Police under fire for AI that tells them to ignore crimes

Officers’ group fears that algorithm assessing solvability of burglaries risks alienating the public

A COMPUTER program that calculates whether a burglary is worth investigating is insulting to victims and risks alienating the public, the head of the Police Federation has warned.

Norfolk Constabulary has been trialling a new system that uses algorithms to determine whether there is any point attending a break-in.

Officers input various details about the offence, such as whether there are clues including fingerprints or CCTV, and the computer will suggest whether it is worth looking into.

The system is intended to help under-pressure police chiefs work out how best to deploy resources.

But John Apter, the recently elected chairman of the Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers, warned the introduction of such systems represented a slippery slope that threatened to erode the trust between the public and the police.

He said: “We should always encourage officers to work effectively with new technology where appropriate. But my concern is that we can sometimes rely too heavily on technology, especially algorithm based technology.

“I have been a police officer for 25-years and burglary is still one of the most intrusive, invasive and personal types of crime anyone can face.

“If a victim wants to see a police officer to talk through their concerns and get some reassurance that it is being taken seriously, then that is absolutely what should happen.

“I can think of nothing more insulting for someone who has been a victim of this crime than to discover that a computer algorithm has told a police force not to investigate because there is little chance of catching the culprit.

“This is the consequence of chief constables having to battle with ever decreasing budgets but we cannot allow victims to be treated this way.”

Harry Fletcher, a victims rights campaigner, also warned that schemes like this risked underestimating the impact burglary had on those whose homes had been violated.

He said: “It is far better that an individual makes these decisions than a computer because they can take into account the impact on the victim.

“If the victim is elderly or vulnerable, the effect of a burglary will be immense. A failure to consider this will risk further losing public confidence.”

Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph revealed that police forces are failing to properly investigate two thirds of burglaries, despite evidence that home break-ins are on the increase.

Many forces have stopped routinely attending all burglaries in person, preferring in many cases to deal with the victims on the phone.

A police call handler will ask for basic information about the offence and if there are no obvious clues, the case will be closed without more investigation.

Last year, almost 130,000 burglaries in England and Wales were closed without any suspect identified.

Norfolk Constabulary insisted that all crimes reported to the force were reviewed by a member of staff and insisted the use of the computer system remained just a trial.

A spokesman said: “The algorithm is based on 29 factors including solvability, against which each burglary incident is assessed.”

‘If a victim wants to see a police officer to talk through their concerns ... then that is what should happen’