SUSSEX Police is “completely transparent” and is not keeping the public in the dark about crimes in Brighton and Hove, Katy Bourne has insisted.

The Sussex police and crime commissioner (PCC) said the force was very open about crime figures.

Her defence was in response to an investigation by The Argus which revealed details of hundreds of offences which were not being publicised, including a number of serious unsolved crimes.

Ms Bourne championed press freedom but defended and dismissed claims it was failing the public by refusing to provide details of serious unsolved crimes.

She said: “I fundamentally defend the right of the press to have freedom and I value what they do. I encourage Sussex Police to be as open and transparent as they can be and we are committed to having the highest standards.

“We have to understand police operations are highly sensitive. Their primary concern is always with the victim. There is a very fine line with the police in what they put out and what they don’t. They do not shy away from being open and I challenge the chief constable to be as effective as possible.”

She said the force was currently underspending on its £1.2 million communications budget – one of the highest in the country – and the department’s 27 staff carry out “valuable work” like publishing crime prevention advice and working on awareness campaigns as well as answering media enquiries.

She said she “did not understand” why The Argus was continuing to ask the questions on the subject and did not believe the public shared the desire to know the information.

Godfrey Daniel, a former member of the police authority who stood against Ms Bourne as a candidate, said it is difficult for a commissioner to effectively hold a chief constable to account after appointing them.

He said: “Their success is mutually dependent on each other. If the chief constable is not doing their job well enough it reflects badly on the commissioner.

“I think Katy’s very good at public relations – she is a good figurehead for the police. But I was much more comfortable when she had a deputy to bounce ideas off – it is an impossible task for one person and I think it works better when they are separate from the government politically.”

The communications and Freedom of Information (FOI) departments at Sussex Police have refused to provide details of about 20 serious unsolved crimes – including kidnap, rapes, possession of knives and firearms and fraud by a company director – which occurred during a fortnight in Brighton and Hove in March.

The Argus has appealed the decision, arguing the disclosure would be in the public interest and is awaiting a response.

INVESTIGATION SHOWS UNPUBLICISED CRIME 

AN investigation by The Argus earlier this month revealed Sussex Police was keeping the public in the dark about hundreds of crimes.

This newspaper learned out of 787 crimes that were reported in a fortnight in March, only two were publicised.

The crimes include rapes, robberies, kidnappings, possession of firearms and other weapons, drugs trafficking and threats to kill – most of which remain unsolved.

This is despite spending £1.2 million on communications and public relations – one of the highest expenditures in the country.

The force faced criticism for failing to be transparent.

Graham Cox, a former detective chief superintendent in charge of Sussex CID, said the public had a right to know about the crimes.

Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors which fights for media freedom, said: “The police are supposed to serve the public, not hide information. Give the public the facts and let them decide for themselves.”

In an interview with The Argus, Katie Perkin, head of communications at Sussex Police, said answering the queries would not be the best use of police resources and information was rarely held back. If information was withheld, she said it would be to protect the public, the vulnerable and with the victim in mind.

Freedom of Information officer Roger Brace said the information could not be provided because it would require a “manual search” of the database.

The need to protect a sensitive ongoing investigation was not cited as a reason for failing to release the information.

Chief superintendent Nev Kemp said the force’s aims were “reducing offending, catching the criminal, protecting the public and increasing trust and confidence".

He said when details are released, the force weighs up the “sensitivity of the victim and the risk to the public”.