FEBRUARY 2024 REPORT (3-5PM)
FEBRUARY 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 Jim Gale - Alliance Operations Commander
This month’s cases selected BWV involving Officer / self defined ethnicities.
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]
FEBRUARY 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 - Female subject S&S at vehicle stop - believed to be involved in supply of drugs:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Necessity of Encounter: The Panel were unsure if the encounter was necessary as nothing was found.
BWV Visibility: The camera angle made the search difficult to view; the external jacket obstructed the lens during the interaction.
Communication of Search: Officers did not consistently explain what areas of the body were being touched, which is best practice regardless of previous searches. The Panel recommends officers maintain clear communication during searches by explicitly explaining search locations and procedures.
Audio Quality: Roadside noise made it challenging to hear key details.
Validity of Intelligence: The encounter was based on intelligence, but no drugs were found. This raises concerns about the accuracy of the intelligence, particularly given the use of force (including the presence of dogs). The Panel requests a follow-up check on the validity of intelligence, particularly when it results in significant actions such as involving specialist resources (e.g., search dogs).
Actions to be commended:
Proportionality: The majority of the Panel assessed this S&S as proportional.
Ethical: The majority of the Panel assessed this S&S as ethical.
GOWISELY: Officers followed the required procedure fully.
Female Officer Conduct: A female officer conducted the search on the female subject, showing appropriate awareness of privacy and dignity considerations.
Care for Wellbeing: Officers displayed care by offering the subject her jacket back due to cold weather.
Child Protection: The decision to continue the search back at the station was commendable to ensure the welfare of young children present in the car.
Positive Communication: The male officer engaged the subject in conversation during the search, which maintained a respectful and calm atmosphere.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
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 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.
S&S Case 2 - Male subject S&S following a report of female with stab wound:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Clarity of Instructions and Subject Confusion: The subject's confusion was highlighted by a lack of clear communication from officers. The man complained of pain but was not given a prompt response or adequate instruction on what was happening. The use of "you’ll be nicked" was seen as unprofessional language that may have escalated the situation.
GOWISELY: GOWISELY rights were read quickly and did not seem to capture the subject's attention, especially given his intoxicated state. Some Panel members noted the need to repeat these rights more clearly.
Medical Assistance: Concerns were raised about the officers' failure to follow up on serious medical disclosures from the subjects. The male subject mentioned having ingested a large quantity of pills ("swallowed a month of pills and could die"), but officers dismissed this statement ("that’s fine") without offering medical assistance, and the female bystander mentioned cutting herself but it did not appear to be addressed by officers.
Dignity: The female subject repeatedly asked for the search to be moved to a more private location away from the public view, but officers refused. This refusal potentially compromised the subject’s dignity and contributed to further escalation. Some Panel members believed that moving her away from the immediate scene could have helped maintain privacy and reduced the chaotic nature of the situation.
Subject's Past Trauma and Communication: It was noted that the subject reacted strongly to being touched, possibly due to past trauma. Officers failed to warn the subject of where they would touch him during the search, which is considered best practice.
Search Boundaries: There was confusion within the Panel regarding the search of the female subject's purse, as well as the boundaries around searching property that wasn’t directly related to the male subject. These areas were not adequately explained during the encounter.
Ethical: Panel generally agreed the encounter was ethical, but there were questions about how the officers handled the dignity of the subject.
Actions to be commended:
Handcuffing and Control: The officers were commended for their approach when the subject was initially handcuffed. Despite the threat of a knife and the subject’s combative behaviour, officers managed to handcuff the subject without escalating the situation or using force unnecessarily
Necessity of Encounter: Most Panel members agreed that the encounter was necessary.
Proportionality: Majority of the responses agreed that the search was proportionate, though some were unsure.
GOWISELY: The majority of Panel members felt that GOWISELY was followed, but some noted that it was read too quickly, especially given the subject's intoxication.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“I acknowledge the difficulties officers had communicating with volatile subjects under the influence of substances, potentially carrying a weapon, and the chaos of the situation. Although training may not cover every volatile scenario, there should be an increased focus on trauma-informed responses and more proactive steps in ensuring subjects’ well-being (especially when they report medical concerns). Officers could have preserved the subject’s dignity by moving them away from the public view, and used softer language and gentle tones - even when not reciprocated, it can make a big difference to the situation.”
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. The need for improved communication, especially with intoxicated and distressed subjects, was highlighted, as well as greater attention to medical concerns, particularly when subjects disclose possible self-harm or suicidal intent.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
FEBRUARY 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 Phonecall to police - murder of partner and threats to officer lives stated:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Female Officer for Bystander: There was a suggestion that with the number of police officers present, a female officer should have been assigned to have a one-to-one conversation with the female partner of the subject. This would have potentially created a more comfortable space for the partner to share information.
Actions to be commended:
Calm and Professional Demeanour: The Panel praised the officers’ calm approach and their ability to reassure the subject. This included the repeated use of the subject's name, a calm tone, and engagement to build rapport.
De-escalation: Officers demonstrated significant skill in de-escalating the situation after it had initially escalated. A Taser was only drawn and red-dotted after the subject lunged at the officers, indicating a careful and proportional use of force. Panel members noted how officers' demeanour quickly de-escalated after the adrenaline peak - their voice level and tone immediately calmed after the subject became compliant (‘let’s draw a line under it’).
Positive Leadership and Communication: Officers showed clear leadership by issuing instructions and explaining the situation to the subject. Their professional conduct was frequently highlighted, with reassurance repeatedly provided to the subject regarding wanting to help, and available support services.
Supportive Environment: The officers made efforts to reassure the subject that arrest wasn’t the ‘end of the road’ and that help was available. Additionally, the subject was thanked for remaining calm during the search. The officers made the subject more comfortable by moving him onto the sofa while handcuffed and appeared to take into account his mental health. This engagement positively impacted the subject’s perception of officers and helped him open up (“you’re not like other police”).
Trauma-Informed Approach: The officers' demonstrated a trauma-informed approach with their conduct and de-escalating actions.
Balanced Use of Force: The Panel assessed the use of force as proportional, ethical, reasonable, and necessary. Officers showed restraint and did not escalate the situation unnecessarily.
PLANTER: The majority of the Panel assessed PLANTER as being followed during the incident.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“I commend the officers for going in with a trauma-informed approach. Their quick but calm reactions, and professional tone and conduct helped deescalate the situation quickly. I do agree with the Panel that it would have been preferable to have seen the female bystander being engaged with by a female officer. The number of officers in a small space could also have been addressed as the risk diminished. One further point I observed was that officers were perhaps a little slow to pick the subject off the floor. However, I am encouraged by the overall outcome of the incident., particularly as this was during a shift change - officers' response was efficient and proportionate and this wasn’t always the case in the past.”
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. The officers’ handling of the situation, including the calmness, professionalism, and trauma-informed approach displayed was commendable. There was consistent praise for the positive impact of de-escalation tactics and the care shown towards the subject, especially in terms of their mental health and well-being.
UOF CASE 2 Phonecall to police - murder of partner and threats to officer lives stated:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Handcuffing Safety: The Panel suggested reviewing the practice of having subjects walk downstairs handcuffed. It was noted that best practice in the prison service is to have individuals move sideways when going downstairs to avoid falls. This might be something the police could consider for future operations.
Seatbelt Safety: There were concerns regarding the safety of seatbelts when a subject is handcuffed behind their back.
Actions to be commended:
Necessary and Proportionate: The majority of Panel members agreed that the use of force was necessary and proportionate.
Ethical: All Panel members agreed that the use of force was ethical.
Calm and Controlled Situation: The Panel noted that the officers managed to maintain a calm atmosphere throughout the encounter, which contributed positively to the situation.
Double Handcuffing: Officers were commended for responding to the subject’s discomfort by offering double handcuffs, which was addressed before the subject was placed in the police car.
Reminder of Rights: The female officer reminded the subject that they were under caution when the subject began discussing the offence.
Humanity: The Panel appreciated the officers demonstrating empathy by saying goodbye to the subject’s partner, showing a humane approach to the situation.
PLANTER: The majority of Panel members agreed that PLANTER was followed.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“The officers demonstrated excellent rapport-building, which set a positive tone for later engagement. I found it interesting that the arresting officer positioned themselves at a distance, allowing them to assess the overall situation and provide clear instructions. The concept of handcuffing as practiced in the prison service was unfamiliar to me, but it’s certainly worth considering for review in the future. Over time, handcuffing techniques have evolved, and while handcuffing behind the back may be uncomfortable for the subject, it is the safest option for officers, as front handcuffing can lead to potential incidents or attacks on the driver. Although it’s uncomfortable, this method is considered reasonable given the associated risks. Using a van is an option, but ultimately, it’s a judgement call for the officers on the scene. Double handcuffing at the back is part of training for broader subjects to ensure their comfort and safety.”
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. The officers demonstrated professionalism, maintaining calm and clear communication throughout. While the use of force was deemed necessary, proportionate, and ethical, reflection is needed on handcuffing comfort and the impact of public settings on the subject’s family. The feedback on prison service handcuffing techniques and private transport for vulnerable individuals offer areas for potential improvement.”
“Thank you to all the Panel members – as always, a very stimulating couple of hours”
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.
