OCTOBER 2024 REPORT (3-5pm)
OCTOBER 2024 REPORT
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) welcomed new panel members and visiting Chief Inspector John Shuttleworth, and Associate Professor Abi Dymond.
This month’s cases selected BWV for time of year (high tourist periods).
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]
OCTOBER 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 - Male subject S&S following vehicle stop - car without insurance:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Some Panel members understood the need for a vehicle stop but assessed grounds as unclear for search of the subject
Some Panel members questioned if the search was proportionate for a vehicle with no insurance.
Some Panel members questioned if possession of a knife in a previous case should be permitted as grounds.
GOWISELY was not followed at all.
S&S appeared to be stopped due to language barriers. Translations of lawful processes should be readily available.
Some Panel members noted that Google Translate may not be appropriate and professional interpreters should be contacted from the onset if required. Best practice would be for officers to make sure the information on the phone is conveyed on the body-worn camera.
The Panel assessed that in this contect, the subject did not receive the best service the police could have provided.
Actions to be commended:
The Panel assessed the vehicle stop as necessary. The majority of panel members felt that the vehicle was correctly stopped for no insurance.
All Panel members assessed the encounter as proportionate.
All Panel members assessed the encounter as ethical.
Some Panel members noted that officers handled the situation very calmly, they were polite and tried hard to communicate.
Officers moved the subject to assist with hearing the translation over traffic noise.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander John Shuttleworth
“In this case the vehicle was stopped because it was flagged for no insurance. I agree with the Panel that GOWISELY was not followed; interpreter use was clunky and officers didn’t allow time for translation before taking action.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
S&S Case 2 - Young male subject stopped for smoking cannabis:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
The Panel asks why there is no NICHE reference number.
The majority of Panel members raised concerns about the BWV angle, noting that it was pointed at a fence and didn’t capture the search.
Some Panel members assessed a lack of dignity for the young subject - the officer should have moved them away from the bus stop and bystander who was in view and making comments throughout the encounter. Instead the officer engaged in conversation, which was inappropriate and a risk if the situation escalated.
Some Panel members felt that the encounter didn’t start very professionally, was too informal and that the officer’s conversation with the bystander detracted from the professionalism.
Some Panel members mentioned that the officer used leading questions (e.g., “You haven’t been stopped before, is that right?”)and focused on previous contact with police.
Actions to be commended:
The majority of Panel members agreed one officer was calm, friendly, polite and clearly followed training.
All Panel members assessed the encounter as necessary.
All Panel members assessed the encounter as proportionate.
The majority of the Panel assessed the encounter as ethical.
The majority of Panel members praised the officer for covering GOWISELY fully and explained what it meant during the interaction.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander John Shuttleworth
“I liked the informal style and felt the detainee would feel comfortable with the interaction. Overall, contact was handled well and was a balanced approach. I do agree that the officer’s question on the subject having previous contact with police was not necessary, although it may have been an attempt to build rapport.
I would like to follow up on whether the officer was undercover and provide an additional explanation on his whereabouts/reason for being in the area.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel commends this officer's actions and use of police powers in this particular case. The rating reflects strong adherence to procedure, though some minor points for improvement were noted.
S&S Case 3 - Report of white male subjects entering a flat with bladed articles and running from the scene - searching for those involved:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Some Panel members were concerned about the officer’s aggressive conduct in drawing the taser quickly and use of threatening language, particularly statements like, “If you run, I’ll put you on the floor,” and “If you move, you’ll be tasered.” Such language was unnecessary, especially since the subject had already been compliant and no weapons were found.
Some Panel members were concerned that the officer might have turned off the body-worn video after releasing the subject, raising concerns about what might happen after the camera is off. One member questioned the protocol for this? BWV feedback / training to be given to officer.
Some Panel members assessed that officers should handle subjects with more sensitivity, particularly when dealing with suspects of colour, adding that racial bias and the racial burden of stop-and-search procedures should be considered more carefully.
Some Panel members assessed that given the detainees colour and the lack of explanation as to why he in particular fits the description of those being looked for, further scrutiny should be carried out into bias.
Some Panel members noted that the “object” of the search wasn’t clearly explained and that ‘entitlement’ was unclear as the subject questioned it at the end of the interaction.
Officer with the dog nearly stopped the subject again after they were released.
Actions to be commended:
The majority of Panel members assessed the stop was necessary, proportionate, and ethical.
The majority of Panel members noted that the officer covered GOWISELY, as well as identifying the other officer present.
The majority of Panel members felt the officers acted professionally, especially in de-escalating from the initial use of force, where a taser was drawn.
The majority of Panel members commended the effective de-escalation from a potential use of taser. They noted that the officer’s change in voice tone helped calm the situation and the female officer “tried to make cuffs more bearable.”
Some Panel members noted that the officer provided additional information about making complaints and his rights, showing thoroughness in their approach.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander John Shuttleworth
“I agree with the Panel about proportionality and whether good intelligence linked the subject to the offence. Justification was not entirely clear and the officer's comment regarding “I’ll take you to the ground” was disproportionate and unnecessary. This will be discussed further with the officer in question. BWV should be in standby mode to capture interaction before the incident and kept switched on for some time after the interaction to capture its entirety. If the subject was to be stopped again with active search in the area, a quick check of his name would have identified that NFA was required.
Further explanation from the officer is required in this case. A search can continue without providing a name, but officers are not able to arrest for that reason unless they suspect a subject is involved in the incident. I will ask for further information on this case and how the officer has linked the search to this particular detainee.”
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received
“This is a really useful exercise - good to see how these incidents are perceived by the public. Officers need to be really conscious of how we come across when managing situations”
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.
