JULY 2023 REPORT
JULY 2023 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham and Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Karen Janicka welcomed new panel members and visiting Martin Taylor (new DCCSP Social Media and Publicity Coordinator), D&C Police Roy Linden Chief Superintendent BCU Commander for South Devon and Chief Superintendent Matt Longman BCU Commander for Plymouth.
This month’s cases selected BWV involving South Devon and Plymouth location / ‘red’ rated officers
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 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]
JULY 2023 REPORT
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 - Report of male seen with pointed item in Torquay
BWV 1 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Panel were unsure if the incident was proportionate or ethical.
Panel asked why the taser was pulled for the first subject and not the other two when the weapon hadn't been found? The weapon is the danger being searched for, not the subjects.
Panel members didn’t understand the use of a taser when there were 2 adult officers present with the 11 year old child who was on their own demonstrating no resistance or aggression.
With the first subject, the searching officer provided no identity or explanation, quickly implemented taser drawn use of force and then a search.
The first young male actually looked quite frightened when having a taser pointed at him. There wasn't any communication of reassurance bearing in mind his age. Better verbal communication needed with compliant youths, irrespective of whether they are known to police.
No explanation of search given to the young subject (where an adult male officer would be touching his body / waistband etc). Some panel members noted that if there were no other considerations, this action would have given this case a red RAG rating.
GOWISELY was not heard or followed with the first male subject.
The search was not thorough on the first subject and the handcuffs were kept on for too long - no danger or justification once search is complete and nothing has been found. The young male didn’t need to have his arms held up or be walked through the high street whilst in handcuffs.
Second male who was compliant was also handcuffed before S&S, GOWISELY run through after police powers were used and a conversation between subject and officer. No explanation of what was going on or the S&S procedure was provided, instead young people prompted information with their own questioning.
Third male received more GOWISELY but officers identity was not clear.
With all three males - interaction felt rushed, unclear and inconsistent throughout. All subjects should receive GOWISELY and explanations.
Officers did not implement child friendly language. Instead it was very police jargonistic with no explanation. Even if the young people are known, this doesn’t help with building trust in D&C Police. Officers thresholds need to be higher for children - this doesn’t appear to have been followed.
Use of police power in this case would not have been a good example for members of the public to see.
Panel discussed if previous knowledge of subjects could have motivated / biassed police behaviour as there was a passive aggressive, sarcastic tone and use of language. This footage made the panel uncomfortable - it would be a benefit to police officers to understand the psychological damage on young people with use of handcuffs and tasers. Especially young people who have experienced this situation before.
Was there any family follow up?
Actions to be commended:
All panel members assessed the S&S as necessary due to the initial report of blade and subjects running.
The subject's mothers were called and the young males taken home.
Subjects were searched only as far as necessary.
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received.
S&S Case 2 - Plymouth | male subject with two female officers and one male officer previously RAG rated Red
BWV 2 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The panel did not find the encounter necessary.
Some panel members found the reason and grounds for S&S confusing as they kept changing - it appeared that the officers were trying to find justification as he was a ‘known’ individual rather than having actual grounds to search him.
Second officer couldn't clarify grounds without stumbling - repeated information wrong when he said that the subject “smoked joints”. Nothing was found - no grounds or intelligence.
Subject was clearly vulnerable - had money stolen from him.
Subject clearly felt like he was being treated badly “don’t treat me like a muppet” and was given any dignity on such a busy street. It was also undignifying when the officers searched his belongings but didn’t put them back due to ‘their safety’. If it’s safe enough to remove items, why was it not safe to return them?
Subject disclosed he was on PIP so did have protected characteristics. Despite this, there was no support offered or empathy for what he’d been through earlier - disclosing being held up at knife point and money stolen.
Panel asks if officers recorded the assault mentioned, provide information on what to do or ignore what he disclosed?
The majority of the panel did not find the S&S proportionate as the subject was abruptly detained and double lock handcuffed out of nowhere.
GOWISELY was not fully followed. Officer went through it very quickly. Subject asked why he was being searched but was given no response.
Panel suggests further training for the male officer on how to professionally talk to members of the public. Panel noted that the male officer’s tone was patronising, and his language judgemental, controlling, confrontational and antagonistic. The officer also laughed when arresting the subject. This passive aggressive attitude could escalate and create an unsafe situation for the officers, subject or public.
Footage not saved therefore no incident number - why was this?
All panel members did not think in this context, the subject received the best service the police could have provided. Some panel members believed the officers abused police powers.
Panel has found there is little consistency with how members of the public are engaged in similar situations. In previous cases where subjects are visibly seen smoking marijuana, they are given a warning, yet this subject who mentioned smoking earlier in the day received this police treatment.
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
JULY 2023 REPORT
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 - Female subject with plain clothed officers / non compliant handcuffing
BWV 1 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The majority of the panel assessed that overall officers did not deescalate the situation.
Contradiction of uniformed police behaviour to what plain-clothed officers were trying to do. No justification for this.
Options were given to ‘go home or be arrested’ but the subject was clearly intoxicated, traumatised and very distressed.
No evidence of a trauma informed approach - victim of sexual assault who’d had her children taken away. Needed emotional / mental health support.
Use of force happened so quickly when the subject wasn’t fully cognitive - officers needed to take time to explain calmly. Self-sabotage can happen to anyone in that situation but instead she was categorised as a ‘difficult woman’.
Officer tone was verbally aggressive, presumptuous and biased in her knowledge of the subject, shouting and putting her finger in the subject’s face.
Officer appeared rushed and very impatient with the subject, stating “we do not have time for that". It appeared actions were taken out of ‘having enough’. Police powers were not used constructively. Handcuffing someone because they are agitated / intoxicated is not the only technique.
A number of the officers present were unprofessional and judgemental, using sarcasm and shockingly, laughed when teh subject mentioned being previously raped.
Vocabulary use was patronising, personal, sexist and lacked empathy - ‘pissed’, ‘her’, ‘back in the room’, ‘your kids are with someone else because you are drinking’.
Panel suggests further training for officers on how to professionally talk to members of the public and manage trauma / building trust with victims of abuse. Junior officer present and witnessed this poor behaviour being modelled.
Many people don’t know what de-arrest means. When the officers asked if the subject knew she said ‘no’ - this language needed explaining as it may have helped deescalation.
Took a long time for the officer's voice tone and level to come down.
What follow up support was provided? Subject mentioned ‘not wanting to be here any longer’ and dealing with a lot of trauma.
Is there not anyone at police stations who are trained to deal with members of the public coming into stations with trauma / managing deescalation?
Actions to be commended:
Officers held back initially.
Physically looked after her when she was on the floor - didn’t restrain / pin down. Kept contained and safe on the floor and then brought to a sitting position
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received.
UOF Case 2 - Plymouth / domestic incident involving children - handcuffing
BWV 2 feedback to be provided:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Panel were concerned that the officers knocked on the wrong door originally and didn’t know if the second door was correct.
Panel members were unsure if the officers tried to deescalate the situation as the initial interaction became very volatile and chaotic with officers shouting over one another. Male officer appeared very stressed.
One calm officer needed to take charge of comms, as well as an officer diverted to the children to look after welfare. Child was alone and distressed - no priority or consideration given to their safety.
Panel were concerned for the very distressed female subject who was having a mental health episode and appeared to have injuries on her chest. Officers could have arrested her away from the children.
The officers' tones were judgemental - sounded like they were assessing the environment as social workers and disregarded mental health issues.
Assumptions were made and bias present due to ‘previous knowledge’ of the subject - the male was arrested first and the female permitted access to her phone.
Officers heard saying "I don't care" when the man was talking about his childrens. How does that bring restorative practice to the situation?
Was this followed up with social services?
The majority of the panel assessed PLANTER as being followed.
Actions to be commended:
Use of handcuffs did calm down the male subject.
Officer de-arrested male subject to take care of his distressed child temporarily.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received.
“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.
