Violent Crime in London has been Flagged as an Issue Which Requires an Intervention

Violent crime – causes, related issues and the need for intervention

Violent crime is not confined to serious cases of physical harm such as wounding and homicide. It also covers offences ranging from minor assaults to harassment and abuse. The face-to-face victimisation survey conducted by the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) on violent crimes highlights two main categories of violence. First is violence with injury that consists of wounding and assault with minor injury. The second is violence without injury where the victim is kicked, punched or pushed but with no resulting injury. Other categories can also cover violence involving relationship between the victim and perpetrator, whether domestic, acquaintance or stranger. The 2018 CSEW survey showed to 1.4 million incidents of violence in the previous 12 months. Over 53% were violent incidents that resulted in no injury and incidents involving injury resulted from assaults with minor injuries (Office of National Statistics, 2018).

Few relevant violence theories

There are several reasons for violence. Some of the theoretical framework available focussed on neighbourhoods, social environments, and family environments and other criminological, sociological and psychological factors (Ferguson, 2009, p.22). The Social Learning theory provides that behaviours and attitudes are derived from the family, co-workers, friends and other, who may support or oppose criminal behaviour (Ferguson, 2009, p.23). This theory focuses on family and social environment that could cause violent crime. The Rational Choice theory provides that a violent individual achieve some benefit from threatening violence or acting violently (Ferguson, 2009, p.23). The notion of subculture of violence provides that there is a connection between crime and location. Such link could be found by using the method of crime mapping focussed on nature of crime in respect to geographic clusters of offences and the location of the offenders (Ferguson, 2009, p.23). The theory of symbolic interactionism focuses on the situational aspects that could cause an individual to act violently. A person interprets a situation, makes a judgment and takes action. Such interpretation causes violence (Ferguson, 2009, p.24).

Factors and reasons linked with violent crimes

The 2020 report commissioned by the Mayor of London’s Violence Reduction Unit shows that rate of overall violence in the London area is proportionate to its population. London accounts for 15% of population and 15% of all violent offences in England and Wales. It shows that the police recorded violence are categorised into violence against person, sexual offence, and robbery (The Behavioural Insights Team, 2020).

Figure#2: Number of violent crimes in London 2010-2020 (Statista, 2020)

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan highlighted a strong link between serious youth violence and poverty, poor mental health and deprivation. He stated that three-quarters of the boroughs in London have the highest levels of violent offending. They are in the top 10 most deprived region, with higher proportions of youth under 20 living in poverty (Greater London Authority, 2019). The 2020 report by the Behavioural Insights Team (2020) shows multiple factors that have driven violence. They may be socio-economic deprivation, which creates greater odds of involvement in violence. Deprivation, poor community cohesion and the weak trust between the neighbours may create opportunities for gangs to come up attracting more organised crimes that thrive on violence (The Behavioural Insights Team, 2020, pp.23-24). A factor may also be issue related to build environment, access to the residential area, lack of development, cheap accommodation, which attract vulnerable residents. Public violence is also related to alcohol and night-time economy. It was found that majority of violent incidents in England and Wales occurred over the weekend and at night. The 2020 report also found several other social factors, including past victimisation, trauma, death of a parent or a close person, household criminality, substance misuse, domestic abuse, health, disabilities, or parental issues (The Behavioural Insights Team, 2020, p.26). The Behavioural Insights Team (2020) highlighted that there has been rising violence in the last five years. It highlighted a few factors such as the 2008 recessions and adverse effects of unemployment that caused loss of income, financial stress, and lower self-esteem. Another factor considered was the increased competition in drug markets between organised criminal groups that used vulnerable people. The reduction in public spending since 2010 has removed the support networks and places of safety and belonging. This is evidenced by the fact that between June 2018 and 2019, 568 youths across London were referred to Rescue and Response (R&R) project. (The Behavioural Insights Team, 2020, p.30). It is shown that institutions, such as the church, schools and state play major part in crime reduction. Lack of funding might have affected this contribution. Further, the reduction in police and criminal justice capacity has failed to disrupt and deter violence. All these factors have led to increase in complex crimes (The Behavioural Insights Team, 2020, pp.30-31). Considering the kind of crime reported, it could be seen that theories such as the Social Learning, the Rational Choice theory, and the notion of subculture of violence may be necessary to explain the kind of intervention needed to reduce the violent crime. Deriving inspiration from these theories and considering the factors recognised that drive violence, a holistic approach of intervention is required as there is an intertwine of network of factors, which have created deprived society or areas, housing issues, economic challenges, and social issues such as the case of substance abuse. Outside this network, specific intervention covering state action, including funding and other proactive police and community activities are required from the state authority. What is worrying is not the type of violence. What are worrying are the numerous factors, encompassing individual, social, economic, and political environment that are causing violent crimes. The current report is limited to policing strategy. This alone is highly impossible to reduce the crime. However, this report will lay out core intervention strategy that may help in reducing the violent crime.

Identify Intervention

Police intervention strategy can take varied form depending on the kind of issues related with violent crimes. This section has listed a few such intervention strategy that may be helpful in designing a model intervention approach to address the issue in hand.

“Hot Spot”

In case of high-risk crime places, “hot spot” policing strategies may be relevant. Braga (2001) examined the effect of such policing strategies where police enforcement efforts are concentrated on crime hot spots rather than thinly spread across the urban landscape. Such strategy is focussed on risk and target particularly high- crime areas with additional police resources. It includes tailored “problem-oriented” policing actions and responses, patrol programs, and crackdowns or raids (Braga, 2001). This strategy involves traditional tactics including directed patrol and heightened levels of traffic enforcement. It may also involve problem‐oriented policing and aggressive disorder enforcement. Specific area focused crackdown programmes could also be conducted. The actions involved may be continous actions and maintenance of the targeted area (Braga et al., 2012). This strategy will be effective when situational prevention strategies are implemented with reduction in aggressive enforcement strategies and more focus on police‐community considering reactions of local communities. Challenges may arise if the programme becomes as heavy‐handed or too focus much on particular population groups. It may create distrust between the police and the targeting audience (Braga et al., 2012).

Large- scale police intervention

Large- scale police intervention could occur when crimes affect the entire nation or society. For instance, after the 2005 terror attacks in London, this intervention was employed in the form of “Operation Theseus” by the London Metropolitan Police as a security response to the attacks. Such intervention involved major highly visible police deployment geographically concentrated in five central London boroughs. Draca, Machin and Witt (2008) found that such intervention had a clear and direct impact on the crime in the boroughs (Draca et al., 2010).

Information sharing

In case of community violence, Information sharing of emergency department data with community safety partnerships (CSP) and the police could help in decreasing numbers of violent crimes against the person, with and without injury. This approach involves active surveillance system where receptionists at the emergency department collect data from the assault victims about the incidents and police record violent injuries (Boyle et al., 2013). Data sharing is also provided under the Crime ad Disorder (Prescribed Information) Regulations 2007. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 also provides the requirement for data sharing between the partners in crime reduction. As such, inability to share information is an obstacle in reducing and tackling violent crime as was observed in Cardiff and Manchester (Great Britain: National Audit Office , 2008, pp.28-34). The Cardiff model, developed in 2001, is a data sharing intervention model. Hospitals share data with the local police in reducing violent injury rates. This model comprises a public health approach to violent crime. It is endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO). This model involves sharing anonymous data by hospital emergency departments with the local police in order that violence "hotspots" can be identified and targeted. The core actors in this model are the city violence prevention boards, which have the local authority, and health and police executives. The 2020 Cardiff University Crime and Security Research Institute report showed since 2010 there has been a 45% reduction in people treated at the emergency departments after a violent crime in England and Wales (BMJ, 2020).

Disorder Policing

Disorder policing strategies may address social and physical disorder in neighbourhoods. They generate an overall modest crime reduction. Such strategies when tied up with police–community relations produce greater result. Community and problem-solving interventions produce the greatest impact on changing social and physical disorder conditions. Aggressive order maintenance strategies do not produce significant crime reduction (Braga et al., 2015).

Multi-agency public health approach

This approach is the April 2018 UK government Serious Violence Strategy against knife crime, gun crime and homicide. This includes a series of local partners, including the police department, health and wellbeing boards, local boards of health, education, housing, children’s services, alcohol and drug commissioning, community safety partnerships, youth offending teams, children boards, education networks, community multi-agency risk assessment conference, NHS England health and justice commissioners, and providers of drug and alcohol services amongst others (Home Office, 2019). Violence is treated as a public health issue, which causes ill health, poor wellbeing. It is strongly related to inequalities. This approach looks of early intervention. It calls for surveillance, identifying risk and protective factors, developing and evaluating interventions, and implementing effective interventions. Since it is a multi-agency approach, it comprises a place-based approach spanning across organisational boundaries and partners to bring long-term outcomes of the entire system and not just for individuals. This approach also requires collaboration and data and intelligence sharing. It involves active participation of the community (Home Office, 2019).

Family Functional Therapy (FFT)

Family Functional Therapy (FFT) is a clinic-based intervention, which has three therapeutic stages. First stage includes an engagement and motivation phase. It used reframing techniques to reduce maladaptive perceptions, emotions and beliefs within the family. The second stage includes employing behavioural change techniques. The third stage includes generalisation where families are taught to apply skills learnt in schools, justice systems, or the community. FFT has been evaluated multiple times over many decades. It is found to be effective (Department of Education, 2011). FFT may have implementation issues as are evidenced by variable outcomes. The issues may be found related to the level of training and supervision involved in FFT (Weisman & Montgomery, 2020).

Intensive Supervision and Support (ISSP)

ISSP concentrates on a small minority of persistent young offenders between the age of 15 and 17, who have committed a disproportionately large number of offences. This approach uses family group conferences, mentoring and skill building, and reparation and close supervision by police. It aims to bring out a structure in the lives of the youths. It aims to address underlying causes of offending by placing a structure to avoid future offending. It requires effective early intervention programmes (Department of Education, 2011). ISSP must be based on intensive supervision programme, which rely on human service philosophy and treatment integrity to offenders. These two components function independently. They contribute to the ability of programs to meaningfully impact recidivism (Lowenkamp, 2010). However, the drawback would be lack of mentorship and supervision. It is argued by probation and parole professionals that supervision outcomes would improve if caseloads are reduced below the common standards (Jalbert, 2010).

Design Intervention, model/approach

Violent crime encompasses all kinds of minor assaults and serious cases of physical harm, which may or may not result to injury. The reason is as usual socio-economic deprivation and deprivation of state’s attention on the problem. Given the series and categories of violence and the variety of causes, the intervention model should be group into two main divisions. The first division comprises Family, Police and Network (FPN) Intervention. The second division is specific intervention on the part of the state.

The first division

FPN Intervention

FPN Intervention will comprise three main phases with further transition between these phases.

First Phase - Family

The first phase is that of family care and nurturing. This phase will involve the family, community and institutions, such as the schools, church, social work support groups and local authority. The aim of the phase is early intervention. Early intervention is also provided for under the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, s7, which empowers local authorities to exercise social services functions. This intervention conforms to the priority provided by the Munro Review of Child Protection on early intervention rather than later remedial action (Munro, 2011). The Working Together to Safeguard Children guidance can also be referred in order to make an evidence-based effective assessment to offer early help, required action and services. The emphasis on effective intervention in the early years is also found effective by an independent review conducted by Allan Graham. Graham observed that much could be achieved if there is active involvement of local authorities as Early Intervention Centres and they are linked with central government initiatives (Allen, 2011). Family phase will see a combination of relevant applicable parts of the FFT and ISSP approaches. Applying FFT, the first role is that of the family and the church, which need to develop a proactive engagement with the person who is prone to committing violent crime. The second role is that of the officials designated by the concerned local authority to implement the necessary framework and process to engage and train the concerned members of the family or the church. The success of this approach depends on close engagement between the trainer and the trainees and between the trainees ad the person who is prone to committing violent crimes. The Social Learning theory could be employed here to understand or improve the behaviours and attitudes of the family, co-workers, friends and others so as to give the best possible care environments. For serious crime or risk involved relevant parts of the Intensive Supervision and Support (ISSP). This will be employed for those who are persistent offenders with large number of offences committed. This stage particularly requires intensive involvement of the designated official so as to execute the plan, including family group conferences, mentoring and skill building. A slight deviation from the ISSP approach would be in regard to the close supervision by police. Such supervision must be defined in a manner that does not show police to be playing an active part. Instead the family members and the support group must be place at the forefront. Depending on the seriousness of the case, in regard to implementing human service philosophy, the church may also be involved. This phase can only be successful if the planner has full time dedication to implement the framework process and techniques of Family. As it is understood, violence and deprivation are interlinked; the role of a third party must be proactive, continuous and intense.

Second Phase - Police

The 2020 report by the Behavioural Insights Team, mentioned earlier, shows that violent crime is linked with poor community cohesion, weak trust between communities, build environment, housing issues, social factors, deprivation, unemployment and organised criminal groups. The Police as a system may not be able to provide the right solution to address all these causes. However, it can implement certain steps that could tackle the negative outcomes, such as violence, from some of the causes. This Police phase will comprise of taking actions that involve Identification, Information and Action. This actions will focus on violent persons and also on the causes.

Identification could be model on the “Hot Spot” approach. Here this approach will be modified to include not only on identifying hot spot areas, but only hot spot crime categories. For example, police recorded violent crimes by the Behavioural Insights Team, (2020) shows high rate of violence withou injury and rape. The suggested hot spot approach will tackle the reasons inorder to be able tackle the offenders and the offence. This will be the problem “problem-oriented” policing actions and responses. Such approach will be in line with what (Braga et al., 2012) suggested to include situational prevention strategies with reduction in aggressive enforcement strategies. This approach will thus include more of police‐community relations. Under this model, police force could adopt Information sharing approach coplying with the Cardiff model. In this stage, information sharing will not be confined to sharing between the police and the emergencey department. It will use all all information collected by all the actors and stakeholders in the intervention, such as the family, cumminity, social worker groups, and emergencey departmemts. Thus, the police is the bindign thread between these groups. Such information sharing will enable identification of minor, serious or other categories of violence. The theory of subculture of violence could be applied to understand whether or not there is a culture of crime in a particular location or associated with a particular offence in a particular site.

Action will be basedon the categories of violence and the causes. Hot spot action of police deployment could be done for those areas with serious violence or large number of violence. Hot spot identification that show major causes could be tackled in coordination with support groups. For serious offenders, they could be dealt with withing the criminal justice system. Like the manner the theory of symbolic interactionism explains how a person interprets a situation and acts violently, the police could use the same technique to identify whether a person in inherently violent or whether a person has some hope to reform. For those, both the individual and the causes of crime, with potential of being reform, they should be identified for further Network intervention. Accordingly, the disorder policing can be used here where a collective community and problem-solving interventions is employed without aggressive order maintenance. Action must consider the problems related to housing, employment, deprivation and other social factors.

Third Phase - Network

ustice system and the social service and other support networks groups. This phase will involve the application legally backed programmes, such as those provided under the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, which provides for rehabilitation activity (s15) and programme requirement (s16); the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which provides measures to protect the public and reduce reoffending; the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which provides for more effective community sentences; and programmes such as the Positive Futures programme and Transforming rehabilitation programme (Home Office, 2015). This will be within the criminal justice system. Beyond the criminal justice system, the role of the social service and network of other support partners will come into play. This phase will need the active role of the social workers, community support agency partners, and other human service professional. They must be endorsed and legally designated in order for them to play an effective and important part (Roberts & Springer, 2007). This is necessary to effectively implement the Network phase. Without their willing and designated active part, the reformation and rehabilitation of the violent offenders or the offence cannot be solved.

3B. The second division

The state must act as the guardian of the society and ensure that the actors in the first division are empowered and necessary tools and resources are in order. They can start with specific intervention in locating the high priority problem, such as identifying the hot spot crime, cause and location. For example, the high rise of assault without injury, the state in coordination with the actors in the first division can formulate applicable policy to that effect. Most important is that the state must solve its existing issues in regard to the issue in hand. Providing funding and incentives to the core actors is the priority. On a general wider policy note, the state must work on ensuring reduction in deprivation, covering employment, housing and other social deprivation. Until these are solved, the action of the police will always be limited.

Plan Intervention

Based on the FPN model, there must be a system comprising the actors in the FPN model. The following is a proposed hierarchy of actors:

Figure# 3: Actors

The Presiding Body will be the prime actor in this model. It will be responsible for policy implementation and enforcement. It can a collective representation from actors on the field and most important state actor from the policy analysis team, which corresponds with law and policy makers. The composition and the duration of the office could be fixed for 5 years as a short period or a longer period will not produce effective result considering the consistent presence and rise of violent crime. This hierarchy represents the recent UK’s multi-agency public health approach of 2018, which views violent crime as a public health issue. However, based on the FPN model, there is going to be “quick wins” and “long terms wins” approaches. The former is addressing the most urgent top 3 crimes, locations, and causes where the model could be applied to achieve quick results. The former will used the lessons from the former and also formulate policy in direct correspondence with the specific state intervention. Without the direct involvement of the state in a particular issue, none of the policies or the model will work. The implementation of FPN will involve centralisation, decentralisation, and execution cycle approach. Centralisation is the first work of the Presiding Body, which will gather all necessary issues, actors and goals. Decentralisation is the second work of the Presiding Body, which will percolate the decision from the first work across all the other actors. Execution is the work of the actors. The feedback, status and lessons learned from these three stages will go back to centralisation, decentralisation, and execution cycle. The FPN involves a large- scale police intervention. This is inspired by a large- scale police intervention. However, in FPN, the police role will be spread out. The police will have more active role with special social work and care training programmers. They will be placed in different roles to address issues of violent crime that seriously affect the society or a particular society. The reason is that more aggressive enforcement does not provide effective result. The problem in hand is a social problem, which the Police alone cannot solve. The best practice would be build more on the community driven programmes and relationships. The Presiding Body will thus have designated personals at each stage of the intervention. There must be continuous monitoring, mentoring, and supervision at the field level. Likewise, continuous reporting and collaboration with the policy analysis team will also ensure the problem is recognised by the state. If not the issue of deprivation, poverty, and other causes that is not within the power of the Police, the suggested FPN intervention model could atleast seek to curb and control the problem.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Understanding Criminal Liability Exploring Causes Effects and Key Elements.

Bibliography

Allen, G., 2011. Early intervention: the next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty's government by Graham Allen. The Stationery Office.

BMJ, 2020. Data sharing approach is helping drive down violent crime across the world. [Online] Available at: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-10/b-dsa101320.php [Accessed 25 November 2020].

Boyle, A.A. et al., 2013. External validation of the Cardiff model of information sharing to reduce community violence: natural experiment. Emergency Medicine Journal, 30(12), pp.1020-10.

Braga, A.A., 2001. The effects of hot spots policing on crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), pp.104-25.

Braga, A.A., Welsh, B.C. & Schnell, C., 2015. Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 52(4), pp.567-88.

Department of Education, 2011. Prevention and Reduction:A review of strategies for intervening early to prevent or reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Research Report. Centre for Analysis of Youth Transitions.

Draca, M., Machin, S. & Witt, R., 2010. Crime Dsiplacement and Police Interventions: Evidence from London's "Operation Thesus". In E. Schargrodsky, R.D. Tella & S. Edwards, eds. The Economics of Crime: Lessons For and From Latin America. University of Chicago Press. p.359.

Ferguson, C.J., 2009. Violent Crime Research: An Introduction. In Violent Crime: Clinical and Social Implications. SAGE Publications.

Great Britain: National Audit Office , 2008. Reducing the risk of violent crime: the Home Office. Stationery Office.

Greater London Authority, 2019. Revealed: full links between poverty and violent crime in London. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/full-links-between-poverty-and-violent-crime [Accessed 25 November 2020].

HM Government, 2018. Working Together to Safeguard Children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. [Online] [Accessed 26 November 2020].

Home Office, 2015. Policy paper: 2010 to 2015 government policy: reoffending and rehabilitation. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-reoffending-and-rehabilitation/2010-to-2015-government-policy-reoffending-and-rehabilitation [Accessed 26 November 2020].

Home Office, 2019. Preventing serious violence: summary. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preventing-serious-violence-a-multi-agency-approach/preventing-serious-violence-summary [Accessed 25 November 2020].

Jalbert, S.K.e.a., 2010. Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), pp. 233-253.

Lowenkamp, C.T..e.a., 2010. Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice , 38(4), pp.368-75.

Munro, P.E., 2011. The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report - A child-centred system. [Online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175391/Munro-Review.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2020].

Roberts, A.R. & Springer, D.W., 2007. Social Work in Juvenile and Criminal Justice Settings. Charles C Thomas.

Statista, 2020. Number of violent crime offences recorded in London from 2010/11 to 2019/20. [Online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/863276/violent-crime-in-london/ [Accessed 25 November 2020].

The Behavioural Insights Team, 2020. Violence in London: what we know and how to respond. A report commissioned by the Mayor of London’s Violence Reduction Unit. Greater London Authority.

Weisman, C. & Montgomery, P., 2020. Implementation issues in functional family therapy: A narrative analysis of the evidence. Research on Social Work Practice, 30(4), pp.460-471.

Allen, G., 2011. Early intervention: the next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty's government by Graham Allen. The Stationery Office.

Allen, G., 2011. Early intervention: the next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty's government by Graham Allen. The Stationery Office.

BMJ, 2020. Data sharing approach is helping drive down violent crime across the world. [Online] Available at: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-10/b-dsa101320.php [Accessed 25 November 2020].

Boyle, A.A. et al., 2013. External validation of the Cardiff model of information sharing to reduce community violence: natural experiment. Emergency Medicine Journal, 30(12), pp.1020-10.

Braga, A.A., 2001. The effects of hot spots policing on crime. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), pp.104-25.

Braga, A., Papachristos, A. & Hureau, D., 2012. Hot spots policing effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 8(1), pp.1-96.

Allen, G., 2011. Early intervention: the next steps, an independent report to Her Majesty's government by Graham Allen. The Stationery Office.

Braga, A.A., Welsh, B.C. & Schnell, C., 2015. Can policing disorder reduce crime? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 52(4), pp.567-88.

Byater, P, 2020. Child Safeguarding and Social Care. In James Matheson, John Patterson & Laura Neilson, eds. Tackling Causes and Consequences of Health Inequalities: A Practical Guide. CRC Press

Carrabine, E. et al., 2014. Criminology: A Socilogical Introduction. Taylor & Francis

Department of Education, 2011. Prevention and Reduction:A review of strategies for intervening early to prevent or reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour. Research Report. Centre for Analysis of Youth Transitions.

Draca, M., Machin, S. & Witt, R., 2010. Crime Dsiplacement and Police Interventions: Evidence from London's "Operation Thesus". In E. Schargrodsky, R.D. Tella & S. Edwards, eds. The Economics of Crime: Lessons For and From Latin America. University of Chicago Press. p.359.

Ferguson, C.J., 2009. Violent Crime Research: An Introduction. In Violent Crime: Clinical and Social Implications. SAGE Publications.

Great Britain: National Audit Office , 2008. Reducing the risk of violent crime: the Home Office. Stationery Office.

Greater London Authority, 2019. Revealed: full links between poverty and violent crime in London. [Online] Available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/full-links-between-poverty-and-violent-crime [Accessed 25 November 2020].

HM Government, 2018. Working Together to Safeguard Children: A guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. [Online] [Accessed 26 November 2020].

Home Office, 2015. Policy paper: 2010 to 2015 government policy: reoffending and rehabilitation. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-reoffending-and-rehabilitation/2010-to-2015-government-policy-reoffending-and-rehabilitation [Accessed 26 November 2020].

Home Office, 2019. Preventing serious violence: summary. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/preventing-serious-violence-a-multi-agency-approach/preventing-serious-violence-summary [Accessed 25 November 2020].

Jalbert, S.K.e.a., 2010. Testing probation outcomes in an evidence-based practice setting: Reduced caseload size and intensive supervision effectiveness. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49(4), pp. 233-253.

Lowenkamp, C.T..e.a., 2010. Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice , 38(4), pp.368-75.

Munro, P.E., 2011. The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report - A child-centred system. [Online] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175391/Munro-Review.pdf [Accessed 26 November 2020].

Long, M, 2020. Good Coming from Nazareth: Challenging Housing Stigma. In Graham Tomlin & Malcolm Brown. Eds. Coming Home: Christian Perspectives on Housing. Church House Publishing

Olodo, T, 2019. T PREDATOR. Lulu.com.

Roberts, A.R. & Springer, D.W., 2007. Social Work in Juvenile and Criminal Justice Settings. Charles C Thomas.

Statista, 2020. Number of violent crime offences recorded in London from 2010/11 to 2019/20. [Online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/863276/violent-crime-in-london/ [Accessed 25 November 2020].

The Behavioural Insights Team, 2020. Violence in London: what we know and how to respond. A report commissioned by the Mayor of London’s Violence Reduction Unit. Greater London Authority.

Tiquet, ME, 2019. Enforcement and rehabilitation: challenges to partnership working with substance using offenders. In Aaron Pycroft & Dennis Gough. Multi-Agency Working in Criminal Justice 2e: Theory, Policy and Practice. Policy Press.

Weisman, C. & Montgomery, P., 2020. Implementation issues in functional family therapy: A narrative analysis of the evidence. Research on Social Work Practice, 30(4), pp.460-471.

---

1. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter’ (2019) accessed 20 November 2020 .
2. Claire de Than and Russell Heaton, Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2013) 154.
3. R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344
4. R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox 692.
5. Janet Loveless, Mischa Allen and Caroline Derry, Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press 2020) 76.
6. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter’ (2019) accessed 20 November 2020 .
7. R v Wallace (Berlinah) [2018] EWCA Crim 690.
medical treatment, the death must be regarded as caused by the criminal injury. In the most extraordinary case, the treatment could be regarded as the cause of the death excluding the defendant’s act. In R v Cheshire, the court held that although medical negligence was the immediate cause of the death, responsibility of the defendant cannot be excluded unless the negligent treatment was so independent of the defendant’s act, and in itself so potent in causing the death that contribution made by defendant’s act is insignificant. In regard to the killing of Topper, the act of Sinead causing the itching power to fall on Topper’s head shows a causal link between the act and the death of Topper. Even though this act is not the sole cause as is evident from the fact that Topper had an undiagnosed allergy to itching powder, it is substantial that the itching power caused Topper serious illness, which took his life. It does not matter if Sinead did not know about Topper’s condition. Applying the Egg-Shell principle Sinead cannot escape liability for the death. It does not matter Topper received poor treatment as he was seriously ill already and the poor treatment could not have independently caused the death. In regard to killing Maria, there is a causal link between Sinead’s throwing the petrol bomb through the window and Maria’ death due to the blaze caused by the petrol bomb. Sinead’s act is the sole cause of her death.

Mens rea

For murder, it must be determined whether or not Sinead intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to Toppers or Maria. Thus, the intent must be intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. It was ruled likewise in the case of Vickers. The mens rea of murder covers not only direct intent, but also to oblique intent. Oblique or indirect intent is the intent the murder, which may not be the aim of purpose. For intention to exist the defendant must have felt sure his action would certainly caused death or serious bodily harm and he appreciated that this was the case. In this case whether Sinead intended or not will depend on whether Sinead indirectly intended the killing which is either a pre-requisite to achieve the killing, which is the desired primary purpose or a virtually certain consequence of the purpose. In R v Woollin, it was held that the proof that the defendant foresaw it was virtually certain they would cause death or grievous bodily harm is merely evidence that the jury may draw an inference of intent.

---

8. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter’ (2019) accessed 20 November 2020 .
9. R v Cheshire (1991) 3 All ER 670.
10. TThe Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter’ (2019) accessed 20 November 2020 .
11. Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2018) 102.
12. R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664.
13. Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2018) 91.
14. The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter’ (2019) accessed 20 November 2020 .
15. Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2018) 92.
16. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL).

In order for the defendant to be guilty of murder, the actus reus and mens rea must coincide in time. Thus, Sinead must have for the mens rea for the unlawful for the offence at some point during the actus reus of that offence. This theory can also be avoided, such as in case of R v Miller where the House of Lords employed the duty principle to hold the defendant liable. If the defendant performs an act without the necessary mens rea, which creates danger to a person, the defendant has the duty to avert the danger when they realised that they have caused. Such advertent failure to avert the danger coincides with actus reus. In regard to killing of Topper, the fact shows that Sinead did not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. However, his failure to avert the danger from the falling itching powder coincided with the actus reus. Therefore, Sinead will be liable for murder. In regard to killing Maria, Sinead had the mens rea and it coincided with actus reus. Throwing the petrol bomb is the indirect intent, which is the prerequisite to cause the blaze that killed Maria, the primary purpose. If there is a proof that Sinead foresaw the virtual certainties of the consequence, it infers intent to cause the primary purpose. As such, applying the principle of coincidence, Sinead will be liable for murdering Maria.

Conclusion

The presence of actus reus and mens rea is necessary to make a person liable for murder. Murder is an unlawful killing and for this to prove, a causal link between the act or omission of an accused and the death is necessary. The act must substantially cause the death. Even when it does not, the Egg-Shell principle will make the accused liable if the victim had unusual sensitive condition, inherent weaknesses or vulnerabilities not foreseeable to an ordinary person. The actus reus and mens rea must coincide for making the accused liable. The intention must be to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Intention can be oblique intention of the murder, which may not be the aim of purpose of actus reus. If intent was absent, but when the accused failed his duty to avert the danger to another person, it would be treated as being in coincidence with mens rea. In regard to Toppers, it is coincidence of Egg-Shell principle and failure to avert danger that makes Sinead liable. In case of Maria, it is coincidence of actus reus and indirect mens rea that makes Sinead liable.

---

17. R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161.
18. Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2018) 75.
19. Nicola Monaghan, Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2018) 102.

Cases

R v Cheshire (1991) 3 All ER 670 R v HM Coroner for Inner London ex p Douglas-Williams [1999] 1 All ER 344 R v Hayward (1908) 21 Cox 692 R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 R v Vickers [1957] 2 QB 664 R v Wallace (Berlinah) [2018] EWCA Crim 690 R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL)

Bibliography

Books

Loveless J, Mischa Allen and Caroline Derry, Complete Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press 2020) Monaghan N, Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2018) Than CD and Russell Heaton, Criminal Law (Oxford University Press 2013)

Others

The Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter’ (2019) accessed 20 November 2020 <