Information systems
The PNC
3.42	The PNC is a series of databases used by all forces in England and Wales. Mechanisms exist to include the Scottish and other police forces, for example the British Transport Police. It is an effective system which gives over 138,000 police officers instant access to critical policing information. It has a well-deserved reputation for reliability and accessibility and reviews have shown that it provides a high-quality service.
3.43	The Phoenix database, which forms the core of the PNC, was launched in 1995 and includes details of all people convicted or cautioned for recordable offences (those offences that carry the option of imprisonment), as well as some other more minor offences (listed in regulations made under section 27(4) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). Details include the individual’s name, known aliases, sex, age, height and distinguishing features. The details can be amended and updated as appropriate, for example to record an alias. It also records other details about a person’s contact with the police and the criminal justice system.
3.44	When the Phoenix database was introduced, the task of entering data was taken on by individual police forces, each of which has direct access to the system. This meant that responsibility for the use of the database, the disclosure of information obtained from it and the timeliness and quality of the information put onto it has, since 1995, been the responsibility of the chief officers of the 43 police forces in England and Wales.
3.45	The first time a record is created on the PNC, it generates a unique PNC identification number for the individual concerned which is prefixed by the last two numbers of the year in which it was created, for example 96. This number remains the same whatever subsequent records are entered about that person.
3.46	The first record made on the PNC by the police is called the ‘arrest/summons report’. The name of this report suggests that the record should be created at the point of arrest. It appears to have been the original intention that every arrest would be recorded on the PNC.
3.47	However, other than in exceptional cases (for example, arrests under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation), the first record on the PNC is not in practice made unless and until a person is charged (or cautioned), which may be some considerable time after arrest.
3.48	The police were and still are responsible for inputting court results on the PNC.
Reports on PNC’s record creation
3.49	Since 1995, when individual police forces assumed responsibility for putting records on the PNC, there have been major and continuing problems, especially with the timeliness of record creation. There have been no fewer than five detailed reports on these issues. These are:
	one by PITO in 1996; one by the Home Office Police Research Group; and three by HMIC.
PNC Codes of Compliance
3.50	ACPO, after a considerable delay, issued PNC Codes of Compliance ‘Timeliness Performance Indicators’ in April 2000, setting standards for timeliness and accuracy of PNC data entry. Even then, standards did not improve to any significant degree until about 2001, and it needed a further critical report from HMIC to achieve those improvements. It is little wonder that HMIC’s report to the Inquiry should describe police performance in this area as ‘abysmal’.
3.51	In response to continuing concern about whether recent improvements would be sustained, in spring 2003 the Home Office established an ACPO-led implementation group. A draft code was published in November 2003, entitled Code of Practice for Use of the Police National Computer, the intention being for it to be issued under the new Police Reform Act regime and to be dealt with by the Central Police Training and Development Authority, Centrex, which is responsible for providing PNC training courses.
A record within 24 hours of arrest
3.52	The closing date for responses to the draft Code of Practice was the end of January 2004 and the code has now been finalised. Once implemented, it will require that details of 90 per cent of a police force’s recordable offences must be put on the PNC within 24 hours of a person being arrested, charged, reported, summonsed, cautioned or given a fixed penalty notice. One hundred per cent must be put on the PNC within three days. It will also require that court results, in a minimum of 50 per cent of cases, should be entered on the PNC within seven days of a case’s conclusion. This will increase to 75 per cent of cases, six months after the code starts.
3.53	It should be said that performance has improved in advance of the code being published. For example, the target for the arrest/summons report, which begins a new PNC record, is for 90 per cent to be entered within one day. In April 2001 the national average was 38 per cent. In April 2004 it had improved to 81.2 per cent in England and 83.9 per cent in Wales.
3.54	For court results, the target is currently for the police to input 100 per cent within three days of receipt from the courts. In March 2002 in England, 29 per cent of results were entered within seven days of the outcome of the case and 16.6 per cent in Wales. This period includes the time taken for the court to relay the information to the police. By March 2004, these figures had improved to 42.4 per cent and 43 per cent respectively. There is clearly still room for improvement, but progress now seems to be under way.
NSPIS
3.55	In 1994, an NSPIS project was set up to standardise the 43 police forces onto a compatible IT architecture, running national software applications. The intention was for all forces to use the same IT systems. A wide range of policing functions was to have been covered. There were 38 different applications in the original specification, which included, critically for this Inquiry, plans for a common IT system for managing criminal intelligence.
3.56	The position today is that a number of applications are in use, including Command and Control, Holmes 2, a national DNA database, a digital national radio communication service (Airwave) and a National Automated Fingerprint Information System (NAFIS). There is also a Violent and Sex Offenders’ Register (VISOR).
3.57	Of particular interest to the Inquiry are the Custody and the Case Preparation applications. The first aims to improve the efficiency of custody suites so that police staff can record personal and arrest details accurately. It produces a custody log and an audited log of actions taken during a detention period. It directly links local police to the PNC and enables:
	the first PNC search to take place when a person arrives in custody; and the arrest/summons report to be input directly by the officer responsible for the investigation (currently, a report can be input only once a charge has been made). There has recently been a ‘Change Request’ to ensure record creation on the PNC is more directly linked to arrest, and this is being addressed urgently.
3.58	The Case Preparation application aims to assist the police in compiling prosecution case files, which can then be presented to others involved later on in the criminal process, including the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Court Service. There is an interface between the Case Preparation and Custody applications which enables the custody details to be transferred across.
3.59	The Case Preparation application also interfaces with the PNC, enabling court results, and other disposals, to be put directly on the PNC. However, there needs to be a link with the relevant court’s IT system in order for this to work effectively. Another government body, the Criminal Justice Information Technology group (CJIT), is currently reviewing the IT systems needed to create a ‘joined-up’ system across the whole criminal justice system.
3.60	At present, the courts pass the information on to the police, who review and input the information on the system. The proposed date for a handover of this function to the courts themselves is still as far away as 2006, despite the obvious and considerable benefits that this change should bring.
No common IT system for managing criminal intelligence
3.61	These achievements notwithstanding, there is still no common IT system for managing criminal intelligence. The national solution was removed from the NSPIS implementation plan in 2000 when it was judged that there were insufficient funds to deliver all the applications. It was recognised that intelligence and management information was to be widely accessible at force, regional and national levels but might need key feeder systems in place to be fully effective. It was decided that a national business process of intelligence handling should be developed first (the National Intelligence Model, see below).
Local IT systems, applications and criminal intelligence
3.62	The Inquiry does not have a complete picture of local IT systems or applications, either in the 1995–2001 period or today. However, certain features of the local police computerised systems have emerged.
3.63	There was, and remains, no uniformity of approach. Each of the 43 police forces has a variety of IT systems, which are used for a variety of different purposes. The interfaces between systems at local force-to-force level are almost non-existent. Even within forces, the interface between systems has been patchy at best. While not all functions or applications necessarily need to be linked between police forces, this is not the case with intra-force applications. Improvements in this unhappy position are limited, although in some instances, such as the PNC, the capacity is available to store and distribute reliable information nationally between forces.

Back to top