APRIL 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
APRIL 2025 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 Ch Supt Roy Linden from South Devon
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows: •Age •South Devon BCU
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]
APRIL 2025 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 - Stop and search of three young while males linked to suspected shoplifting of Tesco and Co-Op:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Lack of prerecord: No prerecord or context was captured at the start of the video footage. Panel members stressed this omission makes it difficult to assess the rationale for the stop and the interaction from the outset.
Communication and coordination: Several panel members noted a lack of clarity in communication between officers, with some talking over each other, leading to confusion for the individuals being searched. This was particularly evident when names were taken at the same time as GOWISELY was being explained.
Identification and age: Officers failed to ask for or record the age or date of birth of the individuals stopped, which was flagged by the panel as a missed opportunity to assess vulnerability and tailor communication appropriately.
Description-based concerns: Doubts were raised by some Panel members regarding the specificity of the suspect descriptions as no objects were found, especially when individuals were stopped based on vague identifiers such as wearing dark clothing. One panel member noted that this makes it feel arbitrary, especially for young people who often wear similar attire.
Partial GOWISELY delivery: While GOWISELY was eventually covered in most cases, it was often delivered quickly or in a rushed manner. Some panel members were unsure if certain components - particularly legal power and detention - were clearly stated or heard by all subjects. Additionally, concern was raised about whether all individuals present received GOWISELY or if it was limited to one person.
Use of acronyms: A panel member raised concern regarding the use of the acronym “PACE Section 1” during the encounter. It was noted that while this may be understood by police, it may not be clear to members of the public - especially young people. Officers should aim to explain legal references in plain English to ensure full understanding.
Lead officer unclear: In one case, it was unclear who the lead officer was, contributing to an impression of uncertainty and disorganisation among the officers.
Procedural awareness: There was a suggestion that best practice includes clearly informing individuals of where and how they will be searched, not just informing about the waistband.
Actions to be commended:
Professionalism and respect: Officers were widely commended for maintaining a respectful tone and courteous behaviour. Communication was generally calm and clear, and officers made efforts to explain the search and rationale multiple times.
Appropriate use of powers: There was no use of force or handcuffing, which was positively noted by the panel.
Environmental considerations: Officers showed awareness and consideration of weather conditions by helping a subject zip up their coat post-search.
Officer manner: Officers generally conveyed trustworthy motives and professional behaviours such as active listening.
All panel members agreed this encounter was necessary.
Most panel members agreed it was proportionate, with a few raising concerns related to vague descriptions or lack of a search for all subjects.
All panel members agreed this encounter was ethical.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“Prerecording should always be in place – officers must ensure that their body-worn video is activated at least 30 seconds prior to engagement. This feedback will be given to the officer.
I am concerned that age-appropriate communication was not evident in this case. Whether or not subjects are familiar with PACE, officers have a duty to explain it in a way that ensures understanding. Communication must also be clear, accessible, and human-facing.
While age is not required for S&S except for cases of intimate search, it is nevertheless good practice to ask for age and consider vulnerability in all stop and search interactions.
Regarding description-based concerns, in this instance, the proximity of time and the group matching the description make the stop justifiable. However, if more time had passed between the incident and the stop, it would raise proportionality concerns.
All stop and search activity must be grounded in evidence and proportionality, particularly when involving young people. Their perception of the police encounter matters significantly.”
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 - Young asian male student in possession of cannabis on school premises. After refusing to be searched by school staff, the police were called to conduct a formal stop and search:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
GOWISELY not covered: Several panel members noted that while the officer delivered most elements of GOWISELY, the required phrase “you are being detained” was not clearly stated.
Search communication: While the officer explained the search of the waistband area, best practice would involve clearly explaining each part of the search as it is being carried out. This ensures understanding and upholds the dignity of the subject.
Vulnerability and communication considerations: One panel member noted the student was very non-verbal, and it was unclear whether he fully understood the situation. This raised the question of whether the officer should have waited for a parent or guardian to be present, particularly in light of potential vulnerability.
Staff member involvement: Concerns were raised about the female teacher’s continued presence during the search. The panel felt the officer could have taken stronger control of the environment, confirming whether the student was comfortable with the teacher staying, or asking her to step aside. One member observed that the teacher spoke about the student as if he wasn’t present, which could have been embarrassing for him.
Follow-up request: The panel requested an update on whether the report of a shop allegedly selling cannabis to minors was followed up appropriately. This was raised during the incident and flagged for further investigation by BCU leadership.
Actions to be commended:
Calm and age-appropriate communication: The officer was widely praised for maintaining a calm and composed manner, using language that was appropriate for the young person’s age and ensuring explanations were accessible.
Dignity: The student was moved to a private setting before the search began, which panel members highlighted as a respectful and commendable action that helped preserve the student’s dignity.
Professionalism: The officer demonstrated professionalism by not engaging in the teacher’s more dismissive tone and instead directing communication at the student, speaking to him directly rather than about him.
Appropriate adult: The presence of a supportive adult, possibly a teacher or learning assistant, was noted as a positive. This individual helped to reassure the student while still allowing the officer to carry out the search.
Clear procedural explanations: Panel members noted that the officer explained the grounds for the search clearly, referenced the relevant legislation, and offered the subject the option of receiving a copy of the search record. He also said he would speak to the student’s parents, which was viewed positively.
All panel members agreed that the search was necessary. The school had exhausted internal options, and the presence of drugs in an environment with vulnerable individuals made police involvement appropriate.
The panel assessed the encounter as proportionate given the circumstances. The student had already handed over one joint voluntarily, which led to reasonable grounds for concern about further possession.
The majority of the panel assessed the encounter as proportionate.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“I believe the teacher's presence was not particularly helpful in this situation. There should have been a conversation to ensure the subject was comfortable with the teacher being there. The officer did well to slow down their communication, making it easier for the subject to understand. However, the phrase 'You are detained' should have been included as part of the GOWISELY process. On a positive note, the officer’s use of age-appropriate language was much improved in this instance.”
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.
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
APRIL 2025 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 a pushbike theft stolen by three young white males:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
De-escalation and tone: Several panel members highlighted the officer's tone as inappropriate, condescending, and lacking in empathy. This was particularly concerning given the subject was a 13-year-old. Repeated remarks such as "you should know better" and commentary about being filmed and posted online were deemed unprofessional and escalatory rather than calming.
Use of handcuffs: There was concern about non-compliant handcuffing, especially when used on a distressed child. Some panel members felt handcuffing was a first resort rather than a last, particularly when the subject was not aggressive. A few comments questioned whether the use of force was proportionate in this context, especially since the subject was upset and cooperative.
Clarity and communication: The officer's lack of direct response when the young subject asked if he would be going to jail was noted as unnecessarily intimidating. Misleading or ambiguous communication, such as suggesting there would be no consequences if the bike was returned, only to then arrest the child, was flagged as damaging to trust.
PLANTER not followed: Multiple panel members were unsure whether PLANTER was followed, citing unclear proportionality and necessity, and inconsistency in applying the framework to a child-focused situation.
Ethical concerns: Ethical concerns included the officer referencing the subject’s older brother, making assumptions based on previous offences, and potentially stereotyping. A few felt personal moralities overstepped professional boundaries.
Safeguarding and dignity: It was questioned whether more could have been done to protect the dignity of the child, especially as he was filmed by peers during the arrest. Suggestions included removing him from the public eye sooner.
Proportionate: The panel were unsure whether this encounter was proportionate; considering the communication, age and demeanour of the child.
Actions to be commended:
Efforts to explain consequences: The officer explained the situation to all three subjects involved, helping to clarify the outcomes.
Post-arrest engagement: Commendation was given for the time spent with the subject in the police car, where the officer appeared to take a more constructive approach, including engaging with the family, de-arresting the subject, and taking him home.
Welfaret: When the subject expressed that the handcuffs were hurting, the officer adjusted them.
Calm demeanour in parts of the encounter: Although the tone was criticised in some areas, others noted the officer remained calm and attempted to use the opportunity as a learning moment.
One response noted the "good community policing" efforts and attempt to steer the young person away from criminal behaviour.
Necessary: Most panel members agreed the encounter was necessary
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“The diversity of views just shows the challenges of policing at times. This would be a non-compliant handcuffing application. I felt quite uncomfortable at the start. The subject was named – it would be entirely lawful to arrest at that point, but they may not have disclosed where the bike was.
If these were repeat offenders, it should be proportionate and show stepped consequences – the subject had previously stolen a bike.
It was lawful to put him in handcuffs – it could have been explained better – but also lawful to de-arrest, take him home, speak to the parents and ensure he was safe.
The interaction with friends was clumsy – the mention of digital abuse as they recorded him could have been avoided. Given the subject was compliant, removing him from that environment could have safeguarded his dignity.
The end was very positive, but the start could have been clearer and more age-appropriate. There was a missed learning opportunity to engage with the other two boys once the situation was under control.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
UOF CASE 2 - Initial missing person check in with young white male subject - developed into arrest for breach of court bail conditions:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Initial contact lacked care and procedure: The officer entered the bedroom of a sleeping, vulnerable young person without a clear introduction or respectful greeting.
Perceived lack of empathy in tone: Several panel members observed the officer’s initial tone and approach as detached and “box-ticking”, especially concerning a returned missing child. A number of panel members also noted a lack of awareness / care towards the subject from the mother. Several called for stronger multi-agency coordination, especially with repeat cases.
Delayed recognition of breach and escalation: The officer did not initially identify the breach of bail conditions. If checks had been conducted earlier, the incident might have been managed more strategically, and outside the presence of younger family members.
Impact on sibling: The subject’s younger sibling was present during the escalation. While they were eventually removed, panel members raised that this should have occurred sooner.
Communication with neurodivergent individuals: A concern was raised that the subject may have been neurodiverse and that statements such as “we’ll try to get you in court today” may have been taken literally, potentially increasing distress if the expectation was unmet.
Mental health and safeguarding: Many responses noted the importance of improved mental health intervention when signs of self-harm were present.
Actions to be commended:
Use of force: The officer responded proportionately and protectively, using handcuffs only to prevent injury.
Improved communication and reassurance: When the subject began to self-harm, the officer’s level of care and behaviour improved. The officer reassured the young person about the process and timings, demonstrating a shift to a more supportive tone.
Practical considerations: The officer provided a coat due to the cold, showing a degree of care for physical wellbeing.
Necessity: The majority of panel members agreed force was necessary in the context of self-harming or breach of bail.
Proportionality: The majority of panel members agreed that use of force was proportionate and applied at the appropriate moment.
Ethical Standards: Most panel members believed the actions taken were ethical, and in line with professional expectations.
PLANTER Framework: Most panel members agreed that PLANTER considerations were followed. However, a few noted uncertainty due to lack of visible evidence in footage.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“I agree with the panel’s feedback. - I saw this as two separate incidents. The checks should have been done the moment the officer walked through the door. This wasn’t a dynamic incident and as a result the dysregulation happened in front of the family. If the officer had done their research, they could have planned better, engaged more calmly, and had more support to protect other children present.
I also wasn’t comfortable with the officer entering that environment in the manner they did. The way they spoke showed a lack of care and consideration for a missing young person, no matter how familiar they may be to services. There was a lack of humanity in the questioning. The officer did resist using force until necessary, which is commendable. Other agencies such as Children’s Services are now involved to look at future prevention. This individual is in the youth justice system and wouldn’t have bail conditions without reason, so wraparound support for the family will be available for the family too.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
“Thank you Panel - these conversations really do make a difference and I’m very grateful for all the DCCS Panel members time”
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.
