JULY 2022 REPORT
JULY 2022 REPORT
DCCSP members along with Chief Inspector Mark Beavan, Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Leanne Moorhouse and Leanne Moorehouse, and visitors Mark Bolt [Section 136 Panel], Dave Nealon [HMICFRS lead for D&C Police], DCI Kevin Till [Professional Standards Department] and Chief Inspector Greg Tansill [looking to introduce a similar panel in Dorset] observed five 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. Leanne Moorhouse updated the panel on body worn video retention: the system of saving non- evidential recordings for a period of 31 days was put in place in 2017 to comply with MOPI and GDPR. A thematic review of data retention is currently being consulted with a proposal to increase the period of time Stop & Search [S&S] footage is saved to 365 days, allowing greater time for investiging areas of concern.
Case Selection .
Case Selection .
ACTION POINT 1
S&S case selection - panel requests investigation into 19 cases highlighted during case selection where BWV wasn’t present
D&C POLICE REPONSE 1
Waiting response
ACTION POINT 2
UoF case selection - panel requests investigation into 19 cases highlighted during case selection where BWV wasn’t present
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2
Waiting response
ACTION POINT 3
UoF case selection - panel found the following members of the public were subject to multiple uses of force in 4 days or less. Some involving the same officers (highlighted).
Panel asks for clarity on what procedures / communications are in place when there is such high engagement?
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 3
Waiting response
Body Worn Video Assessment .
Body Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE STOP AND SEARCHES [S&S]
JULY 2022 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Leanne Moorhouse 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.
GROUNDS of the search
OBJECT of the search
WARRANT card [if not in uniform]
IDENTITY [officer name & number]
STATION [where officer is based]
ENTITLEMENT to receipt
LEGAL power used
YOU are detained for S&S
S&S BWV 1 feedback to be provided
Panel assessed language from the officers as unnecessary in the initial.
Point of learning for the officer completing the search - GOWISELY was not followed. Grounds and object were covered but identity, station and legal power were not heard as protocol states. Second officer mentioned identity and station.
Subjects were 14 years old - panel felt at this age, greater communication about what was happening was needed.
Actions to be commended:Subjects were safely and proportionally handcuffed.
Quite a stressful situation when knives have been reported - officers were very quick and promptly recovered weapons. Objective reached effectively and safely.
Discreet communication between officers regarding weapon location, which didn’t inflame the situation.
During the search, officers were calm, polite and respectful to subjects and put them at ease - didn’t escalate the situation.
Note: Armed response were also in attendance due to member of the public's call involving weapons - 2 young males reported to be seen with knives.
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
S&S BWV 2 feedback to be provided
Due to the officers being in plain-clothes and needing to attach cameras, as well as the concert location being very loud - the panel were unable to hear the encounter clearly and couldn’t observe or assess GOWISELY. If there weren’t technical difficulties, the RAG rating may have been higher.
Actions to be commended:Panel assessed the officers as managing the situation well, especially with substances involved - using desculating language with subject and passers by.
Communicated with the subject respectfully and clearly. Best outcome - community resolution offered with lots of advice given.
S&S 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
S&S BWV 3 feedback to be provided
GOWISELY not followed - officer’s identity, station and subject’s entitlement to a receipt was not covered.
A number of members felt like they were “watching abuse” - feeling ‘wrong’, ‘sick’, ‘angry’ and ‘very disturbed’ by officers in this S&S. Panel requested the BWV to be retained and an immediate investigation into this case and the officers’ unprofessional and unethical conduct (in particular officer A).
Panel requests understanding into why the subject was placed in handcuffs when she was compliant, quiet and patient from the onset despite officer’s making her wait for periods of time without communication? There was no risk of flight with officers around her - robust handcuffing was not required and there was no mention of arrest when putting them on her.
This Use of Force was assessed as excessive, disproportionate and unnecessary for the type of encounter and grounds provided. It transpired it was due to the officer being informed on the radio that the subject was in breach of court order but this and her subsequent arrest was not communicated to her until multiple unnecessary searches whilst handcuffed. Panel requests understanding into why the subject was not told about breach of court order at the start and immediately arrested? This should have been a straight arrest after speaking on the radio - subject would have been searched out of public view by a female officer in detention so the prior searches were not necessary.
The young lady was clearly very vulnerable - both her body language and dialogue consistently informed the two male officers present that she felt uncomfortable and stated a number of times that she didn’t want to be touched. Only after this, did they request a female officer to assist with the search - panel requests understanding as to why they didn’t immediately call for a female officer with a vulnerable young lady who is known? The female officer’s quick appearance highlighted that she was already in the close vicinity.
Despite the subject’s discomfort and requests to stop, the male officer continued to touch her whilst her movement was restricted by handcuffs: repeatedly touching around her waistband, arms, down the back of her top, running his hands up and down her legs (which in itself was perceived as odd when looking for drugs as it would have been immediately evident) and into her tight fitting trouser pockets.
Officer continued to touch the subject despite the knowledge that a female officer was en route and he should have waited.
When the female officer did arrive, she made no communication with the subject and stood to one side watching the male officer continue to search the young female.
Subject crossed her legs during the inappropriate search, which the officers did not read as a sign of vulnerability and instead acted with suspicion. With trauma, people can become very compliant - all officers present should have been protecting her rights and reminded each other of the law. Panel request responses from all three officers present as it is concerning that no officer was empowered to take a lead when something is clearly not right.
Panel observed the male officer’s language as coercive, patronising and a form of gaslighting, i.e. stating "now you've calmed down" during the search, when subject was very quiet and complicit throughout an encounter she was obviously very uncomfortable in.
The male assisting officer reminded the arresting officer to use the back of the hand when searching - panel found this concerning [note: MB explained that back of hand is not a necessary technique anymore and recent refresher training highlighted this, which suggests officers have not had this training].
Panel asks whether officer A is newly qualified as the shoulder number and taking directions from other officer suggests he is?
Panel is also concerned about this case as officer A was flagged under 'officer with highest usage of S&S' thematic - are there any other incidents where conduct is similar to this?
Actions to be commended:Some panel members assessed the start of the search as initially being friendly, calm and polite.
Note: Plain-clothes officers as part of counter terror operations at a large event. Second video also watched from assisting officer - limited visibility and audio difficult to hear.
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
I just wanted to give some reassurance back to the panel that ahead of any formal report for the panel that I escalated the concerns I heard panel express and used my own notes. I escalated to the Plymouth BCU Legitimacy panel Chair, the line managers of the officers involved, our Learning and Development department and the Plymouth BCU Commander and Force Legitimacy Board Chair, Mr Longman.
It is fully accepted that it was practicable for a female officer to attend and the search could have been delayed for this to happen and it if fully accepted that when the female officer arrived that she should have taken over the search (regardless of whether the subject consented to the search continuing with the male officer). This learning will be emphasised by Learning and Development to Professional Development Unit leads (who tutor the student constables) and will be fed out to all BCU Legitimacy Chairs to learning across the entire Force area.
I will pick up discussion with Learning and Development around some of the other points raised when I see the formal panel feedback and have hopefully captured most of what I think panel will want to raise in addition and have already had the conversations but don’t want to jump ahead.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
JULY 2022 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Leanne Moorhouse 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 employ
UOF BWV 1 feedback to be provided
Whilst the panel understood that the three officers may want to detain as quickly as possible due to the nature of victim’s injuries sustained, subject’s lack of sobriety and knowledge he’d fled from scene of a crime, officers were assessed as not following PLANTER fully or desculating the situation - entering the property and very rapidly handcuffing without communication as to why (perhaps because his hands were in a convenient position on arrival and they felt justified with prior knowledge).
Panel requests understanding into the procedure followed as order appeared all wrong.
Subject was very loud and wasn’t listening re: putting his phone down, but he was on the phone with the police and didn’t appear aggressive towards officers - use of force in taking him to the ground appeared unnecessary, unproportionate, and heavy-handed physicality could have been avoided. Officers are trained to recognise when subjects are under the influence so caution was required but using his mobile phone wasn’t going to cause injury - panel could visibly see officers adrenaline and emotions kicking in. Injuries could have occured all around, especially in such a small space.
Only later did officers tell the subject why force was applied. He then became very calm - if communication had been used initially on arrival, he may have been more compliant and UDT not required.
The majority of the panel did not feel that in this context, the subject received the best service the police could have provided and questioned if the size of the subject caused officers to treat him differently.
Actions to be commended:Following use of force, the panel recognised that officers brought the subject back to standing quickly and once phone was removed, a greater level of care was shown to the subject.
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
UOF BWV 2 feedback tobe provided
Panel appreciated that the subject appeared to be intoxicated, reacted aggressively before attempting to flee and was resisting arrest so some proportional force was required, however the situation came across as very chaotic, without a great level of control and escalating way too fast for officers, subjects and members of the public safety.
There was no communication before handcuffs came out, no de escalation techniques witnessed and felt that the officers jumped into arrest without giving time for an explanation. Line of questioning could have prevented this. Panel members likened the scene to watching ‘some blokes having a fight’.
Officer did not conduct themselves professionally and PLANTER was not followed - swearing and using inflammatory statements (i.e.‘I don’t believe you’). Officer also swore at the subject's parents and pushed the older female away at a point when she was calming the situation down. Panel appreciated that the bystanders should have been at a distance but communicating this with dialogue instead of force should be standard procedure. As a result of the officer's reaction and physical altercation, the situation escalated further. If the female hadn’t been pushed and permitted to continue at a distance perhaps the subsequent injuries could have been avoided.
Not all of the encounter could be assessed due to BWV visibility - subject stated he was punched in the head and kneed. Panel requests further information on whether these allegations were investigated and if there is another angle from assisting officers to see what transpired?
Panel assessed the quantity of force as being excessive for resisting arrest: the use of spray on what appeared to be three occasions when there was no need to continue after initial usage. Panel requests investigation into what the reasoning is for this continuous type of force and then wrestling with a subject who can’t see or do anything? What is the policy on how many times spray can be deployed?
Some members found it difficult to watch due to the amount of force used. UDT to the floor, headlock, and allegations of punching. Kneeling on the subject’s head at the end was not necessary, proportionate or ethical, especially as at that point there were more officers present to assist. Panel members also questioned the use of the spit hood dehumanising the subject further as they appeared to be spitting due to the quantity of spray received as opposed to aiming at someone.
Overall, scrutiny perceived the officer as not considering the welfare and wellbeing of the subject - perhaps this was because the officer was on his own, visibly fearful, running on adrenaline, and felt vulnerable and perhaps out of his depth, but there was no consideration given to any potential needs. The subject appeared to be suffering from a mental health crisis or under the influence of something - especially with his panicked shouting of ‘get my dad’ and parents' swift presence and attempts to help. There was a lot of blood and cuts visible on the subject’s head and arms following the level of force deployed and medical attention clearly required. Panel requests further information on whether this medical attention was received for these injuries sustained?
Some members felt that the officer did not implement their powers constructively - instead there was an element of anger and punishment.
Panel acknowledge that once other officers were on the scene, the officer apologised to the female for physically pushing her, however the panel have concerns about the way he did so - using patronising, informal language (e.g. calling her ‘love’), giving justifications for behaviour and letting others know he’d apologised on BWV - makes it disingenuous.
Actions to be commended:
Panel recognised that the officer was in a very difficult position as he was alone.
Officer warned the subject that spray would be deployed.
Panel appreciate that the officer did apologise for behaviour towards member of the public
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
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
