MAY 2022 REPORT
MAY 2022 REPORT
DCCSP members along with Chief Inspector Mark Beavan, Body Worn Video [BWV] Systems Administrators Ian Cocklin and Leanne Moorehouse, and visitors Mark Bolt [Section 136 Panel], Dave Nealon [HMICFRS lead for D&C Police], DCI Kevin Till [Professional Standards Department] and Chief Inspector Greg Tansill [looking to introduce a similar panel in Dorset] observed eight BWVs selected by the panel from the previous month's cases. The following identifies points to action, D&C Police responses, case assessments and outstanding areas that require investigation. Ian Cocklin updated the panel on body worn video retention: the system of saving non- evidential recordings for a period of 31 days was put in place in 2017 to comply with MOPI and GDPR. A thematic review of data retention is currently being consulted with a proposal to increase the period of time Stop & Search [S&S] footage is saved to 365 days, allowing greater time for investiging areas of concern.
Case Selection .
Case Selection .
ACTION POINT 1
Panel requests confirmation that BWV exists for the 40 cases highlighted during Stop & Search [S&S] case selection.
D&C POLICE REPONSE 1
Chief Inspector Mark Beavan reported "BWV existed - no issues identified."
ACTION POINT 2
Panel requests confirmation that BWV exists for the 12 cases highlighted during Use of Force [UoF] case selection.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 2
Chief Inspector Mark Beavan reported "BWV existed - no issues identified."
ACTION POINT 3
Panel requests update on Complaints Trigger received from a member of public in March 2021 re: officer's inappropriate language on twitter and subsequent OPCC conerning comments.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE 3
Reflective Practice for OPCC office on PCC response to the on-line post and reflective practice for the local officers in Plymouth – overseen by supervisors of officers and the local Legitimacy Group in Plymouth. Officer's Inspector highlighted how tone and language caused offence to community and outlined expectations re: respectful and appropriate use ofsocial media, specifically around the use of fist emoji, and the perceived threatening and de-humanising language. The officer was both receptive to the community feedback and remorseful of any offence he has caused. The tweets have now been deleted.
Body Worn Video Assessment .
Body Worn Video Assessment .
ASSESSING D&C POLICE STOP AND SEARCHES [S&S]
MAY 2022 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Ian Cocklin played selected clip, Chief Inspector Mark Beavan read the corresponding report submitted from case officer(s) before the DCCS Panel discussed and submitted the below feedback and assessments. Senior officers in each Force area where the cases under scrutiny took place have been asked to feedback the panel’s observations and reminders for officers. Supervising officers were contacted by MB after the panel meeting to enable Supervisors to view BWV footage that would not be retained beyond 31 days ahead of the panel report.
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 BWV 1 feedback to be provided
Investigation / learning required:
BWV didn't capture the start of interaction.
Panel and visiting police officers were confused with interaction - didn't hear grounds for S&S nor that the subject was being arrested - officers just handcuffed her.
Panel members assessed the encounter as disproportionate due to the use and length of handcuffs which escalated the situation.
Panel requests understanding/relevancy of officers looking at the subject’s phone behind her back as this wasn’t the object of the search.
Panel very concerned about this as it doesn't appear to be lawful, especially as the subject was de-arrested.
Search was conducted in the view of the public - may have been potentially less impactful on the subject if they moved out of traffic’s sight.
GOWISELY not followed - only heard officers state legal power and you are being detained.
Report was incomplete - missing ‘officer defined race’.
In this context, the majority of the panel did not feel that the subject received the best service the police could have provided.
Actions to be commended: Officers were patient.
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer feedback "Prevent and Detect Team officers were deployed in plain clothes within the Mutley area, tasked by the local Neighbourhood Team Leader to assist with Anti-Social Behaviour and drug dealing within the area.
Officers saw the subject X meet with someone and an exchange take place, hence the decision to stop her. This was outside of an address believed to be involved in the supply of class A drugs. Both officers were in possession of their body worn cameras, and the interaction was recorded. As can be seen on the footage, X was compliant in regards that she immediately admitted being in possession of drugs, however this compliance soon vanished, and she refused to take her hands out of her pockets or fully engage with the officers. X is well known to local officers, with warnings on local systems for Weapons, Drugs, ASB Escalation, Mental Health, Violence, Vulnerable Adult and Self Harm. This added to the officers’ initial risk assessment, and was a contributory factor into why she was handcuffed. PC* conducted the search, which is best practise for a female Police officer to search a female subject. The search was positive and two wraps of Heroin were seized. During the search, X was found in possession of a mobile phone, which was looked through for further evidence of drug dealing.
This is a tactic used by proactive units throughout the country, and is covered under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This is not a covert tactic and was clearly visible to any person walking past, and there was no attempt to hide what was happening. PC* happens to be stood behind the subject for a period of time whilst triaging the phone. This was due to the fact she had hold of the handcuffs to prevent injury to the subject or any escape attempt, and not to prevent the subject seeing what she was doing.
The phone was initially looked at in full view of X, however due to her unpredictable nature, PC* felt safest stood behind her. It can clearly be seen in the footage that X was shouting and animated, and upon viewing the footage myself, I would suggest there was a risk of being spat at or assaulted by her, therefore the position taken up by the officer was safest in line with officer safety training.
Attempts by PC* to engage X in conversation had been met with a wall of silence, and I feel this is the reason she wasn’t informed of what was happening to her phone. As a result of this encounter, an amber VIST was raised where the officer raised concerns regarding X possibly being exploited."
The panel thanks the officer for the above explanation, understand the situation as detailed here and are grateful for the time it took to respond. Panel wondered whether there should be some de-escalation guidance for such a known member of the public to the police.
S&S BWV 2 feedback to be provided
S&S carried out in full view of bus shelter, panel recommends consideration of location to preserve dignity.
Officers were professional, fair, calm and respectful of subject and belongings. As a result, S&S conducted with consent and cooperation.
Subject thoroughly informed of grounds, what to expect and what was happening. Panel assessed this as the best service the police could have provided.
S&S 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
The panel appreciate the work done by this officer and would recommend them as as a learning example for other officers in D&C Police.
S&S BWV 3 feedback to be provided
Coat obstructed BWV viewing. Stop and account, no search - panel requests confirmation this was based on intelligence of subjects/vehicle involved in prior reported altercation.
Officers attitude, tone and language was unnecessarily confrontational, judgemental and antagonistic towards the young males when collecting information.
This could have escalated a situation. No contact information provided for subjects to follow up after altercation footage reviewed.
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
? Necessary
? Proportionate
? Ethical
? PLANTER Followed
Result = amber
Panel requests clarification on whether GOWISELY is required for this type of stop.
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
The panel did not receive any response from this officer. Chief Inspector Mark Beavan update: "no response received - suggest close."
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
MAY 2022 REPORT
Body Worn Videos
Via Microsoft Teams, at the start of each case BWV Systems Administrator Ian Cocklin played selected clip, Chief Inspector Mark Beavan read the corresponding report submitted from case officer(s) before the DCCS Panel discussed and submitted the below feedback and assessments. Senior officers in each Force area where the cases under scrutiny took place have been asked to feedback the panel’s observations and reminders for officers. Supervising officers were contacted by MB after the panel meeting to enable Supervisors to view BWV footage that would not be retained beyond 31 days ahead of the panel report.
PROPORTIONATE amount of force
LENGTH of force used
ACTIONS of subject warranted use of force
NECESSARY to use force to protect
TYPE used was minimum appropriate
ETHICAL to use force in situation
REASONABLE for officer to employ
UOF BWV 1 feedback to be provided
Start of incident unavailable so panel could not assess why this UoF was required - request more context and completed information on initial report to facilitate accurate scrutiny.
Was the assisting officer's BWV turned on? Dialogue used to deescalate the situation and highlight subject's welfare - gave clear commands and consequences (dog bite if moved). Police powers used constructively, subject cooperated and no one harmed (although BWV angle limited view).
UOF BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer feedback "It basically started as a male trying to jump off the overbridge onto the A38 which was being dealt with by ARV officers. My colleague and I attended as a dog unit in case there was a runner, which there was from the bridge. He was detained in the car park at Vospers and eventually arrangements were made to drop him home by the police officers. Whilst escorting him to the police car, he ran from officers again, and continued to run away from each unit that spotted him. While searching with my police dog PC* saw the male and started to run after him, I could see him and followed with police dog (PD) Nero. PC* shouted a challenge to the male as he was out of my sight while I was trying to get in a position to see the offender. When I challenged the offender and he saw PD Nero he instantly gave up running and he was detained by PC* to prevent him from escaping again.
This was mine (and PD Nero’s) first operational job with a person on the end of it. This was also why PD Nero was rewarded with a toy when the male was detained as he is a young dog still very much learning."
The panel thanks the officer for the above explanation and advises the officer to fully complete future reports, including ‘sex’ and ‘subject injured’ columns. The panel commends officer for future force learning in relation to such scenarios
UOF BWV 2 feedback tobe provided
Panel noted that the officer shouted to ‘drop the knife’ multiple times but no de- escalation or warning re: imminent use of PAVA. Panel notes that warning prior to spray benefits other officers / bystanders from injury. The panel appreciates the severity of the dynamic situation - presence of a knife, an injured individual and threat to life so immediate response necessary.
Panel requests officers complete report fully in future, including ‘sex’ and ‘subject injured’ columns.
Typical response for a subject with A knife attempting murder is armed response - this officer being first on scene was extremely brave to approach subject with only PAVA spray.
Panel would very much like to commend the officer’s' brave actions with minimal force in the first instance.
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
The panel would like to commend officer - praiseworthy response for context in which they were called to serve.
UOF BWV 3 feedback to be provided
No UoF captured in this BWV. Footage recorded is an hour later rather than time of incident reported. Panel requests investigation into why this is and if the incident employing spit guard was recorded, especially as there is a mental health condition reported. Refer to Section 136 Panel.
UOF BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 3
The panel request D&C police to monitor this officer with relation to uof and understanding of the role of the mental health act as well as the section 136 panel.
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
