MAY 2024 REPORT (3-5pm)
MAY 2024 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 Ch Supt Benjamin Deer Commander for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly, Lauren Duguid geographic trainer and assist to BWV expert and MD Sharma
This month’s cases selected BWV involving officers without BWV.
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]
MAY 2024 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 - Young male seen throwing item and admitted to having drugs:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The officer's use of language seemed to dissuade the subject from requesting a receipt.
The Body-Worn Video (BWV) didn't capture the background activity. An off-camera female officer appeared to be looking for a reason / grounds to obtain the subject peer’s surname.
Consent was not sought before unzipping the young male's coat, although not mandatory, it aligns with best practices.
Some panel members raised concerns regarding the length of time officers take to ascertain a subject's date of birth for appropriate engagement.
Actions to be commended:
All panel members deemed this encounter necessary, proportionate, and ethical.
GOWISELY was followed.
The officer effectively managed the situation, keeping the young subject at ease, particularly noteworthy as it was the subject’s first encounter.
The officer exhibited professionalism, remained calm, showed respect, and acknowledged the subject's honesty.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer:
The officer's manner was appropriate, engaging and didn’t escalate.
Subject was very compliant ,which was helpful.
Positive that S&S didn’t automatically lead to the subject's peers being searched.
Consent is not required for standard S&S and there is no
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
The DCCS Panel commends this officer's actions and use of police powers in this particular case.
S&S Case 2 - Male, section 23 misuse of drugs acts, car seen interacting with known drug users:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The angle of the Body-Worn Video (BWV) made visibility difficult, hindering the clarity of the recorded footage.
The officer displayed judgmental behaviour, sighing, and expressing disappointment towards the subjects, which is not in line with professional standards.
Panel members identified officers' language as excessively informal, using terms like 'mate' and 'buddy', which could potentially escalate the situation.
Handcuffing seemed to be influenced by the identity of the subject rather than their behaviour, as they were compliant.
GOWISELY was hurriedly rushed through, raising doubts whether it was fully covered.
Communication lacked clarity regarding the subject's search, with excessive focus on vehicle search and insufficient dialogue about police powers and body search, impacting both the subject and potential observers, including those viewing evidential BWV or passing by the incident.
The language used by the female officer was assessed as entirely inappropriate and unprofessional, describing a female as a "scrawny little thing".
Actions to be commended:
All panel members assessed this encounter as necessary.
The object of the search was found in the vehicle and on the subject.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer:
Under section 23, officers have power to search vehicles and subjects.
Female officer’s comments are completely inappropriate and this will be fed back to her.
Handcuffing is to prevent escape but the officer mentioning the subject was known to him and wouldn’t run away. This use of force needs to be justified.
Officer also instructed another subject being searched by a colleague to be handcuffed, we can check what the officers justifications are for this.
GOWISELY was very quick - this doesn’t add value, it’s not a tick-boxing exercise
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
S&S Case 3 - Report of young male with suicidal intentions, S&S for further bladed articles:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
BWV visibility was not clear at the start - the officers mentioned the subject throwing items and resisting “no need to be like that” / “he kicked off” but this wasn’t evident, just that he was trying to walk away. As a result some of the panel assessed their response as not proportionate.
Subject disclosed having razor blades. The perseverance of more effective, trauma informed communication may have been more effective than use of force. As a result, this subject may lose trust in the police.
Some panel members felt that the initial actions and language of the officers didn’t match - stating ‘we’re here to help’ whilst immediately handcuffing the vulnerable subject. However the panel appreciated that handcuffs may have been out of concern for the subject's immediate safety due to their location at the water edge.
Officer could have verbalised what he was doing and where he was going to touch during the search, especially as this subject was in a mental health crisis.
There appeared to be little communication with the vulnerable young person once in handcuffs and walked away from harbour by the male officer.
S&S done very publicly while handcuffed. Officers could have removed the subject out of view.
Actions to be commended:
Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
GOWISELY was followed.
Officers protected the subject from harm.
Officer asked if the subject minded being touched before they started searching.
Officer asked the subject if they would like to keep their headphones on if it made them feel more comfortable. Good understanding of potential neurodiversity and the need.
The female officer tried to find common ground and engaged with the subject of music, which made the interaction more human.
Male officer later reassured the subject that they were trying to help and could get extra support if needed.
There was appropriate support for the subject following this case.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer:
Officers quickly took control to safeguard the individual with empathy shown during S&S.
Officers mentioned the subject “kicking off” - this wasn’t the case, there was only passive resistance.
S&S should have been done away from a public car park to avoid criminalisation with mental health.
S&S 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
The DCCS Panel recognises that there are areas of excellent practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
MAY 2024 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 - Report of female screaming with Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO):
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Incident appeared quite chaotic with different approaches from multiple officers. Male officers talked over female lead. This is confusing for a subject to follow, particularly if they're intoxicated and argumentative.
Female officer explained reasons initially but appeared to become frustrated ‘I’m not talking to you about it anymore’. Further clarification of what assault had happened (or how officers were protecting his interests by not entering into an interview) could have helped clarify the situation.
There needed to be clearer instructions and what steps would be taken if the subject continued to refuse to get into the van.
Inappropriate language use: ‘You are going to get gassed’ was shouted multiple times by female officer. This inappropriate language can be extremely threatening, triggering and concerning to both subjects and passers by. Officers need to use the official language ‘pava spray’.
Panel members asked if other methods may have been more suitable to get the subject into the van, such as taking him to the floor / leg restraints.
Technical Issue with BWV Audio: at 01:21 the audio on BWV broke when the camera dropped on the floor. Scrutiny was not possible from this point onwards.
Actions to be commended:
The majority of the panel assessed PLANTER as being followed.
Panel assessessed officers as trying to deescalate the situation, giving the subject multiple opportunities to comply.
Subject mentioned he was in pain numerous times. Officers checked handcuffs repeatedly and loosened them.
Officer asked “Is there anything we can reasonably say or do to get you into the van?”
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer:
It is against PACE for officers to provide too much information as it could turn into an interview.
Officers used handcuffs at the front which is the best practice for a subject with this injury.
Officers should have used clearer instructions and steps.
The officer will be spoken to re: use of ‘gassed’ language.
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
UOF Case 1 - Report of female screaming with Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO):
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Officers were very mindful of young children being in the room and not causing trauma while they were in there. However, the panel were concerned for the children’s welfare and adverse childhood experience. Both children should have been removed from the room immediately, instead they were in an emotionally distressing situation that became physical when the subject attempted to take one of them downstairs.
When talking about the subject to colleagues, the officer stated ‘‘he’ll be coming with us soon’, ‘running out of patience’, ‘right, that’ll do’ - this language suggested that police powers were reactionary and not implemented constructively.
BWV visibility was poor when the officer was on the floor with the subject, which made scrutiny of force very difficult.
The panel were unsure if officers considered the welfare and wellbeing of this subject. He repeatedly shouted ‘help’, which at times sounded muffled. Stated he’d been ‘injected in the arm’. Panel asked if there were any other uses of force deployed at this time?
At the end of BWV, the subject appeared to be thrown into the van.
The panel did not assess all of PLANTER as being fully followed.
Actions to be commended:
Officers tried to deescalate the situation.
Officers gave the subject multiple opportunities to stand up and follow them out of the house.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer:
To be added (ran out of time)
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
“I wish other scrutiny panels and services operated more like the DCCS Panel - they are an excellent example of how to have difficult and honest discussions”
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.
