APRIL 2025 REPORT (3-5PM)
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 Antony Hart from North East and West Devon
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows: •Age •New Devon
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 - Report of male smoking cannabis in public area / subject searched - asian male:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Proportionality: There were concerns raised regarding the number of officers involved. Some panel members felt that having 4 officers for a report of cannabis was excessive, potentially making the encounter seem intimidating to the subjects.
Ethics and perception: There were comments about the officers’ laughter during the encounter, with some panel members feeling that it could be perceived negatively by the subject, potentially undermining the seriousness of the situation. Some Panel members also noted that at times, the questions felt a little personal (i.e. asking about where they work).
GOWISELY: Panel members did not hear the legal power covered in GOWISELY, raising concerns about whether all legal requirements were communicated to the subjects searched as per protocol.
Community resolution: Some panel members requested clarification on when community resolutions should be applied and whether there could be any bias or inconsistency in its use by officers. It was noted that its use depends on circumstances such as the subject’s prior criminal record and the nature of the offence.
Guidance from the National Police Chiefs Council on Community Resolution: www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/publications-log/criminal-justice/2023/npcc-community-resolution-guidance-2022-v.1.1.pdf
Actions to be commended:
Professionalism: Overall, the officers were noted for being professional, polite, and clear. They engaged in friendly conversation with the subjects, creating a relaxed atmosphere.
Clear communication: Panel members appreciated that the officer explained the process clearly.
Thorough search: The officers were thorough in their search of belongings and clearly explained the reason for arresting the subject. Panel members noted that they did not rush the process, explaining what would happen next, including the possibility of a community resolution, which was eventually applied when illegal items were found.
Key considerations: In all of the behaviour-related categories (Voice, Neutrality, Trustworthy Motives, Dignity and Respect, Accessible Communication, Appropriate Tone, and Desired Behaviours), the majority of the panel agreed that the officers displayed positive behaviours, showing professionalism, respect, clarity, and empathy.
The majority of the panel assessed this encounter as necessary, proportionate and ethical.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“The higher number of officers present was due to the involvement of student officers working with tutors. Regarding community resolution, this is considered the lowest level of disposal, typically used for low-level offences involving individuals who are unknown to the police. It is intended as a preventative measure rather than a formal process within the system.
The interactions were positive, with the officer coming across as approachable and human. The language used was appropriate and lighthearted, though I acknowledge that such an approach could be perceived differently from the subject’s perspective."
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 - Report of group outside magistrates court with pills / subjects searched - two white males and one white female:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Female officers searching males: The officer initially stated that she could not search a male subject. It was unclear why this was the case when the officer could, in fact, search him. This inconsistency caused confusion for the second male subject.
GOWISELY: Some panel members noted that the legal basis for the search and the “You are detained” statement were not clearly communicated with one of the male subjects during his search. The officer appeared to rush through these elements.
Bank card found: The officer appeared to take, with a low level of force, a bank card from the female subject that had someone else’s name on it. There was some uncertainty about whether the officer retained the card to investigate whether it was stolen - further clarification was requested.
Unprofessional conduct: A male officer who joined the scene later was noted for his unprofessional behaviour, specifically telling the subjects to “shh,” which was deemed inappropriate in the context of the situation and damaging the rapport developed by the female officer.
Public setting: There was some concern about the search being conducted in a public space. The panel questioned whether it would have been more appropriate to move the individuals to a more private location to preserve their dignity.
Gender/trans Issues: The panel discussed the protocol for S&S with transgender or gender-fluid members of the public. They suggested that officers should ask subjects about their preferences regarding who searches them, ensuring sensitivity and inclusivity. If the officer has asked the male subjects if they were happy for her to search, the second male officer would not have been required.
No illegal objects were found.
Actions to be commended:
De-escalation: The officer effectively de-escalated a challenging situation, maintaining calm and composure throughout. She communicated well with the subjects, consistently requesting that they put their clothes back on when appropriate, and diffused tension by acknowledging the context and showing empathy with phrases like “Let’s start again”, “we’re ok” and “I really appreciate that.”
Communication: The officer demonstrated strong communication skills by explaining why security officers were present to keep her safe as a lone officer. She also checked the subjects’ wellbeing before beginning the search, showing concern for their health and comfort.
Objective: The panel noted that the officer did not appear biased towards the subject who had just been released from prison, which was a significant positive.
Clear boundaries: The officer wanted to ensure that the male subjects were comfortable with a female officer conducting the search and adhered to those preferences.
Key considerations: The majority of the panel positively evaluated the officer's actions. She was praised for her professionalism, calmness, and ability to engage with the subjects respectfully and empathetically. Areas such as communication clarity, appropriate tone, and maintaining a non-biased stance were also consistently rated highly.
The majority of panel members assessed this encounter as necessary, proportionate, and ethical.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“When there’s a single officer, it is better to engage in the immediate area and keep everyone in sight, especially when the incident involves drugs that could be disposed of discreetly. The officer did a really good job as a lone officer, de-escalating the situation and remaining calm. She applied the GOWISELY protocol well for the male subject, asking about injuries and conducting the search with respect. She also sought support from a colleague when dealing with the last subject, who indicated he didn’t want to be searched by a female officer."
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 - Young white male subject arrested for vandalism:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
No de-escalation: The officer handcuffed the subject immediately upon arrival, with no prior attempt at de-escalation or clear communication. While formalities may not seem necessary due to the subject being known to the officer, this would have been best practice, along with explaining the actions being taken.
Inappropriate language: The officer used inflammatory language, stating, “It was one of your mates here who gave you away.” This could have escalated the situation.
Communication: There was no identification of the officer or clear communication before searching the subject. Very little dialogue occurred during the search, with the officer mainly speaking to colleagues on the radio. . The officer could have communicated more clearly and engaged the subject in a more calm and professional manner.
Duty of care: The officer did not demonstrate a clear duty of care or compassion towards the young person. Even though the subject was known to the police, the interaction should have been more empathetic, especially considering the subject's age and the traumatic nature of the encounter.
Missed opportunity for engagement: The officer missed an opportunity to engage with the group of youths in a more constructive way.
Dignity: The officer didn’t move the subject away from the group before initiating the search. This would have helped maintain dignity and privacy.
Actions to be commended:
Lone officer: Despite being on his own, the officer did manage a group of people in an alleyway while waiting for transport.
PLANTER: The officer applied the lowest level of force to prevent escape or the loss of evidence, and the search was conducted in a controlled manner.
Wellbeing: The officer showed consideration for the subject’s wellbeing by ensuring warm clothing was zipped back up during the encounter.
The use of force was assessed by the majority of the panel as necessary and proportionate.
Most of the panel assessed the encounter as ethical but there were concerns about the language used and the lack of engagement with the subject.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“One officer attended alone with a number of people present around the subject. While the officer was assertive, there could have been more communication throughout the encounter. Since the subject was known to the police, there wasn’t a need for formality, but an explanation of the actions being taken would have been beneficial. The officer’s comment about ‘mates dropping you in it’ posed a risk of escalating the situation, especially as the subject was not separated from the group. This approach also overlooked the subject’s dignity and potential embarrassment, as they were not moved away from the group for the conversation. The conversation and disclosure of information would have been much more appropriate had it occurred out of earshot of others.
The application of handcuffs was appropriate to prevent escape or the loss of evidence, and it allowed for a safe and methodical search. The officer showed consideration for the subject’s wellbeing by unzipping and re-zipping their outer clothing to ensure warmth. More communication regarding the search and its rationale would have been helpful. While it’s not necessary to perform a GOWISELY during a use of force incident,, explaining what is happening is always appropriate.
In terms of follow-up, our youth policing team will review such cases, and the subject will be brought into a partnership meeting. This process can range from community resolution to potential charges in court, with prevention being a primary focus of that panel. Although it’s not compulsory, it is usual practice for the subject to be handcuffed during transport to the detention system.”
The subject was eventually released and not detained in the custody centre. Instead, they were referred to the youth system for a voluntary interview concerning multiple prior offences.
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.
UOF CASE 2 - Alleged assault and theft of bank card by two young white males
Three BWV perspectives were reviewed in relation to the use of force involving two young male subjects:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication and understanding: Several panel members highlighted that communication was not always age-appropriate, especially where technical terminology was used without explanation. Terms like Section 1 of PACE were not explained adequately to children. The second subject explicitly asked what it meant and was not given an explanation. Nor was he given an explanation to Section 32 which was referenced later. Subject 2 asked about contacting their mum - the officer acknowledged it but only after the subject raised it, suggesting limited proactive communication.
Inconsistent Use of GOWISELY: Concerns were raised about inconsistent application of GOWISELY, particularly between the two youths. The second subject had it properly explained; the first did not, despite both being stopped under similar circumstances.
Confidentiality concern: Writing identifying information on an officer’s hand was deemed inappropriate and unprofessional, particularly given risks of exposure.
Medical/mental health consideration: No evidence of officers asking about medical conditions or mental health needs, despite visible distress in some subjects.
Use of force with a minor: The use of a police dog to locate and detain a young child was considered questionable by multiple panel members. While some acknowledged the reasoning (suspect had run and may have been armed), the frightening impact on a child was not sufficiently mitigated.
Missed engagement opportunity: Officers missed a potential learning and engagement opportunity with carrying a knife - there was no attempt to explore why he had it, or educate around the risks and legality.
Dignity: The first subject was handcuffed on a busy road, raising concerns about safety and visibility.
Actions to be commended:
Date of birth: Officer quickly ascertained the first subject’s age.
De-escalation and behaviour: Most panel members agreed that officers generally remained calm, used respectful tones, and gave clear instructions during the encounter.
Empathy and reassurance: Positive behaviours observed included reassuring a frightened subject by clearly stating they had control of the dog and explaining what would happen next.
Politeness and courtesy: Officers were described as polite, professional, and used phrases with the first subject such as “I appreciate you working with me” which were well received.
Use of Force: The use of compliant handcuffing was judged as appropriate and proportionate in most instances, particularly where a knife had been disclosed.
Professional Conduct: The second officer helped the second subject calm down following use of force and clearly explained next steps in a measured tone. The second and third officers were noted to speak appropriately with clear instructions and friendly tone.
Procedure Observed: GOWISELY and PLANTER were fully observed with the second youth, and grounds for arrest were explained clearly in several instances. Where concerns were raised, it related to communication clarity, not the procedure itself.
The majority of panel members agreed that use of force was necessary in this context, especially given the reported knife point robbery and subsequent disclosure of weapons.
Most responses rated the force used as proportionate to the situation.
The majority of responses found the officers acted ethically, although some questioned the ethics of using a police dog against a visibly young and distressed child.
Most panel members noted that subjects were treated with dignity and respect, and officers attempted to encourage understanding.
The tone of voice was generally calm and appropriate, with efforts to maintain clear communication.
Subjects positively ID’d by the victim who reported and arrested.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“Context is important here - this was a report of a knife-point robbery against a young person, so safety was paramount. With subject one, the officer did attempt GOWISELY but didn’t complete it in full; however, they did explain the search and applied handcuffs immediately, which was appropriate given the disclosure of a knife. The officer spoke well to the first subject throughout.
The point about writing on the hand is well made - that’s an important consideration for personal data, and our officers are reminded to be mindful of confidentiality.
Regarding the use of force with subject two, I understand the concern about the police dog being frightening, but in situations where a subject suspected of carrying a weapon runs away, dogs are used because they can locate individuals much more quickly than officers alone. The dog handler in this case was both assertive and appropriate in managing the situation.
The third officer generally displayed good conduct and communicated well, but I agree with the panel's point about the use of technical language - our communication should be accessible and avoid jargon or acronyms, especially when dealing with children. While no enquiries were made at the time about medical needs or mental health, those considerations are picked up later in custody once the immediate risk is managed. Appropriate adults are also contacted or present at the station for all young people. Most importantly, subjects - especially children - need to be clearly informed about what is happening. Our language and tone should always help support their understanding.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
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.
“This is about learning - there are always points we can take forward to make our service better, especially when looking at cases involving young people.”
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.
