SEPTEMBER 2022 REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2022 REPORT
DCCSP members along with Chief Inspector Mark Beavan, Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Leanne Moorhouse and Leanne Moorehouse observed seven 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 ? 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 ? cases highlighted during case selection where BWV wasn’t present
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2
Waiting response
ACTION POINT 3
The proportion of the same set of stop search forms which are as yet unsigned by the supervisor has reduced from 67% to 59% or 29 additional forms signed.
341 records in the population (Aug S&S up to 21/8/22)
What is being done to improve this figure?
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 3
Waiting response
Body Worn Video Assessment .
Body Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE STOP AND SEARCHES [S&S]
SEPTEMBER 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
No supervisor sign off.
GOWISELY not fully followed - didn’t hear station or identity stated.
Actions to be commended:All panel members assessed the S&S as necessary, proportionate and ethical.
Approach was very calm and the officers were very polite and respectful of the subject.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
S&S BWV 2 feedback to be provided
No supervisor sign off.
BWV saved incorrectly, feedback given to PC by LM, search at 21:51.
Subject’s hat was not removed during S&S which has been observed as procedure up to this point.
Actions to be commended:All panel members assessed the S&S as necessary, proportionate and ethical.
Well conducted search with correct attitude and treatment.
Both officers were very respectful, kept the situation calm and worked particularly well with this person.
Officers were professional and polite with both the subject and bystanders interjecting - worked well with him and others around them, keeping the S&S calm and friendly.
Officer persevered with GOWISELY fully despite multiple interruptions. Should be praised for modelling GOWISELY well.
Great example of good practice from the officer and clear communication - the subject was kept informed of where the officer would be touching and why.
All panel members assessed this as the best service the police could have provided.
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
No supervisor sign off.
Panel requests further understanding on the rationale of searching a 14-year old (minor) alone when mother is available nearby and could have been present.
Alternative options to email receipt should be provided - young people may not want to give out personal info.
Some panel members felt that the officers were a bit forward in their approach / comments, and not very empathetic about the subject’s previous experience of assault or how intimidating being searched at that age is.
Panel were unsure if GOWISELY was fully followed with identity and station - start of BWV was hard to hear with background noise.
The panel were unsure if the parent was later informed of this interaction with their 14 year old child - is this a requirement?
Actions to be commended:All panel members assessed the S&S as necessary and proportionate.
Brief and respectful search.
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
S&S BWV 4 feedback to be provided
No supervisor sign off.
Panel members were unsure what procedures were used with the second officer engaged with the second subject and what was articulated - GOWISELY did not appear to be fully covered. This may have been because he was found to be wanted. Request understanding on what procedure/escalation tactics should be used in such a situation?
Officers did not turn on BWV at the start - both officers' identities couldn’t be heard.
With the first subject, the officer began the physical search from behind without first letting him know. This could have escalated the situation. Good practice would be to keep the subject informed of the search commencing and what he would be doing.
Actions to be commended:All panel members assessed the S&S as necessary, proportionate and ethical.
Officer remained calm and professional - this along with appropriate body language kept the situation safe in a narrow space with intoxicated individuals who admitted to having sharps on them.
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
SEPTEMBER 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
No supervisor sign off.
Panel members perceived de-escalation through forceful but proportionate instructions of “drop it”. There were no checks that the individual understood what was being said (which with hindsight may have been a factor) - perhaps why the subject came closer with the knife. However, he could have very easily lunged forward and hurt the officer. Should the officer have moved back and attempted to defuse the situation, keeping the space between them?
After the handcuffing there was a lack of communication and enquiry into the subject's wellbeing. His body language and initial unresponsiveness could indicate something underlying. Panel were made aware of language barriers but more could have been done to identify if there was a mental health need. This was perhaps overlooked. He may have been in shock but what happened afterwards? How quickly was a translator provided?
Officers left the knife in the shop with members of the public who may have been involved with the subject - returning to collect it once the subject was detained and safe to do so. With only two officers present, is it the correct procedure to leave a weapon like this?
Actions to be commended:PLANTER was followed.
All panel members were satisfied that the officers acted without discrimination, were truthful throughout the encounter and implemented policing powers constructively.
With members of the public present and continued approach of the subject with a knife, this was the best outcome in a difficult situation - no one was hurt.
Officers were professional and respectful 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 to be provided
No supervisor sign off.
Panel did not see the start of the situation so any de-escalation was while tasers were deployed. Were there any attempts made to talk to her without this UoF present?
A female officer being present could have helped deescalate / with that many male officers around could have been triggering. Was a female officer requested? This would have also been more appropriate when removing barbs from her body while handcuffed
Panel did not feel see any mental health support being provided. She was clearly in crisis and sounded like a panic attack was being triggered in the car. The officer could have been better at helping to slow her breathing down, as well as describing what they were going to do from this point - e.g. we're going to help you sit down, we need to remove the barbs from your clothes - especially as they were male officers who needed to get physically close, which may have been triggering for the subject. Some reassurance or wellbeing support should have been present.
Panel members were concerned that there were no female officers present. Did officers request any? Whilst it could be understandable that they weren’t there at first, they could have been called in, especially due to the nature of the incident, subject being a young female surrounded by male officers and taser probes needing to be removed
PLANTER assessed as not fully followed.
Actions to be commended:All panel members were satisfied that the officers tried to de-escalate the situation, were truthful throughout the encounter, overall considered the wellbeing of the subject, implemented UoF constructively and for a proportionate length of time, as well as acting without discrimination
Officers were compassionate and kept the subject informed at the start of the incident - tried to coerce the subject away from risk, explained what was going to happen if she continued into the wooded area and why the taser would have to be deployed.
Voice tones were calm and appropriate - important in this kind of situation when the subject may not be able to listen to dialogue.
Preventing her from going into the dark woods with a knife was achieved - most humane tool at that time.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
UOF BWV 3 feedback to be provided
No supervisor sign off.
Panel members immediately heard discrimination, swearing and unprofessional language from officer as they were walking to incident: telling the assiting officer that the subject was a “scrawny little c***”. Bias or “banter” is very dangerous pre encounter as these judgements affect attitude and actions. Concerning that the officer then changed his policing once he thought the camera had only started.
If there was a biassed pre-existing relationship with the officer, this may have been why the subject reacted and did not respond to de-escalation. It appeared to be a cry for help as the subject was heard to be apologising as he came back to consciousness.
Panel members were concerned with the use of additional force following taser - PAVA by assisting officer and leg restraint. Both were not necessary or proportionate as the subject was already on the floor. Second officer appeared to have acted in panic as he was heard apologising after.
Some panel members felt that officers cared more about themselves getting air than the subject - whether the subject was breathing appeared to be an afterthought, made comments about him faking unconsciousness and did not appear to care about his immediate wellbeing. Their attitude was very jovial and sarcastic for the seriousness of the situation.
PLANTER assessed as not fully followed.
Actions to be commended:
Officers tried to de-escalate the situation - repeated shouts to drop the knife.
All panel members assessed UoF as necessary to prevent self harm or harm to others.
Knife secured and removed.
Ambulance called as medical attention required. Cushion and blanket provided until they arrived
UOF BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
Training Questions for October Panel:
Training that officers have - would like more details on packages and CPD (mandatory and add ons) - do they utilise best practice to model?
No real answers whenever I’ve asked the police - not as secure as it should be. There should be pathways and a definitive plan they can get their hands on. If not, there really should be.
Older officers - are they getting more recent, up to date training, especially when mentoring i.e. mental health?
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
