OCTOBER 2024 REPORT (7-9pm)
OCTOBER 2024 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) and welcomed new panel members and visiting Chief Superintendent Roy Linden.
This month’s cases selected BWV involving the time of year (high tourist periods).
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 USE OF FORCE [UOF]
OCTOBER 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 - Vehicle stop due to no insurance; young male subject subsequently detained on misuse of drugs act:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Some Panel members noted that the BWV angle made a lot of the interaction unclear.
The majority of Panel members expressed confusion about how the stop initially for "no insurance" escalated into a drugs search under the Misuse of Drugs Act. While this was explained later, several panel members were unsure about the grounds for this transition. Communication could have been clearer to both the subject and in the overall interaction, particularly regarding the grounds.
Some Panel members noted that the situation escalated quickly, with little opportunity for the officers to calm the subject down before resorting to handcuffs.
Some Panel members asked whether plainclothes officers conducting the stop for a minor traffic offence was typical, raising questions about the nature of the stop and its escalation.
Some Panel members noted that the subject appeared young and questioned whether any underlying mental health issues were considered during the stop. This was raised as a point for further scrutiny.
Actions to be commended:
All Panel members assessed that the officers attempted to de-escalate the situation.
All Panel members noted that the use of force and overall treatment of the subject were fair and proportionate. The officers appeared to maintain professionalism throughout and were calm and composed.
Some Panel members specifically commended the officers for managing an increasingly abusive subject and de-escalating verbally, even amidst verbal slurs from the subject.
The majority of Panel members assessed that PLANTER was followed and officers implemented use of force constructively. The consensus was that it was proportional, necessary, and applied only when needed—particularly in response to the subject becoming aggressive.
Some Panel members noted the force was minimal and handled well.
The handcuffs were adjusted for the subject’s comfort, showing consideration for their well-being.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“Plain clothes officers cannot stop a vehicle - the initial stop carried out by a neighbourhood officer. Officers do not have to introduce themselves. I do agree with the Panel that there was a lack of explanation for the ‘grounds’, despite legislation being mentioned.”
UOF 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF 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.
UOF Case 2 - Safeguarding concern: young male subject (10 yr old) witnessed being given drugs:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no NICHE reference number.
The Panel members were unsure if PLANTER was followed.
Some Panel members questioned whether a referral to child services was made following the incident, especially considering the mother mentioned the child had ADHD and autism, and that his medication was delayed. They suggested that this child might require professional intervention beyond policing.
Some Panel members noted that when the young subject started shouting, the officers responded by mirroring his behaviour, raising their voices and aggressively talking in an inappropriate way. While this is a common technique to manage such situations, some Panel members assessed that this may have escalated the situation and contributed to the child’s distress.
Most Panel members understood the need to restrain the subject for their own safety and prevent them from hurting themselves in the vehicle, but had concerns with how his head was held.
Some Panel members raised concerns about how the use of force, such as handcuffing, might affect neurodivergent children, and questioned whether it caused the child to experience a meltdown. The overall handling of neurodiversity was an area of uncertainty. A few Panel members suggested that further exploration of police protocols and training for dealing with neurodivergent children could be useful. One Panellist offered to provide additional insights on neurodiversity to help inform future cases.
Some Panel members raised concerns that no one asked the young subject why he was out or why he had left his home, as there could have been safeguarding issues related to his domestic situation. Questions were raised about the child’s home situation, especially given his father’s presence and his strained relationship with his mother. They felt more focus on these questions might have provided valuable insights into the child's well-being.
Actions to be commended:
Most Panel members found that the use of force was appropriate and constructive. Some panel members raised questions about whether there was an age limit for handcuffing, but acknowledged that the child’s behaviour and the need for protection justified the action. The use of handcuffs was proportionate to the circumstances and aimed at ensuring the child's safety.
All Panel members assessed that the officers showed concern for the welfare and wellbeing of the child, particularly noting their efforts to safeguard him and manage his behaviour. The officers were also observed to be attempting to get him home safely.
The majority of Panel members felt the officers made efforts to de-escalate the situation, even in a difficult context involving a distressed child who was acting violently. The officers continuously tried to calm the child and supported him throughout.
Some Panel members noted that de-escalation was challenging due to the child’s neurodivergence and distress, but officers handled the situation with patience
Some Panel members noted that the police are increasingly dealing with complex, non-crime-related issues such as safeguarding and domestic problems. This case was an example of the officers’ ability to manage difficult situations that fall beyond traditional policing duties.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“There is an update to current and future training in the pipeline. Officers initial training when joining the force teaches the importance of language and clarity.
Time taken with use of force was reasonable given the complexity of the case. However, with the restraint of the child’s head, I would have preferred officers to have used a softer surface. The officer’s tone was too authoritative and loud which inflamed the situation. I will ask officers to approach the child in a restorative way and check in on how he is doing now.
Referrals would have taken place with children’s services after this.”
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.
UOF Case 3 - Report of assault/fight - two male subjects:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The BWV pre-record was not active - it was difficult to follow the sequence of events clearly, making it hard to determine if the escalation was justified from the beginning. The Panel noted that more background on the build-up was required for effective scrutiny.
Some Panel members noted that the camera position made it difficult to assess use of force on older male.
The Panel members assessed there was no clear attempt to de-escalate the situation before the officers quickly moved in to restrain the individual. They noted that the officers' approach seemed abrupt, as they immediately stated, "You're nicked," without explaining their actions.
Multiple Panel members noted that the officers acted very forcefully and quickly, without giving much explanation to the individual being detained. While the presence of a potential knife explained the urgency, there were concerns that the initial approach could have been more measured. One Panel member raised the question of whether the officers could have reassured the subject that his father was not in danger, which might have helped to calm him down.
Several Panel members expressed concerns that the officers did not fully check on the welfare of the father, who was kicked during the struggle. Although they checked in with him verbally, leg could have been inspected for potential injury.
One Panel member also raised the question of how the father ended up on the ground and wondered if he had been handcuffed as well, as there was mention of him trying to kick the handcuffs away.
Actions to be commended:
A few Panel members acknowledged that the officers may not have had much opportunity to de-escalate, noting that the situation likely required immediate action. After the subject was restrained, the officers backed off, suggesting they were mindful of avoiding further escalation once control was achieved.
The majority of Panel members felt that the welfare of the detained subject was considered.
Most Panel members agreed that the use of force was proportionate, necessary, and ethical, especially after understanding that a knife was mentioned as a possible threat.
Most Panel members assessed that PLANTER was followed.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Roy Linden
“I will be seeking clarity on what these officers were deployed to from Karen. It is a non-negotiable that BWV pre-record was not used - this is now a mandatory requirement, and I would have preferred a medical check to have taken place on the older father.
The position of the camera couldn’t be helped as it was knocked during the altercation. The use of force was appropriate to take control of the situation.”
UOF BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 3
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.
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.
