Controversy over Garda crime statistics coincides with a new reporting system and abnormally high "detection" rates, writes Jim Cusack,Security Editor
There have been no hard and fast interpretations of the meaning of crimes "solved" and "detected" in offences such as burglary or criminal damage for some years, according to senior sources.
Typically, if uniformed gardaí catch a burglar coming out of a window, they bring him to a station where he is questioned. It is not unusual for the burglar - in Dublin, sometimes a drug addict with a long criminal record - to admit to several similar offences and look for a deal. Some will admit to 20 or 30 offences over six months, often since they were last released from prison.
The gardaí then have two options. They can process each admitted offence individually, drawing up books of evidence for each case, taking statements from the victims, drawing maps and producing books of photographs. The burglar could, if he chose, elect to have each case tried individually before a jury. If this happened the criminal justice system could grind to a standstill.
Or, as has become practice, the gardaí can process the suspect on the "sample" case on which he was caught or where there is "hard" evidence such as a fingerprint. The burglar goes to court and can usually expect to receive a relatively lenient sentence because he has co-operated with the court and gardaí by pleading guilty. With high prison costs and over-crowding he can expect to be free within a short space of time if he behaves himself behind bars.
The issue that has arisen over the documents supplied to the Star newspaper is what happens to the 20 or 30 other burglaries the suspect has admitted to but have not gone before the courts. Are they "solved" or "unsolved" crime? Are they to be included in the Garda Commissioner's Annual Crime Report as crimes "detected" or are they actually "undetected"?
As there is always political pressure for Garda statistics to show - such as record grain harvests in the Soviet Union - better and better "detection" rates, there is a tendency to include those burglaries admitted to, but not solved in the sense that property was recovered and the culprit charged and sentenced.
Until last year the system involved the use of two forms: "C1" for reported crime and "C2" for solved crime. The C1 form was filled out in duplicate and was a report of a crime giving the time, details, property or injuries involved. One copy of the C1 went to the station's detective unit and the other to the superintendent's office for recording keeping and compiling statistics.
When, or if the crime was solved, the detectives would then complete the C2, known as the "crime solved" form. This went to the superintendent's office and the original C1 would be amended to show that the crime was "solved". As "solved" equates to "detected", the greater the number of C2 forms completed the greater the detection rate.
As there is considerable competition between Garda divisions to achieve higher and higher detection rates, some senior officers actively encouraged detectives to maximise the number of C2s by any means. The documents revealed yesterday appear to show that in some instances C2 status was achieved by comparing modus operandi between burglary cases and making the assumption they were carried out by the same burglar. The assumption may or may not be right but it can hardly be said to be proven or "detected" in the true sense of the word.
The south east region, to which the documents refer, has prided itself on having the highest annual detection rates in the State, at between 50 and 55 per cent, or about 20 per cent higher than the national average. The documents under investigation might now call into question the south east's claim to lead the country in solving crime.
Aside from the C2 method of manipulating recording statistics, gardaí say there are other methods for reducing crime statistics to make the annual report look good.
In the latest edition of the Commissioner's Annual Crime Report, the offence of criminal damage has been mysteriously re-classified. Previously recorded in the list of Indictable Offences - offences which can be tried by jury - it has been reduced to a misdemeanour. This has had the effect of reducing the annual total for serious crime (now referred to as "Headline Crime") by 10 per cent.
In theory, it would seem this means that if someone where to go into the National Gallery or the National Museum and destroy an old master or other national treasure, this offence would be recorded as a misdemeanour. However, re-classification of the statistics for the year 2000 allowed the Government and Garda to express satisfaction at a significant drop in "serious" crime.
Crime statistics are likely to be controversial over the next two years at least, following the introduction of the computerised information system known as PULSE (an acronym for Police Using Leading Systems Efficiently).
PULSE had serious teething problems and is believed to have had huge cost overruns, but it is now reported to be recording crime accurately. The system requires that every offence and incident reported to the gardaí be compiled electronically without any editing.
According to some senior sources, this has meant that in some categories, such as criminal damage, the recorded levels for 2001 show rises of 1,000 per cent. It remains to be seen what effect this will have on detection rates.