JUNE 2024 REPORT (3-5pm)
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 Supt Ryan Doyle
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 - Report of a man in a pub with a weapon:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Positioning of the officer’s camera made it difficult to observe exactly what was happening, and audio was poor (due to the background noise from the pub).
The Panel was unsure if this engagement was proportionate. Initial contact escalated very quickly without evident de-escalation techniques – officers' conduct appeared aggressive and heavy handed with their forceful takedown resulting in injury to the subject’s head.
There was a lack of communication and information shared with the subject.
Panel asked what is the usual process for suspected firearms in public places?
Officers did not follow GOWISELY - only grounds and object heard. After the situation has de-escalated, why did officers not cover this?
The Panel were unsure if this encounter was ethical - medical support was inadequate as the subject's head bleed was not attended to until much later by a public bystander and no medical assistance observed except for a tissue offered. There should have been a better duty of care to ensure there were no further injuries after this level of force. Panel members found this lack of concern over a head bleed very worrying - no first aid administered or ambulance called.
In this context, the Panel assessed that the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided.
The Panel asked about the female’s involvement / role - she was not a police officer but was permitted to interact when others were not.
Panel discussed public perception of the police following this incident’s speed and level of police power.
Panel members asked whose responsibility is the injury/duty of care once the subject had been asked to leave the area with a head injury?
Further scrutiny required. Panel asks D&C Police to check whether this particular case has already been referred for further scrutiny.
Actions to be commended:
Panel members assessed this engagement as necessary due to the intelligence received of a weapon.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I was also surprised by the speed of escalation. Firearms officers are well versed in dealing with these types of threats. Once the subject was compliant, GOWISELY should have been used fully and the use of force explained at that stage (i.e. due to level of threat).
The lady in the footage is confirmed as a bystander, officers deemed her to not be a risk. I believe she was asked to provide assistance with tissues and explain the situation.
D&C Police medical training is extensive – surprised no offer to assist the subject from a medical standpoint. First aid kit should have been requested as it shows knowledge that bleeding is considered minor.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
S&S Case 2 - Male stopped in Plymouth car park:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no BWV reference for this case?
Some Panel members were unsure if this encounter was proportionate.
Panel appreciated officers may have been trying to build a rapport but their interaction with the subject was too informal, unprofessional and improper: joking about ‘scousers’, swearing, inappropriate questioning ‘how much do you owe? Is it drugs?”, advising the subject to leave Plymouth, and providing a personal mobile number.
Some Panel members assessed this encounter as messy, unclear and lacking leadership.
GOWISELY was not followed.
The grounds were not clear - was it a S&S or sighting of a missing person?
The powers for searching the subject’s bag were not clear and the actual search not visible - the positioning of the bag search was out of sight both to the subject, and BWV due to camera angle. What were the officers looking for and shouldn’t they have worn gloves?
Panel asked if the incident the subject referred to was looked into?
Panel asked if more could have been done re: safeguarding.
In this context, the Panel assessed that the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided.
Actions to be commended:
Panel members assessed this engagement as necessary.
Officers showed concern for the subject's welfare.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I agree it appears messy – is it S&S or sighting of a missing person? Officers were not clear on the grounds for search, and talking over each other is very misleading for detainees.
Safeguarding was demonstrated but overly-informal. More could have been done to dig into the situation at home and the subject's personal safety.”
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]
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 - Black male suspected of rape:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there are two different dates for this case? Is this down to a record keeping error?
Panel members were unsure if officers tried to deescalate the situation before use of dogs. Earlier context/intelligence not recorded in this BWV. There appeared to be only one warning rather than ‘plenty of warnings’ as stated. Panel asked if the dog was required and/or released too quickly.
The Panel was unsure if PLANTER was fully followed.
The Panel assessed that the welfare and wellbeing of the subject was not fully considered - officer appeared more focused on praising the dog and its level of care, there didn’t appear to be any checking on the welfare of the detainee after the dog bite. The subject should have been taken to the hospital rather than attempting triage on the street. Photos taken of black skin may not show bruises or puncture wounds.
Officer’s language was assessed as inappropriate stating “you’ve got off lucky” after the subject has been bitten three times and received injuries.
The Panel asks for further investigation into this case, as well as the incident log and custody record re: injuries sustained and outcome of arrest.Some Panel members highlighted potential bias of this type of use of force on black subjects and the appropriateness of black people being chased by dogs.
In this context, the Panel assessed that the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided.
Actions to be commended:
Officer communicated instructions during de-escalation.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“It was unclear if the officer was tracking or following. I agree that the warning was not efficient on the first video, therefore further follow-up required to fully scrutinise.
It is difficult to assess whether use of the dog was appropriate without further knowledge. Dog use is appropriate for some types of crime, such as tracking smells in the dark. Transgenerational trauma does need to be further considered and police are grateful for feedback in these terms.”
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
UOF Case 2 - Report of male subject with knife:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Panel members were unsure if the officer attempted to deescalate the situation before use of force present. The officer stated to comms that he “kicked the guy down to handcuff him” but this wasn’t visible on the BWV.
Some Panel members questioned whether the subject fully understood the initial instruction to lie down with his hands behind his back, and the officer could have been clearer with where he wanted the subject’s hands.
Actions to be commended:
PLANTER was followed.
Officer on his own, managed to de-escalate the situation well with little use of force - dog present and taser red-dotted (red dot from a taser aimed at the subject as a warning rather than firing).
Officer was professional and found the weapon.
Good use of community intelligence.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I would like to see officers being able to review footage to assess whether they would do anything differently”.
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.
