OCTOBER 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 Superintendent Antony Hart - North, East and West Devon Commander and Mark Bolt - Section 136 Panel Chair
This month’s cases were filtered for both Stop and Search and Use of Force as follows:
Time of year (high tourist periods)
BCU Area: Operations
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 - Seen sat with a friend in a poorly lit area in close proximity to nightclubs in the early hours. When he saw the police walk towards him, stood up and walked in the opposite direction. Suspect then seen to heavily ingest via a nostril an unknown item and when challenged by police, ran away. Suspect was detained and seen to have an unknown powdery white substance around his nostrils
Actions to be commended:
Communication: The officer highlighted the BWV recording when the subject expressed worry. Panel members noted that the officer remained polite and professional despite the subject running and ingesting a substance.
Officers communicated the purpose and outcome of the stop clearly once the subject was detained.
Clear instructions were provided on what the subject should do following the incident and consequences for non-compliance.Use of Force: Handcuffs were removed once no drugs were found, reflecting proportionality in restraint.
GOWISELY: Elements were repeated to ensure the interaction was captured on camera.
Wellbeing: The officer asked the subject about injuries, showing care for wellbeing. Colleagues offered additional support for potential PTSD, demonstrating awareness of wellbeing.
Necessary: Most panel members agreed the encounter was necessary (91%), though a few were unsure due to lack of initial context (9%).
Proportional: The majority agreed the response was proportionate once the foot chase and substance ingestion were considered.
Ethical: Most panel members assessed the officer as acting ethically and professionally.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
BWV Procedure: Pre-record for the foot chase was missing, so the start of the incident was unclear.
GOWISELY: Not all elements of GOWISELY were heard by panel members; could not confirm whether the officer identified themselves or their station at the start.
Proportionate: There were comments on disproportionate officer presence, though panel members noted they had not seen the beginning of the incident where the subject ran.
Clarity: The officer was out of breath and struggled to speak after the chase - a colleague taking over could have improved clarity and given time for him to compose..
Language: A few panel members noted the officer used unprofessional language (“cut the bullshit”) during the encounter.
Clear instructions for the search were not always provided, and some members noted that despite visible evidence of drug ingestion, no further action was taken, which surprised some panel members.Potential Bias: Some members raised concerns about possible positive bias due to the subject being White and stating that family members were in the police.
Panel discussion noted that the substance observed was residue and did not constitute possession, and the visiting BCU Commander indicated there was no evidence of bias, and the officer had been professional.
Response from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart:
“This is the standard I'd expect for a Stop and Search. Officers communicated clearly, despite having been involved in a foot chase, which understandably affected their breathing and delivery. I take on board the panel’s point about the missing context of video - BWV should ideally be pre-recorded to capture the start of incidents. I also agree that not all of GOWISELY wasn’t covered. While the number of officers may have seemed high, there were enough to control the situation safely. Language should be professional and avoid swearing. Regarding the potential bias, the observed powder was minimal and not actionable, and the officer's comments about family in the police appeared disapproving - the officer acted politely and provided safe, clear instructions. Overall, the interaction was handled appropriately.”
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 a fight outside a public house
Actions to be commended:
Conduct and Professionalism: Officers remained calm and professional.
The female officer searched the female subject, respecting her dignity..
Male officer offered to explain the process to the subject’s daughter if she was concerned.
Officers were friendly and engaged positively with the subject throughout the interaction.
The complaint system was explained to the subject if she wished to raise concerns.
Communication: Panel members noted very clear communication throughout, including explanations of the search procedure and reassurance provided to the subject.
GOWISELY: Covered effectively during the encounter.
Wellbeing: Officers acknowledged the subject’s PTSD, communicating sensitively when she expressed discomfort with people behind her and thanking her for letting them know. Empathetic behaviours were observed, including awareness of vulnerability and mental health considerations.
Necessary: The majority of panel members (90%) agreed the encounter was necessary given the report of a knife and public safety concerns 10% were unsure.
Proportionate: All panel members felt the response was proportionate to the situation.
Ethical: All panel members judged the officers’ behaviour as ethical.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Language: Section 1 of PACE was not explained to the subject; panel members questioned whether grounds can be fully understood without further explanation of terminology.
Some comments highlighted that ethnicity recording questions should avoid leading language - i.e. “I identify as…, what do you identify as?” rather than “Do you identify as…?”
Panel members queried whether officers receive training on offering apologies when appropriate, particularly in sensitive interactions.
Search: As best practice for transparency, reassurance and risk management, officers could have better talked through what happens in a body search and which areas of the body were about to be touched.
Some panel members suggested that conducting the search in a more private location away from bystanders could have improved the subject’s comfort and dignity.
Response from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart:
“I agree with the panel’s observations. The S&S was conducted professionally, calmly and with compassion shown to both the daughter and the subject with her PTSD and the support that could be provided. I take the point about explaining what PACE is and communication around the search - we can never communicate too much about where we will be touching. I also agree with the phrasing of ethnicity. The apology question is interesting - this is why explaining clear grounds is so important. Given the report of a knife, low footfall and the need to operate safely in public, the actions taken to do the search where they were was appropriate.”
S&S BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO S&S BWV 2
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
S&S Case 3 - Male seen by officers in doorway with suspected spice in his hand
Actions to be commended:
GOWISELY: Covered during the interaction.
Legality: Core elements of the stop and search were conducted legally.
Conduct: Officers remained polite and professional during the search.
Necessary: The Panel mostly agreed (78%) the encounter was necessary given possession suspicion. Though 22% were unsure.
Proportionate: Generally deemed proportionate, though some comments noted the interaction could have been managed with more communication to reduce tension.
Ethical: Mixed feedback; legally compliant, but limited empathy or engagement noted.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
BWV Procedure: Pre-record was missing, so the start of the incident is missing.
Communication: Very limited communication or rapport with the subject, resulting in a lot of silence. The panel noted the lack of a human, empathetic approach.
No explanation given of where the body search would be conducted, not even the waistband. Subject commented: “you’ve already done that twice now”, highlighting a potential risk of distress or trauma.
Officers should use talking through the process to encourage interaction and positive engagement instead of staying silent.
Welfare and Support Considerations:
Officers missed an opportunity to check on the subject’s welfare and signpost to support services.
Response from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart:
“Very quiet interaction, with little conversation. Core legal requirements were met and the search was thorough. Spice possession is not legal in the area, so officers acted correctly. However the context at the start is missing, so we cannot fully assess. I agree with the panel that there was minimal engagement with the subject about welfare or support options, which could have been prompted by mention of CoLab. Overall the search was standard, but more communication and rapport building would have improved the encounter.”
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 - Report of a customer causing disturbance in a public house and refusing to leave
Actions to be commended:
Body-Worn Video: Officers activated pre-record and captured the entirety of the incident.
Communication: Clear instructions given by the second officer.
Outside engagement calmer and controlled, which achieved a better outcome.
Use of Force: Minimal use of force applied, hands-on only and for a short duration to prevent harm or further escalation.
PLANTER: Followed more consistently outside the pub; less so during initial engagement.
Wellbeing: The officer offered the subject a lift home and ensured he got there safely.
Proportionate: The panel had mixed views; generally assessed as proportionate once outside the premises.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Initial Engagement: Start of incident showed lack of control; officers appeared informal and at times combative “‘got to blow the doors off”.
Reactive language observed: e.g., “Shut up otherwise I will drag you out of here.”
Officers relied on bar staff reports and asked leading questions rather than seeking full context.
One officer was distracted by phone during initial engagement, which may have compromised situational awareness.
Early human engagement, introductions of themselves and calm communication could have created a very different interaction and prevented escalation.
Mental Health Considerations: The subject displayed possible signs of a mental health episode. The panel noted missed opportunities to contact mental health support teams via radio to see if anything was known about him. Section 136 Panel Chair Mark Bolt encouraged officers to use this support - healthcare professionals are on hand to give practical advice.
Legal Power: There appeared to be confusion about what power they were using and legislation. Officers did have the power to remove the subject - greater communication with the landlord would have helped.
Necessary: The Panel were unsure if this use of force was necessary - 50% assessed it was, 50% assessed it wasn’t. Some members felt escalation could have been avoided with more effective communication.
Ethical: The panel were unsure whether this incident was ethical as the initial approach lacked professionalism and consideration of mental health.
Response from visiting BCU Commander Antony Hart:
“Really interesting to hear the variety of feedback, much that went through my mind. I agree that officers could have spent more time finding out what had happened - talking to the licensee and the subject to understand the actual issues and how to help. The initial engagement was quite abrupt and lacked compassion. Officers should not be distracted by phones as responsible for colleague’s safety.
Use of force was proportionate and legal, but communication style could have been improved. Outside the pub it was very different and the outcome was a good one - taking him safely home. I take the point about leading questions - this needs addressing and a broader conversation about powers and handling behaviour is required.”
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
UOF CASE 2 - Report of adult male assaulting care staff
Actions to be commended:
Body-Worn Video: Officers activated pre-record and captured the entirety of the incident.
Engagement: Officers selected appropriate roles for engaging with the subject and sourcing information from the care team.
Male officer controlled the incident well - identifying triggers, deescalating with minimal force and managing colleagues / care staff.
The female officer considered her presence as a potential trigger and withdrew appropriately.
Communication: Officers had human-focused approaches. They repeatedly used the subject’s name and offered reassurance.
The subject was treated respectfully, with a calm tone and accessible, consistent communication.
The male officer checked the subject's understanding, explained why restraint was necessary and ensured the subject felt safe.
The officer gave the subject his first name to call him and used trauma-informed language: asking “Remember, what do you need to do?” and modelling “breathe with me.”
The subject was thanked for compliance and given opportunities to ask questions.
Use of Force: Officers actively de-escalated throughout. Force was minimal, limited to restraint and blocking to prevent harm, and applied constructively to maintain safety.
No escalation occurred; officers prevented harm to themselves, subject and staff.
PLANTER: The Panel assessed this as followed well.
Welfare: Officer ensured the subject took his required medication.
Positive engagement created a safe, controlled environment for all parties.
Outcome: There was no further action following this engagement and in this context, the majority of the panel assessed this as the best service police could have provided.
Best Practice: The panel highlighted this case as exceptional policing; demonstrating effective trauma-informed policing and should be used as a case study for best practice.
Reinforces the importance of clear communication, empathy and patient engagement when dealing with vulnerable adults in care settings.
Highlights value of adjusting officer presence to minimise potential triggers.Necessary: All Panel members (100%) assessed this use of force as necessary.
Proportionate: The Panel agreed the officers actions were proportionate.
Ethical: Use of force was assessed as ethical, focused on safety and trauma-informed practice.
Investigation, responses and learning required with:
Reassurance: Some of the panel highlighted that the subject responded well to reassurance - additional affirmation could have been beneficial to confirm the subject was doing the right thing.
Support: There were concerns after the subject and care staff being left on their own post-incident and whether ongoing support could be provided.
Officer Safety: While the officer’s actions resolved the situation well, there was some concern regarding him being temporarily alone with a physically larger subject.
Response received from visiting BCU Commander Simeon Bayliss
“I agree that this was an exceptional job. While it involves use of force, no officer wants to use that power in this setting. I really like the suggestion of using this footage to help others develop as well. I am really pleased with that last case.”
UOF BWV 2 ASSESSMENT
D&C POLICE RESPONSE TO UOF BWV 1
Officer’s response not received
Panel response:
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.
