OCTOBER 2025 REPORT (3-5PM)
OCTOBER 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 Chief Superintendent Jim Gale - Alliance Operations Commander
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Time of year (high tourist periods)
BCU Area: 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]
OCTOBER 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 - Vehicle ANPR activation linked to drug supply, three unknown males in vehicle, Section 163 power to stop vehicle, upon vehicle stop check strong smell of cannabis.
Actions to be commended:
Communication: Officers informed the occupants immediately that the body-worn video (BWV) was recording and provided their grounds for the stop.
The subject was given the opportunity to speak and appeared comfortable to do so
Professionalism and Conduct: The officer maintained a calm manner and tone..
The officer’s demeanour reflected positive policing behaviours such as empathy, clear communication and de-escalation.
The interaction concluded positively, with the subject thanking the officers and stating they were “sound”.
Positive interaction from subjects perspective - thanked police at end for “being sound”.
Ethical: Nearly all members agreed the encounter was ethical and conducted professionally.
Proportionate: The majority agreed the action was proportionate in response to the ANPR alert and smell of cannabis.
Necessary: Most of the Panel (72%) believed the stop was necessary, although 28% were unsure and questioned the intelligence source.
GOWISELY: Most Panel members agreed that GOWISELY was followed. A small number reported being unable to hear certain elements due to audio clarity, but agreed that overall compliance appeared to be met.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Clarity: While communication was generally strong, some members felt that the officer could have given a clearer description of where on the body and in the vehicle searches were being conducted.
Operational Questions: Panel members queried what happened about the blue badge found in the vehicle that did not belong to anyone.
A question was raised about how licence plate markers are managed when vehicles are sold or purchased and whether this could cause confusion for future owners.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“The interaction appeared professional, with GOWISELY correctly delivered and calm engagement from the officers. Explanations were provided clearly and the BWV was activated and recording effectively. ANPR is a dynamic policing tool that provides real-time alerts, although there can be delays when vehicles change ownership. Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act allows officers to stop vehicles and check details such as insurance and driving licences. The officers’ actions in this case were consistent with those powers.”
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 - Report of stolen motorbike - subject located in proximity, close to matching description of person seen on stolen bike, low foot fall given time of day. Furtive in providing details and accompanied by a person who ran off upon seeing police.
Actions to be commended:
Conduct: The officer had the BWV pre-record before the encounter began.
The officer clearly stated that the young person was detained early in the interaction.
The officer remained calm and professional throughout a potentially tense situation.
Despite challenges, the encounter did not escalate and was handled with control.
A reasonable level of respect and courtesy was maintained during the conversation.
Communication: The officer explained that the object of the search was the keys and offered to email a receipt for the stop and search.
The young person appeared comfortable engaging in conversation and created dialogue with the officer.
The language used was mostly clear and appropriate for the subject’s age.
Some members noted that the officer did not talk down to the young person and maintained a calm, balanced tone.
Use of Force and Control: The officer used minimal and proportionate force to prevent the young person from running away, as the officer was alone at the time. The action taken was viewed by some Panel members as necessary to manage risk and maintain safety.
Necessary: Just over half of the Panel (57%) agreed the encounter was necessary, though 43% were unsure due to limited visible evidence.
Proportionate: Most members agreed the response was proportionate, particularly given the report of a stolen vehicle and the behaviour of the accompanying person who ran off.
Ethical: Most members found the officer’s behaviour ethical and professional, though some felt more safeguarding and empathy were needed.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
GOWISELY: GOWISELY was not fully covered, with Identity and Station notably missed.
Some Panel members were unsure whether the officer collected the young person’s email address for the search receipt.
Communication and Safeguarding: Members highlighted that the officer could have built better rapport and provided reassurance, particularly given the subject’s age.
It was noted that the young person initiated most of the conversation, and the officer could have made more effort to engage empathetically.
The officer did not talk through where they would be touching during the search, which was seen as a missed opportunity for transparency and safeguarding.
Some members felt that the officer could have shown greater awareness of the young person’s vulnerability, offering more support or checking how he would get home safely after the encounter.
The tone was professional but could have been friendlier to build trust.
Bias and Decision-Making: One member questioned whether there was bias in detaining the Black subject rather than pursuing the White individual who ran off. The Panel agreed this was an important reflection point about unconscious bias and decision-making under pressure.
Operational Context: Some members were unsure about the full grounds for the search, noting limited visible evidence linking the subject directly to the stolen motorbike.
There was some uncertainty about the reason handcuffs were used or implied.
A few members raised whether the officer could have taken more time to explain the ongoing search for the motorbike to clarify their continued presence in the area after the S&S.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“Overall, the encounter appeared pretty professional and calm with the officer managing the situation without escalation. I agree with the Panel that it would have been better to explain the search process more clearly, particularly which areas of the body were being searched. The use of force was implemented before a full explanation was provided, which may have been because it was a time issue to find the bike and subjects in known vicinity. It is a really important point raised about bias - reflecting on why the young Black subject was detained rather than the White subject who ran off. Given the young person’s age, a more trauma-informed and safeguarding approach would have been valuable. Officers could ask questions about their home life, who looks after them and what their plans are, offering support such as a lift home if appropriate. These moments can be pivotal in helping young people who have repeated contact with the police and can be opportunities to make a real difference.”
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 - Report of intoxicated male walking down the street trying car doors. The reporting member of the public identified the subject to the officer. Male initially refused to provide details and appeared to present in an obstructive and uncooperative manner adding to initial suspicions.
Actions to be commended:
Conduct and Professionalism: The officer had the BWV pre-record before the encounter began.
Most Panel members acknowledged that the officer’s approach demonstrated patience and de-escalation skills under challenging circumstances.
The officer explained the purpose of the stop and search and maintained an appropriate tone once the subject’s engagement improved.
The officer showed tolerance and professionalism even as the subject became aggressive.
Use of Force: Officer implemented appropriately to mitigate risk and prevent the subject from running away, which helped maintain safety and prevent escalation.
GOWISELY: Elements were delivered, although speed and clarity were noted as potential issues. When the officer provided a slower, later explanation, the subject engaged more effectively and understood the process better.
Necessary: Most of the Panel (86%) agreed the encounter was necessary given the report and the subject’s behaviour. 14% were unsure.
Ethical: The majority agreed that the officer acted ethically and professionally, but some felt that exasperation affected communication.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication and Clarity: Several Panel members noted that the initial GOWISELY explanation was too fast for the subject, who was intoxicated and confused.
Presumptive or leading questions were used, such as asking “When was the last time you were in trouble with the police?”, which could create barriers to engagement.
The officer became visibly exasperated at times, giving curt answers that may have reduced clarity and rapport.
Some members suggested the officer could have slowed the interaction and ensured the subject fully understood the lawful language under Section 1 of PACE.
Legal and Procedural Understanding: Questions were raised about whether the subject was legally required to provide his name for a stop and search. Panel members noted that while he was not legally obliged, clearer communication around this could prevent misunderstanding or tension.
Some members were concerned about the subject leaving the scene intoxicated and agitated and whether appropriate safeguarding measures were considered.
Proportionate: Mixed feedback; some Panel members were unsure, with one noting that the number of officers present may have seemed excessive for one individual.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Jim Gale
“The subject was large, intoxicated and clearly aggressive, attempting to open car doors. A lone officer would understandably feel anxious in this situation. However, I agree that while GOWISELY was delivered, it was too fast and unclear for someone in the subject’s state. The later, slower explanation was much more effective. The officer was exasperated which is understandable given the circumstances, particularly as the situation was close to arrest.
The officer demonstrated a degree of tolerance, especially at the end as the subject became aggressive. Under PACE detention, subjects are not required to give their name or address, nor to answer questions about previous police involvement, although this can help with intelligence and risk assessment. The officer requested assistance, and the nearest was an armed response vehicle, which is always double crewed, hence the larger number of officers on scene. Overall, there are areas to improve in initial engagement, but officers were reasonable and acted appropriately, and their continued presence in the area allows for rapid intervention if needed.”
S&S BWV 3 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]
OCTOBER 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 12 year old girl out in the dark, in her pyjamas, drinking in the city centre
Actions to be commended:
Body-Worn Video: Officers activated pre-record and made the subject aware of body-worn video.
Communication: Clear, calm and caring tone used by the first officer.
The officer repeated reassurances to the subject (“You’re perfectly safe”, “We care about you”) and used humour to build rapport.
Radio communication effectively updated colleagues throughout the incident.
Efforts made to move the subject from public view to maintain dignity.
Questions used to encourage engagement when non-responsive (“What could I do to make it easier to talk?”)
Use of Force: Limited to hands-on restraint and applied only when necessary to prevent harm or escalation.
The first officer demonstrated minimal, constructive force, explaining actions calmly.
PLANTER: First officer followed PLANTER thoroughly.
Some inconsistencies noted in the second officer’s application.
Welfare: Officers managed the later safety of two younger siblings appropriately.
Safeguarding referrals were raised for all children involved.
Necessary: All panel members agreed the encounter was necessary.
Proportionate: The majority of the panel assessed the officers’ actions as proportionate.
Ethical: All panel members agreed the case was ethical, prioritising the subject’s best interests.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Reporting: The subject's age was initially misrecorded; accurate age later confirmed with family. The Panel asks if this data gets corrected?.
Trauma Informed Approach: Officers made repeated attempts to engage, but once the subject did not cooperate, communication was largely limited to instructive commands.
Potential trauma from being restrained by two adult males from an armed response vehicle noted. Unarmed female officer presence could improve engagement in future similar incidents.
Force Application: Second officer’s approach was less measured, with patience wearing out faster. Wrist hold use raised minor concerns.
Consideration of whether earlier intervention in moving the subject to the car might have prevented prolonged exposure in public.
Family and Welfare Management: Two young siblings were initially left with the subject in the car when the family arrived; officers intervened appropriately.
Additional support for family and subject post-incident is recommended, including referral to professional services.
Response received from visiting Chief Superintendent Ben Deer
“I agree the first officer was very patient and dealt with a very difficult situation incredibly well. I also agree that getting her into the car earlier may have helped, but doing so at the start could have caused further escalation. Safeguarding referrals were raised for all children involved.
I appreciate that armed response vehicles can be intimidating but the weapons were not on officers or evident in the vehicle. It can also be an advantage for these officers to be attending, as they always arrive in pairs and are trained in managing down conflict to a higher level than other officers. It is important to avoid gender bias but I take the point that tactically it may be a good idea to request a female officer if available.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
“Sincere thanks to the DCCS Panel - I always enjoy these sessions, they are mentally very stimulating and I’m really grateful for everyone’s time”
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.
