AUGUST 2025 REPORT (3-5PM)
AUGUST 2025 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 and visiting Ch Supt Ben Deer - BCU Commander for Cornwall and Isles of Scilly
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Review of officers previously RAG rated red
BCU Area: 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]
AUGUST 2025 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 - Report of push bike theft - two males wearing balaclavas
Actions to be commended:
Full Recording: The body-worn video was pre-recorded, ensuring the entire incident was captured on camera from start to finish.
GOWISELY: The majority of the panel agreed GOWISELY was ultimately followed, although some noted delays, unclear delivery, or missed opportunities for better communication.
Effective Teamwork: The assisting officer took the lead in communication while the primary officer caught his breath following the foot chase.
Successful Outcome: Items were found on the subject, leading to an arrest and the individual being taken into custody.
Positive Behaviour: Elements of courtesy, respect, and an appropriate tone were noted in parts of the officer-subject interaction.
Key Judgements: The majority of panel members agreed that the stop and search was necessary, proportionate, and ethical.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Lack of Initial Introduction: Officers failed to provide an initial introduction or explain the reason for detention before handcuffing. While this may be attributed to the subject being a potential flight risk, better communication was expected once the situation was under control.
Unclear Grounds and Context: The subject had to ask what was happening, which indicated that the officers had not clearly communicated the grounds for the search early on.
Poor Coordination: Officers were observed speaking over each other, creating confusion and a lack of coherence in the interaction.
Inappropriate Questioning: Questions such as “Have you ever been arrested before?” were considered too personal and potentially irrelevant to the stop and search grounds.
Unclear Language: Use of PACE language such as “I’ll explain in a minute” did not offer sufficient clarity to the subject.
Lack of Explanation During the Physical Search: Officers did not explain the search process as it happened or specify where they would be touching the subject, limiting transparency.
Informal Terminology: The term “bally” (referring to a balaclava) was used by an officer and not understood by the subject, who had to ask what it meant.
Missed Opportunity: One panel member noted a lack of communication and engagement during the search, particularly disappointing given the subject's young age.
GOWISELY: Some panel members felt the second officer could have stepped in to clearly deliver GOWISELY while the first officer was out of breath, but this did not happen effectively.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“I’m pleased with that response. Officers were called to a report of bikes being stolen by suspects in balaclavas. There was an emergency phase after a footchase, and once handcuffed and the officers were in control, the incident became calmer. The search was thorough.
However, I agree with the feedback that explanations during the search need to be given as they go along. The point about communication and language is valid - the use of informal terms like 'mate' and 'bally' should be avoided for clarity.
The encounter was professionally conducted, but it's fair to expect that once the situation is controlled, officers should introduce themselves and then proceed with GOWISELY. The additional questions asked during the stop (such as previous arrests) will be looked into by myse;lf / Tom Cunningham. It's important to remember that officers do not know what the subject may be carrying, so safety must be the priority in these situations."
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
“In this case number the officer did not wish to provide feedback on this case”
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel recognises that there are areas of good practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
S&S Case 2 - Report of antisocial behaviour involving a male refusing to leave a café, believed to have taken drugs
Actions to be commended:
Full Recording: The body-worn video was pre-recorded, ensuring the entire incident was captured on camera from start to finish.
Effort to Build Rapport Later in the Encounter: Although initial communication was limited, the officer made later attempts to engage with the subject in a more human and empathetic way.
Collection of Self-Defined Ethnicity: The officer asked the subject for their self-defined ethnicity, as required by protocol but not often observed in cases.
Aftercare: The subject was transported home rather than being taken into custody, which helped prevent any further disorder.
Officer’s Patience: Several panel members noted the officer remained professional and attempted to keep the subject calm, despite the subject appearing highly distressed or intoxicated..
Key Judgements: Most panel members agreed that the stop and search was necessary, proportionate, and ethical. But some expressed reservations, particularly about the early use of force, tone and handling of a vulnerable subject.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Escalation: The subject appeared initially friendly and compliant; however, the officers decision to immediately apply handcuffs without prior dialogue escalated the encounter unnecessarily.
GOWISELY: Delivery was rushed, mumbled, and unclear. The subject himself flagged that it sounded like “gibberish,” and several panel members confirmed they could not hear all parts.
Inappropriate Comments: Officers made remarks such as “You’ve got white powder all around your nose” and “Tough paper round, was it?” which were viewed as sarcastic and unprofessional. The officer was also seen shushing the subject and laughing at times.
Handling of Vulnerability: The subject disclosed autism and PTSD and appeared increasingly distressed. The officer continued to touch or pat the subject, which may have been overwhelming and inappropriate. There were concerns about whether the officers had appropriate training for handling neurodivergent individuals.
Threatening Language: The phrase “Do you want to go in the cells?” was identified as unnecessarily threatening, particularly when no clear grounds for arrest had been communicated.
Initial Communication: The first part of the encounter lacked basic courtesies such as introductions and clear explanations, contributing to the subject’s confusion and distress.
Human Interaction: One panel member noted that it took around 14 minutes for the officer to start speaking to the subject “like a human being.”
Training: Multiple panel members raised the need for better officer training in both communication skills and neurodivergence awareness.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
"Overall for me, this was an encounter with a subject behaving in a volatile way. I was pleased with the human approach taken at the end - this was practical policing that led to a safe outcome for all concerned. However, I agree with the panel that there was not much communication at the start, and no proper introductions or explanation of what was happening. The early use of handcuffs escalated the situation quickly and GOWISELY must be fully covered. Officers must also take into account what the subject is telling them. The officer was polite overall, but I acknowledge that threatening language about “going in the cells” was not appropriate.
As for neurodivergence, new officers do receive input on this, and we do intend to update our training. There are some learning points here, but it was a safe encounter with a likely intoxicated individual."
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
“I appreciate the feedback for this stop search. What I can take away from the feedback that was given and wholly agree was the rushed broadcast of the GOWISELY. I know that to detain someone for a search, means that this should be communicated as effectively as possible and to be taken as seriously as possible within the confines of the law and policy due to the large responsibility we have and the fact that by detaining someone, you are effectively, taking someone’s liberty away. I will not make excuses as to why it was rushed, mumbled and unclear, but I know on that day, it was particularly busy. This may have led to some of the comments that I made which have been deemed ‘inappropriate’. However, in my experience of dealing with some members of the public, I know that humour can be something that helps with dealing with conflict. Whether this helped on this occasion, I cannot remember or say. I also know that the use of Language of “Do you want to go to the cells” may be perceived to be harsh, but from experience, expressing the severity of his behaviour this way puts it across in a stronger manner in an attempt to de-escalate, something that often works. I acknowledge that different wording, such as “Do you want to be arrested” can also be used, which may communicate the same message in a less harsh way. Something I may consider in different circumstances.
I felt the use of handcuffs necessary. The use of handcuffs is for the prevention of escape or violence. The original report was the fact that the male had been violent and threatening to members of the public at a busy evening drinking area. The male was suspected of being under the influence of drugs, and I suspected that if I didn’t use the handcuffs, he may be more capable of continuing to be violent and threatening the use of violence towards me or other members of the public. Being on my own, made it more difficult to keep a firm eye on him. Further to this, the use of handcuffs meant that having better control of him to prevent him from stepping into the road and also discarding of any drugs he may have on”
Panel response:
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
AUGUST 2025 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 - Report of a male with knife following altercation in a flat
Actions to be commended:
Full Recording: The body-worn video was pre-recorded, ensuring the entire incident was captured on camera from start to finish.
Clear and Respectful Communication: Officers clearly explained to the subject what was happening and why he was being handcuffed.
Officers thanked the subject for remaining calm once the situation was resolved.
The communication style was frequently described as respectful, clear, and calm.
Listening and Welfare Consideration: Officers responded to the subject’s complaint about the handcuffs being too tight by loosening them.
Officers sat with the subject in the stairwell for an extended period, speaking with him and showing patience.
Positive behaviours were frequently observed, including active listening, empathy, and calm tone throughout the encounter.
Procedural Fairness: All panel members agreed that the officers were honest and truthful.
The officer’s use of force was ethical, necessary, proportionate, and reasonable.
Several panellists noted that the officers demonstrated what best service should look like in policing.All respondents agreed that there was no evidence of discrimination, bias, or prejudice.
PLANTER: Most Panel members agreed that PLANTER was followed.
Use of Force: The force used was consistently considered appropriate and non-punitive.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Delayed Search: Concerns were raised about how long it took for a physical search of the subject to take place, considering the nature of the emergency call (a report of a knife).
Engagement with Reportee: One panel member questioned whether it was appropriate to allow the subject to shout up the stairs to the woman, suggesting it could have escalated the situation.
Debriefing Remarks: A couple of panel members raised concern over the officer’s “pep talk” at the end, describing it as potentially condescending, especially given the subject was not at fault.
Response received from visiting Chief Superintendent Antony Hart
“This was a case involving a single officer attending an emergency call. The key priority in this context is safety and quickly gaining control of the situation. The officer applied handcuffs swiftly to prevent any threat of harm. It would have been better if the officer had clearly stated which power they were using, but overall, the use of force was justifiable. While it took a while for additional officers to attend, the initial officer built rapport and responded to concerns about the tightness of the handcuffs by loosening them, showing regard for the subject’s wellbeing.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
A mixed assessment from the panel, with concerns about the initial escalation and restraint, but also recognition of positive conduct and efforts in managing a complex incident.
UOF CASE 2 - Report of male threatening his sister with knife
Actions to be commended:
Calm and Clear Communication: Officers gave clear instructions for the subject to come to the door with empty hands.
Repeated use of the subject’s name helped with engagement.
Clear explanation that use of force was present and what would happen next.
De-escalation: Officers consistently attempted to de-escalate throughout the encounter.
Wellbeing: Officers ensured the subject’s medication was obtained for custody purposes and checked on the care of the subject’s dogs.
Use of Force: Use of force was assessed as proportionate, necessary and ethical.
PLANTER: Most Panel members agreed that PLANTER was followed.
Policing Service: The majority of the panel agreed the subject received the best police service possible under the circumstances.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Welfare: Subject threatened to kill himself if left alone in a custody cell, indicating potential mental health concerns.
Report Details: the initial allegation reportedly came from the sister, but some officer comments mentioned an ex-partner, causing conflicting accounts.
Dignity:; some panel members felt the search outside was undignified and could have been done in a more private location.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“I am pleased with what I saw during this incident. I am unsure why so many officers were needed to conduct the arrest, but the operation was carried out safely, with clear communication throughout. The officers maintained a polite yet assertive manner at all times.
I acknowledge the point raised regarding the search location - it would have been preferable to conduct the search inside rather than outside. After the initial arrest phase, when the subject was outside, the officers successfully de-escalated the situation, and the handcuffs were removed carefully. Overall, the interactions were polite and respectful.”
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 good practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
“I would like to offer a sincere thank you to the Devon and Cornwall Community Scrutiny Panel. Change is driven by more challenging feedback, which helps our officers and organisational culture to improve. You provide an objective and fresh perspective. Many of us have served in Devon and Cornwall Police for years and can become set in certain ways of thinking or even indoctrinated. Therefore, the value of your time and commitment truly makes a difference and has a meaningful impact on the organisation”
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.
