Counting crime: Discounting victims?
| Published date | 01 January 2022 |
| Author | Matthew Hall |
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758021995909 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Counting crime:
Discounting victims?
Matthew Hall
University of Lincoln, UK
Abstract
This paper sets out to critically explore the connections drawn by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services between police adherence to national crime recording
standards and the provision of service and support by the police to victims of crime. The goal of the
paper is to identify what assumptions are being made by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Con-
stabulary and Fire & Rescue Services concerning how and why ‘accurate’ crime recording impacts
upon victims and to test those assumptions against the broader victimological literature. In so
doing, the paper will also shed light on the progress made by police services in this regard since
significant concerns were raised about the impact of ‘poor’ crime recording on victims of crime by
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in its 2014 report Crime-recording: Making the victim
count.
Keywords
Crime recording, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, victims
of crime, victim satisfaction, victim services
Introduction
This paper sets out to critically explore the connections drawn by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of
Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS
1
) between police adherence to national
crime recording standards and the provision of service and support by the police to victims of
crime. The goal of the paper is to identify what assumptions are being made by HMICFRS
concerning how and why ‘accurate’ crime recording impacts upon victims and to test those
assumptions against the broader victimological literature. In so doing, the paper will also shed
light on the progress made by police services in this regard since significant concerns were raised
about the impact of ‘poor’ crime recording on victims of crime in the report Crime-recording:
Making the victim count by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC, 2014).
2
Corresponding author:
Matthew Hall, Lincoln Law School, University of Lincoln, Bradford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK.
Email: lawschooladmin@lincoln.ac.uk
International Review of Victimology
2022, Vol. 28(1) 3–32
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0269758021995909
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
The study described here originally derived from work conducted by the author with Lincoln-
shire Police after it received a rating of ‘Inadequate’ following an inspection by HMICFRS of its
crime recording practices carried out in the spring of 2018. In the aftermath of that inspection, the
force and the Inspectorate each expressed very different views concerning the appropriateness of
some crime recording rules and their potential impact on victims. Significantly, both organisations
claimed that their respective approach put victims ‘at the heart’ of decision making. In the report
compiled by HMICFRS after that inspection, it was clear that the Inspectorate was placing heavy
emphasis on what it viewed as the negative impact of ‘poor’ crime recording decisions on victims
themselves, as in the following extract:
Lincolnshire Pol ice officers and st aff too often fail to ma ke correct crime-r ecording decisi ons at
the first opportunity. This is due to deficiencies in the force’s crime-recording processes, insuffi-
cient understanding of crime-recording requirements and limited supervision to correct the deci-
sions of officers and staff and improve standards from the outset. This means the force is letting
down many victims of crime. (HMICFRS, Lincolnshire Police: Crime Data Integrity inspection
2018,July2018
3
)
Such an unequivocal denouncement clearly serves to emphasise the significance now attributed
to the victim’s perspective by HMICFRS. Nevertheless, the exact mechanisms by which crime
recording on the one hand and service provision to victims by the police on the other are said to be
connected is less immediately obvious. Fundamentally, then, the goal of the research set out in this
paper was, in the first instance, to clearly identify the specific connections drawn by the Inspecto-
rate between what it views as unsatisfactory crime recording practices and the ‘letting down’ of
victims by police. Secondly, the paper seeks to critically assess such connections by comparing
them with the wider victimological literature. In so doing, the paper will problematise the under-
lying assertion apparent in all the Inspectorate’s recent crime data integrity reports: that crime
recording practices (of any sort) can rightly be said to put the victim ‘at the heart’ of the criminal
justice process.
In the next section this paper will proceed to set out some of the features of crime recording
systems in England and Wales and the connect ions that have been drawn between these and
victims of crime by victimologists. From there the paper will discuss the background to the specific
research project set out here and the key research questions to be explored, which are:
1. In what ways does HMICFRS equate ‘good’ crime recording with ‘good’ service provision
to victims of crime?
2. What links are being made to victims’ satisfaction with the police (and the wider criminal
justice system)?
3. Are those links so drawn comparable or compatible with those suggested by the wider body
of victimological research?
In setting out to answer these question s, the paper will next discuss the method ology and
methods employed in this research, before going on to set out the key results obtained. A discus-
sion will follow in which the findings are compared with existing victimological literature with a
view to answering the research questions and, finally, conclusions will be drawn.
4International Review of Victimology 28(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial