AUGUST 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
AUGUST 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
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 BCU Commander: Tom Cunningham - Plymouth
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Review of officers previously RAG rated red.
Area: Plymouth
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 (7-9PM)
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 from mother of domestic incident with son who had left home; concerns of self-harm with a knife
Actions to be commended:
Deescalation: Officers approached calmly, repeatedly used the subject’s name, reassured him that he was not in trouble, and explained what needed to happen. This approach prevented the subject from running. Officers gave the young male multiple opportunities to stop before handcuffing.
Officer Conduct: Tone, language, and body language were calm, respectful and largely empathetic, with clear explanations of actions.
Officers showed compassion and de-escalated a situation that could have escalated quickly.
Welfare: The subject was treated with dignity and respect throughout.
The importance of the young male’s safety was acknowledged at the conclusion of the incident.
Object Found: Arrest was made for possession of a bladed article and an earlier assault once the knife was found.
Key Considerations: All of the panel agreed the encounter was necessary, proportionate and ethical
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
GOWISELY: This was not fully covered. The Panel recognised that this may have been due to the S&S becoming an arrest.
Use of Police Language - the meaning of PACE was not explicitly explained to the young subject.
Search Communication: Officers did not consistently talk through where they were searching or what they were doing. Best practice would be to inform subjects of this, especially those who are younger or vulnerable.
Several noted a lack of continuous communication during the physical search.
Limited Trauma-Informed Dialogue: Given the subject’s vulnerability and risk of self-harm, some panel members assessed the encounter as lacking support especially once the subject was placed under arrest.
Perceived Honesty: Some panel members noted the “you’re not in trouble” approach may have felt misleading to the subject and it impacted his trust with the police (fears of handcuffing and going to custody came to fruition). Greater communication of the process could have helped with this.
The officer's response of “how long is a piece of string” to the subject's questions was also perceived as unprofessional and unhelpful in building rapport.Mental Health Follow-Up: One member queried whether the young man was offered mental health support after the incident, as this appeared to be a repeated event.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Tom Cunningham
“As soon as the subject was sighted, I was happy with the officers’ calm, measured approach, which prevented him from running. However, I recognise the conflict where the young man felt he had been lied to when officers said he “wasn’t in trouble”. Once the weapon was found, the officers’ options were limited.
I agree with the panel that GOWISELY was not fully covered - officers began the process but moved on quickly to an arrest under a different legal power. I also agree that some comments, such as ‘how long is a piece of string,’ will be fed back to the officer as unhelpful and may appear flippant. I note that one officer was careful to protect the subject’s rights, but this may have sounded less empathetic due to legal constraints. I fully agree with the panel that narrating searches is best practice, and I will remind officers of this and other learning points raised in scrutiny.”
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 good 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]
AUGUST 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
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 rape in a hotel by a young female within the last hour. Arrest of white male subject in the hotel room
Actions to be commended:
Communication: Officers used the subject’s name and maintained a calm, professional tone throughout.
De-escalation: Attempts were evident, including calm verbal communication to manage a potentially volatile situation. Arrest was conducted without visible aggression, using handcuffs proportionately for a serious offence, helping to preserve evidence.
PLANTER: Most Panel members assessed this as being followed.
Support: Additional officers arrived promptly with resources for the other person present in the room.
Evidence-Handling: panel members noted swift control of the scene to preserve forensic integrity.
Professionalism: Several members commented positively on the officer’s ability to maintain composure and courtesy despite challenging circumstances.
Objects Found: Class A drugs were found - officers proceeded appropriately given the uncertainty about ownership in the shared room.
Key Considerations:: All of the panel agreed the encounter was necessary, proportionate and ethical
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Crime Scene Contamination: The panel were concerned that the presence of another male, a dog and additional officers should have been removed from the hotel room sooner to secure the crime scene and reduce potential risk.
Welfare: The officers appeared to struggle putting on the handcuffs and getting them comfortable.
The subject appeared intoxicated and fell backwards onto the bed while handcuffed; panel questioned whether one officer should have maintained physical support at that moment.Some members felt welfare and wellbeing checks were limited; although custody risk assessments would follow later, the panel noted the importance of initial checks at the scene.
Communication of Allegation: The Panel raise concerns about initial conversations with the hotel room occupants taking place through the window - with such a time sensitive case, the officer should have sought immediate entry to potential crime scene.
Additionally, the alleged rape was referred to in a brief and potentially dismissive way (“we’ll get it sorted”), which a number of panel members felt minimised the seriousness.Language: Use of terms like “relax” and “don’t know what you’re holding my hand for” could be interpreted as inflammatory. Some panel members also raised concerns about disclosing the subjects victim’s name to the subject.
Search narration: Several noted the search was not consistently narrated or explained to the subject.
Additional Male: Questions were raised over why the other male present was not arrested or questioned about drugs found on the floor.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Tom Cunningham:
“I share the panel’s concerns about talking through the window - with time sensitivity, I would have wanted officers inside quickly despite resistance, and I would have liked the room cleared sooner to preserve the crime scene.
The subject was clearly under the influence; in custody, a detailed risk assessment would follow, which may explain why the arresting officers didn’t address this more at the scene.
When arresting someone, officers should provide full details, including the victim’s name, as it will be disclosed in due course. I acknowledge the dismissive tone noted about the assault; this was a serious sexual offence, and language should identify this.
Handcuffing was immediate to capture evidence. They did take time to secure as this use of force can be difficult with larger subjects who are moving around. Once handcuffed, the officer did speak about duty of care.
Officers found class A drugs, but this was not pursued due to inability to attribute them to the arrested male.”
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.
UOF CASE 2 - Immediate assistance call from ambulance crew - report of a woman in mental health crisis lying in live traffic, requiring police restraint and medical intervention to prevent harm
Actions to be commended:
Communication: The initial male officer made repeated attempts to encourage the subject to sit in the ambulance. He maintained a consistently calm and friendly tone of voice, frequently using the subject’s name and emphasising that officers were there to help.
Officers explained their actions during the incident and reassured the subject they were acting for her safety.
Some panel members noted that officers attempted to negotiate and understand the situation before using force.
Conduct: The female officer maintained calmness and compassion despite escalation.
Some officers demonstrated empathy and used safety-oriented explanations throughout.
Wellbeing: Head protection techniques were used appropriately when the subject was near the ground.
Officers acted to prevent the subject from running into live traffic.
The medical wellbeing of the subject was taken into account, including oxygen provision (though the Panel questioned the method and timing).
Warrant Card: An officer offered to show a warrant card as reassurance (although provided late in the encounter).
Key Considerations:: The majority of the panel agreed the encounter was necessary and ethical, and most agreed it was proportionate.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Leadership: The panel noted the lack of a single, clear lead officer; multiple officers talking simultaneously created a chaotic environment.
PLANTER: Use of force was perceived by some panel members as applied very quickly, with duration viewed as disproportionately long. There were also questions over whether leg restraints were necessary, as the subject did not appear to be kicking out.
The force was described by one member as “distressing to watch” and “trauma-inducing” given the subject’s mental state.
Oxygen Mask Application: The forced application of an oxygen mask while the subject was restrained was seen by some as an additional loss of control and potentially retraumatising to the subject in a mental health crisis.
Trauma-Informed Practice: Some panel members felt there was insufficient empathy or trauma-informed approach in communication and strategy. Language such as “sweetheart” was considered undignified, and the disproportionate number of officers around her (including large male officers standing over the subject with arms crossed) was assessed as quite intimidating.
The more chaotic the situation, the calmer the environment should be; this was not always achieved.
Engagement Strategy: Some panel members felt there was a missed opportunity to offer the warrant card earlier to build trust, especially as the subject did not be;ieve the police were real.
The Female officer could have intervened earlier to build rapport.
None of the officers offered their own names to create a sense of trust.
Initial Request: Initially, the subject asked to go to the police station, which was refused; some members questioned why this was not considered as a de-escalation option.
Medical Considerations: No one asked whether the subject had taken substances, despite possible signs.
There was a delay in moving the subject to the ambulance; panel suggested paramedic sedation could have been considered.
Panel members were concerned that medical assessment and treatment were not prioritised quickly enough.
Public Location: The incident occurred in a city centre with people watching, which may have heightened the subject’s distress and paranoia.
The actions of police and ambulance personnel may have reinforced the subject’s fears (noted in context of schizophrenia).
Specialist Response: The Panel asked if there were dedicated mental health crisis response teams with enhanced training.
Action Point for BCU Commander Tom Cunningham:
Investigate and gather details on existing blue light mental health response groups to share with panel and explore opportunities for feedback to ambulance services. Additionally, TC to explore establishing a multi-agency working group to improve mental health crisis responses, with Panel Member Dean expressing interest in participating.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Tom Cunningham:
“This was a really challenging situation, reflecting the reality of policing where a lot has to be processed quickly. Initially there was calm communication, reassurance, and attempts to understand and negotiate. Leadership should have been consistent throughout. Ultimately, the medical help she needed had to take priority, which required using force to gain control. Without this, she could have run back into traffic and been harmed.
Taking her to a police station was not an option as she needed NHS care, not a custody cell with only one medical professional available. Showing the warrant card earlier might have helped, although it is uncertain how much reassurance it would have provided.
We always aim to use the minimum necessary force, even though using more might have achieved faster compliance. Getting her into the ambulance sooner would have been better, but we had to act at the safest pace possible.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel acknowledges and commends the officer for demonstrating several areas of excellent practice.
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.
