SEPTEMBER 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
SEPTEMBER 2025 REPORT (7-9PM)
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 BCU Commander: Chief Inspector Simeon Bayliss - South Devon Operations Training Manager and Sergeant Julie Mason - police liaison for DCCSP Custody Scrutiny Panel
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Review of Time of year (high tourist period)
BCU Area: South Devon
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 (7-9PM)
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 a mental health incident - concern for welfare, white male found in possession of a blade
Actions to be commended:
Conduct: Calm atmosphere maintained from the start of the interaction.
Explanation: The initial officer provided a verbal explanation of the search and outlined what would happen next with the following officer.
Proportionality: Most of the Panel considered the search proportionate.
Ethical: All Panel members agreed the search was conducted ethically.
Necessary: The majority of the Panel agreed the search was necessary.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication: Panel noted that more verbal guidance regarding where the officer was touching during the search could have been helpful for the individual.
GOWISELY: Panel observed that GOWISELY was not fully explained during the interaction but appreciate this may not have been required under the mental health processes - request further clarity into this.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Simeon Bayliss
“I am glad the interaction was positive overall. The officer did a good job explaining the search, but I will take on board the comments about how it could be improved. The only additional point I noted for improvement was the use of the radio by a colleague; sometimes, in mental health crisis situations, separate communication off to one side can heighten the individual’s stress - this will be a training point I’ll raise with the officer.”
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 male in suspicious circumstances – possible break-in
Actions to be commended:
Translation: Officer ascertained the subject’s first language and immediately contacted a translator.
Conduct: The officer was polite and respectful throughout.
Use of Technology: Officer utilised translating app when formal translation service was not available.
GOWISELY: The majority of the Panel assessed that GOWISELY was followed verbally and with an online translator, though some uncertainty remains due to language line not being used for formal verification.
Welfare: Subject was taken to hospital for medical support following reported side effects of cocaine use.
Proportionate: The majority of the Panel considered the encounter proportionate.
Ethical: Most Panel members agreed the encounter was ethical.
Necessary: All Panel members agreed the stop and search was necessary.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication: Some Panel members felt officers spoke about the subject as if he were not present. Tone at times was terse and functional, which could affect rapport and understanding.
Search Concerns: Panel noted the search may have been incomplete and contradictory; something found during the search was reportedly disposed of, which raises concerns about accuracy and transparency. The officer was heard saying “I did not do a very good search it turns out” - “I’ll throw that away, as that’s naughty.”
Translation Effectiveness: While online translation apps were used, the effectiveness of this method versus formal translation is uncertain, particularly for evidential purposes.
BWV Management: Officers moved cameras (e.g., to dashboard) for better coverage; appropriate, but explanation to the subject could improve understanding and reduce stress.
Safety Considerations: Panel highlighted the balance between medical intervention and procedural requirements (e.g., placing subject in police car) and suggested clearer explanation to the subject to avoid misperceptions.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Simeon Bayliss
“Language Line should be used, especially for evidential purposes. The integrity of this case is not ideal, and for any long-term inquiry, using an online translator could put us in a tricky position and present challenges. However, when translation services are unavailable, officers may need to continue, particularly if medical attention is required. Regarding body-worn video, officers can move cameras to improve coverage, such as placing them on the dashboard – this was a good decision.
I do agree with the Panel that greater explanation to the subject about why these actions are being taken would improve understanding. The officer was slightly terse; being polite and compassionate, using appropriate tone and non-verbal communication, can significantly affect outcomes.
GOWISELY was followed correctly, but without the Language Line record, this cannot be fully verified.
Concerning intoxication, medical interventions should not be delayed unnecessarily, but clearer communication at the start about procedures like entering the police car would help manage the subject’s perception. I am concerned about the search at the end and need to make further enquiries into the disposal of an item.”
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.
S&S Case 3 - Report of masked male suspected carrying a knife, identified by door staff and CCTV operators
Actions to be commended:
Communication: Subject appeared to respond well to officers’ calm and professional approach - mirroring his humour to build rapport.
Professionalism: Officers maintained composure despite provocative behaviour, not reacting and demonstrating effective de-escalation.
GOWISELY: All Panel members assessed that GOWISELY was fully covered and explained to the subject.
Proportional: Most Panel members considered the encounter proportionate.
Ethical: The majority of the Panel agreed the encounter was ethical.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
BWV Recording: The subject asked whether BWV was recording - this should have been identified at the start..
PACE Explanation: Lawful reason under PACE not clearly explained to the subject. Legal terminology should be explained.
Property Handling: Subject requested further communication about items removed from pockets and placed in evidence bags.
Wellbeing: Subject’s mental health or wellbeing was not enquired into despite erratic behaviour.
Intelligence Validity: No objects were found; raises questions about the validity of prior intelligence.
Face Coverings: Panel queried the handling of face coverings under section 60AA and whether removal was appropriate.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Simeon Bayliss
“This was a good interaction that could have gone in another direction if communication or attitude had been different. Interacting on the same level as the subject and using humour helped to build rapport.
Under section 60AA, unless there is a threat of serious violence or harm, facial mask coverings cannot be removed; the officers followed this correctly. The subject refused to provide details, which limits the officers’ ability to safeguard him further. His language suggested prior involvement with the police, which also impacted the ability to protect and assess wellbeing.
Regarding nothing being found, we keep a record of callers to assist with grounds and further investigation if required.”
S&S BWV 3 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 3
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 (7-9PM)
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 - Plain clothes officers stopping suspected drug dealer/user
Actions to be commended:
Use of BWV: Officers utilised body-worn video, allowing clear evidence of the interaction. This has been previously excluded by plain clothes officers.
Communication (Post-restraint): Once the situation calmed, officers spoke respectfully to the subject and thanked him for alerting them to a sharp pin in his pocket.
Wellbeing: Officers checked the subject for injuries during leg searches.
Professional Rapport: Some efforts to humanise the interaction, including allowing the subject to vape, contributed to partial de-escalation.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Identification: Officers did not clearly verbally identify themselves as police at the start; the subject repeatedly asked who they were and told them “you should have said you were police.”
None of the officers showed their warrant cards, which raised legal concerns given they were in plain clothes. The combination of unclear identification and aggressive behaviour contributed to a situation where Panel members noted they themselves would have felt fearful and might have resisted. This impacted the perceived professionalism of the encounter and highlights the importance of early, clear identification in plain clothes operations.
De-escalation: Initial aggression was not managed effectively; the subject primarily de-escalated the situation, not officers.
Language and Tone: Officers displayed uncontrolled, disproportionate aggression, used threatening language (“I’ll nick you now”) and repeatedly swore at the subject.
At the end of the encounter, officers said it “didn't need to be like that,” which could be perceived as placing blame on the subject for the situation, when he explained why he didn’t initially comply.
Professional Conduct: The Panel assessed behaviour as unprofessional, particularly at the start.
PACE Explanation: Lawful reason under PACE not clearly explained to the subject. Legal terminology should be explained.
Handcuffing Practice: Subject was handcuffed at the front; Panel noted back handcuffing has been highlighted by BCU Commanders to prevent ingestion.
BWV: Camera lens was blocked during some use of force engagement, limiting observation.
Risk management: Some Panel members questioned if allowing vaping could have posed safety risks if the substance was illegal.
PLANTER: The majority of the Panel assessed PLANTER as partially followed, with concerns around early identification, de-escalation, and communication.
Proportional: Most Panel members considered the initial force disproportionate, particularly early in the encounter.
Ethical: The Panel had mixed views; some considered the officers’ approach unethical due to aggression and swearing, while others noted later respectful engagement.
Necessary: The Panel was unsure if the use of force was necessary.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Simeon Bayliss
“Some behaviours observed were inappropriate and could damage public trust. While plain clothes teams may sometimes need to act tactically to prevent drug ingestion and potential fatality, I agree that the approach here was overly aggressive initially. Once control was established, officers de-escalated, but communication should have been better. I understand why they did not immediately identify themselves, but this should occur as soon as hands are on.
Warrant cards were not shown, which should be rectified and I’ll speak to officers about.
The decision to allow vaping, while risky if the subject was using illegal substances, was intended to humanise the interaction. However overall, this made for uncomfortable watching - the officers approached the situation too aggressively, particularly the female officer and should aim for rapid de-escalation without profanities.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
UOF CASE 2 - Young female reported by her mother as being at risk due to mental health concerns and history of self-harm
Actions to be commended:
De-escalation and Rapport: Initial female officer made effort to build rapport and ask about wellbeing.
Female officers generally demonstrated empathy and calm communication, particularly at the start of the encounter.
Officers explained why each use of force was necessary.
Safety: The subject was safely escorted home.
Welfare: Officers enquired about injuries during the interaction.
Mental health concerns were recognised and a safeguarding referral was completed after the incident.
PLANTER: Most Panel members: assessed PLANTER as being followed. Use of force was implemented constructively but lacked consistency. However, male officers tone and body language raised concerns about proportionality and professionalism.
Proportionate: The majority of the Panel assessed this encounter, though some concerns regarding male officer’s behaviour
Necessary: Most of the Panel assessed this encounter as necessary.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Communication: Officers did not check or confirm the subject’s age (Panel noted she was 14).
The subject was not asked why she did not want to go home.
Unprofessional Conduct: The male officer displayed patronising body language and tone (crossed arms, chuckling, dismissive comments).
He took the subject’s phone and threw it into the back of the police car, accompanied by instructions like “if you want it, go get it,” which was considered demeaning. She is a young girl in crisis, not a dog.
Trauma-Informed Practice: Officers’ dialogue lacked trauma-informed approaches.
Self-harm and exposure concerns were not adequately addressed (e.g., embarrassment about showing wounds).
Emotional Impact: The Panel observed fear and distress in the subject’s eyes during restraint.
Male officer’s attitude risked escalating the situation.
Ethical: The Panel was unsure how ethical this encounter was. There were questions over the proportionality of male officer’s approach, concerns raised about demeanour and trauma-informed practice and the need for consistency in professional conduct when dealing with vulnerable minors.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Simeon Bayliss
“I agree with the Panel about the male officer’s attitude - he treated the incident like a joke. His communication was not effective, and I will be having a conversation with him about this.
The officers were in a difficult position, using powers to keep someone safe who didn’t want to comply and it was important to use the minimum amount of force necessary. Negotiation took some time, and the officers asked if there was anything they could do or say to move the situation forward.”
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.
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.
