JANUARY 2022 REPORT
JANUARY 2022 REPORT
DCCSP members along with Chief Inspector Mark Beavan and Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrator Ian Cocklin observed six BWVs selected by the panel from the previous month's Stop and Search [S&S] and Use of Force [UoF].
The following identifies points to action, D&C Police responses, case assessments and outstanding areas that require investigation. For this month's scrutiny, the panel selected cases based on officers with the highest reported usage of S&S and UoF, as well as selecting cases involving officers who'd previously received red or unknown RAG ratings on more than two occasions.
Case Selection .
Case Selection .
ACTION POINT 1
Panel again requested exploration by D&C Police into following Bedfordshire Police and panel's example in extending the length of time BWV are stored for [90 days]. Correspondence with D&C Section 136 Panel also highlighted a need for this and in a recent meeting with Chief Supt Jo Arundale she stated she would like to see how other forces have implemented this change. Panel provided details as requested.
D&C POLICE REPONSE 1
Ian Cocklin [IC] to keep panel updated with upcoming policy changes and share details with relevant departments/officers.
ACTION POINT 2.1
MB to investigate the following twelve UoF cases / nine officers highlighted during case selection with no BWV available, preventing scrutiny.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2.1
"I work on a Proactive Team which primarily involves working in plain clothes with no overt PPE visible due to the nature of our work. As such we do not routinely wear BWV, nor do we have any obvious place we could affix it when it comes to spontaneous work. This was a spontaneous attendance at an address following intelligence around the whereabouts of two missing persons involved in county lines.
There was subsequent intelligence around their possession of a large knife which posed a risk to officers and required the forced entry to a premises and a use of force to detain them, despite their age. It was for this reason that no body worn was on this occasion."
2.1 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank officer for their explanation, however based on their statement, panel request policy re: plain clothes and use of BWV, as well as speaking to officer about the erroneous culture within D&C Police that needs addressing re: not turning on BWV with younger subjects.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2.2
"I have reviewed my BWV and I was recording at the time, I must of ticked no on the use of force form by accident, sorry for the inconvenience caused."
2.2 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank officer for their response, however learning required re: completing UoF form.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2.3
"Officer is a new Detention Officer at the Custody Centre in Plymouth. Her Supervisor is aware of a training need but informs me that she was not wearing a camera at the time as she was awaiting a lo-in [being new] so had not collected a camera from the Hub for wearing on that shift."
2.3 PANEL RESPONSE
Training required for new detention officer re: collecting, wearing and activating BWV during shifts.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2.4
"This was a BTP arrest – 2 X BTP officers completed BTP their own in force ‘use of force’ process. During the period of December 2021 Plymouth Custody BWV had a fault on the system which was reported a number of times by custody staff – this fault was subsequently rectified during late December. This above use of force was covered by Custody CCTV."
2.4 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank officer for their response, however based on their statement, panel requestinformation on what is the policy re: BTP officers UoF and checking CCTV and following up on BWV system failures?
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2.5
"I have looked at the logs and checked DEMS 360 and I think the issue in finding the footage has come from my involvement being on a different day to the logs creation. In both instances I have activated my camera, but they have not been marked as evidential."
2.5 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank officer for their response, however based on their statement, panel has concerns re: officer not saving BWV as they believe it's not evidential. Training required.
2.6-2.7 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank officer for their response, however based on their statement, investigate “issues with the BWV system” and why they were unable to book out any cameras.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2.8-2.10
"I’ve had a look at the three use of force incidents that have been selected here and I have looked into the logs/crimes/files to ascertain whether I deployed BWV. I did deploy BWV on all of the incidents, however I have not marked all of it for retention. On the incident on log 67 of 10.12.21 I was recording with BWV. I have saved this now [just in case as I do not want it to fall off of the system] but it was not initially saved as it was of no evidential value as it showed the same as the other attending officers BWV.
On the incident on 05.11.21 I was recording with my BWV however the use of force was in relation to compliant handcuffing and did not show anything evidential, this was not marked evidential. On the other incident on 05.11.21 I was recording with my BWV and should have been saved. I have reviewed the BWV for this incident and I thought I had saved this as it would have provided evidence for a public order offence to support supporting officer's BWV. I can only accept the mistake in this case as I thought that I had marked this footage as evidential once it had uploaded to my BWV.
#I will have a look at the BWV policy and try to check this myself but, I was not aware that it was a requirement to save BWV in relation of use of force incidents where there is no evidential value. Is this the case? I’ve asked around a few other officers and they were also not sure if this was a requirement especially if it pertains to compliant handcuffing. I appreciate that this is a fault on our part for not being abreast of the BWV policy, I think that the requirement for retention of body worn video is the part causing the most confusion."
2.8-2.10 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank officer for their responses, however based on their statement, panel has great concern around BWV accidentally not being saved as well as the station's culture and other officers perceptions re: not saving BWV when believing it is “of no evidential value”. Investigation and training required.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2.11
No response received.
2.11 PANEL RESPONSE
No response received.
2.12 PANEL RESPONSE
Panel requests Chief Inspector Mark Beavan follow up officer's lack of response.
ACTION POINT 3
MB to investigate the following three S&S cases / seven officers highlighted during case selection with no BWV available, preventing scrutiny.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 3.1
"I was in company with my student during their stop search who had his BWV switched on. I thought I had switched my BWV on but I obviously hadn’t. "
3.1 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank officer for their response, however based on their statement, panel requests learning on correctly turning on BWV, especially if a student officer is observing this inaction.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 3.2
"I have saved the body worn now. The search also took place in a cell at Newquay custody so there will be footage of that."
3.2 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank officer for their response, however investigation/training required re: why BWV not saved initially. No response received from assisting officer - Ch Insp MB to follow up.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 3.3
No response from the reporting officer. Response from assisting officers: "I have found the requisite footage. It was already saved and linked to the incident so I don’t know how it has fallen through the net. Due to the length of the recording there is second piece of footage with the same reference on the system." "I remember the job as it was myself and the above officer assisting an OD unit officer in Newlyn for a potential BiP at a pharmacy.
We had been busy that evening in and around the Penzance area with a dog bite, another potential premises break in thetown and then this incident. The reporting officer was already dealing with the male upon our arrival and we assisted as he was particularly inebriated and anti-police. I’m sure that I had activated my BWV on arrival as I did with the previous 2 jobs mentioned above, however, reviewing my DEMS, nothing has been recorded for either of the incidents. I'm wondering if the battery had died. I’ve spoken to officers since and one has captured the incident on his BWV."
3.3 PANEL RESPONSE
Thank two assisting officers for their responses, however based on their statements, panel requests further information on BWV battery and how officers are alerted to low power. No response received from reporting officer - Ch Insp MB to follow up.
Body Worn Video Assessment .
Body Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE (UOF)
JANUARY 2022 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Ian Cocklin 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
Compliant handcuffing at PRYZM nightclub. PLANTER came across vague, panel were unsure if it was followed as there are sections of information missing, which also made it hard to confirm if the force used was appropriate. Subjects who were arrested may not have understood what was going on due to cultural barriers and were not informed of BWV. Panel asks for clarification re: whats attempts were made to overcome language barrier?
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
"I attended on 12/12/21, where the suspect handed himself in at custody. The second officer was present when arriving at the job and at the time of arrest. After the arrest and leaving the nightclub we split up as the assisting officer had arrested the other suspect alleged of committing the offence and travelled to custody separately.
I am unaware if his BWV was recording whilst in attendance and I am now on annual leave. I appreciate the panels feedback regards communication with the arrested male, initially this was very difficult given the language barrier and the level of music inside the nightclub. It was through his friends that I was able to understand him initially. However this was not the case after having left the nightclub and I welcome the panels feedback on this matter. Regards informing people that my BWV camera was recording, I have reviewed the footage and this was done at 0321hrs and spoken aloud to the group of four males I was speaking with.
However I acknowledge that this could have been done sooner on in our interaction. Response from assisting officer "I can confirm I was present, along with four other officers. My BWV and the arrest that I made is captured in three clips, totalling approx. 101 minutes from the point we arrived to the end of the custody process." Thank two officers for their responses, however based on their statement, panel suggests learning is required for engaging with subjects with language as a barrier.
UOF BWV 2 feedback to be provided
Compliant handcuffing - Charles Cross holding cell. It appeared that the subject in context was unpleasant to deal with and his language was unpleasant but the officers could have attempted to deploy deescalating language - there was not much dialogue and this could have helped prevent the subject from becoming angry.
Officers sounded agitated and needed to keep emotion in check and be objective. Panel felt there was a power imbalance – officers very heavy handed and duration subject was handcuffed [3 hours] seems to be too long.
BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO BWV 2 REPORT
"This incident is covered in two BWV logs, due to the length of the time we were with the gentleman in question. I have checked on DEMS and both are linked and saved as evidential, the first of which is timed 06:28hrs and the second 07:08 hrs. If the panel only viewed the second of the two linked videos this may explain the error in timing. I am unaware if the panel viewed both videos or only the second one, regarding the comments around length of time being handcuffed and power imbalance it may be easier to ascertain our view point with both having been viewed. Myself and the assisting officer did not arrest this gentleman, bu took over from night shift to book him into custody. The first thing I heard the gentleman saywas “I am going to f*ing chin you in a minute, f* off you c*."
He did not become more polite at all and made comments to officers that “I will smash your head in" and “I will stick these cuffs right in your jaw." The subject had been at hospital before coming to custody and having heard comments like those I have described, I did not feel it would have been safe for us to remove his handcuffs. Regards the use of force the panel referred to being potentially heavy handed, the gentleman had made threats to hurt officers as described and then on two occasions made quick motions/movements towards them. I do appreciate that the BWV camera may not always show exactly what I have seen and am reacting to and that the panel do not have the benefit of context. However I do find their feedback useful and thank them for it. Apologies in this instance that I did not inform the gentleman that my BWV camera was recording and that is an error on my part.
If I can be of any further help to yourself or the panel, please do not hesitate to ask". Response from assisting officer "this footage is recorded across two clips totalling 65 minutes so this may be why there is some confusion around timing. We started at 0630 hrs within custody relieving the nights team and stayed with the detainee until leaving custody. I am also the officer that further arrested him for urinating in the holding cell." No response received from arresting officer. Thank two officers for their responses. Ch Insp MB to follow up response from arresting officer. Panel requests policy re: length of time advised with handcuffs.
UOF BWV 3 feedback to be provided
Tactical communication assessed as proportionate and considerate - using dialogue to deescalate the situation. Minimal use of force and good practice in report submission. Should be referred to a mental health panel for specific assessment.
UOF BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 3
No response yet received from reporting officer. Ch Insp MB to follow up response, training/learning required and referral to section 136 panel.
UOF BWV 4 feedback to be provided
Detained under section 136 with compliant handcuffing. Panel has concerns regarding why BWV footage did not start sooner - learning for the officer to switch camera on a lot sooner. Request referral to mental health panel as even though officers may be following procedure as subject was running away, members highlighted that three officers could very well have felt excessive and heavy handed to the individual. Seemed appropriate to wait for the ambulance.
UOF BWV 4 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 4
No response yet received from reporting officer. Ch Insp MB to follow up response, training/learning required and referral to section 136 panel.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
JANUARY 2022 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Ian Cocklin 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
S&S BWV 1 feedback to be provided
Panel assessed S&S in Falmouth as having reasonable grounds and GOWISELY followed by officers. However, panel requests further details from officer on the evidence search of male subject. Reflective learning/training is required for assisting student officer who did not switch BWV on and asks for reasoning behind this.
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
No response yet received from reporting officer or student officer. Ch Insp MB to follow up responses and training/learning required.
S&S BWV 2 feedback to be provided
Panel commended officers in this Penzance S&S for following GOWISELY procedure well, demonstrating positive conduct with subject and highlighted this case as an example for others officers to observe and follow. Learning required re: wrong times recorded on the report and whether officers should notify subjects of BWV recording.
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
No response yet received from reporting officer or student officer. Ch Insp MB to follow up responses and training/learning required.
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
