MARCH 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
MARCH 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
DCCS Panel members along with Chief Inspector Tom Cunningham, Karen Janicka (BWV Subject Matter Expert for Devon & Cornwall) and welcomed new panel members.
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Thematic: Officers with higher disproportionality rates
BCU Area: Alliance Operations
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]
MARCH 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
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 - Female individual threatens a neighbour with a knife.
Actions to be commended:
Communication: The female officer demonstrated clear communication and procedural clarity, stepping in when necessary. A panel member observed that “she actually stepped in and followed through completely explaining what was happening and why.” It was also acknowledged that the officer showed empathy and understanding of the subject’s needs, with one panel member noting that the subject herself stated that “she actually gets me and she’s pretty calm with me.”
De-escalation: The female officer’s approach to communication was positively recognised by several panel members. A panel member noted that “the female officer was quite good at calming her down” and was effective in “further explaining things, especially after the subject mentioned she had autism.” The panel also recognised that, despite the challenging circumstances, the female officer worked to calm the situation and provide clearer explanations, which helped stabilise the interaction.
Necessary: The panel considered the use of force largely necessary given the difficult circumstances, with one member noting, “Difficult situation to handle. The suspect was hard to manage and I do think she was given too much free reign to do whatever she wanted at times.”
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Location of the interaction: Panel members suggested that the situation may have escalated because the individual remained in the shared space of the flat. A few panel members noted that “rather than keeping her in the flat where all of this dispute formed, maybe taking her out into the police car or somewhere quieter could have avoided the escalation.”
Tone and Language by the male officer: Panel members felt the male officer’s tone contributed to escalation. One panel member stated that “he antagonised the girl and didn’t really bring the situation down appropriately,” while another noted that “the language used by the male officer was really unprofessional and provoked her response.”
De-escalation approach: The panel highlighted the importance of early de-escalation. A member mentioned that the male officer “set things off on a bad footing and escalated rather than de-escalated.” Another member suggested that “some de-escalation training would be helpful.”
Teamwork between officers: Panel members felt that coordination between the officers could have been stronger. A panel member noted that “it didn’t appear to be very good teamwork and maybe could have been better.”
Procedural clarity and communication of arrest: Concerns were raised about the timing of explanations. A panel member observed that “she had already asked why she was being arrested and he hadn’t explained the reasons or who he was before applying the cuffs.”
Awareness of mental health or neurodiversity indicators: A panel member noted that the individual disclosed being autistic and bipolar, and suggested that greater consideration could have been given to this during the interaction. One participant inquired whether a wellbeing check could have been considered once the individual mentioned bipolar, and that recognising such vulnerabilities may help officers adapt their communication and approach when managing the situation. Also another panel member inquired about the green wristbands and when they shall be rolled out for us.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“ I really appreciate all the comments which you've provided, many of which I agree with. I think context is really important here. We've got an incident where a female is threatening the caller with a knife and officers are attending with that in mind. So I do expect officers to be assertive like that and to take control of the situation quickly, putting handcuffs quickly would be expected. But once that has happened, we're in a position where we're able to calm the situation down.
I think then an explanation becomes really important in a respectful way to engage which should always be the case and that there's no reason why that couldn't be the case here. So, I really hear what people have said around, swearing. I don't think that needed to happen. And I think the language which I've heard, so antagonistic and provoking. I think I heard some from the male officer. The female officer was really professional and she was able to explain what was happening in a calm way whilst conducting the search and took into account what the subject of the search was saying around the fact that she's autistic as well.
On the question raised around the green wristband, I haven't heard of that, so I will have to check the status of that and whether that's something which is being rolled out. In terms of creating some distance between the subject who was being searched and the other party in the neighbouring flat, I think that she could have been taken outside or to the vehicle, as someone had suggested.
Overall, the incident was brought to a safe conclusion. The officers dealt with it safely, but, of course, there is some learning here, which I will take forward and I will speak to both officers concerned.I don't think it was the best standards. And there's always room for improvement, and particularly in terms of the use of respectful language, I think there's an opportunity to do that better.”
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
S&S Case 2 - A young Male was seen next to a vehicle and fled from the police until he was caught and arrested on suspicion of threat.
Actions to be commended:
Control of the situation: The overall encounter was considered a good service, with the officers managing the situation appropriately. Panel members noted that the officer explained clearly what they were doing and why they were doing it, and the interaction was described as a good example of how to handle such situations.
GOWISELY: It was also highlighted that GOWISELY was followed, with the officer explaining the process during the encounter. The officers were observed to remain calm and professional throughout, even when the young man appeared guarded in his responses.
Communication: The officer’s approach ensured the situation did not escalate unnecessarily, and the handling of the encounter was viewed as a respectful and appropriate response, demonstrating the standard of service expected.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Early explanation for the stop and search: Some panel members felt that the reason for the stop could have been provided earlier. A panel member noted it was “curious that the explanation about theft from cars came at the end rather than before the search.”
Initial tone of the encounter: Although the interaction improved, it was suggested by panel members that there was “an initial aggressive undertone which could have sparked things off in the wrong direction.”
Use of handcuffs: Questions were raised about whether handcuffs were applied quickly, with a panel member stating they “questioned why handcuffs were used quite so quickly,” although it was later recognised this may have been due to the subject attempting to run away.
Caution before questioning: It was noted that the individual was not cautioned before being asked questions, meaning that anything said may not be admissible if relied upon later.
Balance between questioning and rapport: A panel member also queried whether the number of questions asked could be intimidating for a young individual, raising the importance of balancing information gathering with maintaining rapport.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“ Noting also that further questions would probably be futile and could even escalate issues. To answer the question where does the line stand in building rapport and maintaining a good service?
We've got a young man who's seen breaking into a vehicle, and on seeing police, he runs away. So it's completely reasonable that handcuffs are immediately applied. We don't know whether he's going to fight officers, discard evidence, or seek to escape further. So I was content with that. I think once that phase is over, things can calm down and we can start explaining what's happening.
The question around the questioning was a really good one. But before any questions are asked of someone, they need to have been given a caution. So that, you know, you don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence, if you do not mention when questions, something which you later rely on to call. And in this case, it wasn't given so if we were to rely on anything which was said by the young man later, he hasn't been cautioned, which would probably make it.
To address the point of the officers calling him by name, I got the sense that on arrival, they recognised who he was and that he may have been involved in incidents before. I don't know that but , that's what I thought. So it always comes down to communication, use of questions we've talked about here. And if it was to be really top notch, I also noted the fact that at times there wasn't much explanation of where, which parts of the body were being searched now and what would be searched next. So I think there's a point to communication. Overall, I was content. I thought the whole encounter was carried out in a respectful way, even to the extent that when the items were taken out of the young man's pockets, I think they were placing them in a bag to make sure they were kept in good condition as well.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
S&S Case 3 - A young Male was seen next to a vehicle and fled from the police until he was caught and arrested on suspicion of threat.
Actions to be commended:
Control of the situation: The overall encounter was considered a good service, with the officers managing the situation appropriately. Panel members noted that the officer explained clearly what they were doing and why they were doing it, and the interaction was described as a good example of how to handle such situations.
GOWISELY: It was also highlighted that GOWISELY was followed, with the officer explaining the process during the encounter. The officers were observed to remain calm and professional throughout, even when the young man appeared guarded in his responses.
Communication: The officer’s approach ensured the situation did not escalate unnecessarily, and the handling of the encounter was viewed as a respectful and appropriate response, demonstrating the standard of service expected.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Early explanation for the stop and search: Some panel members felt that the reason for the stop could have been provided earlier. A panel member noted it was “curious that the explanation about theft from cars came at the end rather than before the search.”
Initial tone of the encounter: Although the interaction improved, it was suggested by panel members that there was “an initial aggressive undertone which could have sparked things off in the wrong direction.”
Use of handcuffs: Questions were raised about whether handcuffs were applied quickly, with a panel member stating they “questioned why handcuffs were used quite so quickly,” although it was later recognised this may have been due to the subject attempting to run away.
Caution before questioning: It was noted that the individual was not cautioned before being asked questions, meaning that anything said may not be admissible if relied upon later.
Balance between questioning and rapport: A panel member also queried whether the number of questions asked could be intimidating for a young individual, raising the importance of balancing information gathering with maintaining rapport.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“ Noting also that further questions would probably be futile and could even escalate issues. To answer the question where does the line stand in building rapport and maintaining a good service?
We've got a young man who's seen breaking into a vehicle, and on seeing police, he runs away. So it's completely reasonable that handcuffs are immediately applied. We don't know whether he's going to fight officers, discard evidence, or seek to escape further. So I was content with that. I think once that phase is over, things can calm down and we can start explaining what's happening.
The question around the questioning was a really good one. But before any questions are asked of someone, they need to have been given a caution. So that, you know, you don't have to say anything, but it may harm your defence, if you do not mention when questions, something which you later rely on to call. And in this case, it wasn't given so if we were to rely on anything which was said by the young man later, he hasn't been cautioned, which would probably make it.
To address the point of the officers calling him by name, I got the sense that on arrival, they recognised who he was and that he may have been involved in incidents before. I don't know that but , that's what I thought. So it always comes down to communication, use of questions we've talked about here. And if it was to be really top notch, I also noted the fact that at times there wasn't much explanation of where, which parts of the body were being searched now and what would be searched next. So I think there's a point to communication. Overall, I was content. I thought the whole encounter was carried out in a respectful way, even to the extent that when the items were taken out of the young man's pockets, I think they were placing them in a bag to make sure they were kept in good condition as well.”
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
MARCH 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
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 - A young individual at a hospital who has assaulted members of staff and poses as a danger to themselves and their environment
Actions to be commended:
Communication and positive engagement: The initial engagement with hospital staff and nurses was positive, as officers sought to understand the wider context before engaging with the young person. The officers informed the subject about what was happening, including explaining before applying handcuffs, and clearly communicated that her behaviour was unacceptable, which was seen as appropriate given the circumstances.
Safety of the individual: It was acknowledged that the situation involved challenging behaviour from the young person, and officers needed to maintain control to ensure safety. The officers also returned the young person home to her guardians, which was viewed positively.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Language used: Panel members felt that although the interaction began positively, the language used by one officer later in the encounter was inappropriate, particularly when dealing with a minor. It was suggested that a calmer, more de-escalating communication style would have been more appropriate, especially as the officers’ role was to safeguard and support the young person.
Communication and safety of the minor: Concerns were also raised about communication with a child experiencing mental health difficulties, with feedback that engagement should have been at a level more appropriate for a young person. A safeguarding question was raised about whether it is appropriate for one officer to remain alone with a minor while the other officer carried out tasks elsewhere. Some panel members suggested that more effort could have been made to understand the young person’s perspective before applying handcuffs, although it was recognised that her behaviour was difficult to manage. When the young person requested headphones, it was suggested this might have been linked to possible neurodivergent needs or a coping mechanism, which could have been explored further.
Response to use of inappropriate language: It was also noted that the young person may have used a racial slur, and panel members questioned why there appeared to be no response from officers at the time.
Safeguarding and follow-up for vulnerable young people: A question was raised about support and follow-up for young people who appear repeatedly in such incidents, and whether there are safeguarding or intervention mechanisms in place to help
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“ This wasn't at the standard I would expect, honestly. I didn't feel as though it was child focussed. I can appreciate that at the hospital, there had been cognoms, and I think it was mentioned she'd been running out into the traffic and things. So there was a need for police to go there. There was a need for police to control the situation. But I think I would have expected there to be more interaction with her.
Admittedly, we've got to keep her safe, so the application of handcuffs, I think, can be justified absolutely because she'd been running into traffic. Communication here was our challenge. I completely disagree with swearing, particularly at a child and also some of the other terms which were used by the officers. And indeed, that can antagonise the situation. I think in terms of the racial slur, I'd absolutely expect officers to challenge that as you expect. I will meet all of the officers' concerns, and I will provide to them the feedback which the panel provides as well as my own. But the wider question is what happens next?
What's the preventative tool to prevent something like this happening next time? Every time we respond to a young person like this, a referral is made to a protection notice, which is submitted by those attending officers. And then that is fed into a central safeguarding team within the police, but then partner agencies are informed. Information will be known. If that young person was known to the police, there will be potentially risk warnings on the system which relates to her which may relate to putting herself at risk or putting her others at risk. And that information is easily accessible to attending officers.”
Response received from Second BCU Commander:
“Just to add on what has already been said, some of the phrases used, which were repeated twice, swearing is antagonistic, and I'm sure the feedback will be picked directly up with those officers.
I know that that young person is known to the police. We've picked up a previous incident in one of our panels meetings when it was a very similar set of behaviours where the grandparents had declined to care for her. She was out on the street. She was using a lot of difficult language and it's quite a contrast to some of the language used in that situation. I also think that there you picked up a really valid point.
There wasn't any empathy or situational awareness of that young person. I think the officers clearly had had previous dealings with her. My brief is that she is quite well known to most of the officers and my view of that interaction is they knew who they were going to deal with. Some good learning for us to take back to those offices. And I think if they watch this video back, which I would imagine will be part of the feedback process, they will see that. And I would expect them to be probably disappointed with how they approached that encounter.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
UOF CASE 2 - A male person who is suspected to have smashed the window of someone, went back to his house and officers are at his door requesting him to open it.
Actions to be commended:
Communication: Officers demonstrated patience and attempted negotiation for a significant period before using force, showing a clear effort to gain voluntary compliance first. One panel member noted that “they spent a considerable amount of time on that initial negotiation” and that the officer “was very calm in his tone and tried to take on board what was being said, including concerns about the dog and mental health.”
De-escalation: The panel recognised that officers did not rush into using force and instead attempted to resolve the situation through dialogue. As one member stated, “it was good to see that they didn’t go in looking for a fight and were reluctant to use force.”
Appropriate number of officers present: It was also noted that the number of officers present was appropriate given the resistance encountered, with one member initially questioning the number but later noting that “it became quite clear that it needed to be six of them because he was putting up quite a fight.”
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Leadership and coordination: Several panel members felt there was no clear leadership within the team. One panel member noted that “there were a lot of officers present but nobody clearly taking a strategic lead on how best to navigate the situation.” Another added that “in a difficult situation like that, someone should have taken control and given clear guidance to the rest of the team.”
Team communication: Concerns were raised about coordination during the physical intervention, particularly in the confined space. One member observed that “communication within the team could have been better as they appeared disorganised.”
Operational approach in confined space: Some panel members suggested that arresting the subject in such a confined area made the situation more difficult, with one panel member stating that “the arrest may have been easier to manage if the subject had been moved out of the confined space first.”
Handling of the dog: Questions were raised regarding the status of the dog and whether it may have been a registered support or mental health dog. One member asked “what the scenario would be if the dog was a registered support dog and whether different procedures would apply.” Another suggested that officers “could have asked further questions about whether the dog was registered as a support animal.”
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“ I thought the service that was provided there was at the standard I'd expect. I thought those officers did a good job in really quite challenging circumstances.. However, often officers will have to attend instances where there's dogs and ultimately that person is under arrest and we do need to take them to a police station. I think once the scuffle commenced and officers were trying to get handcuffs on. It is really difficult. I thought even in those circumstances, the officers were really quite professional and respectful towards the person concerned, they didn't use excessive force by any means. And once we got the handcuffs on, actually we were able to calm it down again. And then it kind of peaked and troughed in the outside, having to put leg restraints on.
So I really think those officers did a good job in a difficult situation. I'm just picking up the point around the dog but unfortunately, we can't take support dogs into custody. We are not equipped to deal with them. So we would always have to find an alternative location for them to go. However if we know that a suspect for a crime has a particular need and there is need for an arrest, then obviously we add more time to plan how we're going to go.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
““It was really useful to see all of those clips and lots of learning coming out of that. Thank you once again. I’ll be meeting with all of the offi cers who’ve been involved in the instances we have watched tonight to give your feedback and my own, and I always give them an opportunity as well to provide a response to you as the panel.””
Legal Requirements
Officers are mandated to switch on their body-worn video (BWV) cameras from the beginning of any incident. During a Stop and Search, officers must provide specific information to the person being searched. While there is no strictly prescribed order, the College of Policing recommends using the mnemonic GOWISELY to ensure all statutory elements are covered.
For Use of Force, the College of Policing toolkit outlines PLANTER as a structured approach to ensure actions are justified and proportionate.
What is Procedural Justice?
Panel members score each BWV case using a consistent academic framework to inform how well the officers did in meeting legal requirements but also in the way they treated the person being stopped. Procedural Justice involves the pillars outlined below:
Voice: Was the subject allowed to give their side of the story or ask questions (within reason)?
Neutrality: Were the officer’s decisions unbiased and guided by transparent reasoning?
Dignity and Respect: Was the subject treated with courtesy and respect throughout the encounter?
Trustworthy Motives: Did the officer seek to explain and encourage understanding?
Accessible communication: Was the language used clear and easily understood by the subject?
Appropriate Tone: Was the tone of voice calm, respectful, and suitable for the situation?
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.
