Evaluation report following the re-classification of cannabis

Report: 14
Date: 25 November 2004
By: Commissioner

Summary

The purpose of this evaluation report is to update members on the effects of the reclassification of Cannabis post 29 January 2004. It outlines the operational effects of this change and describes any associated crime trends or relevant issues.

A. Recommendation

That the Authority notes the contents of this evaluation report

B. Supporting information

Background

1. Members should note that that this evaluation report is based on data which may require further evaluation. This is due to current MPS systems having to operate outside their original design remit to obtain the required data for this report. Notwithstanding this point, a period of five months prior to the reclassification has been compared with the same period post 29 January 2004. The period 1 April 2003 – 31 August 2003 will be compared to the same period this year.

2. Performance Information Bureau (PIB) is the corporate data warehouse for the MPS and has provided data for the evaluation period. The tables provided cover a borough breakdown of cannabis possession offences, age, gender and proceedings breakdown. Prior to the reclassification such persons were shown as ‘normal accused’ following their arrest and subsequent creation of the relevant offence report.

3. Following reclassification, data has been collected in a different format to cover those instances where an individual was not arrested for possession of cannabis. This proved problematical for current IT search engines and therefore the figures produced for April to August 2004 are shown as a broader category of ‘expanded accused’ in order to capture the not arrested records. (‘Expanded accused’ includes the following proceedings decisions: charged, summonsed, caution and other i.e. formal warning administered in the street).

4. Tables 1-6 (Appendix B) cover the data obtained for 2003. The data provided is based on ‘cannabis accused’ by borough, gender, ethnicity, age and proceedings decision. Tables 7 - 12 show the same data post reclassification, with an added dimension to show those individuals dealt with in the street and not arrested (as per the new Government policy) and those that are arrested. It must be remembered that arrest for cannabis possession will also include those occasions where an individual is arrested for a subsidiary offence, along with persons arrested for another offence and once at the station they are searched and cannabis is found on them.

5. Table 1 shows data between April and August 2003 for the total persons arrested for cannabis possession as 6231. The top five boroughs for cannabis possession offences along with their individual arrest totals are as follows: Haringey (596), Westminster (494), Newham (309), Hammersmith & Fulham (304) and Camden (286). The monthly average for persons ‘accused of cannabis possession’ across the MPS was 1,246.

6. Tables 2 and 3 highlight a very large disparity between the male and female ‘accused of cannabis possession’ within the MPS. Males account for 94% of the total (5880) whilst women account for only 6% (351). In relation to females, due to such low figures it is difficult to identify any real conclusions. Broadly speaking the three female age groups 10-17 years (69), 18-21 years (99) and 22-25 year olds (70) account for 68% of the female total of 351. In relation to males ‘accused of cannabis possession’ a similar picture is produced in that the same three age groups contain the highest numbers of ‘accused’, some 69% of the male total, 5880. 10-17 years (1003), 18-21 years (1917) and 22-25 year olds (1162). However it markedly identifies that the 18-21 year group is by far the biggest, accounting for approximately 33%.

7. From table 4 it is apparent there are two main ethnic groups ‘accused of cannabis possession,’ accounting for approximately 79% of the total, 6231. These are ‘White Europeans’ (45%, 2806) and ‘African-Caribbean’ (34%, 2137). This data also highlights that one age group (18-21 years) came top throughout the entire five month period examined (April – Aug 2003). This age group provided 32% of the total.

8. Table 5 provides a breakdown of the proceedings decision based on ethnicity. Concentrating on the two main ethnicity groups the data shows that in relation to females during the period under examination 25% were charged and 74% cautioned. With relation to males the figures follow a similar pattern in that charges are less than cautions but are much closer together. Charges are reflected as 44% and cautions as 55%. In both cases 1% is unaccounted for due to compliance issues when inputting the data.

9. Table 6 appears to highlight an imbalance in proceedings decision(s) in relation to cannabis. The reasons for this are complex and affected by issues such as: arrested for another offence, admissions made during interview and previous offending history. These factors must be appreciated if taking the data at face value.

10 Comparing April – August 2003 with the same period post reclassification (Tables 1 & 7), it is apparent that their has been a 31% increase in the number of persons accused of cannabis possession. The figure of 6231 for 2003 is the number of people arrested in that period under normal counting rules. The figure of 8148 for 2004 includes this same count but in addition includes ‘formal warnings’ given in the street, where people are not arrested.

11 In relation to sex and age (Tables 8 & 9), a similar pattern is repeated post reclassification. During April – August 2004 males again made up 93% (7595) of the total and women 7% (553). The age group data again follows the pattern identified in 2003, in that for both sexes the age groups 10-17yrs, 18-21yrs and 22-25 yrs account for 68% (males) and 67% (females) of the respective totals. Again the 18-21 year old group is the highest, 33% of the male total and 30% for females.

12 Again in Table 10 White European (3207-39%) and African-Caribbean (3219-40%) again are responsible for 79% of the total of expanded accused (8148) for cannabis possession. Similarly the age group 18-21 years again came top across all five months in 2004 as it did in 2003.

13 With the change in proceedings following reclassification i.e. presumption not to arrest, charge and caution figures have obviously reduced (Table 11). Charge and caution figures for males April – August 2004 were 19% and 21% (44% and 55% in 2003) and females 13% and 27% (25% and 74% in 2003). What must now be taken into account are those incidents dealt with in the street in accordance with the new guidelines. These have been included under ‘other’ which now accounts for 59% of the proceedings total.

14 Therefore it can be presumed, that despite an overall increase in cannabis possession offences in 2004, operational time is being saved. Approximately 59% of people coming to notice for a cannabis possession offence are not being arrested, in line with ACPO policy. At this early stage it is not possible to accurately quantify these savings or whether the time saved allows officers to concentrate on Class A drugs.

Conclusions

A 31% increase in the number of cannabis possession offenders (described in this report as ‘expanded accused’), has been recorded.
A 53% decrease in arrests from the 2003 figure has occurred, 6231 down to 3307.
Over the five months this equates to an approximate saving in operational hours of 14,620 / £423,980.

Crime trends / relevant issues

16 Whenever drug laboratories are found, the Property Services Department (PSD) of the MPS is called out to arrange the safe removal of plants, equipment and chemicals (Table 13). For FYTD 2003/04 they received 74 callouts to such laboratories, which has been broken down into London boroughs. The top three boroughs were Waltham Forest (7), Newham (7) and Redbridge (6). For the first four months of the current FYTD (April-July 2004) 31 callouts have already been received. Early indications therefore are that large quantities of cannabis are being grown within London to meet demand. Comments in the media and elsewhere of a large increase in the potency of cannabis have raised concerns that the drug now available is much stronger than that available in the past. However, available data does not show any long-term marked upward trend in the potency of herbal cannabis or cannabis resin. (ECMDDA report 2004)

17 Officers from the TP Crime Squad have recently shut down a drug factory in Harlesden, capable of growing £500,000 of cannabis a year. It is estimated that the set-up costs are approximately £30,000, which would then enable four crops to be grown each year, with a profit of £120,000 per crop. It is believed that the factory had been operating for a period of 12 months. On 7 October 2004 following an intelligence led operation officers from Lewisham have uncovered three huge cannabis factories on an industrial estate in the Forest Hill area. Each factory is believed to contain over 2,000 cannabis plants. No arrests have been made, although enquiries are continuing.

18 Intelligence reports received over the last 12 months are indicating that drug dealers are adopting the tactic of using the postal system to import controlled drugs. It is suggested that organised crime is attempting to infiltrate the parcel company’s workforce with the aim to exploit the system. The majority of drugs sent through the postal system at present are Class A drugs but Cannabis has also been found. This method offers the trafficker greater anonymity and lower risk.

19 Intelligence received from HM Customs and Excise shows that large quantities of cannabis are entering the country in containers on board ships from South Africa. One such consignment was detected at Tilbury Docks and was found to contain 500 kilos of cannabis. Further investigation led to the seizure of 180 kilos of cocaine, both with a combined street value put at £10 million.

20 Intelligence would support the notion that organised crime groups are involved in multi-commodity trafficking. There seems to be a strong link between the trafficking of cannabis and cocaine from South Africa. The following case illustrates this point; in the week ending 26 September 2004 officers arrested a number of Nigerian nationals following a controlled delivery of cannabis. Subsequent searches of linked addresses resulted in the recovery of ½ kilo of cocaine, 30 kilos of cannabis and documentary evidence of money laundering.

21 Conclusions

Cannabis trafficking and use is still a significant issue in London.
Reclassification of cannabis has caused confusion in law enforcement circles around operational priorities and data capture.
Organised criminal groups are exploiting the cannabis market for profit.

22. Internal consultation – see Appendix A.

C. Race and equality impact

Equality and diversity implications have been concentrated on the two main accused groups, White European and African – Caribbean. Both of these groups make up the vast majority, approximately 80% of the total figures in 2003 & 2004. The figures for 2003 indicated a possible bias in the proceedings decision between the two groups, in that you were less likely to be charged and more likely to be cautioned if you are a White European. But these straightforward figures cover complex reasons as to why this may be the case. Some of the issues to be considered against these figures are: the ethnicity/age breakdown of the main boroughs responsible for cannabis offences, previous offending history and whether admissions have been made during interview which is part of the cautioning requirement.

When comparing the same proceedings figures for 2004, when again White Europeans and African Caribbean made up approximately 80% of the total for cannabis offenders, the figures are much closer and the perceived bias has been significantly reduced. In relation to women, if you are a White European you were more likely to be charged or cautioned than an African Caribbean. However the overall figures for females are quite low, 553 over the five-month period in 2004, therefore this must be borne in mind when drawing conclusions from the data.

In relation to the male groups for 2004, White Europeans and African Caribbean made up 38% (2902) and 40% (3044) respectively of the total accused. The difference of 2% is equivalent to 142 persons. The data provides that a White European was less likely to be charged (18% against 22%) and more likely to receive an official caution if arrested (25% against 18%). However, more African Caribbean males were dealt with in the street than White Europeans (60% compared to 57%). Again drawing significant conclusions from this data must bear in mind the issues outlined in paragraph 1 above.

Conclusion

This evaluation report finds no evidence to suggest that the change in classification and resulting operational changes by the MPS disadvantage any particular ethnic group.

D. Financial implications

Savings may have been made by the MPS due to the reclassification, but there is no current system in place to accurately measure how officers’ time has been redirected due to the unpredictable nature of daily operational demands. Despite these difficulties this evaluation report would support the argument that the savings are substantial.

The potential savings made by the reclassification has been calculated using the following formula: The average amount of time taken to deal with a cannabis arrest is approximately 5 hours, and this was multiplied by the number of accused in 2003 (6231 x 5). This reveals that last year 31,155 hours of operational police time was spent dealing with cannabis arrests. This has to be compared with two figures for 2004, the number of arrests for cannabis possession (3307 x 5) plus the time taken to deal with a ‘street warning,’ where no arrest is made. The average amount of time to deal with such an incident and completion of the necessary administrative records at the station is approximately 2 hours. Therefore the amount of operational time spent on cannabis arrests for the 2004 period was 14,620 hours (2924 x 5) and ‘street incidents’ 9,682 hours (4841 x 2). The totals for 2004 when added together (24,302) and taken from the 2003 figure (31,155 – 24,302) shows a saving over the five months of approximately 6,853 hours. In financial terms this equates to £198,737 (6,853 x £29 – cost of PC per hour) saved from April – August 2004. On a yearly basis this monetary saving represents a total of thirteen additional officers per annum.

Conclusion

This evaluation report supports the fact that the reclassification has resulted in considerable savings to the MPS.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Kiaran Wood, Inspector - Drugs Directorate SCD3(3)

The Performance Information Bureau (PIB) has provided data for this evaluation report. (The data required is outside the remit of current MPS data collection systems. Therefore the results obtained from the searches designed to capture the data comes with a 2-3% safety caveat.)

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix A: Internal consultation

On 8 October 2004 representatives from various London BOCU’s attended a seminar held at New Scotland Yard, to discuss the operational impact of the reclassification. As a result several key points were made:

Communication
The reclassification has sent out a mixed/confusing message to police officers and members of the public. It was reported that front line officers were finding that dealing with searches resulting in cannabis seizures were often confrontational. Youths were telling officers that they could not do anything about their possession of the drug. Local communities also expressed their concern about a perceived relaxation in drug enforcement. This is thought to have raised communities’ fear of crime because groups were seen to openly flout the law.
Streamlining of procedures
Whilst it could be argued that operational time was being saved with the reduction in the number of arrests for cannabis possession, current procedures still required the officer to return to the station and complete several administrative tasks.
Data collection & refinement
Current MPS data systems are not fit for the purpose of separating out the varied reasons / circumstances resulting in a cannabis report being entered. (ie. Cautions given at a police station following arrest for cannabis possession, incidents dealt with in the street where no arrest is made and were the cannabis offence is subsidiary to the original / more serious offence).
Targeting of youths
A view was expressed that as a result of the reclassification the MPS were dealing with youths by way of criminalisation, i.e. arrest, which was at odds to the way adults were dealt with.
Reduced/increased conflict
It was envisaged that the change in policy would lead to a reduction in police / public confrontations over a minor offence, with the presumption of not arresting unless one of the ‘aggravating factors’ was present. However, a perception was held that confrontations had actually increased due to the mixed message about the reclassification and officer’s interactions with the public.

Conclusion

The reclassification of cannabis has had a significant impact on the MPS. Current IT systems are experiencing difficulty in extracting the required data which could give a flawed picture. Operational implications would appear to highlight an increase in confrontations and a perception that youths are being criminalised for a minor offence, whilst adults receive a warning. The full implications of the reclassification will require more in-depth analysis. Currently it is estimated that over a 12 month period a total financial saving of £344,172 and / or 11,868 operational hours will be saved by the MPS.

Appendix B: Tables

Tables 1-6 in the following appendices covers the period April-August 2003.

Table 1. Persons ‘accused of cannabis possession’ broken down by Borough.
Table 2. Gender and Ethnicity of ‘persons accused of cannabis possession.’
Table 3. Gender and Age of ‘persons accused of cannabis possession.’
Table 4. Ethnicity and Age of ‘persons accused of cannabis possession.’
Table 5. Breakdown of proceedings decision for ‘cannabis possession.’
Table 6. Proceedings comparison for top two ethnicities.

Tables 7-12 provide the same information as tables 1-6 but cover the same period in 2004, post reclassification. Data collection for this period has proven to be more problematic than first envisaged, due to adapting searches on current databases. This may mean that results collated may be a few percentage points out. However, the data provided is as accurate as possible at this time and is categorised as ‘Expanded Accused.’ This enables the capture of those reports where persons are arrested for possession of cannabis plus those incidents dealt with where no arrest is made.

Table 7. ‘Expanded’ accused of cannabis possession by Borough.
Table 8. Gender and Ethnicity of ‘Expanded accused’ of cannabis possession.
Table 9. Gender and Age of ‘Expanded accused’ of cannabis possession.
Table 10. Ethnicity and Age of ‘Expanded accused’ of cannabis possession.
Table 11. Breakdown of proceedings decision for ‘cannabis possession.’
Table 12. Proceedings comparison for top two ethnicities.
Table 13. Hydroponic/Drug Factory Data (PSD)

Table 1. Persons ‘accused’ of cannabis possession by Borough, April-August 2003

Borough name	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Barking & Dagenham	42	57	33	63	47	242
Barnet	24	35	18	29	19	125
Bexley	24	40	32	21	21	138
Brent	39	69	49	46	47	250
Bromley	22	33	24	23	11	113
Camden	74	61	53	52	46	286
Croydon	45	45	43	46	28	207
Ealing	35	48	31	34	28	176
Enfield	23	27	24	23	9	106
Greenwich	44	46	22	22	27	161
Hackney	46	61	52	44	41	244
Hammersmith & Fulham	51	62	78	71	42	304
Haringey	100	110	159	154	73	596
Harrow	9	21	24	17	18	89
Havering	24	27	14	11	13	89
Heathrow Airport	7	4	2	5	4	22
Hillingdon	25	31	29	58	35	178
Hounslow	26	31	24	40	20	141
Islington	38	38	48	25	46	195
Kensington & Chelsea	35	40	34	41	43	193
Kingston upon Thames	14	14	10	15	21	74
Lambeth	10	10	9	9	12	50
Lewisham	57	65	55	42	36	255
Merton	11	8	13	14	15	61
Newham	62	81	64	43	59	309
Redbridge	28	17	21	24	23	113
Richmond Upon Thames	15	12	20	12	11	70
Southwark	47	67	59	50	34	257
Sutton	15	11	16	4	10	56
Tower Hamlets	55	50	41	48	27	221
Waltham Forest	39	38	30	41	21	169
Wandsworth	51	61	50	53	32	247
Westminster	91	97	90	138	78	494
Grand total	1228	1417	1271	1318	997	6231

Table 2. Gender & ethnicity of persons ‘accused’ of cannabis possession, April-August 2003

Ethnicity	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Female
White European	38	41	52	52	33	216
Dark European	3	3	3	6	1	16
African-Caribbean	11	21	13	28	25	98
Indian/Pakistani	4	3	2	8	1	18
Chinese/Japanese	0	0	1	1	1	3
Total	56	68	71	95	61	351
Male
White European	544	588	492	540	426	2590
Dark European	68	79	95	62	53	357
African-Caribbean	394	468	441	408	328	2039
Indian/Pakistani	141	175	138	179	113	746
Chinese/Japanese	8	13	8	3	6	38
Arabian/Egyptian	17	25	26	31	9	108
Unspecified	0	1	0	0	1	2
Total	1172	1349	1200	1223	936	5880
Grand total
Total	1228	1417	1271	1318	997	6231

Table 3. Gender & age of persons ‘accused’ of cannabis possession, April-August 2003

Age groups	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Female
10-17	13	14	15	15	12	69
18-21	15	22	18	25	19	99
22-25	10	11	15	20	14	70
26-29	9	5	7	7	2	30
30-39	6	7	9	15	10	47
40-49	3	6	5	13	3	30
50+	0	3	2	0	0	5
Unspecified	0	0	0	0	1	1
Total	56	68	71	95	61	351
Male
10-17	215	207	200	216	165	1003
18-21	391	448	412	386	280	1917
22-25	228	269	232	244	189	1162
26-29	112	139	109	113	102	575
30-39	152	203	177	179	132	843
40-49	58	66	52	63	49	288
50+	16	16	18	21	14	85
Unspecified	0	1	0	1	5	7
Total	1172	1349	1200	1223	936	5880
Grand total
Total	1228	1417	1271	1318	997	6231

Table 4. Ethnicity & age of persons ‘accused’ of cannabis possession, April-August 2003

Ethnicity	Age group								Total
Ethnicity	10-17	18-21	22-25	26-29	30-39	40-49	50+	Unspec	Total
April
White European	128	190	94	63	75	25	7	0	582
Dark European	12	21	16	10	7	2	3	0	71
African-Caribbean	63	136	81	30	59	31	5	0	405
Indian/Pakistani	22	49	42	18	10	3	1	0	145
Chinese/Japanese	1	4	0	0	3	0	0	0	8
Arabian/Egyptian	2	6	5	0	4	0	0	0	17
Total	228	406	238	121	158	61	16	0	1228
May
White European	109	201	110	77	96	29	7	0	629
Dark European	8	22	17	15	15	3	2	0	82
African-Caribbean	80	157	99	32	77	35	8	1	489
Indian/Pakistani	18	75	50	18	14	2	1	0	178
Chinese/Japanese	3	6	2	0	1	1	0	0	13
Arabian/Egyptian	3	9	1	2	7	2	1	0	25
Unspecified	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Total	221	470	280	144	210	72	19	1	1417
June
White European	104	189	88	54	76	22	11	0	544
Dark European	9	37	24	7	13	7	1	0	98
African-Caribbean	78	134	94	36	82	24	6	0	454
Indian/Pakistani	20	57	35	15	11	2	0	0	140
Chinese/Japanese	1	2	2	2	0	2	0	0	9
Arabian/Egyptian	3	11	4	2	4	0	2	0	26
Total	215	430	247	116	186	57	20	0	1271
July
White European	132	163	103	48	102	32	12	0	592
Dark European	7	22	18	6	12	2	1	0	68
African-Caribbean	64	133	87	48	59	38	6	1	436
Indian/Pakistani	24	76	53	15	15	3	1	0	187
Chinese/Japanese	0	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	4
Arabian/Egyptian	4	16	1	3	5	1	1	0	31
Total	231	411	264	120	194	76	21	1	1318
August
White European	94	128	91	46	66	20	9	5	459
Dark European	9	17	7	11	6	2	1	1	54
African-Caribbean	64	102	69	33	54	27	4	0	353
Indian/Pakistani	7	46	34	13	11	3	0	0	114
Chinese/Japanese	1	3	0	1	2	0	0	0	7
Arabian/Egyptian	2	3	2	0	2	0	0	0	9
Unspecified	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
Total	177	299	203	104	142	52	14	6	997
Grand total
Total	1072	2016	1232	605	890	318	90	8	6231

Table 5a. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2003 [Female]

Ethnicity	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Proceeds: Charged/summonsed
White European	7	10	10	14	9	50
Dark European	0	0	0	1	1	2
African-Caribbean	4	6	4	10	8	32
Indian/Pakistani	1	0	1	0	0	2
Total	12	16	15	25	18	86
Proceeds: Cautioned
White European	30	31	42	37	24	164
Dark European	3	3	3	5	0	14
African-Caribbean	7	15	9	15	17	63
Indian/Pakistani	3	3	1	8	1	16
Chinese/Japanese	0	0	1	1	1	3
Total	43	52	56	66	43	260
Proceeds: Other
White European	1	0	0	1	0	2
African-Caribbean	0	0	0	3	0	3
Total	1	0	0	4	0	5
Grand total
Total	56	68	71	95	61	351

Table 5b. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2003 [Male]

Ethnicity	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Proceeds: Charged/summonsed
White European	212	227	202	212	192	1045
Dark European	22	22	25	27	18	114
African-Caribbean	217	248	237	190	173	1065
Indian/Pakistani	60	73	55	76	54	318
Chinese/Japanese	4	2	1	1	3	11
Arabian/Egyptian	8	12	12	11	7	50
Unspecified	0	1	0	0	0	1
Total	523	585	532	517	447	2604
Proceeds: Cautioned
White European	332	356	284	328	229	1529
Dark European	46	56	69	34	35	240
African-Caribbean	174	219	202	215	152	962
Indian/Pakistani	79	102	83	102	58	424
Chinese/Japanese	4	11	7	2	3	27
Arabian/Egyptian	9	13	14	20	2	58
Unspecified	0	0	0	0	1	1
Total	644	757	659	701	480	3241
Proceeds: Other
White European	0	5	6	0	5	16
Dark European	0	1	1	1	0	3
African-Caribbean	3	1	2	3	3	12
Indian/Pakistani	2	0	0	1	1	4
Total	5	7	9	5	9	35
Grand total
Total	1172	1349	1200	1223	936	5880

Table 5c. Proceedings decision for cannabis possession, April-August 2003 [Grand total for male and female]

	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Grand total	1228	1417	1271	1318	997	6231

Table 6. Top two ethnicity groups, proceedings decision, April-August 2003

Group	Charged	Cautioned	Other
Females
White European	23%	76%	1%
African-Caribbean	33%	64%	3%
Males
White European	40%	59%	1%
African-Caribbean	52%	47%	1%

Table 7. ‘Expanded’ accused of cannabis possession by Borough, April-August 2004

Borough name	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Barking & Dagenham	16	38	20	20	34	128
Barnet	30	65	33	35	64	227
Bexley	34	23	15	8	14	94
Brent	55	62	73	74	67	331
Bromley	30	31	22	48	29	160
Camden	60	56	45	100	57	318
Croydon	39	34	62	37	53	225
Ealing	29	45	45	34	34	187
Enfield	27	32	30	26	20	135
Greenwich	18	26	40	59	54	197
Hackney	134	83	89	103	95	504
Hammersmith & Fulham	34	48	30	36	25	173
Haringey	60	90	92	114	58	414
Harrow	13	18	9	16	4	60
Havering	14	17	21	34	37	123
Heathrow	4	1	2	0	3	10
Hillingdon	22	32	26	33	20	133
Hounslow	39	27	16	18	24	124
Islington	55	48	40	49	64	256
Kensington & Chelsea	44	22	29	32	64	191
Kingston Upon Thames	18	26	10	10	15	79
Lambeth	135	197	229	172	169	902
Lewisham	54	53	65	52	64	288
Merton	30	26	21	22	14	113
Newham	159	41	53	61	52	366
Redbridge	35	18	39	31	20	143
Richmond Upon Thames	18	7	17	10	20	72
Southwark	83	38	98	81	51	351
Sutton	18	9	27	28	17	99
Tower Hamlets	19	188	38	59	57	361
Waltham Forest	54	26	44	44	19	187
Wandsworth	33	45	26	30	53	187
Westminster - AB	14	17	15	25	20	91
Westminster - CD	55	51	40	64	49	259
Westminster - CX	45	48	36	37	38	204
Westminster - DM	26	23	24	24	17	114
Westminster - DP	82	47	54	106	53	342
Grand total	1635	1658	1575	1732	1548	8148

Table 8. Gender & ethnicity of ‘Expanded’ accused - cannabis possession, April-August 2004

Ethnicity	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Female
White European	54	62	66	61	61	304
Dark European	7	3	7	14	10	41
African-Caribbean	32	34	33	40	36	175
Indian/Pakistani	3	8	5	3	6	25
Chinese/Japanese	0	1	1	0	0	2
Arabian/Egyptian	1	2	1	0	1	5
Unspecified	1	0	0	0	0	1
Total	98	110	113	118	114	553
Male
White European	590	587	558	595	573	2903
Dark European	111	119	87	114	88	519
African-Caribbean	607	584	615	658	580	3044
Indian/Pakistani	187	212	160	183	146	888
Chinese/Japanese	12	11	12	16	18	69
Arabian/Egyptian	24	27	22	39	21	133
Unspecified	6	8	8	9	8	39
Total	1537	1548	1462	1614	1434	7595
Grand total
Total	1635	1658	1575	1732	1548	8148

Table 9. Gender & age of ‘Expanded’ accused - cannabis possession, April-August 2004

Age groups	April	May	June	July	August	Total
Female
10-17	21	24	15	21	17	98
18-21	29	29	34	32	41	165
22-25	20	20	22	18	26	106
26-29	6	13	11	14	10	54
30-39	15	11	16	24	12	78
40-49	4	10	13	6	5	38
50+	1	3	2	2	2	10
Unspecified	2	0	0	1	1	4
Total	98	110	113	118	114	553
Male
10-17	265	227	193	249	203	1137
18-21	487	525	460	525	483	2480
22-25	274	314	314	315	296	1513
26-29	161	176	155	168	160	820
30-39	231	205	219	237	190	1082
40-49	98	79	98	81	72	428