APRIL 2023 REPORT
APRIL 2023 REPORT
DCCSP members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Karen Janicka 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. Karen Janicka 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.
Body Worn Video Assessment .
Body Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE STOP AND SEARCHES [S&S]
APRIL 2023 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Karen Janicka played selected clip, Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham 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
GOWISELY was partly followed - the panel could not hear legal power or ‘you are detained’ initially but this was covered eventually in later dialogue.
Polite dialogue with young people is essential - avoiding the ‘them vs us’ attitude (for example officer saying “Just shut up a minute”). Providing information or knowledge is better than silence where animosity can begin. Officer became more chatty during the search and as a result, subjects became less confrontational
Would be good to ask the subject's age immediately.
Panel asked if parents receive a copy of email receipt if subjects are younger? TC response from Supt Jo Arundale:
Actions to be commended:Found bladed article - S&S warranted.
All panel members assessed the S&S as necessary and proportionate.
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
The panel did not reach a consensus on whether the encounter was necessary, proportionate or ethical.
Concerns that no other persons present were subject to S&S and bias could be involved on the radio - despite there being 10 people present and ‘group fighting’ mentioned in the report, only the black person was focused on. Would intelligence not suggest other subjects should also be searched, especially as the knife wasn’t found on him? Training required?
It would be good to see an officer confirm radio intelligence “are you sure it’s just the black male with dreadlocks and not anyone else from the group?” Demonstrate being a positive role model who is preventing bias and give confidence to the BAME community.
Handcuffs weren’t used in S&S Case 1 with a white male when a knife was present but were immediately used with this compliant subject before GOWISELY was run through.
GOWISELY was not fully followed or clear, some items missed.
Best practice would be to talk the subject through the search, even if officers know the individual. Could have had a more positive interaction.
The officer stated "I could say they are stolen" when finding bank cards on the subject. This language could be perceived as corruption or threatening behaviour. The panel recognises objects such as bank cards under a name that are not the subjects need investigating but this check should be done professionally without accusatory language.
The majority of panel members assessed that in this context, the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided.
Actions to be commended:
Description of the subject provided grounds.
Police officers were polite, professional and calm towards the group of people who appeared intoxicated.
S&S 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
We’d been called to reports of a male IPO a knife in ST AUSTELL CHURCH YARD. The description passed matched that of the male *, I have dealt with * on numerous occasions previously, there is a lot of intel surrounding him, including the possession of weapons.
He was handcuffed under the provisions of Section 117 PACE’84 in order to allow me to carry out a search under Section 1 PACE’84. This was PROPORTIONATE and NECESSARY in the circumstances due to my prior knowledge of *, his relative size to me, being part of a group of very well know nominals (handcuffing would allow safer control of * if we deemed is necessary to remove him to a more private location away from this group); moreover as an AFO I have to consider the security of the numerous weapons systems I am carrying, especially when surrounded by a group, handcuffing in this scenario kept all safe and lowered the risk of further force being used.
Handcuffing was further JUSTIFIED under Section 3 CLA as the male was arrested for a related matter. This decision making is in line with the National Decision Model.
No, we did not search the group also present. The information passed to me via the radio was: “RP (reporting person) SAID YES HE'S SEEN KNIVES”, “TALL BLACK GUY WITH DREADLOCKS HAD A KNIFE ON HIM LONG SILVER KNIFE”, “CM901 (town CCTV) - * AND REDACTED POSS INVOLVED”
* matched this description, was at the location, at the time, giving me reasonable rounds to suspect I would find a knife on his person. To search anybody else in that vicinity would have been unlawful based on the information and intelligence available to me
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
APRIL 2023 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Karen Janicka played selected clip, Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham 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
The officer with the camera must stay with the subject to protect everyone involved. If they need to move, check that other officers have their cameras on.
Panel were concerned with mental health wellbeing:
Unprofessionalism language: saying “he’s mental” to another colleague is not acceptable.
Section 136 wasn’t mentioned - could have discussed mental health teams, obtaining more information. Section 136 can’t be used to arrest someone at home without a warrant which can be difficult at this time of night and perhaps why they didn’t mention. The panel appreciates this but still expects to hear a discussion. A smashed kitchen window prior to police arriving appeared to be the justification for removal.
Sneaking in the PAVA spray escalated the incident - what was the rationale for this? Appreciate the knives were present but he was contained. Some panel members were concerned that this police response could lead to a worse incident next time for this subject. Learning and reflection required.
Subject appeared to be in need of medical help - bleeding and PAVA spray in eyes while handcuffed
Panel members did not reach a consensus on whether PLANTER had been fully followed.
Actions to be commended:Engaged in dialogue from the onset, showed compassion for both female and male on scene in a highly stressful situation for all concerned.
The majority of the panel felt that officers considered the wellbeing of the subject.
Officer confirmed with colleague that an ambulance was called, offered subject medical assistance from the ambulance and kept control updated.
After use of force was deployed, officers explained what was happening, made handcuffs as comfortable as possible, with instructions that they could be removed if he kept calm, and maintained decency by pulling up trousers.
Officers were concerned about risk to life and threat to others present - this may have been the rationale for PAVA spray
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
“Having reviewed some of the BWV, we can see a male, who “Officer A” describes as ‘a big ol fella, drinking beer’. We then see the male self harming, head butting the door. “Officer A” then makes reference to him having access to knives and him continuing to hurt himself. We hear he is arrested on suspicion of criminal damage (we later hear from “Officer A” about the specifics of suspected damage caused).’
In addition the officer “Officer A” has also stated
‘I would like to further add that may have not been clear on bodycam but i had to pick up 5 kitchen knives from the lounge floor which he had been using in the house. One being quite large.
He had been stabbing the sofa with them and had stabbed very deeply the fridge freezer that was in the kitchen. It should be on the bodycam if not i took photos.
He lived with his mum who the neighbour described on the call as hiding behind a wheelie bin outside the front of the house. So she was clearly scared of his behaviour.
So him leaning against the door and then leaning to a kitchen draw where more knives are was a massive concern for me and gemma and thats when we took positive action be at least trying to open the door and getting a foot in the gap so he couldn't close it and then eventually spraying him.
I am aware of the forces scrutiny panel with SMT about this same bodycam footage was reported back last week in a positive way thanking us of our professionalism.
We have a large, drunk male self harming, who continues to threaten officers. The officers have used force to try and help him. We can also hear clear supportive communication with the male throughout.”
UOF BWV 2 feedback to be provided
The panel found this incident confusing to watch as the camera angle made it hard to see what was going on and the situation escalated very quickly.
No de escalation techniques or communication was observed by this officer.
Some panel members felt that the officer being on his own resulted in an attitude that he had to take on everyone.
Officer initially grabbing the male appeared to escalate the situation and instigate violence - the panel were unsure why he had his hands on the subject as there was no explanation given for being detained except for the smell of weed but there was no evidence of this being found.
The officer's attitude and actions started the escalation and put himself in danger, creating a violent situation. Panel members do not condone the violence of the second subject towards the officer but this could have been avoided.
The panel did not assess the officer as considering the welfare and wellbeing of the subject. Having to go to the ground, the subject could be heard shouting “get your hand off my neck” and “I can’t breathe” repeatedly but the officer continued with neck restraint. Officers are not trained to restrain subjects this way unless it is absolutely necessary - doing so because you think a subject is going to run, despite not doing anything, is not reasonable force and is concerning, especially the size of the young male compared to the adult officer. Risk of asphyxiation. Panel asks the officer to provide his justification for this.
Consequent result of escalation - in his rights to detain if assaulted as stated but if calmer then wouldn’t have got to this point
Panel assessed PLANTER as not being followed.
Panel assessed use of police powers as not being implemented constructively.
The panel are not satisfied that the officer did not discriminate, act with prejudice or bias.
The panel assessed that in this context, the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided.
The panel suggests the officer watches back the BWV for much-needed learning and asks if this was your child, is this an appropriate response you’d want to see?
There appears to be no local knowledge of young people in Cambourne - youth services are extremely limited so young people do hang out in these outdoor spaces. Having a calm conversation, introducing yourself and asking questions in a respectful way is very effective - there was no violence or danger present. Panel asks what is being done to improve this?
TC response from Supt Jo Arundale: “We conducted a disproportionality review around the Stop Search of young people with related recommendations. One of these is about the completion of the above and related risk assessment (PPN). So, it's in the pipeline but not yet finalised.”Karen to keep BWV marked as evidential and watch during June scrutiny with Chief Constable Will Kerr.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
I attended a log called in by a member of public reporting a large group of people fighting with bats and weapons, I arrived shortly afterwards on my own.
I walked into the bottom of Fore street where the group were seen walking down after the incident. I immediately saw a group of youths run from me down a small lane at the bottom. I gave pursuit running after them as we potentially had some serious offences committed and outstanding offenders. I went into the lane after them and found them hiding in a doorway.
There was two males and a female in the door way. I told them to stay still. It was smelling strongly of cannabis and one of them was drinking.
I asked names, but the male who I arrested shortly afterwards refused to pass his name, I was told he was called Cody.
He now all of a sudden became incredibly agitated actively resisting despite me telling him to calm down several times appealing with him to stay and settle down. He shouted at the top of his voice “Get off me you big fat bald c**t” then tried to break away and run off, then ended up kicking me with his heal. He didn’t listen to any of my requests to calm down and stay with me, so as it escalated so quickly with his violence, I took what I feel is proportionate and necessary ACTION. I pulled him backwards to the ground in order to detain him and arrest him and get him safely under control so no one got injured. After this happened, another person who I still I didn’t know, kicked me in the face hard cutting my lip.
I asked for urgent assistance a couple of times, giving my location whilst I was on the ground. I held onto Cody on the ground as we landed at the time holding him around his neck. This was at that moment just how we landed on the ground and not ideal and until I had chance to re position and restrain him in a different way more appropriately, such as an arm bar, or wrist lock for example and apply handcuffs I held on to him for a few moments.
He was screaming an shouting whilst telling me he “couldn’t breath” but I could see he could as he was able to shout. I held him around the neck for around about 20 seconds before I was able to get his right arm from underneath him into a wrist lock. Another police officer and we managed to get him into handcuffs.
My decision making at that moment I considered letting him go and get back to his feet, but I decided the risk of him now potentially assaulting me again or running off was high. I’d also had considered he may have a concealed weapon on him, and possibly outstanding for a serious assault, so I decided to hold on for a few more moments until I had him restrained properly and help arrived. He was arrested for the assault on me at the first available opportunity.
Gathered info – Large fight with group of people with weapons – People under the influence of drugs and alcohol – Male being detained was ‘Aggressively resisting’ kicking and pulling away.
Assessed threat – Reports of weapons involved - several other people present at time of stop – On my own - Evidence of being people being under the influence of drugs and alcohol - Situation escalated quickly when male who I was detaining began becoming physically resistant trying to escape – I was then kicked by him, grabbed by another male and pulled to one side and kicked in the face.
Power and policy considered – Arrest for assault police - S. 1 PACE detention for search for weapons – S.32 Search for weapons after arrest
Use of force powers – Importantly, I felt my use of force was absolutely necessary and proportionate to achieve the desired outcome _ ‘Safe protection of life and limb’ – Safely detain and arrest male for criminal offences ‘preventing escape’. 117 PACE
I used Primary control techniques, and defensive skills - pulling him to the ground, then a wrist lock and handcuffs”
“Thank you so much to the panel for giving up their time - it is so important to hear others’ viewpoints”
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
