AUGUST 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
AUGUST 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
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 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 - During an intelligence-led drugs operation conducted by prison authorities, a male subject was observed displaying nervous behavior, specifically drawing attention to his belt area.
Actions to be commended:
Conduct and manner of the searching officer. The panel was unanimous that the officer leading the search conducted himself professionally and respectfully throughout. Several members described it as one of the best searches they had reviewed in a considerable time, and the panel felt the footage would serve well as a training example for newer officers.
GOWISELY delivered in full. Panel members independently confirmed that all elements of GOWISELY were covered and that nothing was omitted or rushed.
Running commentary throughout the body search. The panel particularly welcomed that the officer explained each step as he carried it out, rather than searching in silence. This was highlighted as the single strongest feature of the encounter. The panel noted that it has repeatedly raised the value of step-by-step narration at previous meetings and would like to see this standard adopted more consistently across the force, as it visibly reduces the intrusiveness of the interaction and demonstrates transparency to the person being searched.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Number of officers present. The panel questioned whether the number of officers in attendance was proportionate to the circumstances.
Substance testing conducted out of sight of the individual. The testing was carried out away from the person searched, who remained separately with prison staff. Confusion followed among staff present as to whether the test had been conducted correctly. The panel inquired whether that testing should, wherever security permits, be carried out in front of the individual with the process explained to them.
Narration of the property/bag search. While the body search was communicated exceptionally well, the accompanying search of the individual's items was carried out without explanation. The panel would like to see the same commentary extended to searches of bags and property, so the person understands what is being examined and why.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
” Thank you. I was really proud with that one, and I'm not always proud with the body worn that I watch. Ironically, I was on duty that morning and I heard the job come in. There was one question there about why there were so many officers. I'm sure they were told there were two people, which probably equated to why there were so many police officers there. And like you articulated then, you can't just get out of the prison, whereas I would have expected somebody to step out and just leave. That's only from recollection rather than anything else.
The actual search, that was a really good search, wasn't it? I should be showing my student officers that. So I was really proud of that. The couple of bits picked up is the cherry on the cake, actually articulating why your colleagues go through that. Absolutely fine, I'm quite happy to feed that back. So that was really helpful. But the thoroughness and the explaining your thinking, for me, that was really great to see.
And then the shoes issue; that comes to be an outer garment, so that could turn it into a strip search if it isn't done by consent. That's why we wouldn't do it on the street, the same as taking clothing off. The prison gives us a little bit more flexibility there.
And the testing, I think you mentioned around that testing, I've never done that in a prison, so I wouldn't actually know what the procedure is, to be honest. And I think they took him with it, but it did feel a bit clunky about whether that testing gave the result that they were expecting. So that's a bit I would just have to go get my own knowledge around, because I don't know. I've never done it in a prison. But yes, I'm not always proud of stop and searches. I am that one. Thank you for your feedback, that's really helpful this afternoon.”
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 - An individual matching a detailed radio description was observed by officers actively handling and operating a Taser, including discharging it to create a visible spark and passing it to others.
Actions to be commended:
Confusion at the scene. The presence of the wider group of young people appeared to agitate the situation, and members were not persuaded that the young man being searched genuinely understood what was happening to him. Although he indicated he knew what was being referred to and disclosed the item, the panel drew a distinction between compliance and comprehension; he may have acknowledged the position without fully grasping it.
Officers appeared to be under pressure. Members observed that the officers seemed to be operating under pressure at the scene. The panel also noted that the arrival of further officers did not appear to settle the situation; the impression was of officers arriving, being vocal, and then withdrawing, rather than taking control of the environment.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Delivery of GOWISELY: The panel observed that GOWISELY appeared to be delivered by both officers between them, and that the officer conducting it seemed distracted while doing so. The panel asked whether a single officer should lead on GOWISELY in these circumstances, so that the account given is coherent and the person searched can follow it. Members also noted that the legal power did not appear to be articulated until the point of arrest, and sought clarification on whether it should have formed part of GOWISELY or whether it is acceptable for it to follow.
No narration of the search itself. Panel members acknowledged that GOWISELY has visibly improved over the years the panel has been reviewing footage, but the same progress has not been made on describing the search as it unfolds. The panel highlighted that officers are still conducting searches in silence. The requirement is not merely to state the grounds at the outset but to explain each stage as it happens.
The individual's age and the response it should have triggered. The individual was 17 and therefore a child, and the group was assessed as roughly 16 to 18. From a trauma-informed standpoint, the panel's view was that a child's age raises the standard of explanation required rather than lowering it. Members considered this a significant missed opportunity: the officers did not explain the gravity of what had been found, that the item is classed as a firearm, or what would follow. The panel also highlighted that the parents or guardian should have been informed immediately.
Contact with custody by telephone rather than radio. The panel asked why custody was contacted by phone rather than over the radio, and would like this confirmed.
Dispersal of the wider group. The panel questioned why the other young people present, and the young woman accompanying the individual, were not moved on once further officers arrived, both to de-escalate and to secure the scene.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“And thank you for the opportunity. It's significantly different from the first one. I think for the whole process, there were some bits I'm quite disappointed with.
So he's arrived and got clarity around the description, so I think the confidence that he's got the right person, that bit was probably a bit difficult for them to understand. But we've then got a compliant child. We know it's a group of youths. They were around 16 to 18, so we could probably make the assumption that it was a child, so I would have expected him to have been treated like a child.
So we've put handcuffs on. The male has said that he's got the item on him, so he's compliant, which is what you fed back to me. At that point, for me, let's slow it down. I would have expected, as the other officers came, to disperse the other children, because that is just going to rile that situation. Also, from a personal protection point of view, actually, let's get those out of the way so now we've got control.
I have seen, and I don't necessarily disagree with, the searching officer not being the arresting officer, because they were both present, so the female officer's doing the arrest. But you're absolutely right, we have not talked through that search.
There were a couple of red flags for me. At one point he asked the age, so we knew he was 17. Exactly, that's that red flag. The other bit he asked around, have you been in custody before? And I think he said no. Well, again, that's another red flag for me. We should be explaining an awful lot more. Section 5 firearms are a really significant offence. We're going right straight to YJS for that. We go straight into the youth system. So even more so, we should be protecting that vulnerability around being a child. So for me, we definitely haven't explained it well enough.
There was some opportunity just to slow it down and remove from that area, whether we remove the other children or we take him into a place. We've left what I will make the assumption was his girlfriend there, quite easily, that could have changed really quickly, that dynamic there, once they'd taken him to custody.
And the one bit that I picked up, I don't know whether you did, we put him in a car without holding onto him. There is something there about protecting him and keeping hold and making sure he gets into that car without causing any injury to either himself or anybody else.
So, not so good. Lots of learning, I think, for the officer there. And you're absolutely right, other officers came. It didn't feel that they brought the situation down. It felt like they'd come in, been quite vocal, and then walked away. I would be quite happy for that inspector to come in and tell them they're the inspector, and this is what they're doing, actually to tell the other children what's going on. So I think there's some quite significant learning for how we're interacting with youths in that one town, which is a town I cover, so I know we have got some issues there. So really helpful feedback for me to take back. Thank you.
On the use of the phone rather than the radio: Custody won't always have their radio on, especially if they're dealing with other detainees. So especially with a child, I would expect them to ring beforehand, to let custody know that a child is coming in, so they can start then looking at getting an appropriate adult ready and things like that. So I'm okay with them ringing.
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 - During a planned Section 18 search of a property for a male individual’s flat, a female subject was observed leaving the specific address just prior to officers conducting the entry.
Actions to be commended:
Communication: Once the search was under way, the panel noted that the officer communicated reasonably with the woman, explaining that they needed to go through her items.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Tone and language during the search: The panel highlighted that the approach used was sarcastic, flippant, unprofessional and provocative. The choice of words by the officers was inappropriate during the search .
3. GOWISELY: Panel members reported that most of GOWISELY was not heard and that what was delivered was disordered. It was also noted that: the encounter appeared to proceed on the assumption that items would be found, and the panel questioned whether that predetermined mindset displaced the procedural requirements.
4. No further action for the search: Members were unable to reconcile the disposal with what was found. Being that the woman was in possession of a substantial quantity of drugs and a significant amount of cash in a public place, and was released for voluntary attendance at a later date. It was highlighted that previously panel members have repeatedly seen individuals arrested on the spot for far less, and members were clear that had this been a younger male, or a person from a diverse background, or the same circumstances in a different community, an immediate arrest would have followed.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“For confirmation, the woman did not live at that address, she has a home elsewhere. It is suspected that the male in custody had asked her to attend his flat and collect these items before police arrived to search it.
It did feel that the officers were quite surprised that she was coming out, because they'd got a search warrant, so their mindset was clearly to go into that house and search it. I'd make the assumption they were probably expecting to see some drugs there, because we'd authorised Section 18 for those premises. So I think it is probably right, they were quite shocked when she came out with that bag, and I don't think they were necessarily prepared for it. It was probably an outcome they weren't looking for.
I agree, communication here let the search down. There needed to be much stronger communication, very similar to the other one. As soon as they asked her whether she'd been arrested before and she said no, even more so that's a red flag to go through that procedure properly. So communication let it down.
On the decision not to arrest: my professional opinion is that I don't disagree with dealing with her as a voluntary attender. They've secured the drugs, and through resourcing they are probably the same officers who are going to have to go back into those premises as well. I don't know the details, but I'd imagine that was going to be quite resource intensive. They've got the grounds, they've searched, they've secured the evidence, and they were also looking for evidence relating to the grandson in those premises. So I don't fall out with them dealing with her as a voluntary attender. She would still go through the interview process and get some sort of outcome, because she was in possession of drugs in a public place. If there were ten other officers who could come in and continue that search, then probably all we're doing is pushing that down the road and we should be dealing with it now. So without that detail, I don't really know. But I understand the rationale for not arresting at the time, depending on what else was going on.
To be clear, she was absolutely trying to help her grandson get off with a drug charge, he'd been arrested for violent disorder, so those are two different offences.
On what else could have been done: there are lots of options. We could have arrested her there. What we don't know is what intelligence there was in relation to her. She hadn't been arrested before, but whether there was any intelligence, that's what the male officer was doing when he took her details, and I'm assuming he'd have run her through to see if there were any previous convictions. The original offence the male was arrested for was violent disorder, so we weren't going in relation to drugs; the Section 18 would have had to relate to that offence. It would be quite interesting to see what was on that search record in terms of what they were looking for. And don't forget, this was only part of an investigation. The voluntary attendance means she's still going to come in and be spoken to and processed for that drugs offence. It wasn't as though we were letting her go and turning a blind eye. They dealt with it in the way that, with the resourcing and the information they had, they thought was appropriate at the time. But we could have explained that to her much better, around the seriousness of coming in as a voluntary attender to be interviewed in relation to drugs.
I've heard the feedback and it's really helpful. I will take that feedback. I'd want to look at it in a bit more detail as well. It will help me have a conversation with the officer”
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]
AUGUST 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 - Offi cers were deployed to the area in response to reports from festival staff regarding street drinkers engaging in ongoing anti-social behaviour (ASB).
Actions to be commended:
Control of the situation: The panel wished to record at the outset that the officers were dealing with a highly volatile encounter involving a person who was intoxicated and aggressive. Members were clear that it is easy to review footage after the event and that this was not an easy incident to police. The panel also commended the officer who engaged with the woman about her sunglasses, and the efforts of the officers to talk her round. This was identified as a genuine attempt at de-escalation, made in the face of continued abuse, and the panel considered it well handled.
Proportionality. Panel members highlighted that once the individual began spitting, kicking and assaulting officers, the response was proportionate. The panel had no concerns about the handling from that point onwards. The decision to keep the van light on was accepted as a straightforward safety measure.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Language used by officers. The panel members considered the language used, including phrases such as "oh, shut up" and "stop being stupid," and the officer matching the individual's swearing, to be inappropriate and unprofessional. The panel's view was that the officer dropped to the level of the person she was dealing with. Even where language is being repeated back rather than initiated, the effect is to inflame rather than settle.
Missed opportunity for de-escalation at the outset. The panel felt the initial approach was combative and provocative, and that the encounter escalated rather than being brought under control. Members noted that this set the tone for everything that followed. The panel inquired how the opportunity could have been capitalised on differently.
Use of force during the initial separation. Panel members observed that in attempting to push the individual away to separate her from the other party, the officer's hand appeared to be close to her neck. The panel asks that this be reviewed.
Under-use of resources present. The panel noted the contrast with other cases reviewed, where officers were operating under resource pressure. Here there was an abundance of resources available;additional officers, private security, daylight, and an officer who was not single-crewed.
Mental health needs. Members raised that the individual's presentation, the repetition of language and the sustained level of aggression suggested there may have been a mental health condition in play, not solely intoxication. The panel considers that clarification on this point would have assisted the officers' handling of the encounter, and asks whether this was considered at the time.
Debrief and reflection with the team. The panel inquired whether the officer and team are given the opportunity to watch the footage back and reflect. Members were of the view that the officer will likely reach many of the same conclusions herself, and that this would be valuable learning.
Response received from visiting BCU Commanders
“From my observations at the start, looking with the information I've got now, I feel as though the police were quite aggressive to start with. There is some opportunity for de-escalation, and I know we train for that. Saying that, I'm a little bit disappointed. At seven o'clock in the evening, it's light. There's private security around, and the officer wasn't on their own, so I think some of those impact factors that I would have heard before probably weren't there in this instance. I think there's clearly precedent, they'd dealt with the individuals previously, so I think that came out, didn't it, in some of the language. It was very much, "I dealt with you yesterday," et cetera. So I think it was really chaotic, but I don't think there was as much de-escalation as I would have liked to have seen.
However, as it went on, the behaviour afterwards I'm relatively comfortable with, because I don't expect officers to be assaulted and I don't expect them to be spat at. So I'm comfortable with the second bit. The first bit, I just think we missed an opportunity. It felt like the officer got dragged into the chaotic world, rather than stepping back and calming it down, and then it was a version of events after that.
So I don't like the behaviour in custody from the detainee, I don't have any issue with our handling of that bit. I definitely don't have any issue with the light being turned on in the van for transport. That is absolute safety, so we can see what's happening there.
I think we missed a trick on the start bit, and the wider public perception, I don't think that would have been very helpful either, albeit it's an area where you will have other people saying that we should be very robust in how we police. So I think there's lots of community tension there. I think we missed an opportunity at the start, which then turned into a version of events that was very loud, very loud throughout. So that's my observation, without knowing anything else than what we've seen today.
On how that opportunity could have been capitalised on: Yes, this is the first bit. There is an opportunity, I think there was an opportunity for more communication, and to try and separate a bit more. There were other officers there relatively quickly, and I think that would probably have diffused the situation a little bit. It looks like there was an event going on there, so we would have known that was ongoing anyway. So separating would have probably diffused it a little bit. I'm not sure the result would have been different, but I think we could have probably controlled it a little bit differently at the start.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
“That was really helpful, thank you, though perhaps we could have finished on the first one, that would have been more helpful. But it’s really helpful for me to speak to the team. So thank you.”
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.
