Exeter University Report 2025
Exeter University Report from 13th February 2025
This months Panel was chaired by Prof. Abi Dymond - Exeter University Associate Professor in Criminology.
With Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) and 26 members, participating in a one-off session
The following report identifies points to action, D&C Police responses, case assessments and outstanding areas that require investigation.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
Exeter University Report from 13th February 2025
Body-Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Single Point of Contact (SPOC) 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 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 a young male involved in an incident where an elderly individual was assaulted, shoplifting occurred, and a shop window was damaged. The suspect attempted to flee and was subsequently detained by police officers. Several bystanders, including the suspect’s friends, were present and engaged with officers during the incident:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Bystander Management: Panel members noted that the presence of the suspect’s friends created additional tension. More focus should have been placed on ensuring bystanders were moved away effectively to prevent further escalation.
Use of Force Communication: Some Panel members felt that clearer communication during the arrest regarding why force was necessary would have been beneficial.
Search Procedure Explanation: Concerns were raised regarding communication about searches. Officers did not always explicitly state what they were searching for before initiating the search, which could have contributed to confusion or distress among bystanders.
Mental Health Awareness: There was no indication that officers considered whether the suspect had any vulnerabilities, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or mental health concerns. While no clear distress was identified, officers could have been more proactive in assessing this.
Group Reactions: The suspect’s friends quickly became agitated and directed frustration towards officers. Panel members noted that their distress could have been managed more proactively to reduce overall tension.
Actions to be commended:
Clear Communication: Officers provided clear instructions to the suspect regarding why he was being arrested.
Calm and Professional Demeanour: Officers maintained composure and professionalism, avoiding unnecessary aggression.
De-escalation Efforts: Officers used a measured tone and avoided confrontation when speaking with the suspect and bystanders.
Minimal Use of Force: Compliant handcuffing was applied without unnecessary aggression.
Adjustment for Comfort: When the suspect complained about tight handcuffs, officers checked and adjusted them accordingly.
Effective Containment: The suspect initially attempted to flee but was quickly detained, preventing further risk to public safety.
Managing Bystander Influence: Officers requested the suspect’s girlfriend to step back when she became agitated, preventing potential escalation.
All Panel members agreed that force was necessary in this case.
All Panel members agreed that the level of force used was proportionate to the situation.
The vast majority of the Panel agreed that officers acted ethically in their approach.
Most Panel members believed officers followed PLANTER correctly.
OVERALL PANEL RESPONSE
Overall, the Panel found the officers' response to be calm, professional, and proportionate to the situation. Their approach to verbal communication, de-escalation, and minimal use of force was commendable. However, improvements could be made in bystander management, search communication, and mental health awareness. Further training in these areas could enhance officers' ability to de-escalate tense situations and provide clearer explanations during searches.
UOF 1 BWV ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received yet
UOF Case 2 - Officers responded to reports of a male and female subject present in a residence without authorisation:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Consistency in De-escalation: While some officers demonstrated strong de-escalation techniques, others applied force more abruptly. Officers should ensure they attempt verbal engagement fully before resorting to physical intervention.
Application of Force: One instance of force appeared sudden and unexpected, leading to confusion for the individual involved. Officers should clearly communicate their intention to use force before doing so to avoid unnecessary distress.
Checking Identification: It was suggested that officers should ensure accurate name-checking before applying restraint to confirm the individual’s identity. Clear procedural steps should be followed before intervention.
Consistency in Handling Welfare Concerns: Officers varied in their approach to assessing distress and adjusting their responses. A standardised approach to monitoring distress levels and responding appropriately should be maintained.
Actions to be commended:
Professionalism & Communication: Officers generally demonstrated professionalism and remained calm during interactions. Effective use of verbal de-escalation techniques by some officers helped manage the situation. Officers explained their actions clearly to those involved, reducing confusion in most cases.
Consideration of Welfare & Ethical Conduct: Welfare concerns were largely taken into account, and officers monitored individuals’ distress levels. No concerns were raised regarding discrimination or unethical conduct. Some officers took extra steps to engage with individuals at their level (e.g., sitting down to explain actions).
Most Panel members agreed the Use of Force was necessary, but noted that it seemed abrupt with one subject.
The majority of the Panel agreed it was proportionate, though one subject could have benefited from further communication prior to restraint.
Panel members agreed there were no ethical concerns, but consistency in approach could be improved.
Most Panel members believed officers followed PLANTER correctly.
OVERALL PANEL RESPONSE
The officers acted appropriately in most instances, with some demonstrating strong de-escalation skills and consideration for welfare. However, the Panel identified areas for improvement, particularly regarding the consistency of de-escalation efforts and the application of force. Ensuring that all officers follow best practices in communication, proportionality, and welfare considerations will enhance public confidence and reduce unnecessary distress in similar situations.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
Officer’s response not received yet
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.
