Mr. Drew Harris:

Might I say that all of these calls were received and recorded on the computer-aided dispatch, CAD, system. We have set in place a very high standard in respect of the response to domestic abuse. In effect, what was happening was that our processes were not being followed in respect of those domestic abuse calls. The actual act of cancellation of a call can be warranted because we have calls that can resolve themselves, for example, alarm calls, calls by other agencies for assistance which are then resolved and also multiple and duplicate calls for, say, a serious road traffic collision. The numbers are huge but we found when we worked through the cases that the numbers distil down to 5,871 incidents that we had particular concerns about. Of those, we found there was an invalid closure in 2,689 cases, in that a PULSE incident should have been opened. A CAD incident was opened but in 2,689 incidents a PULSE incident was not opened. Of those, we have created 2,316 incidents and have uncovered what we believe is 134 crimes not recorded.

All the reasons for invalid cancellations have been analysed. There are almost 20 reasons, one of which is very prevalent. In 28% of cases, or over 800 calls, the call was cancelled by the caller. In other cases, there was either no offence, or the case was closed or cancelled by the car crew. That is where we run into problems because if a caller rings back and says they want to cancel a call, it is our policy that we should still attend, investigate and follow through in completion of a PULSE incident. There was a breakdown in terms of practice and behaviour within the control rooms but also among those responding. We have addressed that in terms of processes around who can cancel - only supervisors can cancel - and then dip sampling and supervision. We have revisited the training provided to those working in command control as well.