JUNE 2025 REPORT (3-5PM)
JUNE 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 Scott Bradley - BCU Commander for Plymouth
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows: Repeat subjects of Stop & Search and Types of 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]
JUNE 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 - Suspected drug exchange in city centre involving a white male and a Black male. Officers acted on pre-identified intelligence.
Actions to be commended:
Pre-recording: Officers had their BWV activated prior to the interaction.
Compassionate conduct: One officer assisted the subject in blowing his nose while he was in handcuffs, which panel members viewed as an act of compassion.
Second officer's conduct: Several panel members praised the second officer for clearer communication and a more human, empathetic tone. His explanation of the intelligence behind the stop helped the subject understand the situation and even disclose information, demonstrating effective rapport-building.
Equal treatment: Most responses noted that both subjects were handcuffed and kept apart in a consistent and equal manner.
Professional tone and clarity: Some panel members described the encounter as calm, courteous, and professionally handled, with clear communication of legal powers and reasons for the stop provided by the officer's colleague..
Necessity: All panel members stated the encounter was necessary, with one exception marked as "unsure".
Proportionality: Most panel members assessed the encounter as proportionate. One described it as “more excessive compared to other searches”.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Initial officer comments: Concern was raised about one officer saying, “Cuff ‘em both straight away” in the police vehicle before engaging with the subjects, suggesting a presumptive and potentially biased mindset.
Lack of early communication: There was no clear introduction or explanation given at the outset. Officers failed to provide immediate reasons for the stop, causing confusion and discomfort for the subject. The subject asked what was happening as he was standing there with no information about why they were waiting or what was going on.
Tone, language and communication style: Use of terms such as “mate” was perceived as patronising, particularly when paired with a lack of respectful or consistent communication. There were no manners or niceties shown in early engagement. The subject expressed discomfort with phrases such as “You got me feeling all weird” and “are we good?” – clear indications of a need for reassurance that was not adequately addressed. The phrase “Cos I’ve got your details, you’re free to go” was noted as sounding unnecessarily threatening, particularly since nothing was found and no offence was committed.
Missed opportunity for explanation during search: Officers did not explain the areas being searched or guide the subject on how to position their body, which would be considered best practice and could have provided reassurance. Providing commentary during the physical search could have helped maintain dignity and reduce the subject’s sense of vulnerability.
Shoes removed during search: Shoes were taken off in a public place during the search. This action was questioned as potentially unlawful for a street-level stop and search, and was considered inappropriate for the setting.
GOWISELY: The delivery of GOWISELY came late in the process, after use of force and radio communications. One key component, entitlement to a copy, was either omitted or only stated at the end. The delivery was not structured, which reduced clarity and did not reflect best practice.
Radioing the subject's name: Panel members queried why the subject’s name was run through the radio, noting that this does not occur consistently in all stops. This raised concerns about fairness and potential bias.
Questioning conduct: The subject was asked three times whether he had any sharp objects. Several panel members viewed this as excessive and questioned whether it reflected unconscious bias or simply a lack of clear communication.
Money handling: The officer counted how much money the subject had, which raised questions about necessity and transparency. Concerns were raised about whether this demonstrated suspicion without basis, especially since nothing was found.
Outcome: Nothing was found during the stop and search.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“The Panel rightly raised a concern regarding the officer asking the subject where he lived - this is not a lawful requirement during a stop and search. Subjects are not obliged to disclose their address, and officers should make this clear during the interaction.
The Panel also noted that the GOWISELY explanation was delivered too late in the process. I agree with this observation. It should have been provided sooner to inform the subject of their rights and the basis for the search in a timely and transparent manner.
On the use of handcuffs, it’s important to stress that their application depends on the specific circumstances and any known or suspected risk based on prior interactions with the individual. That decision must be justified and proportionate.
In terms of removal of clothing, officers are legally permitted to ask for the removal of outer clothing items such as a coat, jacket, gloves, or footwear during a stop and search. However, the Panel's concern about the public setting for shoe removal is valid - wherever possible, such actions should be carried out with consideration for dignity and privacy.
Regarding the handling of money, there is no defined threshold amount that would automatically raise suspicion. The Panel questioned how this was approached, and I agree that transparency is essential. Best practice would be to ask the subject how much money they have and then count it together in their presence. This ensures clarity and avoids any perception of wrongdoing.
The Panel also commented on the quality of communication, noting that one officer was significantly more effective in their explanation and approach. I support this view - the second officer stepped in and communicated more clearly, helping to de-escalate the situation and offer the subject some understanding of what was happening.
Finally, while the order of GOWISELY isn’t legally required to be exact, it is structured to aid officer memory and subject comprehension. For scrutiny purposes (such as Panel reviews) it is preferable that it is delivered in the correct sequence to demonstrate professionalism and consistency.”
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 black male 15 yo, afro hair in possession of hammer, run from police
Actions to be commended:
Necessary: Several panel members agreed the stop was necessary given the report of a weapon (hammer).
Use of force: The use of handcuffs was acknowledged as a precaution in response to a potential weapon.
Improved tone: Officers’ tone became more relaxed toward the end of the interaction, showing reduced tension once threat level was reassessed.
De-escalation: Efforts of de-escalation were noted later in the stop after confirming the subject was not in possession of a weapon.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication and leadership: Officers were observed speaking over one another, creating confusion and a lack of clear leadership during the stop.
GOWISELY: The GOWISELY procedure was delivered too quickly, with missing components such as ‘entitlement to a copy’ of the search.
Changing and unclear grounds: The object of concern shifted from hammer to bat to knife, which confused panel members and undermined the transparency of the stop.
Vague intelligence: Intelligence based on “black male with afro wearing black” was described as unhelpfully vague and potentially biased.
Lack of age-appropriate communication: Officers failed to adjust their approach for a 14-year-old subject, offering little explanation of what was happening or why.
Adultification bias displayed: Phrases such as “You’re not a little boy” and “You’re as tall as me” were highlighted as inappropriate and indicative of adultification.
Dismissive and disrespectful remarks: Officers laughed and made dismissive comments like “I don’t know how to spell that” in response to the subject’s name.
Wellbeing: Despite a visible cut, there was no mention of first aid or emotional support.
No parental / guardian follow-up: The NICHE log did not record any follow-up contact with the child’s guardians, raising safeguarding concerns.
Limited opportunity for the subject to speak: The subject was not given a meaningful chance to speak or ask questions until late in the encounter.
Assumption of guilt throughout: Officers appeared to continue treating the subject as if he were the offender, even after confirming he was not.
Procedural concerns: Questions were raised about whether both officers’ body-worn video was active during the full encounter.
No acknowledgement or apology: There was no resolution or apology once it was clear the officers had stopped the wrong person.
Proportionate: The panel was unsure if the incident was proportionate. Some assessed the response and use of force as too aggressive or fast for a compliant child.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“I agree with the panel that communication could definitely have been better. This was a 14-year-old child and the tone should have reflected that - it doesn’t matter how tall he is. Officers should have shown more care and consideration, especially as this may have been his first interaction with the police.
There was more relaxed engagement towards the end, but the officers still seemed to believe he was guilty.
The arrival of another unit shows there were multiple searches happening in the area.
GOWISELY should have been delivered clearly and in full, especially with a minor - textbook style, and slower.
First aid should have been offered for the injury, and the young person should have had access to support. We have a duty of care when dealing with minors.
I agree with the panel that the grounds did change., which is confusing for the subject also,
The intelligence was not strong - a report of a hammer or a knife, and another young person was stopped and found with a hammer and taken home.
There was nothing in NICHE about a follow-up with this young person or their guardians. However the other officer’s BWV was on.
There is no specific adultification training, but I will check with the D&C Police Learning and Development Department.”
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]
JUNE 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 - Violent black male subject detained by door staff; flagged for Acute Behavioural Disturbance (ABD).
Actions to be commended:
Calm leadership: Officer took control of the scene calmly and clearly, ascertained who was involved, ensured statements were gathered, and directed colleagues with composure to ensure safety.
De-escalation: Officers tried calming the subject, used calm tone, repeatedly used his name, allowed friend to stay, explained actions (e.g., use of hood).
Wellbeing: Subject was sat up to avoid headbutting injury; ambulance called; PAVA effects mitigated with blanket; hood removed quickly when responsiveness changed.
Proactive communication: Officer explained consequences (e.g., biting would result in hood use) and attempted to keep other officers calm.
Ethical leadership: Shown through continued assessment and responsible decision-making (e.g., stopping ambulance and removing spit hood to check on subject’s responsiveness).
PLANTER: The majority of the panel assessed PLANTER as being fully followed.
Necessary: The majority of the panel agreed that the force used was necessary to prevent harm to officers, the public, and the individual.
Proportionate: the majority of the panel assessed the encounter as proportionate to the risk posed by the subject (e.g. biting, growling, threatening to kill officers).
Ethical: The majority of the panel marked this use of force encounter as ethical and justified, especially in the context of Acute Behavioural Disturbance (ABD) or potential mental health crisis.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
BWV inconsistency: No pre-record from primary officers, poor saving practice under the same NICHE, which obstructed review.
Dignity issues: No attempt to move the public away. Unused additional security and officers could have moved bystanders away from the scene to preserve dignity.. The subject's trousers were down at the hospital; explanation given (injection site), but greater consideration could preserve dignity.
Language and tone: Some swearing and belittling terms like “pal”, “sunshine”, and “ass” used especially in officer-only spaces. Conduct noticeably changed when with hospital staff (“bum” used instead). These shifts highlight the need for consistent professionalism regardless of audience.
Lack of mental health enquiries: Little effort made to understand why the subject was distressed, especially during quieter moments (e.g., ambulance ride).
Spit hood concerns: Not clearly explained prior to use. Not all panel members felt it was justified given its impact on visibility and possible fear for a delirious person.
Escalation: Some Panel members highlighted possible over-escalation or rapid escalation to higher levels of force (PAVA spray and spit hood) even when the subject was restrained. They identified lack of clear verbal warnings prior to applying PAVA spray or spit hood, and a failure to properly assess medical needs early – such as when the subject said “I can’t breathe” and showed signs of distress.
Review for dip sampling: This case was marked as “Yes” by multiple panel members for follow-up.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“The subject’s trousers were down due to the location of the injection site for the sedative, which was administered to the upper thigh while in hospital.
Regarding the use of the spit hood: these are made of mesh material, which allows officers to monitor the subject’s wellbeing while it is in use. Although the transparency of the hood may not have been apparent from the body-worn video angle, it is possible to see through it in real time.
I appreciated the opportunity to review other footage during this scrutiny session, particularly scenes where a single, clear voice was giving instructions — this was positive to see. We are taught the importance of one officer taking command vocally to maintain control and ensure everyone’s safety, and this was evident in today’s example.
The individual was clearly in need of medical care, and I agree with the panel’s recognition that our role is to help facilitate that care while ensuring their safety — for example, by preventing self-injury such as head-banging.
I acknowledge the concerns raised about the language used early in the incident. Swearing is not ideal, and we do not encourage it. However, in this particular case, the officer had just narrowly avoided being bitten, and the language appeared to be a natural human reaction in a high-stress moment.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
UOF CASE 2 - Report of black male reported to be threatening people
Actions to be commended:
Listening: Officer actively listened to the subject and responded to his needs even under high adrenaline and stress, demonstrating commendable presence of mind. The situation was complex involving multiple aggressive males, presence of a dog, and a large gathering crowd.
Wellbeing: The officer showed concern for the subject’s wellbeing, seeking to understand who had assaulted him, reflecting empathy and care. The Panel asks if this was followed up.
Safety prioritised: Efforts were made to escort the subject away from threatening individuals and the crowded scene to a more private and safer location.
Use of presence to de-escalate: The lone officer’s immediate intervention was seen as an attempt to de-escalate a tense situation before backup arrived.
Robust response: Some panel members recognised that the officer’s assertive language and tone were understandable given the volatile environment and threats faced.
Necessary: The panel largely agreed the use of force was necessary given the threat level, though some remained unsure.
Proportionate: Most agreed the force used was proportionate to the circumstances, but emphasised the importance of communication to avoid unnecessary escalation.
Ethical: The majority considered the force ethical and in line with professional standards, despite some criticism of tone and language.
PLANTER: most panel members assessed PLANTER as being followed.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Concerns over initial approach: the panel acknowledged the level of threat and intensity in that incident, however the officer’s initial approach was aggressive, including the use of expletives and shouting (“F*** off right now” / “talk all you f***ing want”), which could have escalated tensions rather than calming the situation.
Officer safety and lone working risks: The officer was placed in a highly vulnerable position, particularly when turning his back to threatening individuals and a dog, highlighting a need for better backup protocols.
Use of baton: The baton’s deployment when the subject wouldn’t remove his hands from his pockets may have escalated the encounter; better communication explaining the reasons for doing so might have reduced tension. Some panel members also noted that the officer used the baton to push the subject’s peer and asked if this use of force was separately logged.
Inadequate search procedure: The search of the suspect did not appear thorough, possibly due to the officer’s divided focus in a stressful environment.
Prioritisation of dog: Some panel members perceived the officer prioritising managing the dog over the immediate medical and welfare needs of the subject. No clear evidence of treatment at the scene.
Possible bias: Some panel members expressed concern about possible bias influencing the officer’s conduct, though this was not universally agreed upon. Specifically, there was mention of the officer using the phrase “that black” when referring to the male suspect in the encounter. This was flagged as a potential slip of the tongue that might suggest unconscious bias.
Officer support The panel queried whether the officer received adequate support after the incident, emphasising the importance of post-incident welfare checks.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Scott Bradley
“There were lots of calls to disorder at this location at this time. As a police officer, you can be isolated and alone from colleagues without a good radio signal, which puts you in a position of vulnerability quite quickly. It is an individual officer’s choice whether to go in alone or wait for backup. The presence of a police officer can help de-escalate a situation rather than waiting, but it can also cause escalation.
The drawing of the baton is a personal choice and an acceptable deterrent to de-escalate, showing force to those posing a threat while waiting for colleagues. Pushing another member of the public with the baton is a separate use of force incident and should be logged accordingly.
Care provision would have come from the custody centre or the individual would have been taken to hospital. When someone doesn’t immediately comply, such as refusing to remove their hands from their pockets, officers can change their tone and voice level and draw batons to assist with compliance.
This case shows how easily officers can find themselves in vulnerable situations. Fortunately, in our BCU, units aren’t too far away, but this isn’t the case for all forces across the region, especially in more rural areas. At the end of every shift, especially when busy or traumatic, debriefs occur before the conclusion of the shift, as well as follow-up check-ins. This is a much healthier position, and we also have additional support measures in place for officers.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
“Thanks so much to the Panel. I always enjoy these DCCSP Scrutiny sessions. Great to learn and observe professional behaviour demonstrated in the community. Very grateful to you for supporting D&C Police in that space.”
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.
