Tweaks to law on spiking ‘won’t help’ unless police attitude changes, say experts

The Home Office has announced plans to “modernise” spiking laws in a move it claims will help bring perpetrators to justice. But experts said the changes will not make any difference without simultaneous investment in police training and other measures to improve the handling of cases on the ground.

Under plans unveiled this weekend, the government will amend the criminal justice bill to make clear that spiking is illegal. It is also drawing up new guidance to provide an “unequivocal” definition of the crime.

Officials said the changes would update the 1861 Offences against the Person Act to ensure it “reflects modern life” and will “give victims renewed confidence to come forward”. Home secretary James Cleverly said: “The public should be under no illusion: spiking is a serious offence.”

Experts said that while any strengthening was welcome, the wording of the law was not the biggest problem, and called for greater focus on practical measures.

Prof Nicole Westmarland, a criminologist who has advised police, universities and the government on spiking, said tweaking the wording was “not the priority right now”. She said the key problems that stop perpetrators being brought to justice include issues with forensics, such as delays with lab testing; a lack of coordination between police and healthcare providers; and victims being disbelieved by police.

“Offences aren’t leading to prosecutions and convictions and that’s not because of the law, it’s because of other things,” she said. “So yes, a new law might help somewhat, but it’s not going to make any difference unless all of the other things are addressed.”

Spiking means putting drugs or alcohol into a person’s drink, or directly into their body, without their knowledge or consent. Nearly 5,000 incidents were reported to police in England and Wales in the 12 months to September 2022, according to the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Ministry of Justice data suggests the conviction rate is very low.

There is not currently a specific offence of spiking: the crime can be prosecuted under the Offences Against the Person Act, which covers the use of harmful substances, and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which covers cases where spiking is done with a view to sexual assault.

Campaigners had called for a new, specific offence to make the law simpler, and for police data collection to be improved.

In January, Home Office minister Sarah Dines said: “The existing offences cover all methods of spiking, including by drink, needle, vape, cigarette, food or any other known form.” She added: “Police are yet to encounter a case where they could not apply an existing offence.”

It is not yet clear how the government intends to “modernise” the Offences Against the Person Act, but the changes are expected to fall short of a specific new offence, with the Home Office instead suggesting it will “update” the existing, broader offence. Ministers also plan to introduce guidance on safeguarding victims and training frontline staff, with more detail expected this week.

Labour said it welcomed “stronger measures” to tackle spiking but action was “long overdue”. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said: “Labour has been calling for a standalone spiking offence to make it much easier to get action against dangerous perpetrators, and we need more prevention work in clubs, pubs and bars as well as getting the criminal justice system to take this much more seriously.”

Prof Clare McGlynn, a professor of law at Durham University, said the biggest reason for low spiking convictions was that “police don’t know enough about spiking and aren’t properly trained, and don’t have the resources or inclination to take it forward”.

She called for greater focus on practical measures. “My fear is we get distracted with just changing the law and thinking that’s job done when in fact what’s wrong here is a much deeper societal problem with women, when they’re coming forward, not being believed and taken seriously,” she said.

Source: (The Guardian)