1

National Roma Network Forum:Police and Criminal Justice

7th July 2016

Peterborough

Welcome, Overview & NRN Update

Dave Brown

Migration Yorkshire

2

Co-Chairs Introduction

Dave Brown & Denisa Gannon

Increasing Roma representation in the Police Service

Petr Torak

GRTPA

3

INCREASING GRT REPRESENTATION

PETR TORAK MBE

Police Constable

Cambridgeshire Constabulary

WHY GRTPA?

• Structural, racialised system of policing in regards to Gypsies Roma and Travellers

• This systemic racism results in:o Uncomfortable / hostile working environment 

(macro and micro aggressions) o Hidden identity – leading to isolation for staffo Root cause of poor relations with Gypsy Roma 

Traveller populationo Breach of Public Sector Equality Duty

4

HOW DID GRTPA BEGIN?

• September 2013 ‐ Idea conceived. • March 2014 – Formally Constituted• July 2014 Public Launch in Westminster Palace• Supported by 

o NPCCo PolFedo All Party Parliamentary Group for GRTo Equality and Human Rights Commissiono Traveller Movement and various NGO’s

AIMS OF THE GRTPA

• Provide a support network for Gypsy Roma and Traveller Police Staff across the UK and Europe

• Improve relationships between Police and Gypsies Roma and Travellers

• Improve levels of Equality for Gypsies Roma and Travellers

5

BENEFITS OF IMPROVED RELATIONSHIP WITH GRT

• Increased legitimacy of the police amongst GRT population

• Less resourcing and more cost effective policing

• Better flow of intelligence

• Happier, more effective staff

• Meet Moral, Ethical and Legal responsibilities

WHAT HAVE WE ACHIEVED SO FAR?

• 133 Members to date• Represented in 28 forces , plus 3 European forces• First National  Members Conference November 2015• Removal of National document which suggested all Travellers were violent and involved in theft

• Removal of family trees and suspect codes• Helped bring to light racist Met Facebook page• Training for Operation Liberal• Abandonment of term “ Travelling Criminality by Op Liberal”• Instigated Independent Police and Procedure review of Thames Valley Police

• Increasing GRT representation within the police service

6

INCREASING REPRESENTATION

INCREASING REPRESENTATION

7

INCREASING REPRESENTATION

INCREASING REPRESENTATION

8

INCREASING REPRESENTATION

PCSO Dana Ghosh PC Peter Kotlar

CONTACT

GRTPA

Petr Torak MBE – Executive Director

E‐mail – petr.torak@grtpa.comPhone – 07718062144

General queries ‐management@grtpa.comWebsite ‐ www.grtpa.com

@grtpa_uk GRTPA

9

Holistic approach to reduce re-offending within the Roma

Community

Prof Margaret Greenfields, Buckinghamshire University

Holistic Approaches to Reducing Re-Offending with the Roma Community

National Roma Network Forum on Policing and Criminal Justice

7th July 2016

Margaret Greenfields: Professor of Social Policy/Community Engagement &Director of IDRICS margaret.greenfields@bucks.ac.uk

10

Outline of Presentation

• ‘Work in progress’ : perceptions and realities of Roma(ni) and Traveller criminality

• Absence of community ‘voice’ in policy formation

• Discourse of criminality -> high profile criminal incidents and (potential) impact on sentencing

• What appears to work in reducing offending

• Impact of cut-backs on youth offending services

• Emergent recommendations

Work in Progress • International seminar on crime/policing and stereotypes (December

2014 – report April 2015): “Crime and Punishment: Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in the criminal justice system” High Wycombe: IDRICS http://bucks.ac.uk/content/documents/Research/INSTAL/Bridging_the_Gap_Criminal_Justice_Report.pdf

• Key findings from this report and follow-up discussions:

– In UK Roma populations difficult to track in criminal justice system re NOMIS records by country of origin rather than ethnicity

– Data/Anecdotal evidence which is available appears to indicate preponderance of ‘petty’ crimes (slight over-representation of women); pick-pocketing; vagrancy; begging; shop-lifting – crimes of poverty/acquisition

– Anecdotally some increase in substance-abuse/supply offences amongst young men

11

Evidence from YOT/NGOs• Unpublished study – report out Autumn 2016

(Greenfields, et. al.)

• Gradual drift from minor offences towards more serious crimes by small but increasing number of Roma youth (male) – street robbery; supply and control of illicit substances; sexual offences - [nb offences which are stigmatising within the community and which families say indicate a trend occurring since in UK]

• Anecdotal increase in recommendations for deportation following release from prison in some localities..cf: administrative removal orders

High Profile Cases as a Driver of Discourse (Police/Public/CJ system)

• Media representations ‘drip feed of negativity’

• Perceptions of criminal Roma migrants, • The Roma gipsy beggars of Park Lane: 30 Romanians camp out

with soiled duvets and cardboard boxes in exclusive London street [Daily Mail 24/5/2013]

• Problems raised ranged from fly-tipping and litter to intimidating groups of up to 30 people on the street, loud music late at night –and child prostitution and sex grooming of underage girls. [Sheffield Telegraph – 7/9/2013]

• Gang networks in Europe 'forcing children to steal‘ [BBC New 26/6/2016]

12

Roma Voice in Policy/Political Discourse• NRIS across Europe - limited focus on criminal justice aspects

although potentially subsumed into broader discrimination/access to health/accommodation/education etc.

• Widespread disconnect in recognition of engagement in criminal justice system with structural position/pre-migration experience

• Some scope to foreground GRT issues through input to Lammy review of ‘Bias and BAME representation in criminal justice system’ (2016)

• Overwhelmingly Roma excluded from policy and service design discussions and in post-Brexit situation may face increasing problems in relation to accessing appropriate services to reduce re-offending.

• Need to challenge negative discourse within criminal justice system + ensure appropriate programmes and equality frameworks utilised to support impacted communities [victims of crime and offenders/families]. Urgent need for monitoring of ethnicity of offenders rather than ‘anecdotal’ evidence.

What appears to work in terms of reducing recidivism amongst Roma youth?

• Whole family engagement in support for offender and working with probation/YOT [nb: changes in probation service impacting service design/delivery]

• Culturally competent information delivery/Translation services/Honesty

• Working with communities to design court diversion and intervention services – e.g. Roma girls small business/sewing project [London/RSG]

13

• Training and support – offering an alternative to criminal activities – breaking the link between ‘normalisation of criminal behaviours which can be unchallenged as a result of peoples experiences in countries of origin and living in impoverished and marginalised [multi-cultural] communities in the UK’

• Parenting Orders which enable on-going contact/support for family and access to follow-on services

• Continuity of contact with Probation/YOT and NGOs involved in interventions

• Multi-agency interventions e.g. housing; welfare benefits; health/wellbeing; connections to ‘back to work’ programmes may be successful if genuinely committed to supporting Roma attendees. Need for on-going post-prison support/services tailored to community.

• Working with role models from Roma communities –discussion on impact on families and communities

– “look sometimes if you start to drill down and talk with young people about values and how what they are doing is actually impacting on their families who they love and respect .. it can be like a breath of – well it can make someone stop and think about other things – so it is not just some White English guy saying this is illegal but looking at what really matters to the person who is offending – and from that we’ve found out about real poverty, support needed for the young person and their family - what it is like living with disabled family members in real poverty, in dreadful housing and wanting to be part of something different, to have money to go out, not just to try to survive…”

14

Implications of Cutbacks in Services/Lacuna in Knowledge

• Localisation/Service cutbacks mean loss of knowledge/opportunities for tailored services – BUT scope for NGO/partnership interventions and tendering..

• Appropriate, evidence-based interventions can impact on reoffending rates as well as community cohesion/development of trust in services.

• Risks of unchallenged construction of the criminal justice approach to Roma

– ‘Dual invisibility’ (as Roma in mainstream & as Roma in criminal justice system) impacts on policy and practice responses to GTRs: stereotyped/ stigmatized as members of a deviant, criminal migrant community.

– Nb: community development evidence indicates greater rate of stigmatisation and external ‘threat’ harder to bring about intra-community transformation cf: Brexit/racism as emergent risk factor for successful engagement…

Preliminary Conclusion• Pockets of good practice in supporting Roma offenders/reducing

recidivism but much ’short-termism’

• Overwhelmingly Romaphobic stereotypes are neither discouraged or challenged in public discourse – creating a vicious cycle of discriminatory attitudes within public/criminal justice system. Marginalisation of staff working with Roma

• Clear need to engage in positive policing/supporting offenders and break down mistrust between Roma communities and criminal justice services to provide holistic support

• Policies and Procedures require review and high level interventions/engagement with issues of disproportionality and appropriate co-funding with NGO support for statutory services

• Necessity of embedding of cultural competence into programmes and co-production of interventions; pro-active recruitment strategies and good-practice transfer as a route to improved practice.

15

Margaret.Greenfields@bucks.ac.uk

Mentoring Roma youth and building positive relationships between Roma and the Police

Miriama Cechova

& Ruth Richardson

Roma Community Care

16

Roma Youth Mentoring Project

BACKGROUND

Police Crime Commissioner funded project working with YOS

Grew from the youth club that we run for 11 – 19 year olds twice a week.

Engaged with Roma youth in the area for 4 years

17

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1. Change offending behavior

2. Family engagement and support

3. Develop plans for young people to work towards aspirations

4. Increased awareness of risk of DV, CSE and drug/ alcohol use

5. Roma young people campaign on issues important to them6. Roma young people supported to avoid/ recover drug and alcohol use7. Roma young people viewed more positively within their communities and wider society

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN IN REALITY?

18

CASE STUDY

• Young person mentored weekly• Support and translation at YOS meetings,

assessments and court• Housing standards regarding landlord problems• Supported family with HomeFinder• Made new claims regarding and continue to check

the progress and sort out any missing payments: ESA, DLA PIP, CAREERS ALLOWANCE

• Payment Plans for fines

CHALLENGES

X Engaging young people – incentives, suspicion and aspirations

X Staff capacity

X Used as or perceived to simply be an interpreter service

X Communication across services i.e. mentors assigned from other agencies so young people having 4 mentors

19

SUCCESSESMore than 16 young people engaged and supported over the year

Huge distances travelled by families that faced multiple issues

Only 2 reoffenders; one with a serious drug addiction, the others initial crime very serious and re offences fairly minor

Club engaging between 40-90 young people an evening

The holistic approach proven success: family support, positive role models, one to one mentoring and engaging alongside peers

Development of activities specifically engaging Roma young women

THE FUTURE

Funding

Volunteer peer mentors

Mentoring training

Partnership work to meet the need

20

Enforced removals – a Roma perspective

Audrey Mogan

AIRE Centre

21

Deportation & Removal of EEA Nationals

A Roma Perspective

Audrey Cherryl MoganLegal Project Manager

07.07.2016

We use the power of European Law to protect your human rights

What we do

• Free written legal advice on EU free movement law

•Representation and referral

• Litigation at the ECtHR and CJEU (including for non‐EU victims of trafficking & asylum seekers)

• Training for NGOs and voluntary sector organisations

• Engage in policy work 

22

The Roma Rights Project works to tackle discrimination against Roma migrants in the UK by identifying and eliminating barriers faced by them when accessing their rights as European citizens

The European Roma Rights in Action develops the capacity of NGOs, local authorities and legal practitioners who work with Roma migrants, as well as the migrants themselves, through free training sessions

Our work in Roma Rights

People who have been in the UK for decades 

People who have been living in the UK since they were children

People who end up homeless after expulsion because they have no support   networks in their country of origin

Victims of trafficking

People with children and family members in the UK

Roughsleepers 

Who do we see facing deportation & removal?

23

In each case, the expulsion decision must comply with the principle of proportionality; 

and the conduct of the person concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. 

The fundamental interests of society are public policy, public security or public health

Previous Criminal Convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures. 

The Directive provides a hierarchy of protection against expulsion, based on level of integration into the host Member State

Is this lawful?

Article 27 & 28 Directive 2004/38

Proportionality

In effect, the Home Office must perform a balancing exercise when deciding whether or not to deport an individual between the persons’ right to remain in the country, against the public interest in deporting them on grounds of public policy or public security. 

Some of the personal factors the authorities should take into account include:

• Age• State of health• Family and economic situation• Length of residence in the member state• Social and cultural integration• Links with the country of origin• Nature and seriousness of the offence committed

• Period of time that has elapsed since the commission of the offence

24

Operation Nexus

• Operation Nexus, designed and delivered by the MPS and UKBA, aims to maximise intelligence, information and world wide links to improve how we deal with and respond to foreign nationals breaking the law. […]

• ‘Histories’ Police draw together information on previous convictions but support it with details of relevant arrests despite no charges being brought, where they have been accused of breaking the law, cases where they have been victims or witnesses to violent crimes but refused to cooperate with police and an important list of gang or violent offenders associations.

MOPAC Challenge Panel 2013

The High Harm Offences include:

Murder / Attempted Murder / GBH

Weapons – only knife or firearm offences

Sex Offences – excluding exposure

Human Trafficking. 

Burglary and Robbery – only if they have had 3 or more convictions / or appearances at court. 

Other Offences will only be referred to if the subject has totaled 24 months imprisonment in the past 10 yrs going back in their PNC record. 

25

MOPAC Challenge Panel 2013

Previous Criminal Convictions

In itself, a conviction was relevant only ‘in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to that conviction are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy’ (Case C‐30/77 Bouchereau [1977] ECR 1999) or, in other words, where there is an indication that it may be repeated. 

26

It’s critically important to us that we manage not only Foreign National Offenders, but also the manifestations of rough sleeping, antisocial behaviour, begging, gaming et cetera, all of those street level crimes that really do affect the visibility of Westminster, but also how safe people feel when they come to visit, work, live in the area. 

MOPAC Challenge Panel 2013

New Home Office Guidance for Caseworkers (4 May 2016)

19(3)(c): Rough sleeping 

Rough sleeping is considered to be an abuse of free movement rights, therefore EEA nationals or their family members encountered sleeping rough may be subject to administrative removal under regulation 

27

Rough sleeping & Exercising Treaty Rights

"in particular, there have been reports of growing numbers of ‘non destitute rough sleepers’ amongst the Romanian Roma community, working for very low wages in the informal economy"

CRISIS Homelessness Monitor: England 2016

Detention

EU law explicitly prohibits the detention of European Union citizens unless their detention is necessary: ‘A detention order can only be based on an express derogating provision, such as Article 8 of Directive 73/148, which allows Member States to place restrictions on the right of residence of nationals of other Member States in so far as such restrictions are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’. [Case C‐215/03 Oulane v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie, § 41; emphasis added] 

In light of this, it is unclear how the UK authorities could ever detain an EEA national in order to carry out a forced removal solely on the grounds that (s)he is not exercising residence rights.

28

Now What?

www.airecentre.org

Follow Us on Twitter @AIRECentre

Like Us on Facebook

29

Panel Q&A Session

Roundtable Discussion:Police and Criminal Justice

30

Roundtable Discussion:Post-Referendum Issues

Local Updates

31

Any Other Business

Thank you!