Life after lockdown, coronavirus, and its impact on knife crime

With the onset of the virus came panic buying of toilet rolls and general fear. There is no doubt that Covid-19 and the Government imposed lockdown has had a significant impact on the reduction of crime and most notably knife crime offences. As a strong advocate in the court room and outside in the community for the prevention of predominantly, young men, ruining their lives and the web of people connected with the thoughtless act, I wondered what impact the coronavirus might have in the long term on knife related violence especially among sections of young people in our towns and cities across the country.  

So could a Government ordered curfew be the way forward when lockdown is finally removed, to curb knife crime involving those under 21?

The figures recently published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reported the following :-

37% drop in Burglary

27% drop in vehicle crime/serious assault and personal robbery

54% drop in shoplifting

Before March 23rd, the official date of the Government order on lockdown, there was an overwhelming feeling that knife crime particularly was spiraling out of control. By the end of December 2019 there had been 149 murders across England. With further concern over the lack of police presence and those apprehended actually being brought before the courts, that feeling was compounded by the following figures:-

-1 in every 14 offences led to court proceedings, less than half the rate 5 years ago

-7.1% of crimes resulted in a suspect being charged or ordered to appear in court. In 2018 it was 8.2% and in 2014/15 it was 15.5%.

Such concern for the rise in knife related offences specifically was justified when looking at the figures. 45,627 knife offences to December 2019 and these figures did not include Manchester.

The current Government proposed tougher sentencing harping back to the mantra of a former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who proclaimed “Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime”. They too spoke of the need to take a fresh look at the Criminal Justice System and the need to invest in youth services, whilst at the same time issuing a decree that there would be a crackdown on youth violence particularly the scourge of knife related assaults in response to the public outcry and voices of the grieving families. Mayoral campaigns were going to focus on the increase in violence particularly in London and offer real solutions.

Then Covid-19, the silent and invisible enemy arrived on our shores. Boris took to the lectern; a lockdown was announced with the slogan Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives!

The figures suggest that the majority of those who would choose to be out in possession of a knife were not – why? Were they scared of contracting the deadly virus and putting themselves, associates and their families at risk, despite the mistruth that the virus was not a killer of young fit people? Were they worried about being easily identified when plying their trade by police, with our streets virtually deserted? Anti-knife crime campaigners predicted that the rate of knife crime would reduce and it did.

So what else could have caused this reduction in those ballooning figures pre- Covid-19? Was it the reduction in street population? The restriction on social gathering and police presence, with the power to issue fines if there was no legitimate reason for being outside?

It seemed that County lines gangs particularly were not able to thrive in such conditions although clearly they were still active. Ironically the people at the Policy Exchange predicted before the lockdown that there would be an increase in gang violence as drug dealers competed over a shrinking market. The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, predicted school children stabbings would escalate as children did not go to school and became more vulnerable to gangs preying on them. It was also suggested that with a reduction in neighbourhood policing street gangs may become emboldened increasing their sense of impunity exacerbated by the close of courts.[1]

According to the report from the Policy Exchange, the intertwined nature of drugs and knife crime meant that the coronavirus outbreak could increase gang violence in Britain as drug dealers compete over a shrinking market, the report has warned. With bars and nightclubs closed, and most parties cancelled, the Policy Exchange think tank forecast a dramatic reduction in purchases of cocaine and other drugs which “may cause an increase in inter-gang rivalry faced with dwindling revenue streams, resulting in increased violence”.[2]

So what after lockdown is removed? A burning desire to get back to normal, but will there be a cost?

Sources from within the Police force consider that rivalries were simply ‘placed on ice’ and other social commentators went further by predicting a coronavirus crime wave set for the summer. There seemed to be some support for this proposition as Ken March, Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation claimed that the gangs would be looking to reclaim their turf, “drug dealing and gang fighting will increase.” Add to the mix the number of young men who have become unemployed or simply cannot get on the employment ladder as the economy wakes from the virus’s sucker punch; the thousands of school children who will not resume school until the Autumn term resulting in the congregation of large groups as the Summer evenings draw near, all a toxic mix for crime and a resumption of knife related offences.

The implications

Many will question why such extreme measures were not implemented without pause when knife crime was on the verge of spiraling out of control pre -Covid-19. A curfew would surely have helped in preventing a number of fatalities? Will the continued threat of a deadly virus being contracted be enough to dissuade a majority of those young people who previously gave little or no thought to carrying and using a knife for whatever reason?

A curfew may go some way to averting this potential catastrophe but can it be enforced? How will it be policed? Surely it will be met with opposition by those claiming some infringement of their liberty, maybe under Articles 5, 8 and 11 of the Human Rights Act 1988 perhaps? The State would rely on Article 2 as its obligation to the citizens.

It is worth mentioning at this point that there have been 41 murders since the start of the year and many of these happened during the period of the lockdown. Whilst our brave heroes in the NHS and front line services battle the virus there is another issue to consider. Richard Walton, a senior fellow at the Policy Exchange and former Metropolitan Police officer, said “The risk with an increase in gang violence over the comings months is that stabbings in particular so often require intensive care treatment. Hospitals must be spared this extra strain on their resources as they cope with the peak of the coronavirus pandemic.”

The impact on the Criminal Justice System

Whilst the law in murder cases has not changed in terms of the recent review of joint enterprise by the Supreme Court and the punishment for such offences, the effect of Covid-19 has been felt on our Criminal Justice System. Until today’s announcement by the Lord Chancellors office and the Lord Chief Justice, all criminal trials had been suspended during the lockdown. The return to ‘normality’ will take time as the Judiciary, Public Health England Wales and Bar Council decide how to proceed ensuring the safety of all court users, including barristers. The suspension has led to longer remand times for the accused through the delay of criminal trials proceeding and the obvious backlog that has been created. In a recent case the High court decided the threat of contracting Covid-19 as an accused suffering with an asthmatic condition, did not amount to a change in circumstances for bail applications.[3]

With the ‘vulnerable’ accused feeling at greater risk in custody due to Covid-19, the backlog of criminal trials and no clear solution on how to conduct criminal trials whilst observing social distancing guidelines and the provision of adequate PPE for court users, the future is both unclear and uncertain. The most recent figures suggest arrests will not always result in court appearances as resources and funding remain stretched and under increasing demand.

If there is a wave of increased arrests, is the system adequately prepared to maintain safety for the legal representatives, who attend police stations and magistrate’s courts and indeed all court users, until the threat is no longer real when a vaccine is available? Sadly the death of Steve Knight, a police station representative, due to Covid-19 and the recent hospitalization of the Custody Manager at a London Court are clear examples of the risk we as court officials are exposed to and this is likely to continue as our Scientists search for a way to defeat the coronavirus that has already claimed so many.

Sadly the lockdown has not been an opportunity for many to reflect on what is really important how important the sanctity of life really is.

Stephen Akinsanya

Barrister

[1] The Independent 23rd March 2020. Lizzie Dearden, Home Affairs correspondent

[2] Policing a pandemic. Richard Walton and Sophia Falkner. Policy Exchange March 22nd 2020

[3] PERRY v UNITED STATES sub nom PERRY v JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES (2020)