MAY 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
APRIL 2025 REPORT
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 Anthony Hart
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows: Repeat subjects of Stop & Search
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]
APRIL 2025 REPORT
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 of male attacked with weapon, black male subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication and Respect: Officers used the subject’s name repeatedly, reinforcing a respectful and personal approach. Most interactions included accessible language and a calm, respectful tone. Clear communication was maintained even when the subject was emotional or speaking over the officers. The officer explained the situation well, including what was happening with others involved in the incident.
Empathy and Duty of Care: Officers were seen to check on the subject’s wellbeing, ensuring he had not been injured. Subject’s allegation was recorded and flagged for further investigation. Officers were commended for handling a difficult situation involving conflicting claims with composure.
De-escalation and Professionalism: A calm manner helped prevent escalation, especially when tensions were high. Empathy, active listening, and de-escalation were observed.
Necessary: All panel members agreed the stop was necessary due to the report of weapons and risk to life.
Proportionate: Most of the panel agreed it was proportionate.
Ethical: Most of the panel agreed it was ethical..
Actions to be commended:
GOWISELY: Not fully followed and delivered late. Officers rushed through the process and failed to introduce themselves with name and station. The search also started before GOWISELY had been completed.
Subject’s Voice and Treatment: The subject did not always feel heard, repeatedly asking for help without receiving adequate response. Concerns were raised about whether the subject, possibly a victim, was treated as a suspect instead. The lack of empathy from officers was noted and questioned by some panel members.
Use of Force and Role Clarity: The use of handcuffs was challenged by several panel members, particularly given the subject’s compliance and the presence of multiple officers.
Confusion over who was leading the search created inconsistency in communication and procedure.Aftercare and Suppor: The Panel asked whether steps were taken to ensure the subject’s safety after the stop, as he returned to his tent and had clearly expressed concerns.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“In an ideal world, GOWISELY should be covered fully at the start of the situation. At the beginning of the search, the communication was a little jolted, possibly because the officer was out of breath. There’s no hard and fast rule on who’s leading a search but having a second officer with a slightly different approach can help. Language and body language were calm and appropriate throughout. The search was legal and proportionate.
Context is very important due to the mention of a weapon – safety was really important, which is why handcuffs were used here. I suspect in this case that the interaction would have been over quickly. He appeared to be a known subject, so the neighbourhood policing team in the city centre should often know them and check in.”
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 excellent practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
S&S Case 2 - CCTV operator report of a young group drug dealing (two white female, one white male, one black male):
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Calm Demeanour: One officer remained calm, and some procedural steps were technically followed.
Outcome: The community resolution (option for subjects unknown to police with personal amount of drugs) was deemed appropriate by some.
Actions to be commended:
Disproportionate and Potentially Discriminatory Use of Force:Only the Black male was handcuffed despite four suspects allegedly matching the same description.
No justification provided for this selective use of force. The officer's reasoning - “I’ve only got one pair of cuffs” - was unacceptable, especially with another officer present.Use of handcuffs appeared pre-emptive, not reactive to any clear risk or aggression.
The panel expressed concern that the subject’s behaviour appeared to be a response to unfair treatment, rather than grounds for escalation.
Female suspects were not searched at all, despite being part of the same stop.
Strong perception of racial profiling, reinforced by the subject’s own questioning: “Why am I the only one in cuffs?”
Poor Communication and Procedural Clarity:
GOWISELY was rushed, unclear, and inappropriate for the age and understanding of the group.
No clear explanation given before the physical search. The subject's question - “Are you touching my bum?” - shows a lack of trauma-informed practice.
Body Worn Video (BWV) was not explained until subjects began filming o n their mobile phones - transparency only introduced reactively.
Subjects were not told why one person was being handcuffed or searched, nor what the process would entail.
Officers did not use accessible communication methods (e.g., no response to request for a text version of rights).
Lack of Respect, Empathy, or De-escalation:
The subject raised valid concerns about racial bias, which officers ignored entirely.
Dismissive response from officer: “Crack on” when subject said he would complain.
Officer chewing gum during the interaction — seen as unprofessional and disrespectful.
No officers attempted to build rapport or de-escalate. Instead, the tone remained defensive and closed off.
Public search in train station and use of handcuffs undermined the subject’s dignity.
The officer's joke about letting the subject “take the spliff back” was seen as mocking and a misuse of authority.
Lack of Cultural Competence and Awareness:
Officers showed no awareness of how their actions were perceived, even when the subject directly explained it.
Feedback emphasised the long-term emotional impact on the young Black male.
No consideration that this experience may make him more likely to be criminalised in future while others would not have been stopped for similar behaviour.
Missed opportunity to educate the group about the risks of the drug found (Spice).
Failure in Supervision and Oversight:
Concerns raised that these actions were signed off by a supervisor without challenge.
The panel expressed alarm at the lack of internal flagging, despite clear signs of bias and inconsistency.
Serious concern about how this reflects broader supervisory standards and expectations.
The disparity in how force was used within this group and between this and other recent cases highlighted the urgent need for team-wide consistency training.
Necessity: The handcuffing of only the Black male subject was widely assessed as unjustified. There was no clear evidence of threat or risk posed by the individual, and officers failed to articulate why he alone was restrained.
Proportionality: The use of force was seen as preemptive and disproportionate, especially as it occurred without first attempting de-escalation or providing a rationale. The majority of panel members believed the subject’s reaction was a response to unfair treatment, not a cause for escalation.
Ethical: Panel members explicitly questioned the ethics and professionalism of the officers. Concerns included racial profiling, lack of respect, failure to acknowledge the subject's concerns, and dismissive behaviour.
Panel Requests and Recommendations:The panel requests that this incident be investigated further. The subject deserves a formal response and an apology, as it is likely he will struggle to move on from this experience.
We would like the complaints or review process to be shared with the subject to ensure transparency, along with a clear message that the community scrutiny panel is not satisfied with the service he received.
It is deeply concerning that the officer was confident enough in his behaviour to respond dismissively to a complaint with the phrase, 'crack on.'
Both D&C Police Anthony Hart and Tom Cunningham have agreed to look into whether the subject has been contacted and will report back to the panel accordingly.
Response Received from Chief Superintendent Tom Cunningham:
“I’m really disappointed and embarrassed by this. It is one of the worst body-worn video clips I’ve watched. The inconsistency between this case and the earlier clip viewed this afternoon clearly shows that urgent training and closer supervision are required for this officer.
What’s particularly concerning is that this incident appears to have been signed off by someone and not flagged at any stage, which raises serious questions about oversight. I am also concerned about the role and actions of the supervising officer involved.”
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Anthony Hart:
"I recognise that the officer immediately handcuffed the young black male and no one else. Irrespective of what was heard over the radio, this raises a very strong perception issue, which was identified both by the subject and the panel.
The subject conducted himself in a very dignified manner and raised valid questions about why he was singled out. These questions were not answered.
The officer’s approach seemed very abrupt at the start. It appeared that he was trying to gain control by using handcuffs to prevent smaller items from being thrown. However, this was not explained, and the use of force was applied inconsistently.
I will be seeking to understand from the officer and supervisor why this occurred and will ensure that learning is shared.
The community resolution was appropriate in this case, as the subject was previously unknown to police and the amount was clearly for personal use.
Officers should not be chewing gum during encounters of this nature. It is unprofessional. Additionally, the officer should use a more modern and inclusive form of communication when subjects ask for information. Training is clearly important for this officer, and possibly for others more broadly. This is not the standard of service I expect to see from our officers.
The key issue here is inconsistency - not only between officers but also across different cases. There appears to have been a markedly different policing response within this case compared to others.
The way force was applied in this instance and how it was experienced by the individual in handcuffs, the rest of the group, members of the public walking past, and now the panel raises serious concerns.
There is a clear need for training and reflection, and we must understand why this happened. I am also concerned that the officer’s attitude in this incident may have had similar impacts in other interactions."
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel recognises that there are areas of excellent 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]
APRIL 2025 REPORT
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 domestic violence (flagged at high risk), male white subject found at another address following a separate report with another female subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
De-escalation: Most panel members agreed that officers consistently tried to de-escalate the situations. Examples included:
Use of calm voice tones and clear communication.
Officers repeatedly used individuals' names, helping to personalise interactions.
Officers expressed gratitude (e.g., “thank you for working with us”) and demonstrated patience.
Officers arranged onward travel for a vulnerable female subject.
Empathy and Professionalism: The lead female officer showed compassion and empathy towards an emotionally dysregulated female. Officers were patient with subjects experiencing emotional distress, including neurodivergence and intoxication.
PLANTER: Most responses confirmed that PLANTER was followed appropriately, with a good demonstration of purpose, necessity, and communication. Some comments questioned whether every step (e.g., trauma-informed language, signposting support) was fully delivered.
Desired Behaviours: The majority of responses indicated that officers demonstrated dignity and respect. Officers treated individuals with courtesy, encouraged understanding, and maintained a calm, professional tone.
Necessary: All panel members agreed the use of force was necessary.
Proportionate: Most agreed the force used was proportionate to the situation and behaviour displayed.
Ethical: Most of the panel agreed the behaviour and force applied was ethical, though some reservations were raised about safeguarding and language.
Actions to be commended:
Repetition of Ineffective Language: The repeated use of “calm down” was noted as unhelpful and potentially escalating, especially for neurodivergent individuals. Suggestion to use trauma-informed language that acknowledges the emotional impact of the situation.
Poor Choice of Words: Officers used the phrase “suffers from” when describing a neurodivergent condition - panel highlighted this as outdated and unhelpful language.
Medical and Welfare: Subjects were intoxicated and continued to consume alcohol during the incident; concern was raised about allowing this to continue, both from a safeguarding and control perspective.
It was unclear whether individuals (especially female subjects) were signposted to support services after incidents involving mental health vulnerabilities or substance use.Scene Management and Officer Decisions: Some concern over officers appearing fatigued or disengaged (e.g., one officer reportedly sighed audibly). Suggestion that officers may benefit from rotation when rapport breaks down. Query raised about whether arrest timelines could have been shortened, especially when subjects were compliant.
Data Protection: Writing sensitive personal information (DOB) on an officer’s hand was raised as a data protection issue.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Asprey
“Sometimes the relationship which develops with the first officer does not transfer to other officers. Language is everything - I agree with the panel’s points about the repeated use of ‘calm down’ and the phrase ‘suffers with’. Absolutely agree.
Regarding writing on the hand - officers are really mindful of data protection, but it’s often the easiest way not to lose key details in the moment.
Allowing the male to continue drinking - ideally this wouldn’t happen due to the risk of his behaviour escalating and the presence of glass bottles. I would have liked to see more control, but I recognise the difficulty, especially in a rural location and when working within small confined spaces.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
The DCCS Panel recognises that there are areas of excellent practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
“Thank you all for your time - this is extremely important work. Our last S&S case highlights how far we still have to go as a force. Just one officer’s actions can have a significant impact on public trust in policing. We take the panel’s feedback seriously and will keep you updated on our investigation into what happened and what steps we’re taking to ensure it doesn’t happen again.”
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.
