NOVEMBER 2024 REPORT (3-5PM)
NOVEMBER 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 Ben Deer and Chief Inspector James Drake
This month’s cases selected BWV involving Cornwall BCU and self defined ethnicity.
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 [S&S]
NOVEMBER 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 - White female and two young white males - report of cannabis use in car:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no NICHE reference number.
Although the GOWISELY protocol was eventually covered with both subjects, ‘legal power’ and ‘you are detained’ was missed initially with the first subject.
The body-worn video (BWV) footage was difficult to review due to the camera angle being knocked during the search.
A more direct approach was recommended when asking if a subject would like a receipt. Officers should use straightforward language such as, "Would you like a receipt for this stop and search?" to ensure clarity and prevent misunderstandings.
Officers are encouraged to verbally guide subjects through the search process, explaining where and why they will be touching, particularly with younger individuals who may be unfamiliar with stop-and-search procedures. This transparency can help ease subjects’ concerns.
It was noted that one officer referred to a subject impersonally, saying, “Is this one done?” which came across as disrespectful. Officers should be reminded to use respectful, people-centred language at all times to maintain professionalism and acknowledge each subject’s dignity.
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 male officer is commended for separately going through the GOWISELY protocol with each subject, even though they were in close proximity..
The male officer’s clear, structured introduction at the start set a positive tone and made the procedure transparent from the outset.
When the subjects declined to provide their names, the officer remained calm, polite, and respectful, showing professionalism by respecting their right to withhold personal information.
The officer provided a clear explanation about the reasons for requesting the subjects' names, describing the consequences if an object was found and explaining the importance of having their name for complaint purposes. This educational approach showed transparency and respect for their rights.
The lead officer also communicated calmly with an officer who arrived later, creating a unified and orderly approach.
The decision to call the subjects' parents to collect them respected the wellbeing of young individuals and ensured appropriate handling of the situation.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer
“It was helpful to hear everyone’s views, and I felt the search was appropriate and well-managed. Regarding the advice given on identity: individuals don’t have to provide their details; it comes down to the officer considering why they might not want to. If there is concern that the individual may be wanted or committing a crime, then there is the option to use a fingerprint machine or take them to custody to confirm identity. In this case, it wasn’t necessary, as it was clear they hadn’t committed any offences.
Even better if: avoiding a surprise approach and talking through the search would improve the process, although I did think the officer communicated helpfully and appropriately—a measured approach overall.
As for the female officer’s comments, I appreciate the valuable feedback from the Panel on how that came across; it could have been phrased differently.”
Response received from Karen Janicka D&C Police BWV Expert
“Some body-worn videos are becoming older and faulty. To reassure the Panel, this officer has already been contacted about his BWV and checking the positioning is secure.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
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. Actions to enhance professionalism include consistent adherence to GOWISELY, better BWV management, and direct communication about receipts. Meanwhile, the officer’s friendly approach, clear explanations, and calm demeanour are exemplary behaviours that can serve as a model for others in the force.
S&S Case 2 - Mixed race male detained following attempted shoplifting offence:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was ethical. Some aspects could have been improved to better uphold the dignity of the subject. Specifically, conducting the search on a busy public pathway, near a Tesco Express with food deliveries, was noted as lacking privacy. To enhance respect and avoid subject embarrassment, a more private or secluded area could have been chosen for the search.
While the officer covered the main points of GOWISELY, the explanation of "entitlement" was unclear. It would have been more effective to discuss this upfront, along with the other elements of GOWISELY, to ensure the subject’s full understanding.
The officer’s question regarding the subject's place of birth and where they were staying was raised as potentially reinforcing an "othering" impression. While some questions may be situationally appropriate, officers should consider carefully whether such questions are essential to the context, avoiding any that might unintentionally cause discomfort or appear biassed.
In one instance, the officer asked about pliers observed in the subject’s possession but did not pursue further clarification. If questioning a specific item, officers should follow up to establish its relevance and any potential cause for concern.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The majority of the Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate.
GOWISELY was covered.
The officer’s overall approach was polite, calm, and respectful, contributing to a positive interaction. Importantly, he asked if the subject required any help or support during the encounter, showing an empathetic and supportive approach.
Explaining that nearby shops share information about individuals observed engaging in suspicious behaviour was a commendable way to increase the subject’s awareness without escalation, potentially deterring future issues.
Additionally, the officer thanked the subject for their cooperation, and when he noticed the subject preferred items not be placed on the ground, he respectfully handed items directly back.
To conclude the interaction, the officer also asked if the subject would like a receipt for the stop and search, showing diligence in providing documentation and reinforcing transparency.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer
“To clarify, there is a radio link between security staff in certain stores and specific neighbourhood teams. Descriptions of individuals of concern can be shared, and photos may be shared as well, but only when an offence has occurred (e.g., if the individual is banned from a store).
Shoplifting is often a sign of offender vulnerability, so it’s important to understand why individuals are engaging in it, such as limited access to housing, food, etc., and direct them toward appropriate resources. This should be handled respectfully.
Regarding the pliers, they weren’t followed up on because it was clear we wouldn’t get an admission of removing security devices.
The search location was very narrow and difficult; it would have been much better to move to a wider doorway around the corner to preserve the individual’s dignity.
I completely agree with the comments raised about ‘othering’—questions should focus on the reason behind the inquiry rather than characteristics like accent or skin colour; otherwise, it becomes disproportionate. Overall, I’m quite satisfied with the search and the officer’s professional curiosity to understand why the individual is in their current situation, rather than solely focusing on criminality.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
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.
S&S Case 3 - Vehicle check - mixed race male driver unable to produce driving licence, ID or address:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was ethical. Concerns were raised regarding whether the questioning remained proportionate to a stop and search context. Officers asked multiple questions relating to the subject’s employment, visa status, and income, leading to an interrogation-like approach that risked moving beyond the standard remit of stop and search. Officers are reminded to avoid extensive questioning on subjects unrelated to immediate grounds for the stop, particularly regarding employment and immigration status, which falls outside typical police jurisdiction.
GOWISELY was conducted but felt rushed, especially as English was the subject’s second language. Officers should be mindful to communicate each point of GOWISELY clearly and at an appropriate pace, ensuring full comprehension, particularly for non-native English speakers.
The Panel was unsure if the encounter was proprtionate, The use of handcuffs was noted as potentially excessive, given that there was no apparent threat of harm or resistance. Additionally, one officer held the subject while he was already handcuffed, which was seen as disproportionate. Cuffing should be based on clear risk assessment, and officers should explain the necessity to the subject to avoid perceptions of undue force.
At one point, an officer was heard saying, "I'm holding onto the money," which may have sounded alarming to the subject. Language should be carefully chosen to prevent any misunderstandings, especially regarding sensitive items such as personal money or belongings.
Unprofessional behaviour was noted when officers were heard laughing during the interaction, which may have come across as disrespectful to the subject or members of the public. Officers should maintain professionalism and avoid behaviours that could be perceived as making light of the situation.
Actions to be commended:
The encounter was assessed as necessary
GOWISELY was covered.
The female officer asked the subject if he would prefer a male officer to conduct the search, accommodating the subject’s comfort and respecting his preferences.
Additionally, the same officer informed the subject when she was about to search his waistband, demonstrating a transparent and respectful approach, which is particularly supportive for subjects who may feel vulnerable during searches.
As the subject had been standing for a prolonged period, officers offered him a seat in the police car.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer
“It was good to see the initial conversation between the new officer and her mentor happen away from the subject, rather than in front of them. However, I wasn’t pleased with how the questions were asked—it felt as though the officer was trying to prove a point rather than showing genuine interest.
The comment about working on a tourist visa should not have been included in the line of questioning. While it’s appropriate to report it, it’s not something for the police to handle directly.
There’s a clear cut-off point: as soon as you have sufficient grounds to make an arrest, questioning should stop.
Regarding the use of handcuffs, the officers’ feedback suggests nerves influenced the decision to use this level of force. The subject was cooperative and was comfortable being detained. It’s important to explore why handcuffs were deemed necessary; they should never be used just to check off a requirement for a trainee. If any laughing occurred, it’s critical to remember that detaining individuals involves the use of serious powers, and laughing is inappropriate.
We recently discussed in the Race Action Plan whether there is a way to demonstrate or evaluate the appropriateness of stop-and-search practices taking place.”
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S 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. This feedback highlights areas for improvement with a focus on maintaining respect, professionalism, and clear communication throughout the stop and search process.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
NOVEMBER 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
Whatever it is, the way you tell your story online can make all the difference.
UOF CASE 1 Report of aggravated burglary (weapons present) / black male subject
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Officers initiated handcuffing immediately, with little attempt at de-escalation, although this may have been due to concerns about a potential weapon. Additionally, one officer held onto the subject while he was already handcuffed, which felt excessive.
Panel members raised concerns about bias and unnecessary questions. The subject expressed concerns about racial profiling based on limited intelligence (matching items of clothing), which officers should have fully addressed by allowing the subject to voice his concerns and explaining how to report perceived profiling. Questions about the subject's origin (e.g., “Where are you from originally?”) came across as unnecessary and potentially biassed. Officers should avoid unrelated personal questions that could be perceived as discriminatory or intrusive.
The search itself took an unusually long time and was repeated on certain areas (e.g., trousers), which the subject noted as excessive.
An officer’s comment, “He’s got to go in for something,” suggested a lack of clear justification for an arrest. This raised concerns over fairness and led to the impression that officers were looking for a reason to justify their actions retroactively.
Feedback highlighted that PLANTER may not have been fully adhered to, especially regarding the “necessary” and “proportionate” aspects of the encounter. While some force may have been justified due to initial suspicions, the repeated searches and additional physical restraints went beyond what appeared reasonably necessary for a compliant subject.
In this context, the Panel did not assess the subject as receiving the best service the police could have provided.
Actions to be commended:
The officers offered to move the subject out of public view to protect his privacy but respected his preference to remain visible. They also reassured the subject about the body-worn video recording, to address his apprehensions.
The officers were largely professional and polite, explaining each stage of the search, such as which areas they would touch and where his belongings were placed.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer
“I agree with the points raised—it was inappropriate to ask where he was from. There should have been more consideration of whether he was being racially profiled, especially since he asked for clarification on the description given, which could have been looked into further. The language used at the end was very concerning, as it sounded like ‘he’s got to come in for something,’ implying that an arrest was necessary regardless of the circumstances. I will be following up with the officers on this, as I hope this was intended to manage the identification process for a fair and safe investigation rather than based on any personal judgement about the subject, which is how it came across.
I appreciated that they offered to move him away from the main street, respecting his choice in the matter. They also explained where they were conducting the search, but I agree with the feedback that it went on for too long.
Given that they were searching for a bladed item, the officers had more justification for the use of force, including holding the subject as well as applying handcuffs.”
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. This feedback highlights areas for improvement with a focus on maintaining respect, professionalism, and clear communication throughout the stop and search process.
“These DCCS Panel Scrutiny meetings are really, really helpful - it’s great to have the community’s view to share with officers.”
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.
