MAY 2025 REPORT (3-5PM)
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 Ben Deer
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 - Drug vehicle search – cannabis smelt, four young adult white male subjects:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication: Officers were praised for clear communication, conversational engagement, and maintaining a calm, respectful tone even when unexpected issues arose, such as a passenger running from the vehicle.
Professionalism and Courtesy: Officers apologised for minor mistakes and expressed thanks for clarifications, showing humility and professionalism.
Empathy and Practical Support: Notably, an officer offered to help the subjects catch their ferry and ensured arrangements were in place for them to return safely, highlighting a balanced approach between enforcement and community care.
Resolution Approach: Drugs were found, and the driver was arrested. Officers pursued a community resolution in recognition of the subject’s compliance, choosing not to allow further driving under the influence. The suspect and vehicle were returned to a residence.
Rights Awareness: Subjects were reminded not to disclose information until later interview stages - an appropriate safeguarding action.
Necessary: All panel members agreed the stop was necessary.
Proportionate: All panel members agreed the stop was proportionate.
Ethical: All panel members agreed the stop was ethical.
GOWISELY: Most panel members agreed GOWISELY was followed; a few were unsure due to audio clarity.
Actions to be commended:
Language and Professionalism: Several panel members raised concerns about overly casual or over-familiar language used by officers, including phrases like “don’t fuck up,” “doing you a solid,” and “I’m not going to do anything.”
Perceived Informality: Some felt the stop was not taken seriously enough, particularly due to the officer's offer to drop the subject at the ferry. One member questioned whether the stop had drifted into providing a ‘taxi service’.
Bias and Operational Concerns: Questions were raised over whether the decision to not handcuff or separate individuals (one out at a time) was influenced by unconscious bias, particularly as the individuals were white.
Age Verification: A panel member noted concern that age was seemingly accepted on verbal assurance, especially when subjects appeared younger than 18.
Leadership and Control: It was observed that officers discussed decisions openly with the subjects rather than stepping away to confer. This was interpreted by some as a lack of leadership or strategy.
Missed Procedural Clarity: An officer asked, “Anything you want to tell me?” and when the subject said “Yes,” the officer dismissed it with “Well don’t then.” This interaction was seen as inappropriate and potentially obstructive to meaningful communication.
Subject Follow-Up: There were unresolved questions about the individual who fled the scene. The driver has been scheduled as a voluntary attender (VA) for an interview on 06/05/2025, but no outcome was available at the time. There remains an outstanding action to identify the fleeing male.
Response received from visiting Chief Superintendent Ben Deer
“I didn’t like that they were referred to as boys - there’s a negative connotation to treating adults as children. ID would have been checked on the system. I understand the officer had to think on his feet; the number of occupants clearly threw him. It’s not ideal being outnumbered, and the informality may have been an attempt to keep control through mutual respect. At that stage, I wouldn’t have expected backup to be called.
A male running off could have been avoided with a 'one in, one out' tactic. The officers were mature in not reacting emotionally or chasing immediately - they had the subject’s name and the drugs. I disliked the phrase ‘doing you a solid’; while some young people may understand this, it wouldn’t sit well with the public if overheard in a high street.
The arrest was pragmatic; nothing suggested onward supply, and the individual was not known. We’d likely use an out-of-court disposal to avoid unnecessarily affecting future job prospects. The officer couldn’t inform the driver’s grandparents, as that would be unlawful.
Handcuffs could have been used to prevent fleeing. Officers should not ask questions that amount to interviews on the roadside unless related to safety - like checking for needles before searching. This could have been handled better, but it’s not the end - follow-up occurred, and the subject was invited to a later voluntary interview.”
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 - Call to locate high risk white male subject in crisis and carrying a knife:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication and De-escalation: Officers were praised for using calm, clear, and reassuring language throughout the encounter. Phrases such as “you’re not in trouble,” “we want to help you,” and “look at me and let’s talk” helped reduce tension. Officers used the subject's name consistently to humanise the interaction and build rapport.
Use of Force Avoided: Despite the presence of a knife, taser deployment was avoided. Officers communicated clearly about what needed to happen to avoid force and successfully encouraged the subject to disarm voluntarily.
Transparency and Procedure: BWV was explained. The subject was thanked after the search and offered a cigarette - seen as a respectful, humanising gesture.
Empathy and Respect Most panel members noted that the officer, although young and relatively inexperienced, showed empathy and kindness. The use of gentle gestures (e.g., a pat on the back) and verbal reassurance helped bring the encounter to a peaceful close.
Necessary: All panel members agreed the encounter was necessary.
Proportionate: Most panel members agreed it was proportionate. One response indicated uncertainty.
Ethical: Most panel members agreed it was ethical. One panel member disagreed due to the officer’s comments lacking trauma-informed awareness.
GOWISELY: Most confirmed GOWISELY was fully followed. One response noted uncertainty about the subject’s understanding of the explanation.
Actions to be commended:
Inappropriate or Unhelpful Language: Multiple panel members raised concerns about comments made by one officer that were not trauma-informed, such as: “It’s not the end of the world”, “People have lost a lot more”. These were considered dismissive of the subject’s mental state and potentially harmful. Trauma-informed communication training was recommended.
Search Clarity and Communication: Officers did not clearly articulate where they were conducting the physical search (e.g., waistband area), which could have caused distress or confusion for the subject. Clear explanation of the search process was suggested as an area for improvement.
Support and Signposting: Questions were raised about whether the subject received appropriate follow-up support or referrals to mental health services. Panel members felt that wellbeing signposting was essential in these circumstances.
Experience and Training Gaps: Some feedback highlighted that while the young officer acted with empathy, their limited life or professional experience showed in their communication. Additional support or trauma scenario training was suggested to better equip officers for similar future encounters.
Response received from visiting Chief Superintendent Ben Deer
“The male had a knife to his wrists – if the officer hadn’t felt there was meaningful communication or if the risk had continued, use of taser could have been justified. I’m pleased this use of force wasn’t necessary.
I take on board the panel’s points about young officers lacking experience in these emotionally charged situations - what’s said can significantly impact someone, especially when they’re in crisis. If someone was about to lose their house, this shouldn’t be minimised. More understanding and helpful things to stay are required. Comments that may seem harmless could actually come across as demeaning. I believe the general repeated nature was an attempt to get through to the subject that they were there to help.
The officer involved appears to be very new in service. While they receive initial training, we’ll need to check on the extent of trauma-informed training. Continued support and understanding of the impact on both the public and our officers is vital.”
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 attended by double crew special unit - white male subject:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
De-escalation and Communication: Officers were praised for clear communication, calm tone, and de-escalation techniques.
Several panel members highlighted officers using the subject’s name, repeating key information, and explaining the reasons behind their actions, which helped to maintain calm and reduce confusion.
Officers took the time to explain the body worn video (BWV) recording process, which reassured the subject and helped preserve transparency.
Preservation of Dignity and Welfare: Officers encouraged the subject to dress appropriately before removal from the home, showing awareness and sensitivity to his dignity. Handcuffs were temporarily removed to allow dressing for cold weather, and wellbeing was actively considered.
An apology was made for accidentally catching the subject's arm, demonstrating awareness and courtesy.
Officers responded with patience in the face of intoxication or possible substance use, avoiding escalation and encouraging compliance through respectful dialogue.
Professionalism and Courtesy: Even under challenging circumstances (e.g. intoxication, confusion and small space), officers remained composed and acted compassionately. Particular praise was given to the professionalism of volunteer special constables involved initially.
One officer was noted for inquisitive engagement, asking the subject if they had been hurt or had hurt someone - viewed as constructive, especially in complex domestic violence incidents.
Necessary: All panel responses assessed the use of force as necessary.
Proportionate: The majority of the panel agreed the force used was proportionate, based on observed behaviours and context.
Ethical: Most responses affirmed the actions were ethical, especially given the level of compassion and clear communication shown.
PLANTER: The majority confirmed PLANTER was followed.
Actions to be commended:
Communication and Clarity: In one case, a comment made by an officer (“I don’t know who you’ve assaulted”) was deemed unhelpful. Panel members noted that intoxicated individuals may need more time and clearer communication; in one instance, the subject seemed genuinely confused and possibly under the influence, yet officers didn’t fully explore what he had taken.
Procedure and Search: Concern was raised about a subject being placed in a van before being searched. The panel agreed the search should have occurred while the subject was still inside the residence, especially while dressing, for safety and procedural compliance.
Mental Health and Substance Use: There was an observed lack of questioning around substance use, especially where subjects were clearly under the influence. It was queried how much repetition or patience is appropriate and feasible when dealing with heavily intoxicated individuals.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“Friendly pragmatism was the right thing to do here - male subject was completely undressed in a domestic residence. The team ensured the camera didn’t record the subject unclothed and preserved his dignity. I was really pleased to hear he was talked through the BWV recording.
The first two officers were special constables and not paid - great professionalism for someone who doesn’t do this job all the time.
When someone is this intoxicated, you need to keep talking and repeating information - otherwise officers could be injured if he wasn’t coaxed out compliantly.
It was a small space on the steps and there was a risk of injury. Panel are correct about the search needing to be done before entering the van - should have been while he was getting dressed. I much prefer they take someone out again to ensure safety than risk leaving someone unsearched in a van. This can happen with handovers involving multiple officers.”
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.
UOF CASE 2 - Off-duty officer first on scene. White female subject reported for unconfirmed shoplifting:
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Wellbeing: Officer sat in the back of the van with the subject to prevent harm. Some effort made to de-escalate through requests.
Actions to be commended:
Lack of Context / Off-Duty Officer Role:: Subject was already on the floor when officers arrived - what use of force happened prior? Were proper procedures followed by the off-duty officer?
Use of Language & Tone: Officer repeatedly said “you don’t want me to write this” and other similar phrases, perceived as threatening, coercive, or manipulative rather than de-escalatory. There was a lack of trauma-informed language or behaviour. Multiple officers talked over the subject and one another, especially during cautioning.
Welfare & Dignity: The footage began with a distressed female subject surrounded by male officers. There was no clear justification given for removal of her shoes.
There were multiple missed opportunities for empathetic communication. Subject expressed suicidal ideation and distress; said “I want to kill myself,” mentioned self-harm (e.g., headbutting the cage), and said “please don’t treat me like a piece of meat. The officers language like “you’re not going to do that” (re: suicide) felt dismissive and lacking empathy.
The officer appeared to be operating out of frustration or convenience rather than care.Bias & Discrimination: Though the subject was well known to police, responses appeared to lack compassion - potentially reflecting bias toward “repeat offenders.”
Necessary: Arrest and use of force may not have been fully justified without clearer offence.
Proportionate: Emotional/mental health needs were not well handled; language was coercive.
Ethical: No female officer requested, despite vulnerability of subject.
Casual conversation between officer and subject (possibly known to each other) seemed unprofessional. There was no clear evidence of shoplifting - legal basis for arrest unclear’
Lack of context on what happened at start due to out of duty officer being first point of contactPLANTER: Procedurally followed but ethically lacking. Boxes ticked, but human factors and ethical handling were weak.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart
“I found it frustrating to watch - the first time I can understand the officer saying ‘if I’m writing this in my statement, this won’t be helpful’ but to keep repeating it goes from helpful advice to a power trip. There was no need for it.
The female subject was asking for her shoes and saying ‘don’t treat me like a piece of meat’ - she was clearly asking for some degree of human interaction. She appeared to be well known to officers, as they knew her accommodation - there appeared to be some degree of rapport, which is why they proceeded as they did, but even if officers perceive subjects as annoying, there shouldn't be a retaliation. She should have been treated with respect and professionalism. By repeating himself it could be seen as trying to antagonise the subject rather than preventing harm or encouraging cooperation. It is unhelpful.
Officers have the same powers when on and off duty. If a complaint was made about an off-duty officer who wasn’t wearing a BWV, an investigation would be conducted and CCTV requested from the supermarket/security guards.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
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.
“Going back to the officers and talking through what we have seen here - they will have their own perceptions and justifiable practices, but it’s really helpful with these panels to share how the public views it, and just consider, when dealing with this in the future, that the confidence of the community is impacted by these areas addressed.
The DCCS Panel helps develop D&C Police officers rather than being told off. I get as much from this as panel members do and understand how our service is being perceived so we can move forward.”
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.
