SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT (2.30-4.30pm)
SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT (2.30-4.30pm)
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham and Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Karen Janicka welcomed new panel members and visiting police Inspector Denise Alexander (Chair of Legitimacy Panel in Plymouth) and Chief Superintendent Matt Longman.
This month’s cases selected BWV are from high season times in Plymouth.
Out of 8 cases selected this month, 5 had no BWV, the remaining 3 only had 1 used correctly.
Before observing body-worn footage selected by the panel from the previous month's cases, the Chair reminded panel members of wellness practice and the opportunity for debriefing at the end of the meeting.
The Chair also shared dates for:
DCCS Panel’s next data scrutiny meeting - Friday 29th September, 2:30-3:30pm.
Opportunities for panel to be involved in DCCS Panel social media video.
The following report identifies points to action, D&C Police responses, case assessments and outstanding areas that require investigation.
Body-Worn Video Assessment .
Body-Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE STOP AND SEARCH [S&S]
SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT (2.30-4.30pm)
Body-Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Karen Janicka played the clip selected by the panel before members completed their anonymous assessment, discussed and submitted the below feedback.
Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham circulated this report with actions and recommendations to D&C Police Basic Command Unit, Operations Department, Learning and Development, Force Stop and Search Lead and Force Use of Force Lead.
All confirmed discussions, decisions and/or actions taken by officers and supervisors following receipt of the DCCS Panel report are identified in bold blue text.
Panel members use GOWISELY as part of their scrutiny assessment. It is an acronym that officers must use to provide information to a subject before the Stop and Search. If the GOWISELY procedure is not followed then the S&S is highly likely to have been unlawful.
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 Case 1 - Male, Plymouth
BWV 1 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The panel was split on whether this S&S was necessary, proportionate or ethical.
The grounds were not clear - panel members were not clear why officers stopped this specific male. Officers appeared to be looking for a reason to search.
Subject was compliant and honestly answered he ‘had weed’ earlier in the day - attitude of officers changed quickly. Panel questioned the use of restraint and handcuffing.
Panel members raised concerns that the subject wasn’t made aware of his rights.
Subject could have been moved away from a very busy and public area before S&S.
Placement of BWV made some parts of the footage not visible. Audio was also difficult to hear, with sections of the dialogue difficult to hear.
Some panel members questioned the officer searching the subject's pockets before GOWISELY clearly ran through.
Officers should have given IOPC contact information
Actions to be commended:
GOWISELY followed.
Officers gave the subject a safe lift home.
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received.
S&S Case 2 - Young black male
BWV 2 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
BWV was not turned on until S&S had begun - as a result the start / context of the incident was not captured.
The panel was split on whether this S&S was necessary, proportionate or ethical because the incident was not fully recorded.
The panel did not hear GOWISELY fully followed.
Subject could have been moved away from a very busy area before publicly handcuffing and searching. Officer moved out of public view to radio in - could this not have been implemented for the subject’s privacy?
Some panel members questioned the use of handcuffs - one officer mentioned the subject was “not being compliant” but footage didn’t appear to show that. Subject mentioned the handcuffs hurting and he wasn’t resisting - could they have been removed as modelled in previous cases?
Panel members raised concerns regarding the officers professionalism. Use of antagonistic and threatening language “We can do this the easy way or hard way” / “Wrong place, wrong time”.
Panel members asked if there is an extra duty of care for people that are stopped under 18? Should there be a check on parental/carer responsibility?
TC - There is currently a live debate going on re: under 18s and best practice contacting parents/carers following engagement and young adult privacy.
Actions to be commended:
Officers' language and radio communication suggested this S&S was grounded in intelligence-led policing.
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received.
S&S Case 3 - Young male
BWV 3 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
BWV was not turned on until S&S had begun - as a result the pre-record with start / context of the incident was not captured and the subject was already handcuffed.
All panel members were unsure if this encounter was necessary, proportionate or ethical as the subject appeared complaint, GOWISELY was not followed and no context or dialogue provided.
All panel members did not think in this context the subject received the best service D&C Police could provide.
Training needed for officers involved - use of BWV and GOWISELY process.
All uniformed police officers must record the whole incident.
Actions to be commended:-
S&S 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received.
“Officer didn’t have BWV turned on which is why the 30 second pre-record didn’t start (D&C Police policy). Some officers bypass this despite it being mandatory. Lists can be generated of officers BWV use - myself and Chief Superintendent Matt Longman will look into this and inform the panel of the plan” - Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT (2.30-4.30pm)
Body-Worn Videos
Panel members use PLANTER as part of their Use of Force scrutiny assessment:
PROPORTIONATE amount of force implemented
LENGTH of force used
ACTIONS of subject warranted use of force
NECESSARY to use force to protect the subject, officers or members of the public
TYPE used was minimum appropriate
ETHICAL to use force in the situation
REASONABLE for officer(s) to employ
UOF Case 1 - Emergency report from National Rail, officer struck by object, male subject, Plymouth
UoF: taser drawn, compliant handcuffing
BWV 1 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Panel did not see a reason for having so many officers around the subject once detained.
Some of the incident was difficult to view as officers hands were in front of the BWV,
Unclear whether the subject understood what was being said or happening - panel asked if there is a policy for members of the public who find the police process hard to understand?
Actions to be commended:
Panel members assessed the officer as de-escalating this stressful situation and not losing control, despite clearly being nervous and there being a large number of officers present (told colleagues to keep calm).
Officer tried different techniques when he realised the subject’s first language wasn’t English and altered his approach accordingly (e.g. use of body language so the man could copy him).
All panel members assessed the officer as being honest and truthful throughout the encounter.
All panel members assessed the officer as considering the welfare and wellbeing of the subject.
All panel members assessed the officer as implementing police powers constructively. There was a weapon present and the least restrictive use of restraint used.
PLANTER was followed.
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
The DCCS Panel commends this officer's actions and use of police powers in this particular case.
UOF Case 2 - Arrest for theft, male subject
UoF: non compliant handcuffing
BWV 2 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Panel members assessed that officers did not try to deescalate the situation. They were clearly after this specific subject. Rushed straight into a chaotic situation with a lot of adrenaline and heightened emotion, shouting but providing little information or context.
Subject was distressed and asked why he was being arrested. This question wasn’t answered.
PLANTER was assessed as not being fully followed.
Some panel members were concerned that these officer actions with lack of communication towards the subject could escalate a higher use of force incident.
The majority of the panel were unsure if officers implemented their police powers constructively.
Actions to be commended:
The length of use of force was considered.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
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.
