MARCH 2022 REPORT
MARCH 2022 REPORT
DCCSP members along with Chief Inspector Mark Beavan, Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Ian Cocklin and Leanne Moorehouse, and visitor Robert Mooney D&C Police Chief Inspector for Firearms and Use of Force [UoF], observed four BWVs selected by the panel from the previous month's cases. The following identifies points to action, D&C Police responses, case assessments and outstanding areas that require investigation. The Chair shared that Professional Standards have identified DCI Kevin Till as point of contact for the panel. Ian Cocklin updated the panel on BWV policy, which is due to be finalised at the end of record', notifying subjects that they are being recorded, and permitting BWV in times of crisis to support mental health professionals. D&C Police recognise that officer compliance "hasn't beem as good as it should be and will take time to bring positive culture change".
Case Selection .
Case Selection .
ACTION POINT 1
Panel identified 7 officers highlighted during UoF case selection without BWV, having incomplete reports and/or missing supervisor sign offs. Panel request responses and investigation into these.
D&C POLICE REPONSE 1
All officers emailed reminder of policy and expectation - no information back. Suggest close.
ACTION POINT 2
Panel identified 8 officers highlighted during S&S case selection without BWV, having incomplete reports and/or missing supervisor sign offs.. Panel request responses and investigation into these.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2
All officers emailed reminder of policy and expectation - no information back. Suggest close.
ACTION POINT 3
Panel requests the number of cases involving no further action (NFA), officer defined ethnicity and gender from the past year for:
Top 10 officers with highest rates of S&S
Top 10 officers with highest rates of UoF (ideally in each Use of Force category)
Top 10 officers with highest rates of S&S / UoF involving under 18s.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 3
Adam Morris (D&C Police Performance & Analysis) to provide requested information for panel's next data scrutiny meeting in April.
ACTION POINT 4
Going forward, the panel would benefit from seeing fewer clips, watching them in their entirety and being provided context that is neutral (so it doesn't affect bias/perceptions).
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 4
Chief Inspector Mark Beavan to request more background context on cases selected.
Body Worn Video Assessment .
Body Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE (UOF)
MARCH 2022 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Ian Cocklin played selected clip, Chief Inspector Mark Beavan read the corresponding report submitted from case officer(s) before the DCCS Panel discussed and submitted the below feedback and assessments. Senior officers in each Force area where the cases under scrutiny took place have been asked to feedback the panel’s observations and reminders for officers. Supervising officers were contacted by MB after the panel meeting to enable Supervisors to view BWV footage that would not be retained beyond 31 days ahead of the panel report.
PROPORTIONATE amount of force
LENGTH of force used
ACTIONS of subject warranted use of force
NECESSARY to use force to protect
TYPE used was minimum appropriate
ETHICAL to use force in situation
REASONABLE for officer to employe
UOF BWV 1 feedback to be provided
Investigation / learning required:
Two assisting officers did not switch on BWV.
Reporting officer switched BWV off when knocking on the subject's door so no UoF evident in footage available.
Report states a white male but officers are discussing a female occupant - timing and data is incorrect, doesn’t appear to be the correct clip.
Why were there four officers deployed for this case?
Correct PPE and medical precautions taken.
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
? Necessary
? Proportionate
? Ethical
? PLANTER Followed
Result = bwv error
Unknown - BWV doesn't correlate with case
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Chief Inspector Mark Beavan update: "my error, I emailed the wrong information to the officer - suggest close, record deleted since."
UOF BWV 2 feedback to be provided
Difficult to assess UoF due to low camera angle and case involving a mental health crisis (section 136) - marked as unsuitable for the panel to watch past a specific point.
Panel asks if subject received medical attention and support
Officers were empathetic and reassuring - considerate of subject welfare and using deescalation techniques.
BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
Officer feedback "With regards to this incident, the drawing of TASER was made just before my BWV kicked in. The subject had a knife on her which she dropped to the floor upon opening the door. There were other knives located in the address which had been used to self harm with. I kept my TASER to hand until I was satisfied that she did not have any more knives on her possession.
At the time the subject was in a very emotional and unpredictable state and I felt it necessary to draw TASER until I was satisfied that the risk of injury to my colleague or I, and the subject herself, had diminished."
Panel thanks the officer for the above explanation. We encourage the officer to be mindful of BWV angle whilst on duty as it is for their protection too.
UOF BWV 3 feedback to be provided
No BWV available for panel to scrutinise. Why?
UOF BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 3
Officer feedback "I apologise that you are not able to access any of my Body Worn footage from the incident. I currently have an IT query raised with Service Desk regarding my bodycam. Sergeant located the footage timed at 16:07:16 on 09/02/2022 which he will save as evidential. On Wednesday 9th February 2022 I was requested to assist an officer in Perranporth at the old Lloyds back due to there being a report from the town council that there were youths heard from within the derelict premises.
The information that was passed to me that there was an unknown number of people inside, but multiple voices could be heard. The premises were diss used, and that there was a smashed window to the rear and a strong smell of Cannabis coming from within the premises. Due to none having seen anyone enter the property and there being no immediate CCTV to access to identify any persons, I was not able to gather any intelligence on anyone within to assess whether they had any warning markers and if they were potentially going to pose a risk to myself or my colleague.
I assessed the risk and the threat and determined that I nor my colleague new what was inside the premises nor what they have on there persons. A working strategy was put in place that I would enter through the front door via a key and my colleague would remain at the rear in case any persons attempted to leave through the broken window. I considered my powers that If people were inside, they may be arrestable on suspicion of Burglary and potentially possession of a controlled substance and further criminal damage should any further damage have been caused inside.
I entered through the front door, to find a very smashed up inside of a derelict building that was not very well lit at all. On entry I shouted that it was Police and for them to come out of one of the rooms they were in. There were multiple rooms inside the premises. Multiple males them emerged from a dark room. At this point I notified my colleague that he could come around and I immediately requested that all the males remove their hand from their pockets and stand along a wall and space out until my colleague came to assist. There was an extremely strong smell of Cannabis inside the premises. I asked all the males if they had anyCannabis on their persons. Three of the males did and removed it from their pockets and placed it on the side. One male did not.
Due to the smell of Cannabis, the fact that had shown they had a green herbal substance on them in small white plastic bags, and the fact they had broken into the premises, me and my colleague explained to them that they would be detained for a searched under section 23 Misuse of drugs act. On searching subject X , a further small plastic bag containing green herbal matter was located on his persons. Subject XX was also
searched and two small plastic bags containing green herbal matter were located on his persons. As a result of this all the males had their details taken and the decision was made it would be most practical to call their parents due to their age and have them be picked up, the green herbal matter be tested and then the offences be dealt with slow time. Both males’ parents attended and were informed of what had happened.
They were then taken home." Chief Inspector Mark Beavan update: "IT issue identified with BWV fault for other attending officer - no further information - suggest close." The panel thanks the officer for offering such an extensive response.
The panel recognises this is graded as red as the footage wasn’t available at the time of panel seating but this may change and will be reviewed accordingly after observing BWV marked as evidential. The panel encourages D&C police to sort the IT matters that are there at present. The panel will
review this saved footage at a future date that corresponds with this thematic.
UOF BWV 4 feedback to be provided
At least two assisting officers did not switch on BWV.
Female officers made some attempt to deescalate but male officers were unprofessional, lacked empathy for distraught subject, laughing, using triggering language and police powers as a punishment for swearing / 'not listening' (insufficient grounds for UoF).
Actions and dialogue of the reporting officer greatly antagonised subject.
Security guards were escalating the situation but were not asked to step back - presence swayed bias. CCTV available but not requested.
Officers appeared reactive, not in control. Length of time became a factor - officers losing patience and not listening to subjects.
The increasing number of officers was not proportionate - circled around the subjects, creating an environment of intimidation.
UOF BWV 4 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 4
Officer feedback "On Friday 11th February 2022 I attended the PODS at county hall where there were two males one namely being X. X was a friend of a male who lived in the pods and had gone there to visit. There are no visitors allowed and therefore was forcefully removed by onsite security and so was the male living there due to their aggressive behaviour. On arrival X was being verbally abusive towards all officers present. X and his friend had just returned from a funeral so were in an extremely high emotional state. Both were drunk.
A huge amount of leeway was given to X because of this, and he did have his own property he could have returned to in Truro. X friend was subsequently arrested for being drunk and disorderly. X was restrained from intervening and preventing his friend being arrested. X did not then calm down and continued to become verbally abusive and aggressive. X was also arrested for being Drunk and Disorderly and immediately tensed up and resisted. For the safety of other officers and X he was safely lowered to the floor where he was placed into hand cuffs and then turned onto his side sat up and then stood back up. Once in handcuffs he calmed down."
The panel thanks the officer for the above explanation. The panel has noticed that the other officers present did not turn on their BWV and would value clarity on why this was this was the case. The panel would encourage officers present to reflect on the de escalation tactics in such scenarios where numbers are in their favour.
Interested in making a difference?
Improve accountability, transparency and trust between D&C police and the communities they serve
Receive free training, work alongside inspiring individuals and help make positive changes
Scrutinise Stop & Search and Use of Force, or join Sub-committees to share your skills or learn new ones
