MAY 2026 REPORT (3-5PM)
MAY 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]
MAY 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 - A male seen by himself matching a description in the exact location given reported for dealing drugs in a park.
Actions to be commended:
GOWISELY: Panel members noted that the officer demonstrated a clear approach from the outset, delivering information early in the interaction. It was highlighted that GOWISELY was followed and was consistent, a great approach.
De-escalation: Despite potential challenges as noted by panel members, the officer managed the interaction with the lady without escalation.
Proportionality: The situation was resolved in a proportionate and practical way as noted by the panel, avoiding unnecessary escalation.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Privacy and Dignity in Public Settings: The search took place in a highly visible public area. While operational demands may limit options, greater consideration could be given to moving individuals to a more discreet location where possible.
Clarity for the Individual: There were moments where it was unclear whether the individual fully understood the purpose and grounds of the search, particularly with the fact noted by the panel that the lady might have been intoxicated or distressed.
Communication: Although the officer communicated well overall, there was an opportunity to more consistently explain each step of the search (e.g., “I am now checking your waistband”). This helps reduce anxiety and builds trust, particularly in sensitive situations.
Professional Language and Forms of Address: The use of terms such as “mate” or “buddy” raised mixed views with the pane noting that that was uncalled for and unprofessional. While sometimes intended to build rapport, such language can be perceived as overly familiar. A more neutral and respectful form of address may be more appropriate unless guided by the individual’s preference.
Opportunity for Early Engagement: Earlier engagement, such as asking for the individual’s name or checking how they wish to be addressed, could support rapport-building in a more respectful and inclusive way. This small step can positively shape the tone of the interaction.
Transparency: There were questions about how the situation progressed and whether all decisions were clearly explained. Where possible, providing brief context for actions (within operational limits) can help individuals better understand what is happening and why.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“Thank you. Interestingly, I might have just answered this for myself, but regarding my observations, and I don’t know if I’m being overly critical or, it was a good introduction. I’m pleased that the officer introduced herself, although she didn’t provide her surname, which I think people generally expect.
She acted wisely; however, I absolutely think the individual could have been taken somewhere more private. Even if it was just moving next to a wall away from the people queueing, it felt like a natural opportunity to move off the pavement and out of the main view. Also, I don’t know the officer, but she was polite and clear in her speech, explaining what they were doing, which her friend also recognized. People are free to record the interaction if they wish. I think there was an opportunity to engage a little earlier regarding the person's name, which would have helped the engagement.Then there was another officer, I couldn’t tell if he was behind or in front or who asked politely,
'Would you mind giving my colleagues some space?' I thought that was a respectful way of asking for room rather than saying 'back off, we’re busy,' which I’ve heard before. I also noticed the officer with the mustache who said, 'I know of you, but I’ve never met you.' I’m not sure I would have said that. In terms of the language 'buddy' or 'mate'? A lot of officers use them, but how do we feel about being addressed that way? Additionally, they could have explained why they needed the date of birth and the caution, though they were leading toward an arrest at that point.
Do I sense this was the 'best' policing service? It was really quite good. I would tell the female officer 'well done,' as she treated the person with respect. With a few minor adjustments, it would be part of the best policing service. “
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 - Parc officer reported that subject had a knife and the same male has been witnessed by cctv with something in his had been walking through town.
Actions to be commended:
Effective Use of Force: The decision to use handcuffs and immediate detention was proportionate and necessary given the high-risk nature of the report (possession of a knife), ensuring the safety of the public, the suspect, and the officers themselves as noted by the panel members.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Communication: The panel observed that the interaction was substandard from the outset. Both the language and mannerisms exhibited by the officers were inappropriate. The handling of the encounter was deemed poor, lacking any coherent structure or professional boundaries, which resulted in a sense of over-familiarity.
GOWISELY: Furthermore, the GOWISELY protocol was not effectively articulated; the communication was disorganized and random, with the officers failing to provide any information beyond the basic grounds for the stop.
Professional Mannerisms and Tone: The officer’s demeanor was described as "over-familiar." The panel suggested that the officers should maintain a neutral and professional tone particularly when dealing with individuals who may be well-known to the police, to avoid the perception of bias.
Communication: There were indications that the individual may have been under the influence of alcohol. In such cases, the panel noted that the officers should take extra care to explain procedures clearly and ensure comprehension.
Service Recovery Post-Arrest: Once the immediate threat was neutralized and the suspect was in handcuffs, there was a missed opportunity to transition into a calm dialogue. Explaining the next steps and the reasons for continued searching would have helped de-escalate the "chaotic" atmosphere as discussed by the panel.
Active Listening and Engagement: The panel also highlighted that the individual was interrupted twice or more and was not given a fair opportunity to speak.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander
“I have thought about this one, was this a really good service? In line with the form, perhaps one of those things that we're missing are the things that you highlighted. I felt like this one was quite chaotic. I don't really know why, but I don't know if GOWISELY was actually followed properly, as I couldn't really hear much. From the outset, I feel like the individual was outnumbered; there were a lot of officers there, including community support officers.
Also, they eventually told them what happened, but they did kind of ask him 'what’s the story?' and 'why are we here?' when he had to be the one to say 'this is what’s been found on me.' I don't think they told him where they were going to be searching; they just searched him. I felt like the mannerisms of the officer doing the searching were quite cocky.
Some of the language at the end, as he put him into the van, he said something which I think was a bit cocky, but I couldn't really hear it. I just felt like it could have been handled a lot better. I don't think it's the best we've seen, unfortunately. In terms of that customer service bit, treating people with dignity and respect, that wasn't there. I would suggest that police officers have a conversation with other officers who do speak to the members of the public in a correct way.
It was all a bit random; at one point, I absolutely agree with what the officer did for public safety regarding the knife, but do I think it could have had a slightly different lens after the arrest and after the probable adrenaline of the situation? Yes, I do. There is learning to be carried forward. I would encourage reflection; the officer should sit down and watch this, and if they don't identify where they could have done better with engagement, that should be teased out with them.
I would start a conversation with them by saying: 'We watched the stop search you carried out. I’m grateful for you taking proactive action against knives, but let’s watch this together and give me your reflections.' I’d point them toward better engagement once a suspect is under control and ensuring people understand the legislation, like Section 4, being used. Each interaction has a knock-on effect.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
ASSESSING D&C POLICE USE OF FORCE [UOF]
MAY 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 - While on a mobile patrol in Plymouth during a busy evening shift, officers observed a suspect throw an unidentified object at a member of venue door staff, leading to an immediate vehicle stop and a use-of-force intervention to detain the individual.
Actions to be commended:
De-escalation: Panel members noted that the encounter began without handcuffs, showing an initial attempt by officers to engage in a verbal dialogue and de-escalate the situation before the suspect attempted to flee which was noted as a positive action.
Tactical Proportionality: The physical detention was deemed a proportionate response by the officer, given that the suspect had fled the scene of a suspected assault.
Exceptional Medical Care: The paramedic team and the "Safer Bus" staff were highly commended for their respectful, kind, and professional demeanor, which successfully gained the suspect's compliance and trust.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:Privacy and Public Dignity: The officer loudly identified the suspect as an "asylum seeker" in a crowded public space. This was flagged as a severe safety risk that could endanger the individual and showed a lack of regard for his dignity.
Professionalism and Language: The language used by the female officer including calling the suspect an "idiot," telling him to "stop playing," and using profanity, was noted as distasteful and unprofessional. The "sniggering" between officers suggested a lack of empathy for the individual.
Clinical Competency vs. Duty of Care: The female officer dismissed the suspect's potential injuries, claiming "I can feel your pulse, you're fine." This was highlighted by the panel as an inappropriate gauge of medical well-being and a failure in the duty of care, especially compared to the paramedics' approach.
Strategic Decision-Making: The interaction became "protracted" because officers spent an hour debating social media details instead of making a decisive arrest for the initial assault. A quicker decision to arrest might have avoided the subsequent chase and use of force.
Cultural Awareness and Trauma: There was a lack of consideration regarding why a person from an ethnic minority background might be evasive or fearful of police. Shouting at an individual whose first language is not English further hindered communication and increased the chaotic nature of the stop.
Response received from visiting BCU Commanders
“I will check the original occurrence, but from memory, I don't think he was known at all, which made the evasiveness stranger to the officers. I recognize that follow-up interviews to understand why people feel uncomfortable engaging with police would be best practice, but currently, we face significant logistical and capacity issues that prevent this.
Regarding the service provided, the element that upset me was the loud discussion of his status as an asylum seeker in a public place; that genuinely concerns me as it could endanger his safety. I also felt the language used calling him an 'idiot' and being dismissive of his health was inappropriate. While the officers acted with the right intentions because they saw an offense, the 'play-acting' and checking of his breathing made me very uncomfortable. We have a responsibility for anyone in our care.
This was a tricky, protracted incident. Sometimes 'more is less'; had they arrested him early for the initial offense rather than playing a 'tennis match' over his name, we might have avoided the chase and the injury. I believe reflective practice is the way forward here. I want to ask these officers to watch the footage and tell me what they would do differently. It’s about balancing the fact that they are proactive on a stressful Saturday
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
“Thanks Nathan for your facilitation. Brilliant and inclusive as always. Tom, thank you very much for your hard work. You’ve obviously put a lot in beforehand and Karen, of course, who we wouldn’t have anything to watch or discuss without. Thank you. All the best leaders, and if we see you this evening, it would be great, but if not, have a restful rest of the month”
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.
