go on to offend time and time again, with 29% of offenders in 2019 having previous convictions. Our determination to break this deadly cycle of persistent offending led to our manifesto commitment to introduce Serious Violence Reduction Orders (SVROs).

Front line police have long told us that stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on violent crime; it acts as a deterrent and helps keep knives and weapons off our streets. We have listened to them, and to the recommendation of the Centre for Social Justice, to propose a new court order to bear down on known offenders. These SVROs would give the police personalised powers to target those already convicted of certain knife offences – giving them the automatic right to search those who pose the greatest risk. These searches could take place without suspicion so that these known criminals could be stopped at any time.

The intention is for SVROs to complement existing stop and search powers and to prevent known offenders carrying weapons with impunity. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, a court would have the power to impose them following conviction for any relevant offence. They could then set the length of the order, which would apply from the moment the offender walked free, either while on licence or where there was no immediate jail time. The offender would then be more likely to be stopped by the police and searched to see if they are carrying a knife again. If caught out they would be brought back before the court where they could expect to receive a custodial sentence under the existing ‘two strikes’ legislation brought in by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

SVROs would empower the police to stop and challenge those who are known to carry knives. They will help to keep communities safer by giving officers a tool to help tackle the most dangerous offenders.

The Government hopes that they will also help the police more effectively target their approach. We know that stop and search disproportionally affects Black people, with the latest figures showing they are 9.7 times more likely to be stopped than those who were White. We are clear that no one should ever be targeted because of the colour of their skin.

We are consulting on the design of SVROs and welcome views on how we can ensure these important tools are used appropriately. Anyone with an interest in this important issue is invited to contribute, including those involved in law enforcement, victims of knife crime and their families.

This consultation will help inform our next steps in the fight against serious violence and we look forward to hearing from you.

Background and evidence

What has the Government done about serious violence so far?

The Government has taken a relentless approach to tackling serious violence:

• We are making significant investments in the police:
  • We are recruiting 20,000 new police officers over the next three years.
  • We have announced the biggest increase in funding for the police system since 2010. The amount of funding available to the policing system for 2020/21 will increase by more than £1.1 billion, totalling £15.2 billion, should Police and Crime Commissioners take full advantage of flexibility to set the police precept.
• We are giving the police more powers:
  • The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 gives the police extra powers to seize dangerous weapons, and will ensure knives are less likely to make their way into criminal hands in the first place.
• We are changing the law to make sure that serious violent and sexual criminals face more time in prison:
  • Automatic release for violent and sexual offenders will be moved to the two-third point of their sentence rather than halfway – providing greater assurance to victims and the public that sentences will reflect the severity of their crime.

High-profile police enforcement is one part of the solution, but we cannot just arrest our way out of this problem. A co-ordinated whole systems approach and long-term solutions to violence are needed to reduce the cycle of offending. That is why:

• We are investing in prevention and early intervention:
  • We are investing over £200 million into the Youth Endowment Fund, to help prevent young people being drawn into a life of crime and violence.
  • We have provided eighteen Police and Crime Commissioners with £70 million to develop Violence Reduction Units. These Units bring together police, local government, health, community leaders and other key partners to prevent serious violence by understanding its root causes.
  • We are introducing Knife Crime Prevention Orders, which will apply to adults and children aged over 12, and will allow the court to impose specific requirements or restrictions that will help the holder resist being drawn into violence. These will be different from SVROs in that they can be issued to an individual who has no criminal record and has not been convicted of an offence. The aim of the KCPO is to help that individual to make changes to their behaviour preventing them from being drawn further into knife crime.
• We are strengthening accountability in local areas:
  • We are changing the law to make it a legal requirement for public bodies such as police, councils and local health bodies to work together to address the root causes of serious violence – the Serious Violence Duty.

However, although some trends in serious violence have stabilised, the overall figures are still too high. We need to go further, and in particular, to tackle the rising rates of reoffending. That is why the Government is seeking to introduce Serious Violence Reduction Orders, to make sure that we stop those who have been convicted of a knife offence from blighting their local communities by continuing to carry weapons with impunity.

What are the trends in serious violence?

Summary

Following a decline in the first half of the 2010s, there have been recent increases in knife crime across England and Wales, including in homicides involving a knife or sharp instrument, police recorded offences involving a knife or sharp instrument and in hospital admissions for treatment when someone has been assaulted with a sharp object – although the most recent data points to some decreases in key measures. The rise in knife crime has been reflected in an increase in the number of criminal cases relating to knife or offensive weapon offences, with increasing numbers of young people being given warnings for or convicted of these crimes. At the same time, the sentences for offensive weapons offences are getting longer. But despite this, reoffending is on the rise, with an increase in cases involving people who have already committed one knife or offensive weapon offence.

Homicides involving the use of a knife or sharp object have been increasing over the long-term, although there has been a notable recent decrease:

• Homicides in England and Wales involving the use of a knife or sharp object rose to 264 in the year ending March 2018, from a recent low of 178 in the year ending March 2015. However, this reduced to 256 in the year ending March 2020.^{[footnote 1]}

Police recorded offences involving knives and sharp instruments have also been increasing:

• Police recorded offences in England and Wales involving knives and sharp instruments totalled 46,265 in the year ending March 2020, up from 43,706 offences in the year ending March 2019.^{[footnote 2]}

There has been a rise in admissions for treatment when someone has been assaulted with a sharp object, although the most recent data suggests that admissions may be decreasing. Not all crimes are reported to the police, and hospital data provides an alternative indicator of levels of violence:

• NHS hospitals in England recorded a rise in admissions for treatment when someone has been assaulted with a sharp object, from a recent low of 3,590 in the year ending March 2015 to 5,069 in the year ending March 2019. Provisional data indicates 2,385 admissions for assault with a sharp object between April 2019 and September 2019, a decrease from the same period in 2018, which was 2,648.^{[footnote 3]}

The recent rise in knife crime has been reflected by a rise in criminal cases involving knives and offensive weapons resulting in a conviction or caution:

• In 2019, 22,285 knife and offensive weapon offences resulted in a caution or conviction. This is a 3% rise on 2018, and is up from a recent low of 16,262 cases A new court order to target known knife carriers in 2013. This is not the same as the number of individuals dealt with, as one individual could have committed more than one offence in the same year.^{[footnote 4]}
• In 2019, 18,188 cases resulted in immediate custody, a suspended sentence, a community sentence or a fine, up from 17,846 in 2018.^{[footnote 5]}

More cases are resulting in an immediate custodial sentence, and sentences are getting longer:

• Between 2009 and 2016, there was an increase in the proportion of offenders receiving an immediate custodial sentence for a knife or offensive weapon offence, from 23% in 2009 to 35% in 2016. The trend has been stable since 2016. In 2019, the 38% of those who committed these offences received an immediate custodial sentence.^{[footnote 6]}
• The average length of custodial sentences given to adults also increased, from 6.2 months in 2009 to 8.2 months in 2019.^{[footnote 7]}

There are increasing numbers of children being given official warnings for or convicted of knife and offensive weapon offences in the Criminal Justice System^{[footnote 8]}:

• In 2019, 4,547 knife and offensive weapon offences committed by children, aged 10-17, resulted in an official warning or a conviction. This is an increase from a recent low of 2,629 in 2013.^{[footnote 9]}
• In 2019, 2,723 cases involving children who were aged 10-17 resulted in immediate custody, a community sentence or a fine (down from 2,863 in 2018). Most of these cases (2,190 in 2019 and 2,301 in 2018) resulted in community sentences. The number of children sentenced to immediate custody also declined in this period, from 551 in 2018 to 526 in 2019.^{[footnote 10]}

Significantly, more cases involve people who have already committed one knife or offensive weapon offence:

• The proportion of offenders for whom this is their first knife or offensive weapon offence has been decreasing and is now at 71%, its lowest level since 2009 (80%).^{[footnote 11]}
• In 2019, there were 5,110 sentencing occasions where a repeat offender was put before the court. This measure is not the same as the total number of repeat offenders, because it includes a person who may have committed an offence more than once, and so been sentenced more than once, in the same year. This is up from 4,647 in 2017, and 4,858 in 2018.^{[footnote 12]}
• In 2019, there were 4,704 sentencing occasions involving adults and 406 involving 16- and 17-year olds. This compares with 4,274 occasions involving adults and 373 occasions involving 16- and 17-year olds in 2017, and 4,455 occasions involving adults and 403 occasions involving 16- and 17-year olds in 2018.^{[footnote 13]}

And their sentences are getting longer:

• The average custodial sentence received by offenders sentenced under the ‘two strikes’ provision of section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 was 8 months in 2019. This has risen from 2016, the first full year after the legislation was established, where it was 7.1 months.^{[footnote 14]}

Who is being convicted for serious violence?

Summary

Most people who are sentenced for knife or offensive weapons offences are adults, although in the under 18 population, there appears to be a spike in sentencing for the 16-17 age group. Most people who are sentenced for knife or offensive weapons offences are male and White, although Black people are more likely to be sentenced.

Most people who are sentenced for knife or offensive weapon offences are adults:

• 84% (12,990 of 15,472) of sentences in 2019 were for adults, 16% (2,477 of 15,472) were children.^{[footnote 15]}

In the under 18 population, there appears to be a spike in sentencing for the 16-17 age group – although detailed data on adult offences by age is not available, so caution should be exercised when comparing the adult rates to those of 16- and 17-year olds. The offence rate will vary in different age ranges within the adult category.

• In the 10-15 year age group, the rate of sentencing is 21 per 100,000 population.
• In the 16- and 17-year age group, the rate is 118 per 100,000 population.
• In the 10-17 year age group, the rate is 46 per 100,000 population.
• This compares to a rate of 29 per 100,000 in the general adult population.

Most people who are sentenced for knife or offensive weapon offences are male:

• 93% (14,393 of 15,472) of sentences for these offences in 2019 were for males of all ages, both adults and children.^{[footnote 16]}
• 52 males of all ages were sentenced in this period per 100,000 males. 56 adult males were sentenced per 100,000 adult males.
• 4 females of all ages were sentenced in this period per 100,000 females. 4 adult females were sentenced per 100,000 adult females.

Most people who are sentenced for knife or offensive weapon offences are White:

• 70% (9,522 adults and 1,361 children) of those sentenced for these offences in 2019 were White.^{[footnote 17]}
• White males were 72% (8,743) of all adult males sentenced for such offences in this period.
• White males were 54% (1,252) of all male children sentenced for such offences in this period.

Black adults are more likely to be sentenced for a knife or offensive weapon offence:

• In 2019, 29 adults per 100,000 of the general adult population were sentenced for such offences. This equates to 25 per 100,000 of the White population and 61 per 100,000 of all ethnic minority populations.18 This in turn equates to 179 adults per 100,000 in the Black population, 26 per 100,000 of the Asian population and 16 per 100,000 of the Other ethnic population group.

There are disproportionately more offences in large urban areas^{[footnote 19]}:

• In the year ending March 2020, the figures equate to a rate of 82 knife and sharp instrument offences per 100, 000 of population. The police forces with the highest number of such offences per 100,000 of population were the Metropolitan Police, with a rate of 179 offences per 100,000, West Midlands with 118 offences and West Yorkshire with 104 offences per 100,000. The areas with the lowest number of offences per 100,000 of population were Gwent (37), Dorset (35), Devon and Cornwall (29) and Durham (26)^{[footnote 20]}.

Who are the victims of serious violence?

Summary

Young men are the most likely to be victims of serious violence. Although there are more White victims overall, Black and Asian people are disproportionately impacted by serious violence.

The peak age for victims of homicide is 25-34:

• In the year ending March 2019, 20% (136 of 671) of victims were aged 25-34 (a rate of 17 per million population). The next highest groups were 16-24 year olds (17% or 113 victims, a rate of 18 per million) and 35-44 year olds and 45-54 year olds (both with 16% or 107 victims, rates of 14 and 13 per million respectively). These figures are for all victims of homicide, including knife related homicide.^{[footnote 21]}

Most homicide victims in England and Wales are male:

• 64% of all homicide victims were male in the year ending March 2019, although this did vary with age. For example, in the 16-24 age range, 85% of victims were male. In the 25-34 age range, 70% were male. In the 35-44 age range, 65% were male.^{[footnote 22]}

The peak age for people who are admitted to hospital for sharp object assault injuries is 20-29:

• Between April and September 2019, 40% of admissions were for those aged 20-29. This equates to 9.5 per 100,000. The rate compares to 5.7 for those aged 10-19 (22% of admissions), 5.9 for those aged 30-39 (24% of admissions), 2.1 for those aged 40-49 (10% of admissions) and 2.4 for those aged 50-59 (4% of admissions). Not everyone who receives a sharp object assault injury attends hospital.^{[footnote 23]}

Most people admitted to hospital after being assaulted by a sharp object are male:

• Between April and September 2019, 96% of those admitted to hospital for a sharp object assault injury were male. Males were admitted at a rate of 7.3 per 100,000 males, as opposed to 0.3 per 100,000 females.^{[footnote 24]}

Most people admitted to hospital after being assaulted by a sharp object are White. Relative to the general population, Black/Black British people have a disproportionately high level of admissions:

• 57% of those admitted were White, in the period April to September 2019.
• Black/Black British people were admitted at a rate of 10.7 per 100,000 (11%), as opposed to Asian/Asian British people (2.4 per 100,000, or 5%) and White people (2.2 per 100,000). This compares to a rate of 3.4 per 100,000 for the general population.^{[footnote 25]}

Most homicide victims are White, but in London, most victims are Black:

• In the year ending March 2019, 71% of all homicide victims were white, 14% were Black, 6% were in Asian and 4% were in the Other ethnic group.^{[footnote 26]}
• In the years 2015/16 to 2017/18, 78% of all homicide victims in England and Wales were White, 13% were Black, 7% were Asian and 3% were in the Other ethnic group. In London in the same period, 2015/16 to 2017/18, 42% of victims were Black, 40% were White, 11% were Asian and 6% were in the Other ethnic group.^{[footnote 27]}

In the years 2013/14 to 2015/16, Black and Asian people were disproportionately victims of homicide:

• Black people were victims of homicide at a rate of 32 per million, compared to 11 per million for the Asian population, 8 per million for the White population, and 7 per million for the Other ethnic group.^{[footnote 28]}

Black children appear to be disproportionately at risk of homicide compared to children in other ethnic groups:

• Across all ethnic groups, victims who were children make up a minority of victims (11%). There are similar percentages for the White (11%), Asian (10%) and Other (12%) ethnic groups. But in the Black ethnic group, child victims accounted for 17% of all homicides. Victims from the Black ethnic group accounted for 20% of all child victims compared to 12% of adult victims.^{[footnote 29]}

What do we know about the effectiveness of stop and search?

Summary

Front line police have long told us that stop and search is a vital tool to crack down on violent crime; it acts as a deterrent and helps keep knives and weapons off our streets. Targeted stop and search is an important tool when used as part of a wider approach, being most effective where there is trust between the police and the communities they serve.

The police currently have two main powers to stop and search a person to see if they are carrying a knife:

Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Allows an officer to search someone if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are carrying a knife to commit an offence or carrying an offensive weapon.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Where serious violence is anticipated, allows officers, with authorisation, to search anybody, without suspicion, to see if they are carrying an offensive weapon or dangerous implement – but these powers are strictly limited, and can only be used in a specific area and for a short time period.

The use of stop and search is increasing after a period of decline:

• In the year ending March 2019, there were 370,454 stop and searches conducted under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and associated legislation, including section 47 of the Firearms Act 1968, section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, an increase of 32% on the previous year (279,728), and the first rise following a downward trend from a peak in 2010/11 (1,229,324).^{[footnote 30]}
• There were also 13,175 stop and searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is more than five times the number of searches under this power in the year ending March 2018.^{[footnote 31]}

The evidence on the use of stop and search as an effective deterrent for crime is limited:

• The data comparing stop and search to crime does not support the conclusion that a reduction in stop and search has led to an increase in knife crime. Although the number of stop and searches fell as crime rose between 2014/15 and 2016/17, the number of stop and searches also fell as knife and other sharp instrument offences fell between 2010/11 and 2013/14.^{[footnote 32]}

However, a targeted approach can be important tool when used with community support:

• A recent academic study investigated the use of stop and search in London. The study found that while stop and search is likely to have at best a very marginal effect on emerging crime problems, individual searches can produce useful results, such as the discovery of contraband. The study also suggests that stop and search could be made more effective if focused on prolific offenders and points to the need to avoid damage to public trust and police legitimacy.^{[footnote 33]}

We propose that the SVRO would be a tool, targeted at an individual who has been convicted of a relevant offence, in order to break the cycle of weapon carrying, in the interests of keeping our communities safer. The SVRO would be available to the court alongside other targeted measures, such as Knife Crime Prevention Orders.^{[footnote 34]}

How have you considered protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010?

Summary

As above, most people who are sentenced for knife or offensive weapon offences are White, but adults from some ethnic minority backgrounds are disproportionately more likely to be sentenced for a knife or offensive weapon offence. It is therefore likely that most people who are made subject to SVROs will be White, adult males, although it may be that a disproportionate number of Black people are impacted, Black males in particular. In addition, we know that in the year ending March 2019, people from ethnic minority backgrounds were 4.3 times as likely and Black people 9.7 times as likely to be stopped as those who were White. This may mean that people from an ethnic minority who are subject to an SVRO are more likely to be searched in practice. We will seek to minimise this through the design of the SVROs and through other measures related to guidance and accountability. We welcome your views later in this consultation about how we can go about this.

At the same time, given that people from ethnic minorities are disproportionately more likely to be victims of serious violence, we also believe that SVROs will have an important role in helping the police to take targeted action to break the cycle of offending and to protect our communities from harm.

The Protected Characteristics under the Equality Act 2010

Protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

We discuss below what the evidence tells us about the impact of serious violence from the perspective of race. We are interested in your views on the impact in respect of all protected characteristics, which we will seek later in this consultation.

People from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to be stopped than White people:

• In the year ending March 2019, people from ethnic minority backgrounds were 4.3 times as likely, and Black people 9.7 times as likely, to be stopped than those who were White.^{[footnote 35]}

The use of stop and search has declined over the long term, meaning that fewer people are being stopped overall. But the rate of decline has been different for different ethnic groups, and so the disparity in rates of stop and search has increased^{[footnote 36]}:

• All searches in England and Wales on White people fell by 79%, compared to 69% (ethnic minority population) and 68% (Black population) from the year ending March 2010 to the year ending March 2019.^{[footnote 37]}
• In the year ending March 2013, people from an ethnic minority background were twice as likely to be searched as White people. In the year ending March 2018, the differential was were 4.1. In the year ending March 2019, people from an ethnic minority background were 4.3 times more likely to be stopped and searched as White people.38 This shows a widening of the differential since 2012/13.
• A similar pattern was seen for Black people, where the differential fell from 6 times as likely to just over 4 times as likely between the years ending March 2012 and 2015, before rising to 6 and a half times as likely in the year ending March 2016. In the year ending March 2017 the differential rose to over 8 times as likely, before rising again to 9 and a half times in the year ending March 2018. In the year ending March 2019, Black people were 9.7 times as likely to be stopped and searched as White people.^{[footnote 39]}

Black/Black British people are more likely to be admitted to hospital after being assaulted by a sharp object:

• As in the previous section, most people admitted to hospital after being assaulted by a sharp object are White.
• However, Black/Black British people have a disproportionately high level of admissions.
• Black/Black British people were admitted at a rate of 10.7 per 100,000, as opposed to Asian/Asian British people (2.4 per 100,000) and White people (2.2 per 100,000). This compares to a rate of 3.4 per 100,000 for the general population.^{[footnote 40]}

Given this, we believe that SVROs will have an important role in protecting people from ethnic minority backgrounds from serious violence, but we recognise that the application of the power to stop and search needs to be effectively monitored to ensure it is not being disproportionately applied, in particular in respect of Black people.

Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle of Knife Crime

There is still more to be done to tackle the scourge of serious violence. We want to break the cycle of knife crime and to encourage offenders to stay away from weapons. We are worried by the rise in repeat offending, and the consequent rise in the number of people coming before the courts to be sentenced for a repeat knife or offensive weapon offence and dealt with under the ‘two strikes’ legislation introduced in 2015. We do not want people to see knife offenders released from their sentence, and going back onto the streets again carrying knives.

We think we can do more to help the police to target those who have already been convicted of knife or offensive weapon offences, but who persist in unlawfully carrying a knife or a weapon and who are likely to go on to commit more violence.

This is why we will introduce Serious Violence Reduction Orders, to enable the police to stop and search those who have been convicted of relevant offences, so that they know that there is a greater likelihood of being caught if they persist in carrying a knife or a weapon, a greater likelihood of being brought before the courts and a greater likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence. The Government also hopes that SVROs will also help the police more effectively target their approach.

Much of the impact of Serious Violence Reduction Orders will depend on the detailed design, how they might be made to work in practice, and what steps we take to mitigate any negative impact on particular groups.

We invite your views on these issues in the next part of this consultation.

The proposals

1. The Government thinks that that the best way to make it easier for the police to stop and search known knife carriers is to create a new court order, the Serious Violence Reduction Order. Do you agree?

The Government has considered whether, instead of creating a new power or order, existing powers or orders could be amended to achieve our aim of making it easier for the police to stop and search known knife carriers.

Amending existing stop and search powers

Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

• Allows a police officer to stop and search a person or vehicle for stolen or prohibited items, including offensive weapons, knives and fireworks.
• Will allow a police officer to stop and search a person or vehicle for unlawfully held corrosive substances, when the relevant provisions of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 are commenced.
• Allows an officer to seize any such item that is found.
• Requires that the officer must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find stolen or prohibited articles, knives or fireworks, or unlawfully held corrosive substances, before conducting a stop and search.
• Does not require prior authorisation.
• Allows for the power to be applied to a person of any age.

We could amend this power so that an officer could stop and search someone for a knife where the officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has been convicted of a knife offence and is still serving a sentence for this, whether a community sentence, suspended custodial sentence or has been released on licence following a custodial sentence.

However, this would mean that everyone who was convicted of a knife offence could automatically be searched, and that the officer would not need to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find stolen or prohibited articles before conducting the stop and search. There would also be no role for the courts to consider whether that was appropriate, which may otherwise provide an important safeguard in individual cases.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

• Applies when an officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes that incidents involving serious violence may take place and that authorisation is expedient to prevent their occurrence, or that dangerous instruments or offensive weapons are being carried without good reason.
• Allows that officer to authorise additional stop and search powers within a designated area for a limited time of up to 24 hours, with extension for a further 24 hours by an officer of the rank of superintendent or above.
• Allows where an authorisation has been given, a police officer to stop and search persons and vehicles for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments, and the officer may seize any such item that is found.
• Allows for the power to be applied to a person of any age.

We could amend this power so that, when an authorisation is in place, an officer could stop and search someone for a knife who has been convicted of a knife offence and is still subject to a custodial sentence on licence or another sentence following conviction, without the need for that officer to have reasonable suspicion that they are carrying a knife at the time.

However, once an authorisation is in place under section 60, an officer will already be able to stop and search people for offensive weapons or dangerous instruments, so we do not think amending the power under section 60 in this way would add anything to the existing powers of the police.

Amending Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs)

CBOs are focused on addressing a range of problem behaviour in individuals.

• Were introduced by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
• A court can make a CBO, on application by the prosecution, when a person is convicted of any criminal offence and they engaged in behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and making the order will help in preventing the offender from engaging in such behaviour.
• CBOs can include prohibitions and/or positive requirements to help reduce the risk of engaging in behaviour that causes harassment, alarm or distress.
• CBOs can be made for both adults and children.
• A juvenile CBO (for those who are 18 and under) must last for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years.
• An adult CBO must last for a minimum of 2 years and can last indefinitely.

The Government could seek to amend the 2014 Act, to say that when making a CBO, a court could attach a power to stop and search the person who is subject to it.

However, the purpose of a CBO is primarily to prevent the offender from engaging in behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a person. Possession of a knife is a serious offence, however, and when a knife is concealed, it may not cause such harassment, alarm or distress to others, if they are not aware of its presence. Furthermore, it may not be proportionate or necessary in all the circumstances for which a CBO could be applied for the police to have a specific stop and search power.

Amending Knife Crime Prevention Orders (KCPOs)

KCPOs are being introduced to help prevent those individuals who are at greatest risk of being drawn into serious violence, away from being involved in knife crime. They will also help to prevent others who have been involved in knife crime from further offending when an order is granted by the court following a conviction.

• KCPOs were introduced by the Offensive Weapons Act 2019, although they are not yet available to the courts.
• The legislation provides for KCPOs on conviction, and for KCPOs other than on conviction.
• We will be piloting KCPOs in advance of any national rollout.
• KCPOs are specifically focused on prevention and will include prohibitions and/or positive requirements to help the subject to the KCPO resist involvement in crime, to protect the public and to prevent knife offences.
• KCPOs will be available for both adults and children aged 12 and over.
• KCPOs will last for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 2 years, for both adults and children.
• Breach of KCPOs is a criminal offence.

We could seek to amend the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 to say that when making a KCPO on conviction, the court may attach a power to stop and search the person who is subject to it. But we do not consider that it would be proportionate to attach such a stop and search power to KCPOs other than on conviction, because the recipient of the KCPO may not have been convicted of a relevant offence. This potentially creates confusion if the two types of KCPO provide the police with very different powers.

The Government’s intention is that KCPOs should be preventative; that is, that the positive requirements or restrictions attached to the order should be focused on addressing the issues that make it likely that the holder will be drawn in to serious violence.

But we are not proposing that SVROs should include requirements and conditions. Rather, the purpose is to give the police additional enforcement powers in respect of those who have been convicted of relevant knife offences and who are subject to an SVRO, and to deter that individual from carrying knives: the holder will know that if they persist in carrying a knife, they are more likely to be caught, and more likely to end up in prison as a consequence.

We therefore do not think that it would be possible to achieve our aims by amending existing powers or orders. We think that the best way to make it easier for the police to stop and search known knife carriers is to create a new court order, the SVRO, and so our preferred option is option A.

Q1. The Government thinks that that the best way to make it easier for the police to stop and search known knife carriers is to create a new court order, the Serious Violence Reduction Order. Do you agree?

A. Yes.

B. No, Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be amended.

C. No, Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 should be amended.

D. No, Criminal Behaviour Orders should be amended.

E. No, Knife Crime Prevention Orders should be amended.

2. When should the court have the power to give someone an SVRO?

We could say that the court should only have the power to give someone an SVRO when they have been convicted of a knife offence. There is a clear rationale for this: knife crime is increasing, and it is important that the police have the powers they need to address this, and to deter people from carrying and using knives.

But it could be argued that this is too narrow, and that it could have the unintended consequence of leading to people carrying other weapons instead.

We therefore think that the order should be available on conviction for any knife offence or any other offence involving offensive weapons. This could include offences of unlawful possession of acids and corrosive substances or illegal possession of firearms. We envisage that most of the time, an order would be given when someone commits a first offence, although if an order is not made on that occasion, we think it should still be open to the court to make an order when a person is convicted for a second or subsequent offence.

This would mean that in the year ending December 2019, had SVROs been available, they could have been available in the 18,188 knife and offensive weapon cases resulted in immediate custody, a suspended sentence, a community sentence or a fine (15,465 adults and 2,723 children – although as we explain below, our preference is for SVROs to apply to over 18s only).^{[footnote 41]} Again, it is important to emphasise that this is not the same as the number of individuals dealt with, as one individual could have committed more than one offence in the same year.

We have considered whether we should make SVROs available where someone has been convicted of any offence involving violence. But we think this would be too broad, as it could mean that a person could be stopped and searched for a knife or an offensive weapon, despite never having been convicted of carrying one. We therefore think that the SVRO should be available on conviction for offences involving knives and offences involving other offensive weapons, and so our preferred option is B.

Q2. When should the court have the power to give someone an SVRO?

A. On conviction for a knife offence only.

B. On conviction for offences involving knives or offensive weapons.

C. On conviction for any offence involving violence.

3. Should an SVRO be made automatically on conviction?

Some court orders are made automatically on conviction, which is to say that the court has no choice – it has to make the order. For example, whenever a person is convicted of any offence, the court must order them to pay into a fund that supports victims of crime.

In other cases, the court has the discretion to make an order, albeit with a presumption that they will do so, unless there is a good reason not to - for example if that would lead to an undesirable or perverse outcome. This happens when a person is convicted of an offence such as drink driving, when unless there is a good reason not to, there is a presumption that the court will make an order to disqualify them from driving, such as that they were driving because of a medical emergency.

Finally, some orders are made wholly at the discretion of the court, which is to say it is a matter for the court to decide whether to make the order. This is the case with Criminal Behaviour Orders and will be the case with Knife Crime Prevention Orders on conviction.

We think it should be for the courts to decide whether it is appropriate to make an SVRO. This means we do not think an SVRO should be made automatically on conviction. However, at the same time, we consider that the police will be better able to keep communities safe when it is the norm rather than the exception for the court to make an SVRO. We therefore think that there should be a presumption that the order be made, unless there are compelling reasons for the court not to do so. Given this, our preferred option is B.

Q3. Should an SVRO be made automatically on conviction?

A. Yes.

B. No, but there should be a presumption that the order will be made, unless there are compelling reasons for the court not to do so.

C. No, making the order should be wholly at the discretion of the court.

4. Should SVROs apply to children as well as adults?

Applying the order to children as well as adults would align with Criminal Behaviour Orders, which apply to both adults and children. It would also align with Knife Crime Prevention Orders, which apply to adults and children aged 12 and over. We could mirror either of these approaches. Alternatively, as the Government’s 2018 Serious Violence Strategy refers to evidence to suggest that the peak age for carrying a knife is 14-15 years of age, it could make sense for SVROs to be available for adults and children aged 14 and over.^{[footnote 42]}

However, we understand that children who carry knives and who are subsequently convicted of knife and offensive weapon offences may have complex safeguarding needs. They may have experienced adverse childhood experiences. They may have been groomed or coerced into carrying a weapon. They may also be at risk of becoming a victim of serious violence themselves. We therefore think that when a child is convicted of a relevant offence, the focus of the court should be on interventions to turn them away from offending, through for example a Knife Crime Prevention Order or a Criminal Behaviour Order, as these allow a wider array of conditions to be attached for the purposes of prevention. We do not intend to apply SVROs to children. Our preferred option is A.

Q4. Should SVROs apply to adults only?

A. Yes, to adults only (18+ only).

B. No, to adults and children aged 12 and over.

C. No, to adults and children aged 14 and over.

5. How long should an SVRO last?

We could set a fixed duration for every order (e.g. 12 months or two years).

Or we could set out minimum and maximum durations for the length of an SVRO, as is the case with Knife Crime Prevention Orders, with it then being for the court to decide how long the order should last, within the range we have set out.

Alternatively, we could say that the SVRO should last for the length of the sentence handed down by the court. About one third of first-time knife crime offenders are sentenced to an immediate custodial sentence, but will be released from custody during their sentence, to serve the rest in the community on licence. In these cases, the SVRO would cover the whole of their sentence, both the part served in prison and the part served in the community.

We could say something similar for people who receive a suspended custodial sentence, which means they do not go to prison, but are instead given the chance to stay out of trouble and comply with court-mandated conditions. We could say that the SVRO would last the same time as the sentence the court suspended when they were convicted.

If a person who is subject to a suspended sentence does not comply with their conditions or is convicted of another offence during the suspension period, they can be sent to prison. We could again say that the SVRO would last for the length of the part of their sentence they serve in prison and the part served in the community.

Other people may receive a different form of punishment, such as a community order. In such cases, we could say that the SVRO would last the length of any such community order.

An unintended consequence of linking the length of the SVRO to the length of the sentence could be that a person who is given a short immediate custodial sentence would have a short SVRO, while a person who is given a longer suspended sentence of community order would have a longer SVRO. This would mean that those people who have been given a less stringent punishment (for example a suspended sentence rather than immediate prison time) will be subject to SVROs for longer. There would also be no guide for how courts deal with someone who is convicted of a knife offence but whose sentence does not have a duration, for example a fine. We also think that this could lead to complexity and confusion.

We think there should be a role for the courts to consider how long an SVRO should last, and so we do not think there should be a fixed duration. We also want to avoid unintended consequences and to minimise complexity, which we think could arise if the length of the SVRO is only linked to the length of the sentence. We therefore think there should be a maximum and minimum length, with the court deciding within this range, and having a power to say when the order should begin, so that if a person is given an immediate custodial sentence, it can start when they are released from custody. Our preferred option is therefore C.

Q5. How long should an SVRO last?

A. There should be a fixed duration for all SVROs.

B. The SVRO should last for the length of the sentence handed down by the court.

C. There should be a maximum and minimum length. It would then be for the court to decide on the length of the SVRO, within this range. The court should have a power to say when the order should begin.

6. Should we create a separate criminal offence of breach of an SVRO?

Breaching some court orders is a specific criminal offence, for which a person can be prosecuted. An example is when someone breaches a Criminal Behaviour Order: that is an additional criminal offence, and somebody can be prosecuted for it. The same will be true of breaching a Knife Crime Prevention Order.

However, this is not the case with all orders. For some, breach is not a criminal offence, but is instead a contempt of court. This means that although the court can punish a person for what has happened, usually by fining or imprisoning them, the person is not convicted of an additional offence.

We could follow either of these models or we could do something different. For example, we could say that we would make use of existing legal provisions about repeat offenders. These say that if a person who is convicted of a second or subsequent knife offence, then under the ‘two strikes’ rule, provided for by section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, they should receive a minimal custodial sentence. In addition, a person who is released on licence or who has been given a suspended custodial offence could be prosecuted, convicted or returned to custody. We could rely on these provisions alone.

We think that breach of an SVRO would be a very serious matter, and that it would therefore not be appropriate for it to be treated as a contempt of court. We also want to make sure the law covers a situation in which someone who is subject to an SVRO refuses to co-operate when a police officer tries to stop and search them – we think that that in itself should be a breach, as should being found to be carrying a knife or an offensive weapon again. For these reasons, we think we should create a separate criminal offence of breach of an SVRO, so our preferred option is A.

Q6. Should we create a separate criminal offence of breach of an SVRO?

A. Yes. This offence would be committed by refusing to co-operate when a police officer tries to stop and search a person who has an SVRO, and by a person who has an SVRO being found to be carrying a knife or an offensive weapon again.

B. No, because a breach should be treated as a contempt of court.

C. No, because we should use existing legal provisions about repeat offenders.

7. Do you have any comments about how the police should use SVROs in practice?

The police will need to know if somebody has an SVRO, in order to use them in practice. In many cases, officers will know the individuals concerned, and so they will be aware that they have been given an order. However, there may be cases when they do not. There may be cases of mistaken identity. There may also be or cases when an officer genuinely believes that an SVRO has been made when it has not, or that an SVRO is current when it has expired. We want to strike the right balance between ensuring that the police are able to search people who have an SVRO, while minimising the risk that they stop and search the wrong person. We could, for example:

• Explore technological solutions to help the police identify those who are subject to an SVRO.
• Attach individual reporting requirements to individuals who are subject to an SVRO (e.g. requiring individuals subject to an SVRO to report to their local police station when they move to a new area).
• Require police officers to have senior-level sign-off before stopping individuals under an SVRO in a particular area.

We will work closely with the police to find ways that ensure they are able to identify the right individual.

We would welcome your comments about how SVROs should be used in practice and whether and what safeguards might be put in place to ensure that their use is proportionate.

8. Do you have any comments about the ways in which SVROs might impact on communities?

SVROs would be available to the court when someone is convicted of a relevant offence, and so they would not be targeted at people because of their age, sex, race or any other protected characteristic. We do acknowledge, however, that although most people who are sentenced for knife or offensive weapons offences are male and White, Black adults are disproportionately more likely to be sentenced, and so may be more likely to be eligible for an SVRO. We also acknowledge that stop and search can have a disproportionate impact on people from ethnic minority backgrounds. At the same time, we acknowledge that some groups of people are more likely to be a victim of violent crime, and so we believe that the new powers could help to take targeted action to keep them safe, which would be a positive impact.

We want to make sure the new powers are used effectively, professionally, lawfully and, as far as possible, with community support. We also want to make sure that safeguards are built into the system, to make sure that communities are able to monitor the use of SVROs. We think there are five main ways in which we could achieve this:

• Guidance. We could develop guidance on the use of SVROs by the police. This could take the form of statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State or by considering revisions to Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code A, which provides statutory guidance on the use of stop and search.
• Local monitoring. We could ensure that the police work with other agencies and the community to monitor local use of SVRO stop and search powers, for example through local Community Safety Partnerships or Violence Reduction Units. We could include a recommendation that such monitoring takes place in the statutory guidance we intend to publish to support the new Serious Violence Duty. We could also include recommendations on how to manage and support people with SVROs in the community.
• Community monitoring. We could build on recent guidance on engagement with communities published by the College of Policing – noting that such engagement will be critical to building confidence in the fair and effective use of SVROs stop and search powers.^{[footnote 43]}
• Inspection. HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services look at disparities within stop and search as part of their inspections and highlight where forces do not monitor and scrutinise sufficient data and information to understand and explain the reasons for any disproportionality.
• Data requirements. We could develop a set of metrics to help us to understand how SVROs are being used in practice. We would want to collect data relating to the protected characteristics of people impacted at each stage, in order to help us to understand the nature and scale of any disproportionate impacts, and to evidence what steps might be effective in addressing them. These could include factors such as: the number of SVROs being made; the number of stops and searches being conducted; and the number of breach offences being detected. We could consider a creating a publications regime for such data. We could also make it a requirement for the police to report on their use of SVRO stop and search powers to the Home Office through the Annual Data Requirement.^{[footnote 44]}

We would therefore welcome your comments about the ways in which SVROs might impact on communities, and about how we could maximise the positive impact, while also minimising any negative impact.

9. Do you have any further comments about the proposals in this consultation in relation to impact on protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation? How might any such impacts be mitigated?

To the extent that you might not have given your views on the equalities impacts of our proposals in answer to other questions, we invite you to tell us what you think those impacts might be, and how they might be mitigated. We are interested in your views on the impacts on all sections of communities which are legally protected under the Equality Act 2010.

Questionnaire

1.	The Government thinks that that the best way to make it easier for the police to stop and search known knife carriers is to create a new court order, the Serious Violence Reduction Order. Do you agree?	(tick all that apply)
A	Yes.
B	No, Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be amended.
C	No, Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 should be amended.
D	No, Criminal Behaviour Orders should be amended.
E	No, Knife Crime Prevention Orders should be amended.

2.	When should the court have the power to give someone an SVRO?	(tick ONE)
A	On conviction for a knife offence only.
B	On conviction for offenses involving knives or offensive weapons.
C	On conviction for any offence involving violence.

3.	Should an SVRO be made automatically on conviction?	(tick ONE)
A	Yes.
B	No, but there should be a presumption that the order will be made, unless there are compelling reasons for the court not to do so.
C	No, making the order should be wholly at the discretion of the court.

4.	Should SVROs apply to adults only?	(tick ONE)
A	Yes, to adults only (18+ only).
B	No, to adults and children aged 12 and over.
C	No, to adults and children aged 14 and over.

5.	How long should an SVRO last?	(tick ONE)
A	There should be a fixed duration for all SVROs.
B	The SVRO should last for the length of the sentence handed down by the court.
C	There should be a maximum and minimum length. It would then be for the court to decide on the length of the SVRO, within this range. The court should have a power to say when the order should begin.

6.	Should we create a separate criminal offence of breach of an SVRO?	(tick ONE)
A	Yes. This offence would be committed by refusing to co-operate when a police officer tries to stop and search a person who has an SVRO, and by a person who has an SVRO being found to be carrying a knife or an offensive weapon again.
B	No, because a breach should be treated as a contempt of court.
C	No, because we should use existing legal provisions about repeat offenders.

1. Do you have any comments about how the police should use SVROs in practice?

Please provide details (max. 500 words):

1. Do you have any comments about the ways in which SVROs might impact on communities?

Please provide details (max. 500 words):

1. Do you have any further comments about the proposals in this consultation in relation to impact on protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010: age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation? How might any such impacts be mitigated?

Please provide details (max. 500 words):

Thank you for your response.

About you

Please use this section to tell us about yourself. This section is voluntary.

Full name
Job title or capacity in which you are responding to this consultation exercise (for example, member of the public)
Date
Company name/organisation (if applicable)
Address
Postcode
If you would like us to acknowledge receipt of your response, please tick this box
Address to which the acknowledgement should be sent, if different from above

If you are a representative of a group, please tell us the name of the group and give a summary of the people or organisations that you represent.

Contact details and how to respond

Please send your response by Sunday 8 November 2020.

Complete the online form.

Email: SVRO.consultation.responses@homeoffice.gov.uk

Complaints or comments

If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process you should contact the Home Office at the above address.

Extra copies

Further paper copies of this consultation can be obtained from this address and it is also available online.

Alternative format versions of this publication can be requested.

Publication of response

A paper summarising the responses to this consultation will be published. The response paper will be available online at GOV.UK.

Representative groups

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.

Confidentiality

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Home Office.

The Home Office will process your personal data in accordance with the DPA and in the majority of circumstances, this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.

Consultation principles

The principles that government departments and other public bodies should adopt for engaging stakeholders when developing policy and legislation are set out in the consultation principles.

1. ‘Table F3: Selected violent and sexual offences involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by the police (excluding Greater Manchester Police), year ending March 2011 to year ending March 2020 and percentage change’ in ‘Crime in England and Wales: Other related Tables’, released by the Office for National Statistics, 17 July 2020. ↩

2. ‘Table F3: Selected violent and sexual offences involving a knife or sharp instrument recorded by the police (excluding Greater Manchester Police), year ending March 2011 to year ending March 2020 and percentage change’ in ‘Crime in England and Wales: Other related Tables’, released by the Office for National Statistics, 17 July 2020. ↩

3. ‘GOR Residence Totals’ in ‘Hospital admissions for assault by sharp object from 2012’, released by NHS Digital, 18 June 2020. ↩

4. ‘Table 1: Knife and offensive weapon offences resulting in a caution or conviction, in England and Wales, annually from year 2009 and quarterly from Q1 2009’ in ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Quarterly, England and Wales’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

5. ‘Table 1: Knife and offensive weapon offences resulting in a caution or conviction, in England and Wales, annually from year 2009 and quarterly from Q1 2009’ in ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Quarterly, England and Wales’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

6. Page 3, ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Statistics, England and Wales – 2019’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

7. Page 3, ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Statistics, England and Wales – 2019’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

8. ‘Table 1: Knife and offensive weapon offences resulting in a caution or conviction, in England and Wales, annually from year 2009 and quarterly from Q1 2009’ in ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Quarterly, England and Wales’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

9. ‘Table 2: Knife and offensive weapon offences resulting in a caution or conviction by age group, in England and Wales, annually from 2009 and quarterly from Q1 2009’ in ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Quarterly, England and Wales’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

10. ‘Table 2: Knife and offensive weapon offences resulting in a caution or conviction by age group, in England and Wales, annually from 2009 and quarterly from Q1 2009’ in ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Quarterly, England and Wales’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

11. Page 4, Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Statistics, England and Wales – 2019’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

12. ‘Table 7: Offenders cautioned and convicted for repeat possession offences under section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, by age group and disposal, in England and Wales, annually from 2016 and quarterly from Q1 2016’ in ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Quarterly, England and Wales’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

13. ‘Table 7: Offenders cautioned and convicted for repeat possession offences under section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, by age group and disposal, in England and Wales, annually from 2016 and quarterly from Q1 2016’ in ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Quarterly, England and Wales’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

14. Page 5, Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Statistics, England and Wales – 2019, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

15. Data in this section are taken from ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Possession Sentencing publication: Pivot Table Analytical Tool for previous knife and offensive weapon offences’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

16. Data in this section are taken from ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Possession Sentencing publication: Pivot Table Analytical Tool for previous knife and offensive weapon offences’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

17. Data in this section are taken from ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Possession Sentencing publication: Pivot Table Analytical Tool for previous knife and offensive weapon offences’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

18. ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Possession Sentencing publication: Pivot Table Analytical Tool for previous knife and offensive weapon offences’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

19. ‘Table P6: Knife and sharp instrument rates recorded by the police for selected offences, by police force area, English regions and Wales, year ending March 2019 and year ending March 2020 in ‘Crime in England and Wales, year ending March 2020 - PFA tables’, released by the Office for National Statistics, 17 July 2020. ↩

20. ‘Appendix Table 4: Offences currently recorded as homicide, by age and sex of victim, year ending March 2009 to year ending March 2019’ in ‘Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2019 - Appendix Tables’, released by the Office for National Statistics, 13 February 2020. ↩

21. ‘Appendix Table 4: Offences currently recorded as homicide, by age and sex of victim, year ending March 2009 to year ending March 2019’ in ‘Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2019 - Appendix Tables’, released by the Office for National Statistics, 13 February 2020. ↩

22. ‘Hospital admissions for assault by sharp object from 2012’, released by NHS Digital, 18 June 2020. Suppressed data makes up 75% of age data. ↩

23. Suppressed data makes up 87% of gender data. ↩

24. Suppressed data makes up 78% of ethnicity data. Caution must be exercised when using the ethnicity rate as 17% of ethnicities are not known or not stated. Asian and Asian British, and Black and Black British are listed ethnicities in the NHS data and are compared to the population of Asian and Black people in the census data. ↩

25. ‘Homicide in England and Wales: year ending March 2019’, released by the Office for National Statistics, 13 February 2020. ↩

26. Page 11, ‘Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2018’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 28 November 2019. ↩

27. Page 36, ‘Serious Violence Strategy’, released by the Home Office, 9 April 2018. ↩

28. Page 12, ‘Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2018’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 28 November 2019. ↩

29. Pages 1 and 6, ‘Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2019’, released by the Home Office, 24 October 2019. ↩

30. Page 1, ‘Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2019’, released by the Home Office, 24 October 2019. ↩

31. Page 24, ‘Serious Violence Strategy’, released by the Home Office, 9 April 2018. ↩

32. Matteo Tiratelli, Paul Quinton and Ben Bradford, ‘Does Stop and Search Deter Crime? Evidence from Ten Years of London-wide Data’, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 58, Issue 5, September 2018, Pages 1212-1231. See also page 4, Paul Quinton, Matteo Tiratelli and Ben Bradford, ‘Does more stop and search mean less crime? Analysis of Metropolitan Police Service panel data, 2004-14’, published by the College of Policing, 2017. ↩

33. Page 24, ‘Serious Violence Strategy’, released by the Home Office, 9 April 2018. ↩

34. Police forces are not required to record the age or sex of people who are stopped and searched. They are however required to ask the person they are searching which ethnic group they consider themselves to be in. This is a measure of ‘self-defined’ ethnicity rather than ‘officer observed’ ethnicity, which appears in some other police data collections. Page 15, ‘Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2019’, released by the Home Office, 24 October 2019. ↩

35. Page 16, ‘Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2019’, released by the Home Office, 24 October 2019. ↩

36. Data drawn from ‘Stop and search open data, 2006/07 to 2018/19’, released by the Home Office, 24 October 2019. ↩

37. Page 15, ‘Police powers and procedures, England and Wales, year ending 31 March 2019’, released by the Home Office, 24 October 2019. ↩

38. ‘Hospital admissions for assault by sharp object from 2012’, released by NHS Digital, 18 June 2020. Suppressed data makes up 78% of ethnicity data. Caution must be exercised when using the ethnicity rate as 17% of ethnicities are not known or not stated. Asian and Asian British, and Black and Black British are listed ethnicities in the NHS data and are compared to the population of Asian and Black people in the census data. ↩

39. ‘Table 2: Knife and offensive weapon offences resulting in a caution or conviction by age group, in England and Wales, annually from 2009 and quarterly from Q1 2009’ in ‘Knife and Offensive Weapon Sentencing Quarterly, England and Wales’, released by the Ministry of Justice, 12 March 2020. ↩

40. Page 36, ‘Serious Violence Strategy’, released by the Home Office, 9 April 2018. ↩

41. New guidance on community scrutiny of stop and search, published by the College of Policing, 30 July 2020. ↩

42. The Annual Data Requirement is a list of all routine requests for data made to all police forces in England and Wales made under the Home Secretary’s statutory powers. The data collections provide invaluable insight in relation to crimes, trends and social behaviours. They also improve transparency in relation to policing matters and help inform decision making in government. ↩