His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has produced a new report about police effectiveness in crime investigation. First things first, I went looking with my favourite shortcut function: CRTL+F to bring up the “find” search facility and entered in the world “mental”. You’re always at risk of bringing up the word “fundamental”, so you still have some work to do but if you do this with the HMIC report, you’ll find a couple of things.
It mentions an initiative in West Yorkshire which supports victims of crime with mental health support and something similar in Cambridgeshire as well as recognition that high investigative workloads for investigators can impact on their mental health. Beyond that: nothing and its the absence of focus on mental health amongst victims which is the topic of this post. We know victims of crime are disproportionately likely to be adversely affected by their mental health from research reports a decade ago – that research also showed us such victims are more likely to experience attrition: their allegation subject to no further action by either the police or Crown Prosecution Service and so justice less likely to be done.
There’s the context for thinking again about crime investigation and mental health – more likely to be victims, less likely to see justice done and yet –
“The effective investigation of crime is fundamental to the legitimacy of policing and to public confidence. It also influences how safe people feel and it prevents future offending.”
POLICE EFFECTIVENESS
The report is worth reading and it’s mercifully short given what it attempts to cover. I’m certainly not going to try summarising it as it’s subject matter is broader than my themes of interest on this website. And my principle concern is what is NOT in the report, rather than what is within. Chief amongst those concerns is the current politics in policing about mental health: the “Right Care, Right Person” programme. It will be no surprise to regular readers to learn I have lots of questions and concerns about this programme, it’s philosophy, it’s target areas of activity, the training materials I saw whilst still serving and the way in which it works in practice. We are a couple of months away from the beginning of another inquest where I suspect RCRP and decision-making will be under the spotlight, having had yet another IOPC report where no mention was made at all of deaths-after-contact.
This concern about RCRP is something I’ve only previously hinted at, but the HMIC report means it’s worth spelling out. RCRP contains four-phases: four topic areas where the police want to change the approach and pull-back from demand they argue is not theirs, by law. Let’s even assume they are going about that decision-making properly and effectively, the four areas are all areas where the police have known frustrations about over-exposure to mental health related demand – hence they want to pull back.
What is not acknowledged within the National Partnership Agreement or any other RCRP news, policy or social media discussion, is those areas where policing is under-involved: crime investigation – and it’s deeply ironic, actually. One reassurance strapline offered by RCRP and its NPA is the police will still have a role where there is a crime, in progress or already happened. Indeed, the political argument advanced by senior officers and politicians is RCRP is necessary in order to allow the police to focus on their core role around crime.
THE POLICE AS CRIME FIGHTERS
The police are not as good as we need them to be as crime fighters, as shown by the new HMIC report but where mental health is an aspect, we see some particular problems –
- Redefining crime as “mental health” – this is the idea of attending policing incidents because of ongoing risk and finding allegation of criminal conduct, but re-painting behaviour as a product of someone’s perceived mental health problems is a regular thing.
- In just the last few months, I’ve had contacts from mental health professionals and charities about things like GBH and arson being re-framed in this way, so it’s not something which only happens at the thinner end of the wedge.
- Investigative assumptions about prosecution – a few things seem to persist like “zombie myths” in policing and CPS which we see used as barriers to prosecution, to justify taking no action where it’s not obvious or not know whether the barriers are real.
- “He lacks capacity” is a common refrain despite it not really meaning anything legal where criminal allegations are involved and we often hear of officers (and prosecutors) insisting that legal action cannot commence unless a doctor somewhere has provided a written statement of evidence attesting to various non-medical things which lie beyond their knowledge or competence.
- Being “Sectioned” – of course there are various allegations which arise at a point where the subject is either “sectioned” already, or thought to require such admission at the point of arrest. All too often we see MHA status – current or impending – as a barrier to prosecution which then suggest to some investigators it’s not necessary to try.
- There is no barrier in principle to anyone who is “sectionable” being investigated, arrested or prosecuted – of course whether you do those things should be a careful judgement about sensitive matters, taken on a case-by-case basis but equally that means there should be no assumption that prosecution is not possible or desirable.
There’s more which could be said on those four areas but the point is made and it reminds us: if you were to go about correcting the problems listed, it would require considerably more time and effort on the part of the police. Now whether those additional hours would be a greater or lesser number than those apparently saved by RCRP drawing back on the four areas where it focusses, no-one currently knows because no-one has properly evaluated RCRP or done a proper gap analysis on the crime investigation problem.
The point remains: the police are under-involved in crime investigation where those of us involved are affected by our mental health and to correct that problem is linked the very legitimacy of the police and its core role around crime prevention and all normal notions of justice. Without it, you do risk reinforcing problems with legitimacy, especially if you’re also busy not responding to obvious emergencies involving vulnerable people which should be considered an immediate risk to life.
Winner of the President’s Medal, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation.
(c) Michael Brown, 2025
I am not a police officer.
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 