We #StandWithUkraine, find out how to help here.
Last updated: 01.05.14

The Bichard Inquiry Report

After Ian Huntley was convicted for the murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, the Home Secretary asked Sir Michael Bichard to chair an independent inquiry into safeguarding procedures, record keeping, vetting and information sharing in Humberside Police and Cambridgeshire Constabulary.

Published in June 2004, The Bichard Inquiry Report, A Public Inquiry Report made recommendations on matters of local and national relevance.

The main recommendations were:

  • A national information technology (IT) system for police intelligence in England and Wales
  • A national IT system for England and Wales to support police intelligence should be introduced as a matter of urgency. The Home Office should take the lead and report by December 2004 with clear targets for implementation.
  • The PLX system, which flags that intelligence is held about someone by particular police forces, should be introduced in England and Wales by 2005.

Police IT procurement

  • The procurement of IT systems by the police should be reviewed to ensure that, wherever possible, national solutions are delivered to national problems.

The Police National Computer (PNC)

  • Investment should be made available by Government to secure the PNC?s medium and long-term future, given its importance to intelligence-led policing and to the criminal justice system as a whole.
  • The new Code of Practice, made under the Police Reform Act 2002, dealing with the quality and timeliness of PNC data input, should be implemented as soon as possible.
  • The quality and timeliness of PNC data input should be routinely inspected as part of the Policing Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF) and the Baseline Assessments, which are being developed by Her Majesty?s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
  • The transfer of responsibility for inputting court results onto the PNC should be reaffirmed by the Court Service and the Home Office and, if possible, accelerated ahead of the 2006 target. At the least, that deadline must be met.

A new Code of Practice on information management

  • A Code of Practice should be produced covering record creation, review, retention, deletion and information sharing. This should be made under the Police Reform Act 2002 and needs to be clear, concise and practical.
  • The Code of Practice must clearly set out the key principles of good information management (capture, review, retention, deletion and sharing), having regard to policing purposes, the rights of the individual and the law.
  • The Code of Practice must set out the standards to be met in terms of systems (including IT), accountability, training, resources and audit. These standards should be capable of being monitored both within police forces and by HMIC and should fit within the PPAF.
  • The Code of Practice should have particular regard to the factors to be considered when reviewing the retention or deletion of intelligence in cases of sexual offences.

Handling allegations of sexual offences against children

  • The Government should reaffirm the guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children so that the police are notified as soon as possible when a criminal offence has been committed, or is suspected of having been committed, against a child ? unless there are exceptional reasons not to do so.
  • National guidance should be produced to inform the decision as to whether or not to notify the police. This guidance could usefully draw upon the criteria included in a local protocol being developed by Sheffield Social Services and brought to the attention of the Inquiry. The decision would therefore take account of:
    • age or power imbalances;
    • overt aggression;
    • coercion or bribery;
    • the misuse of substances as a disinhibitor;
    • whether the child?s own behaviour, because of the misuse of
    • substances, places him/her at risk so that he/she is unable to make
    • an informed choice about any activity;
    • whether any attempts to secure secrecy have been made by
    • the sexual partner, beyond what would be considered usual in a
    • teenage relationship;
    • whether the sexual partner is known by one of the agencies (which
    • presupposes that checks will be made with the police);
    • whether the child denies, minimises or accepts concerns; and
    • whether the methods used are consistent with grooming.
  • The Integrated Children?s System should record those cases where a decision is taken not to refer to the police.
  • The Commission for Social Care Inspection should, as part of any social services inspection, review whether decisions not to inform the police have been properly taken.

Training for those conducting interviews

  • Head teachers and school governors should receive training on how to ensure that interviews to appoint staff reflect the importance of safeguarding children.
  • From a date to be agreed, no interview panel to appoint staff working in schools should be convened without at least one member being properly trained.
  • The relevant inspection bodies should, as part of their inspection, review the existence and effectiveness of a school?s selection and recruitment arrangements.

A registration scheme
New arrangements should be introduced requiring those who wish to work with children, or vulnerable adults, to be registered. This register ? perhaps supported by a card or licence ? would confirm that there is no known reason why an individual should not work with these client groups.

The new register would be administered by a central body, which would take the decision, subject to published criteria, to approve or refuse registration on the basis of all the information made available to them by the police and other agencies. The responsibility for judging the relevance of police intelligence in deciding a person?s suitability would lie with the central body. The police, as now, would be able to identify intelligence which on no account should be disclosed to the applicant.

Employers should still decide, based on good selection procedures, whether or not the job required the postholder to be registered and should retain the ultimate decision as to whether or not to employ.

The central body would have the discretion to ignore any conviction information judged not to be relevant to the position in question.

Individuals should have a right to appeal against any refusal to place them on the register and that right should be exercised before any information is made available to a third party.

The register should be continuously updated and available to prospective employers for checking online or by telephone.

The register should be introduced in a phased way, over a period of years, to avoid the problems associated with the introduction of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB).

The DfES, in consultation with other government departments, should decide whether the registration scheme should be evidenced by a licence or card.

Get resource