Dodgy' warning included with official stop and search data

 'Dodgy' warning included with official stop and search data

A notice characterizing some of the data as "dodgy" was appended to one of the Home Office's most politically sensitive data sets when it was disclosed.

The BBC Verify team discovered the notation on a Home Office spreadsheet that listed the number of persons who had been detained following a police stop and search.

It read, "Data on reasons for arrest is suspect; perhaps we shouldn't publish it."

After we notified the Home Office, the note was taken down.

The information related to how many persons were stopped and searched under Section 60 in England and Wales. This means that in order to conduct a search, police do not need to have a good justification.

The directives allow the police the authority to detain people who are in a specified location, such the Notting Hill Carnival.

Arrests made "for offensive weapons" or "for other reasons" were separated from those.

There was a note from a "author" inquiring whether the offensive weapons column should be published attached to it.

 According to official statistics, there were 4,280 searches under Section 60 in the year ending March 31, 2023, and 43 persons were discovered to be carrying offensive weapons.

52 people had been detained for possessing offensive weapons as a result.

We don't understand why more persons were detained than were proven to be in possession of offensive weapons. The available data indicate that this has not always been the case.

We enquired at the Home Office as to whether this was the cause of the note's author thinking the data was "dodgy" and for how long.

It did not address these queries and instead referred to a notice that was included with the data and stated:

Data quality checks revealed that some forces automatically give the same justification for an arrest as they do for a search, or they record all justifications for arrest as one reason. This data is being used for the first time as experimental statistics in the summary tables to indicate that there are known problems with the quality of the data.

problems with the data

The Home Office claims that it has been gathering information on "reason for arrest" in order to evaluate how well police are utilizing stop-and-search authority.

The National Centre for Gang Research's Dr. Simon Harding, however, claims that various forces use various methods and techniques for capturing their data.

There are various levels of quality in the data, which is coming from 43 different constabularies, he said. Before they reach the Home Office, these issues should be resolved.

Habib Kadiri, the director of StopWatch, a campaign organization that focuses on police stop and search and the "overpolicing of marginalized communities," was shown the memo by us.

The comment in question, he claimed, is representative of police departments' lengthy history of dubious recording techniques.

Police departments ought to be required by law to submit comparable data, according to Mr. Kadiri, who also stated that "we have been given anecdotal evidence in the past which indicates that searches are not recorded properly or at everyone, in ways that indicate the issue of accuracy of data may be more than simply a technical matter."

The Home Affairs Select Committee's head, Labour MP Dame Diana Johnson, told us: "This underscores the challenges in acquiring consistent statistics and it does worry me since the Home Office has had trouble with its figures and data in the past. You would assume they would want to take care to carefully review everything before it is sent out.

The Office for Statistics Regulation stated that although it was "common practice" to publish newly-introduced breakdowns within official statistics, it was acknowledged that the Home Office "could be clearer" that the data was experimental.