FEBRUARY 2024 REPORT (7-9PM)
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 Scott Bradley - Plymouth BCU 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 STOP AND SEARCH [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 - Young male subject S&S - foot chase following report of two males setting off fireworks in school:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Incident context: The subject mentioned losing his phone and referenced an earlier event. As the video begins with the young male already in handcuffs, there are gaps in the Panel’s assessment of initial engagement and necessity.
Communication challenges: Officers repeatedly spoke over the subject, potentially impacting his understanding and ability to express concerns.
Neurodiversity considerations: The subject disclosed having bipolar disorder and ADHD; there was no clear evidence of officers adjusting their approach accordingly.
GOWISELY: This was not fully followed - Panel members did not hear key elements such as officer identity and station.
Handling of subject: Some concern regarding the approach to restraint, particularly as the subject vocally expressed non-consent and difficulty understanding consequences.
Use of force: Questions raised about the proportionality and ethical considerations in handcuffing and handling the young person, given limited visible justification beyond verbal testimony.
Overall Service Quality: Some Panel members questioned whether the best possible service was provided, particularly regarding consideration for the subject’s vulnerabilities.
Actions to be commended:
De-escalation: Officers displayed a calm tone, which appeared to influence the subject’s behaviour positively.
Care and welfare: Once the subject’s anger subsided, officers demonstrated compassion, including wiping his face and adjusting his handcuffs for comfort.
Clear explanations: Some officers effectively articulated their reasoning and attempted to maintain a respectful dialogue with the subject.
Necessity: The majority of the Panel deemed the stop and search necessary, but some had reservations due to the missing initial footage.
Proportionality: Most Panel members agreed it was proportionate, though concerns were raised about handling given the subject’s young age and vulnerabilities.
Ethical: While most considered the encounter ethical, concerns about addressing neurodiversity and response to non-consent were noted.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“I agree with the Panel’s points. While officers demonstrated de-escalation skills and more empathy and care later on in the incident, improvements are needed in ensuring all elements of GOWISELY are consistently articulated, and that subjects with additional needs feel heard and supported, especially when they are younger.”
S&S ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
S&S Case 2 - Report of group with knife - female subject S&S:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Dignity: Some Panel members raised concerns about whether the search could have been conducted in a more discreet location to preserve the subject’s dignity.
Handcuffing: A question was raised about whether a knife was found, with some Panel members concerned about consistency in handling similar cases. If no weapon had been found, was there a risk to the officers in not handcuffing the subject?
Consistency: Panel members noted discrepancies in how similar cases have been handled, particularly in instances where armed response officers were involved.
Actions to be commended:
Necessity: All Panel members agreed the stop and search was necessary, citing intelligence regarding a reported weapon.
Officer Conduct: The officer demonstrated exemplary professionalism - remaining polite, calm, and respectful throughout the interaction.
Communication: Despite interruptions, the officer ensured the subject was listened to and fully understood the situation.
GOWISELY: Officer followed the required procedure fully.
Respect: All Panel members confirmed the subject was treated with courtesy and respect. The officer demonstrated empathy by adapting her approach when the subject panicked at the mention of handcuffs, preventing escalation.
Female Officer Conduct: The female subject was searched by a female officer, which was appreciated by the Panel.
Proportionality: The majority of the Panel agreed that the search was proportionate
Ethical: The Panel agreed the search was conducted ethically.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“This case reaffirms that there is no single approach that fits all situations. The key consideration is whether the search was conducted safely. The decision not to handcuff could be justified, given the presence of four other officers nearby. A potential alternative could have been asking a colleague to hold the subject’s arm instead of handcuffing. Regarding privacy concerns, the commander noted that discretion is often limited by location and operational efficiency, particularly at early hours of the morning.”
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. Positive professional behaviours, such as empathy, de-escalation, and active listening, were observed. The majority of the Panel believed the subject received the best possible service from D&C Police.
S&S Case 3 - Report of two groups of young male subjects in possession of knives:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Response Time: Some Panel members felt that the second subject’s questions were rushed, and they were not given enough time to respond.
No Search / Future Risk: The reported knife, allegedly thrown into bushes, was not searched for, raising concerns about potential future risks.
Search Explanation: Officers did not 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, especially with younger individuals.
Actions to be commended:
Necessity: All Panel members agreed the stop and search was necessary based on intelligence received, including reports of a knife.
Proportionality: The majority of the Panel found the response proportionate to the intelligence received.
Ethics: The entire Panel agreed the search was conducted ethically, with officers displaying professionalism.
Officer Conduct: Officers were widely noted as respectful, polite, and professional. The officer remained objective throughout the encounter, ensuring fairness.
Communication: The officer clearly explained the situation, checked for understanding, and engaged the subject in the process by asking permission to open their coat. Use of the subject’s name was observed, helping to establish rapport and reduce tension.
GOWISELY: Most Panel members confirmed that GOWISELY was fully followed, though a few noted that they did not hear all elements clearly with the first subject.
Safety and Wellbeing: The second male subject was taken home to ensure his safety, demonstrating a duty of care.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“I agree with all the Panel’s observations. The second male had been in the car for a considerable time so he may have been questioned by another officer. My main concern is that the knife reported to be thrown in bushes was not searched for, may be stashed for future use, and could pose a future threat left unsecured.”
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. Positive professional behaviours, such as empathy, de-escalation, and active listening, were observed. The majority of the Panel believed the subject received the best possible service from D&C Police.
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
UOF CASE 1 Same case as S&S1 - young male subject - foot chase following report of two males setting off fireworks in school (start of incident):
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Subject's Fear Response: The young male initially cooperated but expressed reluctance when physical contact was initiated, stating that he didn’t want to be ‘touched by a grown man’. This seemed to escalate the situation as his response became more fearful when a search was mentioned. This reaction may have been better managed with clearer communication or a more gradual approach.
Lack of Rapport Building: Some panel members noted that there was very little conversation between the officers and the subject. The officer mentioned being “too busy” and used phrases such as "Wait" and "Calm down" without providing adequate explanation. In particular, the officer spoke over the subject, even when he indicated not understanding. Informal language such as "chill out dude" was considered inappropriate and potentially exacerbating the situation. There was a call for better rapport-building and more thoughtful engagement. Reasonable adjustments could have been made to support better communication and understanding, especially considering the subject's age, neurodiversity and emotional state.
Identification of the Subject: A concern was raised that the young male identified himself as a child with bipolar and ADHD, but officers did not appear to address this in their approach.
Use of Force: Some panel members were concerned about the decision to take the subject to the ground. Given that the subject was initially compliant and had expressed fear, the decision to escalate the response in this manner may have been unnecessary. The situation may have been defused with better communication and de-escalation tactics.
Privacy of Arrest: Some members of the panel felt that the arrest in an open space, in front of peers should have been avoided to preserve dignity and prevent escalation.
Delays in Support: There was a notable delay in receiving additional support for the officer on the scene. The subject's behaviour escalated as an audience gathered, potentially increasing his distress and contributing to the situation worsening. If the subject had been kept out of sight, around the corner, and engaged in conversation while waiting for support, this could have been a very different case.
Actions to be commended:
Handcuffing: Handcuffing was deemed necessary as the subject had previously run from the scene, which warranted a restrained approach.
Officer's Resilience: The officer’s ability to remain calm in the face of verbal abuse and insults was praised.
Response to Threats: Some members raised the question of when officers should legally engage with individuals who threaten violence, which was not addressed directly in the responses but was noted as a learning point for future evaluations.
Proportionate: Most of the Panel assessed the force as proportionate to the situation, though there were some concerns about the decision to take the subject to the ground.
Ethical: The majority of the Panel rated the interaction as ethical, with some noting potential improvements in language and communication.
PLANTER: The majority of the Panel assessed PLANTER as being followed, but there were specific comments about areas of potential improvement, particularly with regard to communication and handling of vulnerable subjects.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“The stark reality with police resourcing is that, in some areas, the nearest unit may be a 30 to 40-minute drive away. In this particular case, being close to the waterfront and controlling young people’s safety is crucial. Taking a subject to the ground provides more control and balance - it's essential to manage bystanders while ensuring the subject's safety. I agree that different language could have been used to help de-escalate the situation earlier on. For example, explaining, ‘I want to keep you safe’ and informing the subject, ‘I’m going to unzip your jacket in a moment,’ could have been more effective. Informal language such as ‘chill out, dude’ should have been avoided, as it can be perceived differently and escalate tension. It’s also important to remember that everyone has different needs. While stop and search can be conducted for individuals under the age of 18, a more comprehensive explanation of the procedure, including how and why it’s happening, is necessary."
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. The panel identified there is a need for better understanding and training on the nuanced needs of young individuals and the importance of clear communication. They also highlighted that officers should always be mindful of their language and approach to prevent escalation.
UOF CASE 2 Report of mental health crisis - female self harming:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Leadership Issues: There was a lack of clear leadership during the incident. Multiple officers were giving conflicting instructions during the mental health crisis, leading to confusion. In particular, a male officer spoke over the female officer holding the taser, which created chaos and was deemed unsafe with two officers positioned in front of the taser.
Informal Language: The use of the phrase "she can be nicked for that" in response to the subject spitting at the officer was questioned. It was felt that the tone could be seen as unhelpful in de-escalating the situation, particularly in the context of the subject's mental health crisis. This may reflect compassion fatigue.
Actions to be commended:
Use of Taser Explained: The officer used the taser in an appropriate manner and was able to clearly explain the reasoning behind the decision. This shows good communication and transparency with both the panel and the subject.
Officer's Awareness of Escalation: The female officer recognised that her presence was escalating the situation, and she took the appropriate step of removing herself to de-escalate the scenario. This was seen as a good practice in managing a tense environment.
Necessary and Proportionate: The officers appeared to react quickly and effectively to a situation involving a subject suffering from a mental health crisis. The presence of the taser was deemed necessary, as the individual was holding a knife.
Medical Attention: The subject’s need for medical attention was recognised. The officer ensured that medical aid was administered, the subject was restrained to avoid further harm, and she was taken to hospital for treatment.
Ethical: The majority of the Panel assessed the force used was ethical, though a concern was raised about the ethics of handcuffing injured subjects and informal language used in some instances.
PLANTER: Most panel members reported that PLANTER was adhered to, although there were some concerns around communication and leadership during the encounter.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“I echo the Panel’s comments regarding the challenges of commanding a tense space, particularly when someone is experiencing a mental health crisis. The stairwell was dark and echoing, which added to the difficulty of the situation. While the initial response was dealt with swiftly, there was too much movement after the taser was deployed, which could have further confused the subject. In real-life policing, the lines can sometimes become blurred, but it is important to avoid adding to the confusion. The female subject seemed to respond better to the male officer. As for the knife tubes, they were in the car, which is why the officer carried the weapon wrapped in a tissue. It was also commendable that the officer recognised her presence was escalating the situation and appropriately removed herself to de-escalate.”
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.
“Feedback on these interactions is a healthy way to evolve and improve. How we engage with the public now will pay dividends in the future”
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.
