SEPTEMBER 2025 REPORT (3-5PM)
SEPTEMBER 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 Ben Deer, Chief Inspector Simeon Bayliss, Inspector Sophie Curtis and Frances Taylor
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Time of year (high tourist period).
BCU Area: Cornwall
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]
SEPTEMBER 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 - White male subject searched for cannabis, also linked to drinking in a public place
Actions to be commended:
Communication: Officer maintained polite and professional tone throughout, even when the subject did not respond or replied “no comment”.
The officer continued attempts to engage respectfully, including small talk, without escalating or changing tone.
Clear explanations were given, including around alcohol-free zones.
The officer explained where he was going to search before doing so, reducing risk of escalation.
Accessible language and calm tone observed by most Panel members.
Wellbeing and Respect: Subject’s name was used repeatedly, creating a respectful interaction.
The officer thanked the male at the end of the encounter.
Belongings were looked after appropriately.
The officer offered to speak to someone on the subject’s behalf about a noise issue.
No unnecessary use of force (e.g. no handcuffing).
The majority of the Panel agreed the subject was treated with dignity and respect.
Professional Conduct: The decision to confiscate cannabis but not escalate unnecessarily was seen as proportionate.
Several members felt the encounter demonstrated kindness in uncertain situations. Offered to speak to someone for him about a noise.
Proportionate: The majority of the Panel agreed that it was..
Ethical: The majority of the Panel assessed the encounter as ethical.
Necessary: Most Panel members assessed the encounter as necessary although some were unsure.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Body Worn Video / Evidence Recording: Missing footage from the arresting officer; only available from a colleague’s camera.
No prerecord used, leading to missing sections at the start and during disposal of alcohol.
Several members emphasised that prerecord should always be enabled before leaving the station.
Dignity / Location: Concern raised that the search occurred on a busy main road, in public view, reducing the subject’s dignity. Suggestion to move to a more private area when possible.
Communication Boundaries: Some questions considered patronising or unnecessary (e.g. “how long have you smoked cannabis?”, “where abouts in Portugal are you from?”).
While likely intended as rapport-building, repeated “no comment” responses indicated the subject was uncomfortable, and the Panel felt the officer should have stopped asking personal questions.
GOWISELY: The majority of the Panel identified parts of GOWISELY as being followed. However, audio difficulties meant several members could not be certain if it was fully complied with.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer
“I was frustrated that the prerecord and the main body-worn video were not on, as it means we can’t be certain of the full encounter. The officer’s interaction with the male appeared positive, and I was quite comfortable with what I saw, particularly given the anti-social behaviour and alcohol issues we face in Camborne. I liked that the officer explained where he was going to search, and that the subject didn’t need to raise their hands, which helped avoid escalation. I was pleased to see the subject treated in a way I would want to be treated myself. Overall it was a good interaction, just a shame about the missing footage. The prerecord function should always be activated and blinking before officers leave the station.”
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 good practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
S&S Case 2 - Report of drug use by two white females in a dark, isolated location at night
Actions to be commended:
Communication and Professionalism: The officer introduced herself, explained the situation, and maintained a calm, friendly, and respectful manner.
The officer built rapport with the subjects by chatting and mirroring their behaviour, which helped de-escalate the situation.
She thanked the subjects for their cooperation and acknowledged the unpleasantness of the process with empathy.
The tone of voice was consistently calm, respectful, and accessible.
Wellbeing and Respect: The female officer conducted searches on female subjects, which was viewed positively.
No force was used, even though it could have been justified; this minimised escalation.
Subjects were treated with dignity and courtesy, with positive behaviours observed such as empathy, patience, and professionalism.
Panel Reflections: Several members described this as an “excellent” and “brave” stop and search involving the single crew female officer.
Highlighted as a strong example of how to conduct respectful and professional searches in challenging circumstances.
The Panel felt the subjects likely left with a positive impression of the police.
GOWISELY: Most of the Panel stated GOWISELY was followed, though some were unsure due to difficulty hearing “you are detained” or lack of clarity to section 23 of PACE.
Proportionate: All of the Panel assessed the encounter as proportionate
Ethical: All of the Panel assessed the encounter as ethical.
Necessary: The majority of the Panel assessed the encounter as necessary.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Legal and Procedural Clarity: Some members noted that section 23 of PACE was not explicitly stated.
Suggestion that officers should clearly state the legal power used, especially in night-time or high-risk circumstances.
Some Panel members also wanted more detail on the intelligence/grounds for the stop.
Risk and Safety Concerns: Concern was raised about the safety of a lone female officer conducting searches in a dark, isolated area with multiple subjects.
The Panel questioned whether it was safe for one subject to remove items from her own bag while the other was searched, as there was a risk of hiding or disposing of evidence.
One member questioned whether the screwdriver found should have been seized.
Search Process: Some members observed that the officer could have explained more clearly what she was doing at each stage of the physical search (e.g. where she was placing her hands).
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer
“All single crew officers must risk assess situations, whether male or female, and decide if they want to continue, monitor, or call for back-up. In Devon and Cornwall, two-person crews are not always the norm except for high-risk incidents like bar fights or arrests.
In this case, the screwdriver was not considered a weapon unless there were circumstances such as theft or violence, or if it had been modified.
Use of force is always at the officer’s discretion. Some might have chosen to handcuff, given that they were outnumbered and searching for drugs, and that would have been proportionate. However, in this situation the officer’s decision not to use force was correct, as it avoided escalation and allowed for a positive interaction.
I was pleased with the officer’s communication both with the subjects and with comms at the outset. Neighbourhood beat officers will be informed if there is a plan for these individuals to engage with other agencies for support, and I will follow this up.”
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 good 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]
SEPTEMBER 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 criminal damage (graffiti). White male subject attempted to escape and discard cannabis
Actions to be commended:
Communication: Some Panel members noted that after initial tension, one officer’s tone improved over time.
Officers explained elements of their actions (e.g., why the subject was being searched, what items were checked).
PLANTER: Panel responses were mixed – some members believed PLANTER had been followed but others noted issues with tone, communication and wellbeing.
Proportionate: The majority agreed use of force was proportionate to the situation.
Ethical: Most of the Panel agreed that the incident was ethical, though some questioned tone and language undermining ethical standards.
Necessary: Most Panel members agreed the use of force was necessary given the subject tried to run and dispose of evidence.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication and Tone: The Panel assessed mixed messages between officers: one stated the subject would not be detained if he sorted the graffiti, while another then said he would be detained – this created confusion and defensiveness.
Tone from some officers described as antagonistic, patronising or confrontational; with swearing (“stop fucking around”) and comments such as “easy way or hard way” escalating tension rather than de-escalating.
Some officers appeared frustrated, possibly due to end of shift tiredness, which came across in their language and approach.
Officers were described as lecturing the subject rather than maintaining professional composure.
Wellbeing: Several members noted no visible checks on the subject’s welfare or wellbeing once he was detained.
Concerns were raised that officers left him to “sleep at the beach” without further follow-up.
No indication of medical consideration, despite the subject being described as erratic/intoxicated by some observers.
Leadership: Presence of a female officer was said by some Panel members to increase tension in the situation – a question raised as to whether she could have stepped back given that other officers were present.
Public Relations: Some Panel members contrasted this case unfavourably with Stop and Search Case 2, which they had just observed, noting this encounter left the subject unlikely to have a positive view of the police.
Response received from visiting Chief Superintendent Ben Deer
“I can sense the officers’ frustration and can see why – it was quite low-level offending and they were trying to deal with it pragmatically by suggesting washing off the graffiti. However, the male wasn’t cooperative. The swearing - ‘stop fucking around’ - was not needed when engaging with members of the public. The constant repetition of ‘you make this harder’ was not constructive; I agree with the Panel that there were better ways to deal with it. It was probably at the end of officers’ shift – not an excuse, but an understandable factor. This was certainly less positive than the previous case observed. The initial engagement could have been improved with a more robust, controlled approach and intervening earlier to prevent the subject from throwing items and running, which required more officers, resources and led to a less desirable outcome.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
A mixed assessment from the panel, with concerns about the initial escalation and restraint, but also recognition of positive conduct and efforts in managing a complex incident.
UOF CASE 2 - Report of antisocial behaviour involving 15–20 young people throwing eggs at properties. An elderly female resident’s white male son-in-law had arrived and assaulted one of the young males
Actions to be commended:
Communication: The officer spoke calmly and supportively, keeping the subject calm and preventing escalation.
Clear instructions and explanations were provided to the subject, e.g., “look at me, not them - I can see they’re winding you up again” and “I’m going to keep you in the vehicle otherwise it will escalate them further”.
The officer explained the need to call police in future rather than retaliating, reinforcing constructive behaviour.
Officer reassured by asking about welfare, including reference to the subject’s mother.
Leadership and Control: The officer took clear leadership in a chaotic environment, setting boundaries with the group and communicating clearly that tasers could be used if required.
Maintained calm, professional behaviour throughout, even with large numbers of hostile young people.
The officer effectively managed colleagues who arrived on scene, allowing space for youths to calm down and coordinating a plan before further engagement.
Several Panel members praised the officer’s ability to remain collected in “utter chaos”.
Use of Force Decision-Making: The officer successfully prevented escalation without implementing actual use of force.
PLANTER: Overall consensus that PLANTER was followed, though with some mixed views regarding alternatives to taser.
Proportionate: Most of the Panel agreed use of force was proportionate; some expressed reservations due to the age group.
Ethical: The majority agreed it was ethical, although questions about language and taser threat were raised.
Necessary: Most of the Panel agreed the threat of taser was necessary given the scale of disorder and risk.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Appropriateness of Force: Some Panel members questioned whether threatening a taser was the most appropriate option for the age group involved; suggested handcuffs might have been a lower-level alternative.
Concern from one Panel member that threatening a taser may have aggravated rather than de-escalated.
Question Relevancy: A Panel member raised concerns about the relevancy of asking where the subject was born.
Vehicle Radio: One Panel member noted the radio use seemed very out of place in this context and could have been turned off - appeared to be coming from the police car
Victim Acknowledgement: The Panel suggested that acknowledging the young people more directly, especially those visibly injured, could have helped by recognising their experience and explaining what was going to happen.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Ben Deer
“The leadership, pragmatism and approach by this officer were in complete contrast to the prior case. This was a very experienced sergeant who recognised that the older male needed to be taken out of the equation. His clear leadership de-escalated the situation effectively. The taser, as a use of force option, is relatively low down the scale. In circumstances where officers are outnumbered, handcuffs would not be feasible, and PAVA spray (as the next level of force) would not be proportionate. I was happy with the threat of taser here. This was an excellent example of remaining completely calm in a volatile situation with far too many people present for the number of officers. By communicating as he did, the officer prevented further escalation or the need for actual use of force. Regarding the radio, we do have radios in police cars, but I am unsure if the sound was from the car, a nearby house or a phone.”
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 good practice from this officer and areas of learning. May the former be a strong foundation for the latter.
“I do genuinely see these meetings with the DCCS Panel as a highlight of my time as a BCU Commander for the past 3 years. Being able to have those conversations with officers on how the public perceive actions. I really do enjoy hearing what the public sees.”
“Thank you so much for letting me join your session this afternoon. It was really interesting to hear your conversations. It is great that there will be an article in our learning the lessons publication. As well as learning from your work, part of my role is sharing information about the police complaints system and our wider work in supporting confidence in police accountability. I am hoping I will be able to pick up a conversation with Joelene and the chair. Here are my contact details should you wish to get in touch with me. I am always looking to build my knowledge of local organisations and key individuals in Devon and Cornwall.
Many thanks”
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.
