AUGUST 2026 REPORT (7-9PM)
AUGUST 2026 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.
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 (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 - A report of young males suspected to be in possession of drugs.
Actions to be commended:
De-escalation of the situation: The panel found the officers calm and professional throughout the search.
Delivery of GOWISELY: The panel commended, particularly the officer's introduction of his plain-clothes colleague and provision of his identity, which the panel felt was important in helping everyone present understand who was who.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
No narration of the search. Panel. Members noted the officer communicated very well throughout the introduction and then did not explain the search itself as he moved from place to place.
Age verification. The panel was unsure whether the officer knew the young man's age, and asked whether age should be established before a search begins.
Presence of the young women. The panel felt the officers should have asked the others to move aside before searching the young man..
Search location. While the subjects were moved away from the main footfall, the panel felt the location remained quite public for the search.
7. Notification of parents following a search of a person under 18. Raised as a broader panel question, including where the outcome is no further action. One member noted she received no communication when her son was stopped and searched under 16, beyond the slip he was given.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“Just for context, I think they explained that they'd been seen acting suspiciously just outside the pub. I'm fairly confident this formed one of our PADS operations, which is Pubs Against Drugs. What we do is target high-footfall times, so the England football match during the World Cup was one of those. We ran a number of jobs where we put plain clothes officers, backed up by uniformed colleagues, into pubs, just to test whether there were drugs issues. Sometimes we select pubs based on intelligence over a period of time.
Whenever officers deal with an incident on licensed premises, they submit a licensing form. It might be that they deal with someone in there who appeared under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and that may help us select certain pubs where we'll target activity. So I'm fairly confident that there was a Pubs Against Drugs operation in the Newton Abbot area during one of the England World Cup matches.
I agree, GOWISELY and the grounds for the search were followed well. I quite like the fact that on the grounds he stated, "This might be a mistake, guys, but we've got to go through it." It just helps diffuse it. It's always easier to do a search when they're fully compliant like that anyway. If I was really splitting hairs, he put the white bag on the ground and took care with it, which is good, but he put it in front of the person, and his head was right by the knee. I don't think we'd teach that. We'd put the bag behind him, just for officer safety. The likely comeback would be that they were fairly compliant. Having said that, most people who have got something on them will be compliant until they decide to run or become non-compliant. So I don't think that adds much value.
I agree about the location. If you know the area, it's by the Jolly Farmer pub, between that and the cinema in Newton Abbot, so you've got a car park. It's a balance between taking them away from the main footfall and not being seen to take them round the back in the dark, in case that worries them or appears sinister. So they could have taken them a bit further back. I would probably have put them closer to the wall, because psychologically, when you search somebody, they know they can't run backwards and you're closing off their options. But it's not something I'd pick up directly in the context of a good overall search.
I completely agree about the communication around the search. It was limited. It doesn't matter whether they're compliant or not, tell them what you're doing, tell them where you're searching, as much for members of the public who might be watching as for the individual, and also so your colleague knows where you are in the search. That would have been helpful. It's good practice, and we'll feed that back to the officer.
Age is a good point. I hadn't picked up on that and I didn't hear any verification. They may say he was in licensed premises with door staff and subject to checks, which gives them confidence. But it certainly doesn't hurt to check and verify. It's a good comment.
I would have moved the girls away and told them to stay away, just to avoid the comments. But overall, I think if you're watching that, I'd hope you'd have a good level of confidence in the way the officers dealt with it. Just a little bit of improvement would have taken it from good to very good.
On parental notification:That search seemed to be in the context that they were adults rather than young people, so there's probably little reference to that. Clearly they're still somebody's child, so whether they made that disclosure and went home and said, "I got searched" t's hard to know. With a young person it's different in terms of the steps you take. But in that context, they seemed comfortable that they were searching adults.
Action: To confirm force practice on parental notification following the stop and search of a person under 18, including where the outcome is no further action.
S&S BWV 1 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
AUGUST 2026 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 group of youths fi ghting - allegation of Domestic Assault Report of a group of youths fi ghting with an allegation of domestic assault. Two female PCs attended initially. The second clip at a separate location later the same night involves several of the same young people.
Actions to be commended:
Communication and compassion of the officer: The panel praised the officer's patience with the young individuals.. Members noted the female officer absorbed a level of verbal abuse across a prolonged encounter without rising to it or matching the language directed at her.
Sound judgement in not pursuing the male on the bike. The panel recognised the decision not to chase the cyclist as considered judgement rather than passivity or inaction.
Proportionate use of force. Where officers did take hold of individuals, the panel considered the force applied to be appropriate and proportionate at every stage. Despite the volume, chaos and abuse surrounding the encounter, no member identified any point at which the physical handling itself went beyond what the circumstances required.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Control of the situation: The panel members felt the encounter was allowed to run far too long without anyone taking ownership. It was also observed that the female officer might have been a little too kind and felt the softness was to the detriment of the situation. The panel's view is that the young people needed to be stopped, dealt with and sent home considerably sooner.
Teamwork and the silence of the attending male officers. Once backup arrived, the panel felt the team did not gather round or take collective ownership. Panel members were troubled that the male officers stood by while the male subject was openly disparaging of the female officers.
Absence of explanation at the point of restraint and arrest. Officers had hold of one male's arms for a sustained period without articulating why. The panel noted a disconnect between applying handcuffs and giving the reason, which typically came after the event.
Tactical options not used. The panel asks why breach of the peace and Section 35 dispersal powers were not deployed at the first incident, and whether earlier use would have prevented the second.
Safeguarding of the 11-year-old. The panel was distressed by the presence of an 11-year-old at that hour, witnessing use of force against two people, sustained bad language, and a threat of violence from a female bystander. The panel asked for confirmation that a PPN was submitted.
Powers to remove young people from the street absent grounds for arrest. The panel sought clarification on what is available.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I agree with virtually all of the comments made. It's very chaotic. Two female PCs appeared to be there first. At some point they clearly called for backup, because by the time they moved away from the seafront to where the fountains are in Torquay, those male officers, the backup, had turned up. But it's not clear I didn't pick up when that call actually went in.
Just to answer the next question, I think it's relevant to understand: we have criminal offences potentially. We've got disclosures by the male that the female had either bitten him or hit him as well. We have public order offences early on in that situation with the male on the bike. I think he used the C-word as well. He shouted loudly. There were passers-by, you could see in the background as well. So I think you could comfortably justify the use of a public order offence if you wanted to take that male out of the equation.
A breach of the peace, just to talk about that; breach of the peace is not actually a criminal offence, and very rarely can we charge somebody from the police station. It's for us to ask the magistrates to bind them over. Normally it's a bit of legislation we use to arrest somebody to prevent a breach of the peace from taking place, and then they get held until we believe that the breach of the peace has passed. Normally that's often linked to their intoxication or substance misuse. For example, somebody who's drunk may act differently when they're sober. I would probably have suggested that breach of the peace was the appropriate arrest in the first instance.
And I've made notes, and it's going to sound like it, but I think watching four before discussing three may have prejudiced some of our thoughts. Because what I put down after watching number three is: they've let that run too long, there will be repeat incidents involving those boys. I don't think anyone would think those two boys would go home that evening calmly, and within 40 minutes we're in the situation where they've been involved in another incident with different people, another address, and we've led to it.
So I think it's a balance, because we don't want police officers rushing in with young people and arresting them too early. But an early assessment would say that the female isn't going to calm down and become compliant straight away, she seemed either too upset or too under the influence. The male on the bike, straight away, a very quick assessment is that he was going to cause problems. He did. He aggravated the situation, and they didn't make a decision. And I think that boy, the white male, was clearly aggravating the situation and probably pushing Toby into more extreme behaviours.
So I agree. We don't like to see officers rush in and get cuffs on, but I think an earlier assessment is that they should have taken control. They could have taken both the female and the male into custody to begin with. Now, we don't actively promote this, but there's nothing wrong with arresting people at the scene there, using that to try and deter and calm the situation down and make some enquiries because generally when people are arrested and if they're in handcuffs, you bring an element of control to a situation. Whether that would or wouldn't have worked with either of those is hard to tell. But th/en if you start by using the handcuffs and separating the male, putting him in the back of the police car, once the breach of the peace has passed they could release him from that breach of the peace without taking him into custody. Equally, they'd arrested the female, got her details, and made a decision that actually we didn't need to carry on, they could have bailed her to come back to a police station. So there are a number of tactical options, but I think it felt like we let that situation go too far. I don't think it was helpful.
Again, one of the factors, I think, is that with two females on their own, they wouldn't have been able to deal with that situation. We see that later on. If Harry had kicked off as he did, you would have had both officers dealing with him, and then you would have made the decision, or been worried about whether they had the physical ability to control him safely. The female would have gone, or may have come back and gone in as well, and you would have had no officers available to deal with her. So I'm sure that would have played a part in their decision-making about when to intervene as well.
Just on that comment about it being difficult for you to see the male officers stand by and not respond, I quite agree. What I would say is that maybe they felt their female colleagues were managing it and they didn't want to cut across them, which in itself might not be an operationally sound decision. But I think there should probably have been some recognition that he shouldn't speak like that, or to say, "You've been dealt with by my colleague. You listen to her, don't say another word." That probably would have been some of the intervention I would have looked at. But again, the fact is I don't know who the more experienced officers were. The female officers may have had more experience, and they may have been deferring to them because they were the lead officers as well.
When the males had hold, they had hold. The only observation I have is they both had hold of H's arms for a period of time. And I think somebody mentioned the lack of explanation. They didn't say, or I didn't pick up, why they were detaining him or restraining him. That was the use of force, because they had their hands on him as well. I would have been more comfortable if they were telling him very clearly, "We're detaining you because you've committed an offence, for us to make enquiries," or "We're detaining you to prevent a breach of the peace," or "We're going to arrest you and use force." It was slightly uncomfortable, standing there for five, ten minutes, him clearly not listening to them and them holding his arms. It seemed a little bit of a grey area for me.
On Section 35: Just for clarity, I thought about Section 35, and I made a note when we did the feedback. At the very least, I would have expected us to use a Section 35 dispersal order on the two males, because it's fair to say they were both under the influence. We know there's a chance that there'd be repeated antisocial behaviour or crime owing to their presence in an area. So one of the tactics the officers could, and I think probably should, have used is to have given them a dispersal order: "You leave this area, do not return to this area for a period of time. If you do, you'll be arrested." Because what that would have done is, when we got to the second incident, it would have given them an opportunity just to arrest them for a breach of Section 35 rather than anything else.
On the 11-year-old: I know a panel member mentioned the 11-year-old, so I've made a note, just hopefully to reassure. I would have expected we would have submitted what we call a PPN, a public protection notice, just around that 11-year-old, because he was clearly very distressed. At night, we shouldn't have an 11-year-old there. Obviously the responsibility to care for him is compromised; it isn't there. I found that really difficult to watch, that 11-year-old really, really distressed. He's seen police use of force against two people. He's seen a lot of really bad language. We've got a female in the pink top threatening, "I swear to God, I'll punch you up," as well, and he's there. So it's good, Karen, that you said the officers did take the boy home, but I would think, in those circumstances, for what he's witnessed, because it could easily be a traumatic life event for that 11-year-old, we should follow it up with a notice, just to understand. That would have made a referral to our partner agencies, at least to understand: has he been missing before, are there other issues in the family, to look into it. So I am going to check that we've had a PPN submitted for the 11-year-old.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
UOF CASE 2 - A 14-year-old missing person with a history of repeated missing episodes, subject to a family court recovery order following a decision that he could no longer reside with his mother or grandparents. A placement had been arranged; he was aware and strongly opposed to it. Concerns existed as to self-harm and to his association with adults misusing drugs.
Actions to be commended:
De-escalation of the situation: The panel considered the search as a good example. Officers established control quickly,
Use of Handcuffs: The panel noted officers adjusted the handcuffs when the individual mentioned that they were hurting, rather than dismissing him, and explained that discomfort would follow from struggling.
Communication: The Panel welcomed the change in tone by the end of the search.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Language: The panel highlighted phrases such as "open the door or we will have to open it ourselves” as inappropriate during a search.
Assertions of physical superiority: Panel members were uncomfortable with the officer's repeated framing that he was stronger and could overpower. The panel inquired at what point an officer can acknowledge their physical advantage without putting it into words.
Communication: The panel found the initial approach inappropriate "don't bullshit me," and the remark about where he would be going. The panel felt a softer opening would have been possible, particularly given this young man's likely extensive prior contact with officers and what that history may have shaped.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I have a slight link - I know this job intimately, very well, as a duty senior leadership team officer. But I've put some work into finding a pathway forward. So I think the context is relevant for the colleagues on the line to understand.
We talk about the recovery orders. The young person lost his father at age six to a drug-related drowning. His mother, the female you can hear in the background, in the flat, is struggling with her own substance misuse difficulties as well. She would like a relationship with the young man, but the children's services view is that he is at risk, maybe not directly, but because of the lifestyle and some of the people she associates with. So it's a really challenging situation. But the background to it is that a placement decision was necessary to move the young man to Wales, into a care situation with two-to-one care. The young man has been a missing person a high number of times in quite a short period, and there are significant concerns that he is associating with adults who are misusing drugs, and possibly encouraging him to use those as well, let alone the indirect risk.
So the family court issued a recovery order to allow the police to gain access to an address where we believed he might be. And you can hear in the background, just after he was removed from the property, the mum saying, "What am I meant to do? I have PR. I'm not going to let him go." It's a really emotional and challenging situation. He is a young person who clearly would like contact with his mum, and he's been a missing person and ran away from police a lot in the past as well.
This situation took place two days after children's services had notified him that they were taking a step, for the first time, to remove him from Devon and put him into a care placement in Wales. He had asked us for some time to get possessions and see his grandparents, and then had gone missing again. So the context is that he was aware he was going to be located by police and taken to Wales, which he really didn't want. I think it's relevant context, because the officers at the time had been briefed and were aware of some of those background factors as well.
Also I don't disagree with the terminology.. I think sometimes we use language that may sit better with the people we're dealing with. But on kicking the door in, the context, if it helps, is that there'd been a lot of work over a few days to locate him. The neighbour called us and said, "They are definitely in the flat." We know who it is. So we knew they were in the flat; it wasn't a case of listening in case they were in there. There was high confidence. We knew they were there.
It's always preferable to get in with the least damage, and you hear them talking about the red key, but the alternative is the heavy equipment, which would probably take the door off its hinges, a lot of damage. So I think it's that balance, and you're right. Was that constrained language about kicking the door in? Were they trying to let them know the severity of what would come next? Perhaps if they'd said, "please open the door," I don't think they would have gotten a response. Even the threat to kick it in; it wasn't until they actually kicked it in that the door was opened. But you're quite right, it sounded like a cop movie, which is not where we want to be. I think it's a real balance about understanding what they're trying to achieve, as opposed to being frustrated and shouting, "Open this door or it's going to get kicked in."
On the assertions of strength: No, it's a really valid point, and I've made a note of that. It's difficult, because I'm slightly influenced by knowing the individual and knowing a lot of the situation around it. And I'll say now, I didn't want to influence it.
We'd been really worried about him and locating him. I was working in Newton Abbot on duty, so I went down and spent half an hour with him, when he was waiting for us to take him halfway up to Gloucester to meet the care team who were coming down. And I think you can see in some of that conversation, he was kind of flippant,
And some of the factors around the time of day; it's 15:50, it was a school day, you could see schoolchildren in the background, busy supermarkets, and a busy road as well. So there were factors surrounding it. I think it didn't feel quite comfortable, but it felt a little bit more like engagement. "Are you stronger? Don't be silly." The point is whether it could have been worded slightly differently, like you say, so it's not more of a kind of flexing. Having known him just for that brief half an hour, I have a feeling he actually responds quite well to that. But I don't want that to sound defensive or make an excuse for the behaviour.
I think you've hopefully seen enough in that footage to see how he does react, and they put him back slightly in his place by being clear. They adjusted the cuffs whenever he said they were hurting. They haven't said, "That's your fault, bad luck." So I'd like to think that engagement was in the spirit of trying to be direct, keep control of the situation, and just move things on. But I fully accept I probably wouldn't use that terminology. It ended well. There wasn't a real escalation in his resistance. So I'm trying to see the context of where they got to and what impact it did have”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
“I really welcome the opportunity to look at some of the video footage and to hear others’ views, and I hope that comes across. It’s about reflection, and I’ll be the first one to say, from my time with professional standards and counter corruption, we reviewed a lot of examples of really poor practice. And if it’s any reassurance, a lot of those notifications came from colleagues who were reviewing the footage of colleagues a day after.
For example, in a domestic abuse arrest, they’d be looking at it and they’d pick something up, they were concerned about how officers had dealt with it, and they made the referral into professional standards to say, “We felt something poor took place.” That’s how a lot of the notifications come, purely from the review of body-worn. So it’s there. And it’s not to say there won’t be people who may not refer it in, but in my experience, over my years of running that, we had a lot of notifications from colleagues calling out poor practice, illegal practice, and other behaviours from colleagues as well.
And with this, it’s good really, because we like to get to the point where every interaction is really very good. But it can be difficult. The first ones we watched, numbers three and four, are a really good example.
I find it hard to be overly critical of that because of all the factors in play, the time of night, the limited resources, and it’s quite challenging behaviour. I think I picked up that most people said that. It really is challenging behaviour: the boy on the bike, the alcohol, the swearing. But again, we’ve covered that off. So I’m really happy to take any feedback forward, and have further discussions on it at a different time if that would help.
”
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.
