JUNE 2024 REPORT (7-9pm)
JUNE 2024 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham and Lauren Duguid, (Body Worn Video [BWV] Subject Matter Expert Support for Devon & Cornwall), welcomed new panel members and visiting BCU Commander Tom Holmes (North Devon)
This month’s cases selected BWV involving repeat subjects of S&S and types of UoF
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]
JUNE 2024 REPORT
Body-Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Lauren Duguid, 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 - Vehicle stop search - 4 male subjects:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was proportionate.
Some Panel members couldn’t hear if GOWISELY had been fully followed due to the background noise of additional officers and dogs, and questioned if the number of vehicles and dogs present were excessive.
Senior officer appeared less relaxed and his demeanour could have potentially escalated the situation.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The Panel assessed this encounter as ethical.
The Panel would like to recognise the conduct of the junior officer and tutor.
Object found - needles and drug paraphernalia found in the car.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“Appeared to be a confusing scene. Officers were looking for an article based on good intelligence. Regarding office numbers, ideally there would be 2 officers per detainee for safety reasons (due to drink/drugs), there was also a duty constable providing mentoring to a student officer.
Subject was asked to put down their drink in a glass and vape for safety reasons.
Regarding who is arrested, if anything is found in the car, difficult to answer as it depends on the scenario - if the subjects are known to each other, then they would likely be arrested together as techniques are used to hide evidence between drivers and passengers. .”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
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.
S&S Case 2 - Report of unresponsive male:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no BWV reference for this case?
The Panel asks if there was any follow-up with the teenage girls who reported and witnessed the incident?
Some Panel members were surprised that the quantity of spice found was not sufficient grounds to detain.
The officer explained the bag search better than search of subject’s body.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate.
The Panel assessed this encounter as ethical.
The Panel assessed in this context, the subject received the best service the police could have provided.
GOWISELY was followed.
Officer was professional, respectful, kind and very calm - moved conversation swiftly to avoid escalation.
Officer showed concern and compassion for the subject's health - safeguarding approach and repeatedly offered medical treatment. .
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“Subject became abusive and aggressive towards ambulance staff. There was a special constable present (seen at the end of BWV) who spent some time with the teenage girls and additional reassurance will have been sought.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
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]
JUNE 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 - Young male subject in mental health crisis threatening to jump out of the window:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no BWV reference for this case?
The Panel was unsure if PLANTER was fully followed.
Panel members did not assess effective de-escalation.
Many Panel members stated they found this case concerning due to the poor conduct of officers with a subject in an obvious mental health crisis.
The officer's language was unprofessional and argumentative. Public servants should not be shouting “you’ve been lying to us” repeatedly, “you’ve lost our good will” and pointing.
Officers showed no empathy. This young subject was in distress - it was supposed to be a welfare issue, but the officer appeared annoyed at the subject and situation.
A trauma-informed approach should have been taken. This was a crisis moment that needed an expert with training – not just a support worker.
The Panel requests that this BWV is saved/marked as evidential and the case is referred to the Section 136 Panel for further scrutiny.
Panel members asked if all officers receive trauma training, and if dispatch can deploy officers according to skills?.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“From understanding further background, there was some frustration from the officers with running around after the individual all night when they should be elsewhere.”
Response received from visiting Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham:
“I will ask officers to review footage and point out areas of training – particularly from a trauma informed perspective. There is a lot of information and training on this topic but I feel that frustration got the better of these officers. I will advise for further training to be given to all those present. In this particular case, a Sergeant was in attendance and the response should have been better.
Regarding control deploying officers according to skills, this would be very difficult to do, particularly in more rural areas, due to police shortages and nearest mental health assistance being in Exeter. I have asked Lauren to look into the outcome and report back to the Panel.”
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
UOF Case 2 - Female subject at risk of self harm:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no BWV reference for this case?
The Panel noted that communication in this incident required greater attention, as it involved members of the public who were deaf. Shouting at someone to ‘calm down’ is not an appropriate response. Officers didn’t ask if the subject could lip read, and there were limited attempts to ask the daughter to use sign language. As a result, the subject was confused and unable to communicate with her hands restrained at the back. Interpreters should have been utilised.
The Panel asks what training is given to officers engaging with members of the public who are deaf / hard of hearing?
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this use of force as necessary due to the risk of harm, and handcuffed the subject for their own safety.
Officer responded quickly to the situation.
Officers advised they were recording.
Officers built rapport by using first names.
The Panel noted that officers tried to deescalate the situation before implementing use of force.
PLANTER was followed.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I was impressed with the speed of responsiveness. Regarding trasating, the young females present were in conflict with the subject so they may not have ‘translated’ accurately. On balance, I recognise it must have been a stressful situation but officers moved her to another room (out of danger) and then moved handcuffs to the front to enable her to communicate ( in written form and/or sign language).”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
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.
““These conversations never stop. The diversity of thought in the DCCS Panel is incredibly valuable” ”
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.
