NOVEMBER 2024 REPORT (7-9PM)
NOVEMBER 2024 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector James Drake - covering Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham (called away to Ottery St Mary tar barrels event), Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) and welcomed new panel members and visiting Chief Superintendent Jim Gale
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 - Vehicle stop - reported as stolen, mixed race male:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no NICHE reference number.
There is a clear need for more consistent use of language support tools, with an emphasis on improving accessibility to GOWISELY and providing interpreters at the start of the encounter. Such services would help put the individual at ease, ensure fairness, and prevent any escalation during the encounter. Some members also asked whether officers had access to a dedicated phone translation service or language line when a translator is unavailable.
The Panel pointed out that it took too long to establish the language spoken by the individual. This delay could have been avoided with a more efficient system in place.
There was some uncertainty about the professionalism of the interpreter who assisted the individual, with concerns raised about whether they were a family member or someone qualified. This could have compromised the integrity of the translation process.
While GOWISELY was mentioned, it was suggested that this should be available in multiple languages, particularly when the individual speaks little English. Otherwise, following GOWISELY is rendered ineffective.
The use of "Section 1 of PACE" was criticised for being unclear to the public. Officers are encouraged to avoid using acronyms or legal jargon and instead provide the specific legislation to ensure the individual understands their rights.
The Panel was unsure if this encounter was ethical. One Panel member questioned the legality of asking the individual to sign a document after being arrested, given that the individual did not fully understand what they were signing. This raised concerns about ensuring the individual’s comprehension and rights during the process.
The Panel expressed concerns about the potential power imbalance, especially when individuals remain calm and compliant despite not fully understanding what is happening. This could lead to unfair treatment or escalation if not managed carefully.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The majority of the Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate.
The majority of Panel members acknowledged that GOWISELY was mentioned.
Some Panel members commented positively on the officers’ recognition of the language barrier and their attempts to address this by slowing down the process and bringing over someone to translate.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“I agree with the panel’s concerns. The entire interaction would have been more effective and human-centred if the officers had used a language line. It's a good question to ask about understanding. A language line is a service that allows officers to call and receive translations. However, I’m unsure how practical this is at the roadside, as it can take some time to get through. Quoting sections of the law or merely referencing ‘PACE’ isn’t very helpful for the community—it needs to be in plain language. I will reflect on this with the officers.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
S&S Case 2 - Plain clothes officers - report of drug dealing, white male:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no NICHE reference number.
Several Panel members highlighted the officer’s overuse of the word “mate,” suggesting it was overly familiar. Using the subject’s name instead would be a better way to establish rapport with respect, especially during official encounters.
There were comments about the officer asking personal questions regarding the subject’s circumstances, such as about jail and drug use. While the officer's approach was generally friendly, some Panel members felt these questions might have been intrusive or unwanted by the subject. It was suggested that officers should exercise more sensitivity when asking personal questions, ensuring they remain relevant to the stop and search.
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 officer was praised for their polite and considerate manner. Many Panel members highlighted how the officer made a conscious effort to communicate effectively with the subject and maintain a calm and respectful tone throughout the encounter.
The officer was commended for their care regarding the subject’s welfare. For instance, they made sure to check if the subject had somewhere to stay and were gentle when removing the bag and conducting the leg search.
The officer followed GOWISELY clearly at the start of the search, ensuring that the subject was informed of the reasons for and the legal basis of the search.
The officer’s friendly approach and chatty manner helped the interaction go smoothly, as noted by several Panel members. The officer’s ability to engage in a conversation helped keep the encounter non-confrontational.
The officer provided information about how the subject could file a complaint if they felt unfairly treated, ensuring that the subject knew their rights.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“I agree with all the comments. The point about using names is well made—once rapport is established, using the person’s name is a very human gesture and would be beneficial in the future. The officer also double-checked at the end and referenced the complaint process in case the subject wished to use it.”
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. The Panel commended the officer for their courteous and professional handling of the situation, including the clear explanation of the search process and the welfare checks made during the encounter. However, the need for more sensitivity in questioning and a more professional tone in addressing the subject remains an area for improvement.
S&S Case 3 - Project Servator: pre planned vehicle stop checkpoint. Asian male subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel observed that the subject appeared nervous during the search. Greater communication regarding what the subject should do with their body during the process could have helped alleviate the nervousness and made the interaction more comfortable.
In cases of pre-planned checkpoints, the Panel suggested that it would be best practice to have both male and female officers present to conduct searches, particularly when a female subject is involved. It was noted that only male officers were present during the search of the female subject.
The Panel flagged the use of the term "furtive" to describe the subject’s behaviour. This term was seen as potentially reinforcing negative stereotypes and should be avoided unless it is based on specific and observable actions. Panel members felt that more neutral language could be used to describe the subject’s actions.
There was some uncertainty about the grounds for the search in relation to the drugs. Panel members understood that the car details were being checked and subsequently lawfully seized, but were unsure about the intelligence behind the claim of drug use. The search should be based on clear and substantiated intelligence, and the Panel recommended that this be clarified to ensure that the grounds for the search were well-founded.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
The majority of the Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate.
The majority of the Panel assessed this encounter as ethical.
The officers’ conduct was polite and calm, which helped maintain a composed and non-confrontational atmosphere.
The officers explained what was happening and what the consequences would be in the event of the search.
The officers informed the subject of their rights during the search, ensuring that they were aware of their legal entitlements.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“There was some admission regarding the use of drugs, but this came after the search. The point about bias is very important, and we must remain aware of it in the operational field, as it may contribute to disproportionality. The interaction appeared to be friendly, with no increase in tension. The time taken to answer questions and build rapport was also notable.”
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. Overall, the Panel felt the officers handled the situation well but provided recommendations to further improve clarity, communication, and fairness.
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
UOF CASE 1 Report of white male causing criminal damage at shopping centre
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel identified a lack of leadership in the situation. With three officers present, the subject was interacted with multiple times, and the proximity of the officers contributed to escalating the tension.
The officers should have managed the crowd more effectively and created more space between the subject and bystanders. The situation seemed to escalate partly because of the presence and involvement of bystanders. The Panel suggested that removing the subject from the crowd whilst waiting for the police van could have helped prevent further conflict, especially as the subject appeared to act more aggressively when surrounded by an audience.
One officer, in particular, appeared to lose control of the situation, with unprofessional conduct and escalating language, which had a detrimental impact on the subject's behaviour. The Panel requests this officer’s conduct be investigated.
The Panel observed problematic language and non-verbal communication from one of the officers. Phrases like “Don’t be silly” and “you’re a weak man” were perceived as inflammatory and unhelpful. Additionally, the officer’s actions—such as twisting his head away from the subject after handcuffing him and leaning against the car in a dismissive manner—were deemed disrespectful and unprofessional. The officer’s behaviour seemed to provoke the subject further, contributing to the escalation.
The subject appeared to be in a vulnerable state, possibly under the influence of substances or experiencing mental health issues. The Panel suggested that the officers did not fully consider the subject’s potential sensory sensitivities or provide adequate warnings before handcuffing him. The quick application of handcuffs without notice could have aggravated the subject’s emotional state, and the Panel recommended a more trauma-informed approach.
The Panel did not assess PLANTER as fully followed.. The situation took a long time to manage, and some members felt that the length of the interaction contributed to the escalation. The actions were judged as necessary, given the circumstances. However, some officers' actions (particularly one officer's unprofessional language and behaviour) detracted from the overall assessment. The type of force used was considered appropriate (compliant handcuffing), but there were concerns raised about how quickly the officers escalated to physical force. The ethical assessment of the case was mixed. The actions of the officers, especially one who was seen as unprofessional and disrespectful, raised ethical concerns.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed this encounter as necessary in the context of the subject’s behaviour.
The majority of the Panel assessed this encounter as proportionate, though some had concerns about the language used and the escalation that resulted from poor crowd control.
One officer was noted for establishing a respectful relationship with the subject early on by using his name and speaking to him calmly. This positive communication should have been continued, and the Panel felt that this officer should have taken more control of the situation to prevent escalation.
The officers did ask if the subject required medication, which was considered a positive aspect in terms of considering the subject’s welfare.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“Police officers are deployed to very volatile situations. The subject was clearly vulnerable, and I agree with the comments about the BWV officer going a long way to keep both the subject and the crowd calm. While the crowd may have initially helped keep the subject calm, they eventually became a hindrance, and there should have been a separation. This is a risky tactic, though, as if the group turns hostile or the subject becomes disconnected, it could escalate. It's a difficult situation to judge. The long wait was due to waiting for a police van, which is safer than using a police car.
The subject was clearly very vulnerable, but officers are taught to use a 'hand-on' approach to gain control. The behaviour of assisting officers is interesting to see from the panel’s perspective. There was a point in this interaction where one of the officers should have taken control of the crowd and moved them away.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
“These discussions are always valuable and enlightening. There are perspectives that I wouldn’t ordinarily think of, and they bring weight to the conversations. Thank you to everyone for your honesty and courage in stepping into this role, as I appreciate that assessing the police can be a daunting task.”
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.
