Views from the frontline: graduate police recruits on the status of evidence-based practice

This paper presents findings from in-depth interviews with 30 police recruits participating in a national two-year graduate training programme. Police Now comprises a six-week training course followed by a neighbourhood policing post where operational skills are developed, and recruits are encouraged to apply problem-solving and evidence-based approaches to police work. This research was undertaken as part of a project to inform the development and implementation of the Degree Holder Entry Programme (DHEP) into policing. We explore interviewees’ perceptions about the value placed by police colleagues on evidence-based practice and how different responses to EBP were ‘managed’ by interviewees. Findings show a largely disengaged attitude towards research, creating disconnect between ‘classroom’ emphasis and practice experience. Interviewees’ accounts of their first months in force show potential for rejection of training ideals but also willingness to challenge the perceived status quo regarding evidence-based practice. We reflect on the implications of findings for introducing the DHEP

An evaluation of the What Works Centre for Crime Reduction: final report

The ‘What Works Network’, launched in 2013, is a nationally co-ordinated initiative which aims to “improve the way government and other organisations create, share and use high quality evidence for decision-making”. The What Works philosophy is that good decision-making should be informed by the best available evidence. If relevant or adequate evidence is unavailable, decision-makers should be encouraged to use high quality methods to find out ‘what works’. The What Works Centre for Crime Reduction (WWCCR) was launched in September 2013, led by a team from the College of Policing with support from an Academic Consortium. Its work involves: Building and refining the evidence base by systematically reviewing available research on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce crime; summarising that evidence in terms of its strength and quality, cost, impact, mechanisms (why it works), context (where it works) and implementation issues; Providing police, Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and other crime reduction stakeholders with the knowledge, tools and guidance to help them target their resources more effectively. Our three and a half year evaluation - 2014 to 2017 - conducted alongside the work of the Consortium, but independently of it, aimed to: Assess the impact of the WWCCR, including whether it had engaged key stakeholders, produced tools and guidance that they found clear and easy to use, and improved stakeholder understanding and application of research evidence; Chart outputs, modes of dissemination and user reactions during the evaluation; Identify changes in use of research evidence, especially in strategic decision-making and resource allocatio

Joint enterprise: righting a wrong turn?

This report presents the findings of an exploratory study of joint enterprise, undertaken by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research, in partnership with the Prison Reform Trust, and within funding from the Nuffield Foundation. Joint enterprise is a doctrine of the criminal law which permits multiple defendants to be convicted of the same criminal offence even where they had different types or levels of involvement. It has been the source of great controversy in recent years. The study looks at the application of the doctrine of joint enterprise in the prosecution of serious cases, and considers the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling on joint enterprise, which determined that the law had taken ‘a wrong turn’ and required ‘correction’. The report argues that there is an urgent need for greater clarity and transparency in the way in which cases involving multiple defendants are prosecuted and sentenced in the future

Out of the shadows: victims' and witnesses' experiences of attending the Crown Court

This report presents the findings of research examining the experiences of 44 victims and witnesses who attended the Crown Court. These were victims and prosecution witnesses in cases covering a range of crimes, including violent and sexual offences. All interviewees were asked to describe the experience of attending court, and for their views on the fairness or otherwise of the court process and outcomes. The study findings should help inform improvements to both policy and practice aimed at supporting victims and witnesses through the court process

Effective participation or passive acceptance: How can defendants participate more effectively in the court process?

This paper presents the findings of a 20 month Economic and Social Research Council funded study into the public’s experiences of the Crown Court. The aim of the study was to examine victims ’ , witnesses ’ and defendants ’ (court users ’ ) levels of understanding and perceptions of the treatment they received at the Crown Court , and to assess the extent to which they regard court processes and outcomes as fair and legitimate. The study also explored the nature of the interplay between the different players – including legal professionals and court users – in the courtroom. There were three strands to the research: interviews with criminal justice professionals and practitioners, interviews with court users and obs ervations. A key finding that emerged through the research was the apparent limit of defendants’ ‘effective participation’ at court. This issue is the focus of the paper

Judicial perceptions of the quality of criminal advocacy: report of research commissioned by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board

Report presents findings of 50 qualitative interviews with Circuit and High Court Judges in England and Wales about their perceptions of the quality of criminal advocacy in the Crown Court. The study aimed to understand the views of the judiciary on the quality of criminal advocacy; establish how good/competent advocacy was defined; and address perceptions and any issues of regulatory concern that may require further investigation. Findings highlighted some consensus about qualities required of good advocacy - excellent communication, persuasiveness, succinctness, and courtesy, alongside good legal knowledge. A range of concerns were also highlighted, including inexperienced advocates, poor case preparation and unfocussed questioning of witnesses. Further, interviewees identified a number of systemic barriers to good advocacy such as declining levels of remuneration in criminal advocacy, and associated low levels of morale within the profession

Marek’s disease virus pathogenesis and latency

Marek’s Disease virus (MDV) is a highly contagious, widespread and persistent neoplastic α-herpesvirus causing extensive lymphoblastic tumours in chickens. The virus is shed in feather dust and spread through inhalation. Vaccines are available to protect against the effects of MDV but not replication of the virus and subsequent contamination of the environment leading to flock exposure. Increased virulence in strains of MDV has been identified and currently available vaccines may not offer protection from the disease. Disease outbreaks result in economic losses as well as welfare issues. To break this cycle better methods of controlling MDV preventing both tumourogenesis and shedding of infectious virus must be developed. Targeting specific MDV genes key to maintaining latency and viral replication using siRNA could potentially be used as a control strategy. At the present time, many of the unique genes in MDV are largely uncharacterised. 15 uncharacterised open reading frames (ORFs) were screened for expression in a MDV latent infection model in a non-producer MDV transformed chicken lymphoblast cell line, RPL-1. Of these uncharacterised ORFs LORF1, LORF3, LORF11, LORF12, ANTISENSE, US2, MLTI, RLORF11, RLORF12, 23kDa and RLORF6 were expressed during latency. To investigate the effect of post-transcriptional knockdown of these ORF products two 25-mer siRNA oligonucleotides were designed for each gene, transfected into RPL-1 cells and analyzed using growth rate as an indicator of changed phenotype over a period of 120 hours post-transfection. RPL-1 cells transfected with a nonsense siRNA oligonucleotide were used as the control group. No significant changes in transfected cell growth over the controls were identified in LORF3, ANTISENSE, RLORF12, LORF1, LORF11 or MLTI. Increased RPL-1 cell growth was observed (adjusted p-value of 0.0094) in one of the two siRNA oligonucleotides specific for RLORF6 at 72 hours post-transfection. RLORF6 was further characterised using confocal microscopy techniques and was found to be localized in the nucleus but not the nucleolus of chicken embryo fibroblasts and chicken lymphoblastic cells