Community Scrutiny Meetings

Use of Force External Panel

Thursday 29^th August 2024 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Agenda

Attendees:

Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Arto Dino (AD), Bev Drummond (BD), Elaine Singaram (ES), Marcella Smith (MS), Natasha Loftus (NL), Peju Akintomide (PA), Zion Ayetuoma (ZA).

Bedfordshire Police:

PC Steven Beer (SB), Ch. Inspector Mike Chand (MC)

OPCC:

Katie Beaumont (KB), Tarushi De Cruze (TDC)

Introduction

PDE opened the meeting and informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Apologies:

Samantha Denness (SD)
Simon Cacioppo (SC)
Kim Taylor (KT)
James Turner (JT)
Myrna Loy (ML)
Salateen Masih (SM)

Actions from previous meeting

Not discussed within the meeting but KB and TDC will follow up and provide updates prior to the next meeting.

Policing Update

MC presented the current policing updates to the panel.

As part of the race action plan, the force is introducing cards for individuals who have been stop and searched or involved in use of force. These cards will list the laws, their entitlements and a QR code. This QR code will guide the individual to a government website which states the law in more detail and provides a questionnaire regarding their interaction with the police.

MC asked if the panel could suggest questions that could be included in this questionnaire.

Action – OPCC to send email to members once received card from MC and ask for any comments, additions that would be beneficial.

An additional letter E will be added to the acronym GOWISELY, therefore creating GOWISELYE. The extra letter E will stand for ‘explain’. The purpose of this addition comes useful in cases where it is not possible to complete GOWISELY entirely, officers must explain their actions to the individual after every interaction. This will aid in the trust and confidence of the individual and the officer as well as ensuring they understand the reason for that occurrence.

Overall, the updated GOWISELYE and the use of the cards, will hopefully improve the confidence within communities.

Action - PDE asked if the OPCC could send out an email to panel members asking for their input on the questionnaire.

Minutes of Last meeting

Minutes from the February meeting was agreed. SD and TDC to follow up and review minutes from the May meeting.

Video 1- Manchester

Case Study:

Purpose of this scenario is to review the use of force shown from Greater Manchester Police from the perspective of a use of force scrutiny panel, with the benefit of insight. As initially reported, a police officer was filmed kicking and stamping on the head of a man laying on the ground of Manchester Airport. The uniformed officer was seen holding a taser over the man who was lying face down before striking him twice while other officers shouted at on lookers.

Greater Manchester Police stated the firearms officer had been attacked while attempting to arrest someone following a fight in the airport at terminal 2. It was stated that 3 officers were punched to the ground in a violent assault and when they attempted to arrest one of the suspects and due to being firearm officers there was a clear risk during the assault that their firearms could have been taken away from them.

3 officers went to hospital for treatment, with one female officer suffering a broken nose.

Feedback:

1. There were concerns about the ferocity of the attack on the officers that led up to the event. Therefore, the use of a taser was an appropriate response to this attack.
2. The kick seems like a human response. The officer got emotional and was caught in the moment.
3. However, the kick and stamp were completely unacceptable. The police are held to a high standard and should conduct themselves professionally. Instead of falling back on human responses, they should have fallen back on their training.
4. The individual was tasered and incapacitated laying on the floor, therefore there was no reasoning behind the force that followed.
5. The head is a very sensitive and fatal area. If the kick was to another part of the body, it would have been less shocking.
6. The officer should have taken into consideration the environment he was in. The incident occurred at an airport, and the officers had numerous people surrounding them. Therefore, he should have thought about his professionalism and public perception.
7. The video also brought into question the way officers are trained.
8. The complexity of the case made it difficult for panel members to vote.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: RED 9

 

Video 2 - BP 2306204-0277

Forced Used: Ground restraint, Handcuffing, non-compliant and other improvised.

Date of incident: 23/06/2024

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 years

Training: 7-12 months

Requirements:

• To prevent self-harm.
• To protect public from violence.
• To protect the subject from violence.

Grounds:

A call has been received from the ambulance service reporting that a male was experiencing a mental health crisis and had been seen running into the road. The male was dressed in a robe which reportedly kept coming undone. Due to a potential delay by the ambulance of up to 2 hours, and growing tension by the community members, officers were dispatched and arrived on seen.

Officers spoke to the male, but he tried to run off into traffic. Officers had to stop him, however due to his lack of capacity and understanding, he tried to fight the officers. He was placed in hand cuffs.

Feedback:

1. Restraint was necessary for someone experiencing a mental health crisis. The cuffs remaining on the individual throughout was wise.
2. The female police officers were sensitive to the needs of the individual. They took into consideration his privacy and dignity as well as offering him water and ensuring that the individual did not hurt his head.
3. The officer shouted ‘come here mate, get on the floor’ which brought a little concern. Should the officer be speaking in that manner to someone who is in a mental health crisis?
4. There were several officers speaking to the individual at the same time. It may have been more beneficial for one person to take control and communicate with him.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: GREEN 2

 

Video 3 - BP 24022024-0322

Force used: Ground restraint, unarmed skills, limb and body restraint, non-compliant hand cuffing.

Date of incident: 24/06/2024

Length of service: 6-10 years

Training: 6 months

Subject Background: White

Requirements:

• Possession of a weapon
• Prior knowledge
• Size, gender and build

Grounds:

A call was made to Bedfordshire Police from a victim, reporting that her friend had stolen her mobile phone and threatened her with a hammer. The informant stated that the male still had her phone, and he was still in the property. She had been assaulted by a push and fled to the neighbour’s address.

Feedback:

1. Was very chaotic. Officer used inappropriate language a couple of times when interacting with the individual.
2. Officer could have used communication to de-escalate the situation. Once the individual opened the door, the officer arrested him straight away. If the officer spoke to him prior to arresting him, it could have avoided all the chaos.
3. The officer used PAVA on the individual and later applied a spit hood. Is this standard practice?

SB stated that this was the second video the panel had seen where PAVA was used, and a spit hood used after.

Action - SB mentioned he would get in touch with the personal safety team and the training team to enquire about the practice.

4. As the interaction progressed, the communication from the officer improved and their instructions were clearer with the individual.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: AMBER 6

 

Video 4

Date of incident: 20/06/2024

Force used: Other and improvised, non-compliant hand cuffing, taser discharged.

Length of service: One officer has 2-5 years of service and other officer has 6-10 years of service.

Training: Both officers 7-12 months ago 

Subject Background: White

Requirements:

• Effect an arrest.
• Prevent escape.
• Prevent other officers from violence.
• Protect self from violence.
• Protect subject from violence.

Grounds:

Officers attended an address due to a report from neighbours that the male party at a location has been yelling at the female party and there has been sounds of extreme distress from the female and children at the address. Officers were informed before entering the address, the male was violent and had resisted arrests in the past. Upon officer's arrival, two children answered the door, saying their mum has been strangled. Officers then entered to detain the male.

Feedback:

1. Female officer was very calm and collective. Dealt with the situation well.
2. Sergeant on scene showed good leadership.
3. The same male officer shown in the previous video was captured using inappropriate language such as the term ‘dickhead’ in this video too.

Action - PDE requested if SB could give feedback to this officer regarding his language shown in 2 videos.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: GREEN 1

 

Any Community Issues

None

Use of Force External Panel

Wednesday 18^th December 2024 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Agenda

Attendees:

Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Bev Drummond (BD), Elaine Singaram (ES), Harley Scott (HS), Simon Cacioppo (SC), Maddie Whitley (MD), Ursula Smithson (US), Marry Perry (MP), Peju Akintomide (PA).

Bedfordshire Police:

PC Junaid Ashiq (JA), Supt. Ian Taylor (IT)

OPCC:

Katie Beaumont (KB), Tarushi De Cruze (TDC)

Introduction

PDE opened the meeting and informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Apologies:

Samantha Denness (SD)
Ch. Inspector Mike Chand (MC)
Kim Taylor (KT)
Salateenm Masih (SM)
Arto Dino (AD),
Theophila Remy (TR)

Actions from previous meeting

PDE and TDC went through the current actions outstanding at the previous meeting.

Action 1 – TDC explained that the cards to be emailed to the panel have not yet been finalised nor sent to the OPCC. However, once MC has this finalised, he will forward this on to the team for their input.

Action 2 – TDC shared with the panel the response she received from SB regarding officers using PAVA and then a spit hood straight after.

TDC explained that whilst it is stated that fresh air is needed in order to clear PAVA from the eyes, there is no guarantee that you would be able to get fresh air in certain circumstances. The officers were in a flat and therefore fresh air would have not been readily available. Therefore, to protect officers from offences by the suspect, it can be deemed acceptable to use a spit hood.

SC added that there is a distinct difference between PAVA and CS. CS affects the eyes, respiratory system and the skin, whereas PAVA only affects the eyes and has no affect on the respiratory system. Therefore, this may be a contributing factor as to why it is not deemed as a high risk for using a hood alongside.

OPCC Update

The OPCC presented a presentation to the panel.

MP asked when we would be receiving the panel dates for 2025. TDC responded stating she will be sending out the panel dates by the end of the week.

ACTION: TDC to send the panel members the meeting dates for 2025.

Video 1 - BP-01092024-0088

Forced Used: Other/Improvised

Date of incident: 01.09.2024

Officer’s length of service: 13 – 23 months

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Effect arrest
• Protect public from violence

Grounds:

Officers have attended due to reports of a fight whereby a male has knocked another male out outside a taxi rank.

Feedback:

1. Panel found it hard to see what was happening as there was a lot going on.
2. Officer explained why he was being arrested. Made subject comfortable, and de-escalated the situation eventually, which was good.
3. Welfare issues were addressed, and officers were very caring. They released the handcuffs a little after the subject stated it was uncomfortable.
4. A lot of inappropriate language used by officers.
5. Officers came in heavy handed and heightened, which became very chaotic and escalated the situation. However, they managed to calm down the situation slowly.
6. In the background, you can see an officer shove a guy to the ground - panel was concerned about this, however they agreed that this may be a tactic used by officers to prevent harm.
7. Panel member also witnessed the officer pushing the subject down from the head, which was not necessary. However, this could have been due to the circumstances they were in. This was not the officer that we were seeing, it was the other officer.
8. Subject had to tell officer to put his camera on. Panel also thought BWV was switched on too late and should have been switched on earlier.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: AMBER 4

JA asked the panel whether it is the circumstance of the incident that is graded or the specific officer.

PDE wanted to clarify for the minutes that the feedback is based upon the incident rather than the officer themselves.

Video 2 - BP-05092024-0322

Force used: Non-compliant handcuffing, Other/Improvised (Knee strike, Kick to the shins)

Date of incident: 05.09.2024

Length of service: 6-10 Years

Training: 0 - 6 months ago

Requirements:

• Effect arrest

Grounds:

A call has been made to the police that the subject has thrown soup on her arm and burnt her. Further call was made stating that the male had sworn at her and threatened the female.

Feedback:

1. Chaotic, no clear understanding between officers on what was happening. There was no clear dialogue between officers. messy and disorganised, communication between the team was awful. Felt like the first officer was heightened to begin with as she was not aware of the situation.
2. Confusion about the arrest and a lot of confusion when the grounds for the arrest was explained to him.
3. Subject hurt his knee and complained that the cuffs were too tight, however none of the officers took this seriously and stated that it was his fault. There was no consideration from officers of the subject’s welfare. The response from officers were 'you should have behaved' and 'you are in enough trouble already' which felt like the officer was escalating the situation and sounded judgemental.
4. Officers were wearing a lot of jewellery and false nails, which could harm both officer and subject. Very unprofessional and inappropriate.
5. Language used by officers was inappropriate.
6. No attempt from officers to calm the situation down. There were far too many officers, and no one took control.
7. BWV on too late.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: RED 8

 

Video 3 - BP-10092024-0178

Date of incident: 10.09.2024

Force used: Non-compliant handcuffing, spit guard, unarmed skills

Length of service: 7-12 months

Training: 7-12 months ago

Requirements:

• Prevent offence
• Prevent self-harm
• Protect other officers from violence
• Protect self from violence
• Protect subject from violence

Grounds:

Beds Police received a call reporting a female had attended a location screaming and shouting. She tried to force her way into the location to see her boyfriend. She has bail conditions not to visit the male (boyfriend). Female has pushed the male and officers arrested the female for common assault.

Suspect assaulted the police officer by kicking and spitting at her. Female further arrested her for Assault on an Emergency Worker.

Feedback:

1. Officer used inflammatory comments which did not help the situation. The male officer said comments such as ‘why should I care about you’, ‘kick me again and there will be some issues’, ‘I swear to god something is wrong with you’ and ‘the mental health card is not going to get you out of this, this time hunny’. These comments escalated the situation and caused the subject to react further.
2. The male officer pushed and manhandled the subject several times which was very inappropriate. His actions looked as though the officer was trying to humiliate the subject. Hand on the back of the neck and the way the officer was lifting her was very inappropriate. In addition, the panel was quite concerned when it looks as if the male officer shoved the subject to the ground when entering the hospital.
3. Seemed as if the male officer got angry after racist comments were made from the subject. It looked as if the male officer shoved the subjects head down once those comments were made.
4. The male officers voice was calm however this did not match his physical actions. However, he did keep repeating ‘just take her down to the floor’ for what looked like no reason.
5. Some panel members found that as the subject was being racist, spitting at him and kicking him, his actions may have been done to protect the public. In addition, his actions may have been heightened due to what he experienced.
6. Panel also had concerns that both officers did not take into consideration the subjects’ welfare as she was barefoot walking across the road.
7. Panel found that the female officer was put in a difficult position.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: RED 8

HS asked whether the male officer in this video was the same officer seen in the last stop and search meeting which was also graded a red 8? JA confirmed this was the same officer.

HS asked if there are two incidents involving the same officer which were both graded red 8 in such a short space of time, what is the procedure?

IT assured the panel that as both videos were graded red 8, it meets the threshold to be referred to the Professional Standards Department (PSD). The original S60 video has already been sent and is currently being reviewed by PSD. In turn they will now also review this video. IT stated that he will be having a discussion with PSD tomorrow on whether, whilst these two ongoing referrals are being investigated, does there need to be some restrictions put in place on the officer. This would be due to one, public safety and two, to prevent the officer getting into any more trouble. This, however, does not confirm that the officer is guilty or suggest any sort of outcome that will arise from PSD.

IT mentioned that he will liaise with PSD to say there is second case of a similar nature and in addition speak with the officer’s department head to question whether he should be removed from public facing duties.

ES also suggested that the officer may also need some training and awareness on mental health.

Policing Update

IT presented the current policing updates to the panel.

IT introduced himself as the Strategic Lead for Stop and Search and explained that he has also now been appointed as the Strategic Lead for Use of Force.

IT thanked all panel members for their work in helping provide transparency and accountability, which is crucial to the force.

IT explained the current internal changes, due to a need of additional internal governance and scrutiny. Therefore, MC will remain the tactical lead, however IT has provided him with a strategy specific to use of force. The overall aim is to improve force understanding of awareness of use of force, including proportionality rates, officer safety training, enabling operational learning for staff, increase accountability for use of force, ensuring officers and staff utilise use force web when proportionate and necessary and seeking to increase public trust and confidence through transparency in our communities.

IT listed several strategic objectives:

1. Improve the governance and oversight of police use of force across Bedfordshire. This involves assessing the data surrounding use of force and carrying out dip sampling.
2. To increase scrutiny and accountability for use of force across Bedfordshire, internally and externally. Every supervisor is now expected to conduct reviews of BWV by dip sampling. 
3. Utilising subject matter experts, such as officer safety trainers.
4. Improving transparency and scrutiny externally through effective engagement and information sharing.
5. Understand the extent of disproportionality in use of force and seeking to eliminate disproportionality where this cannot be explained.
6. To improve communication and engagement with wider communities of Bedfordshire, relating to use of force.
7. Seeking to improve public trust and confidence in relation to use of force.
8. To increase the quality and volume of data submissions relating to use of force. Ensuring that use of force data available to analysis and interrogation is comprehensive and accurate.

   PDE asked IT in relation to feedback is there any further updates he could inform the panel on. IT asked if the panel receives feedback back from the force. SC explained that the feedback loop is not 100% complete. When looking at the feedback from the previous quarter, there was no confirmation that anything had been done.

   SC also raised that the feedback received stated that the force did not agree with the panel’s views. However, he explained that although it may be compliant within legislation or compliant with force policy, the public perception and the way it was done was not appropriate. SC stated that trying to get that message across to supervisors is a struggle.

   IT responded that this occurred with the stop and search panel a few years ago. IT apologised for the lack of feedback and made a commitment to the panel that next time the panel has a main meeting, meaningful feedback will be given.

AOB

SC wanted to bring to the panels attention the concern he had regarding the BWV that was no longer available for the panel to review. The footage involved a significant mental health case which the officer failed to deal with appropriately. SC stated that he doesn’t believe this video should be forgotten about and to try see if there is a way we could readdress it or provide feedback.

SC wanted to also explain to IT that there is a common theme that has arisen whilst watching these BWV. SC explained concerns surrounding how situations involving mental health behaviour and challenges are being dealt with. SC appreciates officers are not experts in this field, however he feels as if officers are not approaching this in the correct way and instead escalating the situation significantly. ES wanted to also express her sympathy to officers as there is not a lot of training provided on mental health and if there is any additional resource around the management of people that have mental health crisis or any partnerships that could be made with local mental health trusts.

IT explained recently the force has introduced a ‘right care, right person’ approach, which recognises the force aren’t mental health experts and instead ensuring that the right agency is dealing with people in mental health crisis. He also explained that the force also has a mental health street triage, which is a dedicated car who has a police officer, a paramedic and a mental health professional within the vehicle.  

PDE stated that he had spoken with Ch. Superintendent Jackie Whittred who is the current force lead for mental health. PDE explained that she has offered to discuss with the panel any questions they have regarding mental health. PDE asked if the panel thought this would be useful, then to let him know.

MP also added, that after watching the BWV, she also had concerns regarding the lack of understanding officers had on neurodiversity, which had escalated the situation.

TDC stated that she still has the feedback the panel provided from the sub panel.

ACTION: TDC to email IT the feedback provided from the panel on the mental health BWV which was no longer available.

PDE thanked everyone for their time and wished everyone a lovely Christmas and a happy new year.

Use of Force External Panel

Thursday 20^th March 2025 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Agenda

Attendees:

Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Elaine Singaram (ES), Harley Scott (HS), Simon Cacioppo (SC), Maddie Whitley (MD), Ursula Smithson (US), Peju Akintomide (PA), Marcella Smith (MS), Aidan Vaughan (AV), Meenu Nair (MN),

Bedfordshire Police:

PC Junaid Ashiq (JA), Ch. Inspector Mike Chand (MC)

OPCC:

Tarushi De Cruze (TDC)

Introduction

PDE opened the meeting and informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Apologies:

Samantha Denness (SD)
Kim Taylor (KT)
Arto Dino (AD),
Theophila Remy (TR)
Bev Drummond (BD)
Marry Perry (MP)
James Turner (JT)
Liz Ginns (LG)
Arti Patel (AP)
Mia Wilson (MW)

Actions from previous meeting

TDC went through the current actions outstanding at the previous meeting.

Action 1 – TDC explained that the draft cards have been emailed to panel members. Feedback has been received and forwarded to MC.

Action 3 – Completed and diary invites have been sent.

Action 4 – TDC has forwarded the feedback to IT.

MC added that he has received a lot of feedback in relation to the cards. Superintendent Ian Taylor has asked for GOWISELYER to be added to the PRAP cards to ensure individuals know what information is required to be stated by officers. In addition, they will know if this has been completed of if information has been missed. MC also added that there will be a QR code on the PRAP cards which will provide a link to the college of policing website, a feedback form, information on legislation and recruitment as well as pathways for support. As the PRAP cards are of an A5 size, they are experiencing difficulty in adding all the information.

Policing Update

MC shared the most recent use of force data (Nov, Dec, Jan).

Panel members thought it was important to look at the narrative and asked if the panel were able to receive 12 months’ worth of data to be able to see the full picture.

ACTION: MC to retrieve the use of taser data across the last 12 months.

Panel members also requested if they could see the two videos where a taser was fired to see if there were any differences in relation to ethnicity.

ACTION: JA to bring to the next sub panel the BWV of the taser fired incidences. 

OPCC Update

TDC present the OPCC Update presentation to panel members. 

Video 1 - BP-03122024-0302

Forced Used: Ground restraint

Date of incident: 03.12.2024

Officer’s length of service: 13 – 23 months

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Prevent self-harm
• Protect self from violence

Grounds:

This male called police in distress saying there were men outside his house. They were calling him names and threatening to kill him. Police went to the location, and it was very clear to see this male had some injuries to his wrists, which were self-inflicted. The male had self- harmed.

Feedback for female officer

1. Panel thought the officers involved handled the situation as best as they could, given the circumstances.
2. Officer was good in engaging and communicating with the subject.
3. Panel member noticed there was inappropriate language being used, however they all agreed this was necessary to build a rapport with the subject and appropriate within that situation.
4. All the officers involved primary aim was to protect and care for the subject. The subject’s welfare was their main priority.
5. All officers done a good job, especially the officer that took control of the situation and provided direction.

Feedback for male officer

1. Panel thought the officers involved handled the situation as best as they could, given the circumstances.
2. Panel members were concerned for the safety of the officer as he placed the knives on the floor and allowed the subject to re-enter the room.
3. Although the officer was very emotional and panicking, he was professional and had control throughout.
4. All the officers involved primary aim was to protect and care for the subject. The subject’s welfare was their main priority.
5. There was no Med kit in the officer’s vehicle.
6. The panel members wanted to applaud this officer for saving a life and believes he should be commended for his actions and bravery.
7. Members of the panel believed the officer deserved a standing ovation.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: GREEN 1

Panel members wanted to thank the first male officer themselves. MC stated that he will contact the officer and their supervisor to thank him for this bravery and how he handled the job. MC suggested the panel provide the officer with a certificate to praise him for saving a life.

ACTION: MC to contact the officer and their supervisor to praise him for his actions during that incident and pass on the positive feedback from the panel.

ACTION: MC to contact the necessary people to organise a certificate to give to the officer on behalf of the panel.

ACTION: TDC to collate feedback from the panel members on how the BWV impacted them. MC to explore the possibility of adding the panels feedback and praise to the Intranet.

Video 2 - BP-30112024-0465

Force used: Handcuffing

Date of incident: 30.11.2024

Length of service: 2-5 years

Training: 0 - 6 months ago

Requirements:

• Protect other officers from violence
• Prevent escape

Grounds:

A member of the public has called police stating he can see a male attempting to open car doors within the car park. Officers have attended and the informant has spotted the suspect leaning inside and rummaging through a vehicle. Officers have detained and arrested suspect whilst he is still within the open car door.

Feedback:

1. BWV was switched on at a reasonable time.
2. Officers entered the scene inflamed and aggressive. There was no attempt to communicate prior or build a rapport with the subject.
3. Panel members felt there was not much care for welfare.
4. The panel felt like the officer escalated the situation by saying condescending comments. Panel members did agree that the subject was not the nicest individual, however they felt as though there was no attempt to de-escalate the situation or calm him down.
5. The panel thought the handcuffs were an appropriate method of force.
6. Panel members were unsure whether a taser was used at the start of the video. Panel members did not think a taser was necessary as they believed there was no threat of harm to the officer. In addition, there was no record on the report of a taser drawn. – This was later identified that no taser was used. 
7. Panel believed it would have been helpful if only one officer communicated with the subject. As both officers were talking, it made it difficult for the subject to understand.
8. Panel members did not think the two officers worked well together.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: AMBER 6

Video 3 - BP-12122024-0224

Date of incident: 12.12.2024

Force used: Handcuffing, Limb Restraints

Length of service: 13-23 months

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Prevent public from violence
• Prevent escape
• Protect other officers from violence
• Protect self from violence
• Protect subject from violence

Grounds:

Subject was found over a small bridge. She has phoned police intoxicated and stated she was suicidal and was going to jump from a bridge.

Police attended, and all the subject could say was that she was suicidal and was going to kill herself. Multiple attempts were then made to run in front of traffic and as such she was detained under S136. Whilst with the subject, her behaviour was up and down, erratic. Aggressive and quite emotional.

Feedback:

1. Panel members thought there was no consideration to the subject’s dignity or others. Panel members believe there should be some collaboration between the healthcare sector and the police. Officers should not have to wait with mental health subjects in the public waiting room, there should be another room that could be utilised for officers.
2. Inappropriate language used at times by the officer.
3. Officer had painted nails and jewellery. This is a concern of safety for both the officer and the subject.
4. Officer seemed a little disinterested.
5. Panel members were confused as to why it took so long for officers to find cannabis on the subject.
6. Panel also wanted to mention that when arresting the subject, the officer just stated that ‘you have been 136’d’. The panel wanted to let the officer know that not all members of the public know the definition of section 136. Therefore, a little bit of an explanation could have been used.
7. Handcuffs were placed in the incorrect position, which would have caused injury to the subject.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: AMBER 5  

Video 4 - BP-12122024-0224

Date of incident: 17.12.2024

Force used: Handcuffing, Ground Restraints

Length of service:  6-10 Years

Training: 7-12 months ago

Requirements:

• Effect stop and search
• Effect arrest

Grounds:

Male was seen to complete exchanges with known drug users. Upon being approached by police the male has been seen to swallow an item believed to be class A drugs. He has also been found in possession of Class A drugs, SIM cards and £1000 cash.

Feedback:

1. BWV switched on late.
2. Intense from the start with little attempt to de-escalate the situation.
3. Panel members felt as if there was no duty of care. The detainee was talking about his wound on his leg, however no officers acknowledged this or responded to subject. In addition, there was blood coming out of the subjects mouth and he was told ‘shut up’ when he mentioned this.
4. UoF technique (mandibular angle pressure point) done incorrectly meaning there was a risk of injury.
5. Panel members did not like the patronising and antagonistic comments such as ‘you’ve got no teeth’
6. Report form did not include enough detail – no mention of handcuffs.
7. Officers forced the subjects head down – panel members didn’t think this was necessary seeing as there was no threat to the officer, subject was sitting on the floor not attempting to run away.
8. Too many officers talking at one time – panel members found it chaotic.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: RED 8  

Panel members thought it was important to note that there was a large disparity between the grading. The grading ranged from Amber 4 to Red 8 (2 A4, 1 A6, 1 R7, 3 R8).

AOB

PDE thanked everyone for their time.

The next main UoF meeting will be held Thursday 19^th June on Teams.

Use of Force External Panel

Thursday 19^th June 2025 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Agenda 

Attendees:

Stop and Search Panel members: Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Simon Cacioppo (SC), Marcella Smith (MS), Loveness Bish (LB), Harley Scott (HS), Ursula Smithson (US), Lucia Scozzari (LS), Natasha Loftus (NL).

Bedfordshire Police: CI Mike Chand (MC), PC Junaid Ashiq (JA)

Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office: Tarushi De Cruze (TDC), Katie Beaumont (KB)

Apologies

Ian Taylor (IT)
Mary Perry (MP)
Elaine Singaram (ES)
Myrna Loy (ML)
Bev Drummey (BD)

Introduction

PDE welcomed everyone to the meeting and informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Actions

TDC went through the actions that arose from the previous meeting.

Action 1: Completed in a previous meeting.

Action 2: Completed.

Action 3: Completed.

Action 4: Completed.

Action 5: Completed.

Policing Update

MC presented a presentation on the use of force data to the panel. 

Q: PDE asked in relation to the 10 taser incidences, whether they were all no further action?
A: MC stated that he currently does not have that information. However, will provide this at the next meeting.

ACTION: MC to find out the outcomes of taser incidences.

Q: PDE asked if we could look at the top officer for the last month (PC 0703).

ACTION: JA to find BWV of the top officer (PC 0703) so we can dip sample his use of force incidents.

ACTION:  MC to incorporate in his updates any major events that occurred in the area during the quarter.

SC also asked if we were able to remove compliant handcuffing, to see if that would have a major impact on the statistics. MC mentioned that this is something we could request from the data analyst.

ACTION: MC to provide two sets of use of force data, one with compliant handcuffing and one without.

MS thanked MC for his presentation and stated that it was good to see a decrease in disproportionality.

Video 1 – BP-17012025-0032

Forced Used: C.E.D discharged-one cartage only, PAVA

Date of incident: 17.01.2025

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 Years

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Prevent offence
• Protect self from violence
• Protect other officers from violence
• Effect arrest

Grounds:

Officers have attended a report of a possible breach of the peace. Whilst at the location speaking with persons present, an altercation has taken place that officers have intervened in. Officers have then been assaulted by a male at the location, being repeatedly punched by the male, resulting in bruising, reddening and grazes to both officers. 

Scrutiny panel feedback

1. Officers remained calm and professional; showed a lot of patience dealing with the incident.
2. Officers were empathetic after the subject was tasered and PAVA'd, asking him if he wore contact lenses and communicating clearly to prevent further irritation.
3. Panel members questioned why the subject was cuffed to the front instead of the rear (speculations were made but can the officers confirm).
4. Situation was chaotic. The panel stated they handled this as best as they could have.
5. Rights were mentioned clearly.
6. Use of force was appropriate.

Grading: Green 1

MS questioned whether we should be grading the female officer.

Video 2

Forced Used: Non-compliant handcuffing

Date of incident: 08.03.2025

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 Years

Training: 7-12 months ago

Requirements:

• Effect stop search

Grounds:

Officers were called to reports of a fight inside of a night club. Upon arrival officers were made aware that a male in a group of four or five males with mixed IC codes had pulled out a knife on another male within the toilets at the location. The weapon was described as a pen knife.

Scrutiny panel feedback

1. There was a difference in opinion between panel members as some questioned why everyone was placed in handcuffs, whereas other disagreed as there was a knife involved, and it was precautionary to handcuff everyone.
2. Panel members felt like there was no control, however as this was within a night club this may have been why.
3. There was no explanation from officers before they were pulled out of the club.

There was inappropriate language at times which was not professional

5. It could have been more organised as it was chaotic at times, especially when the officer handcuffed the wrong person and then went back and handcuffed them again.
6. Panel found no major issues.
7. Subject had a glass drink in his hand when walking out of the club, which could have been a safety risk.

Grading: Green 3

Video 3

JA provided a disclaimer to panel members before presenting the next video.

Forced Used: Ground restraint

Date of incident: 15.03.2025

Officer’s length of service: 13-23 months

Training: 0-6 months

Requirements:

• Prevent self-harm

Grounds:

The officer was in custody not in uniform delivering a phone number to the detention officers for a prisoner. Whilst speaking to a detention officer the female has wrapped her jumper around her neck.

Scrutiny panel feedback

1. Panel members thought officers dealt with the difficult situation professionally and reacted fast.
2. Officers had good control of the situation.
3. From a dignity perspective, all officers were holding one limb, and did not move their hands.
4. Initial contact was a bit aggressive as the subject could have hit her head on the floor while they were pulling on her jumper.
5. Panel members did question how long she was left on the floor, seemed like a long time to hold the subject down.
6. Panel members would have preferred to see all males exit the cell after the risk was removed, however some males remained in the cell.
7. It was nice to see the three officers sat on the floor talking to the subject. This shows good care and welfare.

Q: MS asked if there was training given to officers in these situations.
A: MC confirmed training is given.

Grading: Green 1

MC wanted to clarify the button which the detained person pressed was not an emergency button, it is just a call for help if they need food/drink etc.

Video 4 – BP-27042025-0230

JA explained this video is being presented at the Stop and Search panel as requested by Superintendent Ian Taylor. This is due to high amount of use of force forms submitted regarding this one individual. 13 use of force forms were submitted, 9 from this one incident and 4 from other instances.

Forced Used: Limb/body restraints, Other/Improvised

Date of incident: 28.04.2025

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 years

Training: 0-6 months

Requirements:

• Prevent offence
• Protect self from violence
• Protect other officers from violence
• Prevent self-harm
• Prevent escape

Grounds:

Subject was arrested and taken to hospital due to having sustained significant self-harm injuries to his arms, particularly his right, which required plastic surgery. 

Scrutiny panel feedback

1. Both officers showed empathy
2. Panel members thought police officers should not have to deal with situations like this. They believe it is a waste of resources being held up doing this for hours and hours.
3. Minimal amount of force used
4. Officers were very caring, patient, effective and professional

Within the use of force form, it states:

‘On one occasion, I was unable to grab his head in time and punched him in the back of the head with medium force as a knee jerk reaction to seeing him attempt to injure my colleague’.

Panel members were concerned about this as this was not shown in the section of video which they watched. Panel members did not feel comfortable grading until they have seen this incident.

ACTION: JA to watch the full video and bring this part of the video to the next sub panel so members can grade accurately based on the video seen.

OPCC Update

TDC presented a presentation to the panel. 

Q: MS asked who the response was from in the second officer feedback provided.

A: TDC explained that as the video was graded a RED 7, it was sent to a use of force personal safety trainer for review and comments.

A: JA also mentioned that this video went to a superintendent however due to concerns regarding the pressure point, he asked for advice from a personal safety trainer to make comments.

Q: MS also was concerned about the new process of picking videos. She found that having one person pick videos was not representative of the whole panel. For example, one person would pick a video different to another person.

A: PDE explained the purpose of a data panel is to provide a lead/guidance for what they should pick.

A: TDC added that it will be a different individual each time so anyone can volunteer to pick videos.

A: PDE mentioned that he will take MS’s views into consideration and discuss with the chairs.

JA mentioned that PC Ommer is off sick, and that next week’s main meeting may be cancelled. KB asked if there was anyone else on the team that could step in. JA stated that all the videos are saved on his laptop. KB said she will discuss this outside of the meeting.

Q: NL asked if amber and red gradings go on officers’ personal development reviews (PDR) or only red.

A: MC mentioned that it will be added to their PDRs if there is learning to be had.

Q: SC asked about the sergeant who refused to provide feedback to his officers and asked for an update.

A: TDC responded that she has spoken to DCI Stean, who will provide an update on Tuesdays meeting.

PDE thanked the team for attending, MC and TDC for organising.

Use of Force External Panel

Thursday 18^th September 2025 held between 18:30-21:00

Attendees:

Stop and Search Panel members: Marcella Smith (MS), Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Zaeem Majeed (ZM), Ursula Smithson (US), Ambrose Kwan (AK), Theophila Remy (TR), Lucia Scozzari (LS), Elaine Singaram (ES), Joshua Dargan-Haynes (JDH), Peju Akintomide (PA)

Bedfordshire Police: Supt Ian Taylor (IT), PC Ommer Khan (OM),

Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office: Tarushi De Cruze (TDC)

Apologies

Simon Cacioppo
Natasha Loftus
Mary Perry
Aidan Vaughn
Harley Scott
William James
Hayley Brown
Maddie Whitely
Liz Ginns
Myrna Loy
Lousie Tomlinson
Bev Drummey

Introduction

PDE welcomed everyone to the meeting and informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Actions

TDC went through the actions that arose from the previous meeting.

Action 1: Completed

Action 2: Completed

Action 3: Completed

Policing Update

IT provided an update on progress made in addressing the HMICFRS area of improvement regarding the use of force. This included improvements in the accuracy of UoF recording, with a 28% increase compared to the previous quarter and a 43% increase compared to the same month last year. IT clarified that this rise is not due to increased use of force, but rather the result of re-educating staff on compliance and proper recording practices.

The internal governance structure has been revised to improve UoF. Chief Inspector Mike Chand (MC) continues as the tactical lead, while IT remains the strategic lead for UoF. A new requirement for supervisory oversight has been introduced, mandating supervisors to dip sample at least one BWV per officer per month to ensure appropriate use of force.

Additionally, subject matter experts, such as officer safety trainers, are now required to independently review BWV footage involving higher-level force tactics (e.g., baton strikes, taser, PAVA). This is part of a cross-force agreement between Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, and Essex, allowing experts to review footage from other forces.

To support understanding of disproportionality, MC receives a monthly analytical report detailing UoF trends, including operational context such as public order events. For example, in the previous month, there were 11 taser deployments, three involving individuals from the Black community, resulting in a disproportionality ratio of 6.41. MC will investigate the contributing factors, though IT noted that all three incidents involved subjects reportedly armed and were responses to 999 calls.

IT assured panel members that overall, the use of force is moving in a positive direction, with improvements in recording, oversight, and strategic understanding.

Video 1 – BP-17012025-0032

Forced Used: Non-compliant handcuffs

Date of incident: 03.06.2025

Officer’s length of service: 6-10 Years

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Prevent escape
• Protect self from violence
• Other

Grounds:

The subject was blocking a junction, refused to move or give his licence details.

More individuals turned up, not happy about the situation.

Scrutiny panel feedback

• The footage was difficult to watch due to the public’s aggressive and threatening behaviour. Panel members were appalled by the lack of respect shown towards the officer and felt multiple individuals should have been arrested for breach of the peace.
• The officer remained calm and professional throughout a highly volatile situation. He did not retaliate verbally and maintained composure despite provocation.
• The panel members thought the officer handled the situation as best as he could have, under the circumstances.

Reasoning behind the Amber grading:

• Some panel members felt the officer escalated the situation early on with comments like “you don’t have a driving licence, do you?”. There was a view that the officer made a rash decision and that alternative approaches could have de-escalated the situation.
• BWV was activated late, and therefore the panel were not able to view the initial interaction which led to the officer approaching the subject.
• Mixed views on the use of handcuffs: some felt it was proportionate due to the subject entering the officer’s personal space, while others felt the officer approached the situation too aggressively and did not sufficiently use verbal communication tactics.
• Panel members felt the officer should prioritise de-escalation in future similar scenarios and make greater use of verbal communication techniques to manage the situation more effectively.
• Panel members thought the other officer present could have stepped in more and intervened ensuring officer safety.

Organisational learning:

• There were comments made like ‘you don’t know about Queens Park policing’ which brings into question if there are differences in how officers’ police this area.
• More work needs to be done within this area to improve the relationship between the public and the police.

It’s important to note that there was a significant disparity in the panel’s grading of this video; while some members rated it as Green 1, others assessed it as Red 7.

Grading: Amber 6

Video 2 - 40CH/984/25

Forced Used: Ground restraint, non-compliant handcuffing

Date of incident: 12.06.2025

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 years

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Prevent escape
• Protect self from violence
• Protect others from violence
• Effect search in custody
• Effect arrest
• Prevent offence
• Prevent self-harm
• Remove handcuffs

Grounds:

Officers attended location to complete an arrest attempt of subject as he was wanted by police.

Scrutiny panel feedback

• BWV was activated early which is positive to see.
• Officers showed some reassurance regarding the subject’s concerns about the dogs.
• Panel members liked how the officer attempted to de-escalate early and allowed the subject to speak with a friend to help calm him.
• Panel members noted that no excessive force was used, and the officers sat the subject up rather than just leaving him on the ground.
• The subject appeared to have either learning difficulties, mental health issues or was under the influence. Therefore, some panel members thought officers could have shown more empathy and consideration. For example, one officer snatched the subject’s phone from him, which could have added to the subject’s distress. In addition, inappropriate language used at times.
• Subject cuffed to the front instead of the back.
• Panel members thought there could have been better planning and risk management. Officers were arresting for stalking charges which can possible involve those with mental health issues. Therefore, planning in advance could have aided the officers in this situation.

Organisational learning:

• The panel members considered that the failing identified in this instance reflects broader system-level shortcomings rather than individual officer failings. They noted that officers require more training in how to engage with individuals experiencing mental health issues or learning difficulties.

Grading: GREEN 3

Video 3 - BP-10062025-0007  

Forced Used: Compliant handcuffing

Date of incident: 10.06.2025

Officer’s length of service: 6-10 years

Training: 7-12 months ago

Requirements:

• Prevent escape
• Protect self from violence
• Protect subject from violence
• Effect stops and search
• Secure evidence

Grounds:

The male was observed on council CCTV. The male was seen taking some herbal substance, believed to be cannabis, out of a small bag in his possession and rolling up a joint. The male then walked off towards the town centre. CCTV continued watching the male. The officer has attended the location and located the male. Upon approaching the male, the officer could smell cannabis, and the male was holding a joint in his hand. Male was detained for a search under S23 Misuse of Drugs Act.

Scrutiny panel feedback

• Officers demonstrated effective communication and tactical awareness throughout the interaction.
• The use of handcuffs was appropriate, particularly as the officer was alone and the situation had potential to escalate.
• Handcuffs were removed following the search, and GOWISELY procedures were followed correctly, with clear explanations provided.
• Panel members noted the officer showed consideration by attempting to locate a male officer for the search.
• Panel members observed the subject disposing of cannabis by throwing it on the ground, which was deemed inappropriate.
• Overall, panel members agreed the situation was well managed, with no concerns raised. It was considered an example of good policing and good decision-making.

Grading: Green 1

OPCC Update

TDC presented a presentation to the panel on the updates this quarter. 

PDE thanked all members for attending.

 

Use of Force External Panel

Wednesday 10^th December 2025 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Attendees:

Stop and Search Panel members: Joshua Dargan-Haynes (JDH), Bev Drummey (BD), Maddie Whitely (MW), Ambrose Kwan (AK), Aidan Vaughn (AV), Liz Ginns (LG), Lousie Tomlinson (LT), Simon Cacioppo (SC), Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Myrna Loy (ML), Marcella Smith (MS), Elaine Singaram (ES)

Bedfordshire Police: PC Junaid Ashiq (JA), Supt Hobibul Hoque (HH)

Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office: Tarushi De Cruze (TDC)

Apologies

Lucia Scozzari

Introduction

PDE welcomed everyone to the meeting and everyone introduced themselves. He informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Actions

There were no actions from the previous meeting.

Policing Update

HH provided a presentation on Use of Force updates.

Q: MS asked what proportion of Use of Force incidents involved Black individuals compared to the overall number recorded.
A: HH explained that in the previous month, there were 771 Use of Force incidents recorded, of which 148 involved a Black individual.

SC noted that the statistics for Asian ethnicity stop and search ratios in Bedford and Luton are relatively low. SC suggested reviewing what Bedfordshire Police are doing differently in these areas compared to others with higher ratios, to identify any effective practices. The aim would be to see if these learnings could be applied to reduce disproportionality in other communities, such as the Black community.

Action: HH and JA to review current strategies and initiatives in Bedford and Luton that may contribute to lower disproportionality ratios and assess whether similar approaches could be implemented in other areas.

AV questioned the recorded death mentioned on the first slide. HH clarified that this was an administrative error and assured the panel that the force has had no recorded deaths following police contact.

Action: HH to verify and confirm that the recorded death was indeed an error, and TDC to circulate the confirmation to all panel members.

Q: AV asked how the ethnicity figures and ratios are calculated.
A: HH explained that the ratios are based on the geographical population data, which the force has obtained from the census data.

AK asked whether the panel could request videos of the top officer’s use of force for the next quarter. SC reassured AK that the panel has previously reviewed this officer and found no concerns regarding their use of force. SC explained that the high number of recorded use of force incidents is due to the officer accurately and consistently completing the required forms.

Q: PDE asked which unit the officer works in.
A: JA responded that the officer works in the Community Enforcement Team.

The chair agreed that this can be a focus for the next quarter to provide assurance to AK.

HH explained that it would be beneficial to review the outcomes of incidents where use of force was applied to juveniles.
Action: HH to gather and present these outcomes at the next meeting.

Q: SC asked if JA could investigate the subject with the highest number of use of force incidents, to determine whether these were 15 separate incidents or one incident involving multiple officers submitting forms.

Action: JA to review the 15 recorded use of force incidents involving this subject and clarify whether they represent separate events or a single event with multiple officer reports.

AV asked if the panel could do a deep dive into these incidences to reassure the panel, the public and the subject.

Action: Going forward, when presenting the top subject, include the circumstances and reasoning for force used.

MS asked if, going forward, the subject’s name could be redacted. HH agreed.

Q: The Chair asked what is meant by a Section 34 dispersal order.
A: HH explained that a dispersal order can be implemented to clear a specific area when there is significant antisocial behaviour, a violent incident, or public order offences taking place. It prevents people from returning to the area for a specified period of time and can be authorised by a duty inspector.

Video 1 – BP-03092025-0314

Forced Used: Handcuffing (Co-operative)

Date of incident: 03.09.2025

Officer’s length of service: 7-12 months

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Prevent self-harm,
• Protect other officers from violence
• Protect public from violence
• Protect subject from violence
• Protect self from violence

Grounds:

Informant is security from location. They have stated there is a male on site that is in a crisis, and he has locked himself in the toilet and threatened to stab himself or other people with a needle.

Scrutiny panel feedback

• BWV was activated early.
• Officers demonstrated compassion and understanding throughout the interaction.
• Panel members acknowledged the necessity of applying cuffs in the circumstances. When the subject mentioned discomfort, officers responded appropriately by adjusting the cuffs and offering advice to ease the situation.
• Communication was assertive yet realistic, with no false promises made.
• Panel members appreciated how multiple officers were present how they allowed one officer to take the lead and stand back but still there to help if needed.
• Security guard attempted to intervene, but officers-maintained control professionally.
• Officer did not show any heightened or escalated behaviour
• Officers remained calm and situationally aware at all times.
• Overall conduct was exemplary, reflecting best practice standards.

The panel would like to present this officer with an award in recognition of good policing.

Grading: Green 1

 

Video 2 - BP-19092025-0436

Forced Used: Dog Deployed

Date of incident: 19.09.2025

Officer’s length of service: More than 15 years

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Protect self from violence
• Protect others from violence
• Effect arrest

Grounds:

Single crewed female dog handler attended public park area to a report of a male with an offensive weapon (extendable baton). He was in a group of males and females, and all were intoxicated and became aggressive and disruptive.

Scrutiny panel feedback

The panel were divided in their views on this interaction. Some panel members found no concerns with the use of force, whilst others found the interaction extremely concerning. The grading ranged from G1 – R8, with R8 having the top number of votes.

• BWV was activated early.
• The officer provided a good intel summary while en route and gave clear instructions during the incident. The officer was assertive and issued multiple warnings. Some panel members felt the situation was difficult but handled well.
• After the dog interaction, communication and care were good, with clear instructions to other officers.
• Some panel members disagreed, stating the officer escalated the situation and that alternative force options (e.g., taser, PAVA) could have been used initially. In addition, threatening language such as “I will send the dog to bite you” was noted as escalating the situation. Some felt the dog’s use was disproportionate.
• There was debate over whether the dog should have been put away once backup arrived. Comments included concerns about lack of control over the dog; however, others argued the dog was trained to protect the officer.

Grading: RED 8

Q: AV asked what happens to police dogs following a dog bite. Do they have to be retrained?
Action: HH to confirm the process that follows a dog bite incident.

MS noted that, as a member who has received JPS training, she had no concerns regarding the incident and felt the female officer handled the situation appropriately. The officer issued several warnings, and since the dog is trained to bite, its response was consistent with its training.

 

Video 3 - 40AD/3938/25

Forced Used: Other/Improvised

Date of incident: 04.10.2025

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 years

Training: 7-12 months ago

Requirements:

• Protect self from violence
• Protect subject from violence
• Effect arrest

Grounds:

Upon arriving at custody, the subject has refused to leave the cell van and started giving verbal abuse to officers. Despite numerous attempts of verbal communications with the subject he has still refused to exit the cell van.

Scrutiny panel feedback

• BWV activation was slightly delayed.
• Officers demonstrated relative patience with the subject; however, the officers displayed a degree of attitude through the nature of their comments.
• An attempt was made to use Language Line, but it was abandoned after a few seconds. The panel considered it evident that the subject understood the officers and was being deliberately uncooperative.
• Multiple voices giving instructions simultaneously created confusion, with no clear leadership or structured plan, resulting in a disorganised approach.
• The confined space made it difficult for officers to deal with the situation.
• No immediate check was conducted to identify potential injuries.
• Lifting the subject from the floor by their arms while handcuffed could be perceived as painful and indicative of pain-induced control.
• Panel members noted no major concerns overall.

Although the incident was graded as Green 3, the panel noted that individual the grading ranged from Green 3 to Amber 6. This feedback is intended for the team, rather than directed at any specific officer.

Grading: Green 3

 

Video 4 - BP-31082025-0327

Forced Used: Handcuffing (Co-operative)

Date of incident: 31.08.2025

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 years

Training: 0-6 months ago

Requirements:

• Effect stop and search
• Prevent escape
• Protect self from violence
• Protect other officers from violence
• Secure evidence

Grounds:

Call to the police made by a member of the public who stated he could see a large group of males wearing black balaclavas, and one of the males had a knife. Most of the males were dark skinned.

Scrutiny panel feedback

• Officers demonstrated good policing throughout the interaction. The approach was polite, friendly, efficient, and courteous, reflecting good policing standards. Overall, the interaction was positive.
• BWV was activated promptly.
• The officer provided clear instructions and demonstrated good rationale.
• The engagement took place in the middle of the road; consideration could be given to relocating for improved safety.
• The Green 3 grading was applied due to panel members questioning whether the subject matched the description provided. Additionally, officer safety should be prioritised during searches by ensuring gloves are worn and by asking the subject beforehand if they have anything that could cause harm.

Grading: Green 3

OPCC Update

TDC presented the following presentation to the panel.

Q: MS asked if TDC could print some NDA forms to be signed at next week’s meeting.
Action: TDC to print NDA forms ready for the Stop and Search Main Meeting.

TDC requested that all members confirm whether they will be attending the Stop and Search Main Meeting next week or if they will be sending apologies.

The Chair informed the panel that the PCC’s office is expected to move to a mayoral office in a couple of years. TDC clarified that this has not yet been confirmed but will update the panel if further information becomes available.

The Chair also shared that he and the Vice Chair have been discussing potential concerns regarding the handover and the assurances the panel may require. He invited panel members to raise any questions or concerns with TDC and ensure the Chair is aware.

Q: MS asked if the panel will still exist.
A: The Chair responded that the expectation is for the panel to continue; however, the future oversight arrangements remain uncertain.

PDE thanked all members for attending and wished everyone a lovely Christmas.

Use of Force External Panel

Tuesday 17^th March 2026 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Attendees:

Stop and Search Panel members: Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Simon Cacioppo (SC), Myrna Loy (ML), Harley Scott (HS), Joshua Dargan-Haynes (JDH), Theo Remy (TR), Marcella Smith (MS), Elaine Singaram (ES), Amelie Denness (AD), Aidan Vaughn (AV), Nick Carey (NC)

Bedfordshire Police: Ch. Inspector Mike Chand (MC), PC Junaid Ashiq (JA)

Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office: Tarushi De Cruze (TDC), Sharn Basra (SB), Samantha Denness (SD)

Apologies

Lucia Scozzari, Maddie Whitley, Zaeem Majeed, Natsha Loftus, Liz Ginns, Will Steer, Ambrose Kwan, Bev Drummey, Lousie Tomlin, Ursula Smithson

Introduction

PDE welcomed everyone to the meeting, and everyone introduced themselves. He informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Input from Chief Executive

SB opened by thanking the panel for their ongoing work, noting how well the panel is performing and the recognition it continues to receive from the PCC, the force, the IOPC, and the APCC.

SB then updated the panel on the proposed abolition of PCCs, explaining that the current prediction is that a Police and Crime Board, made up of elected officials and two independent members, may be introduced to take on the PCC’s responsibilities.

He explained that the APCC and the Home Office have jointly commissioned work to gather evidence and understand the wider implications of the transition, including what the future structure may look like.

SB also informed the panel that Lord Hogan-Howe has commissioned a review into what a merger of police forces could look like, with the findings expected in July 2026.

SB reassured the panel that scrutiny panels will continue to be necessary, emphasising that independent oversight and objectivity will remain essential regardless of structural changes.

Q (SC): Asked for assurance that the office will take a proactive approach in managing the transition, and that the panel will be kept informed, updated, and considered throughout the process.
A (SB): Confirmed that scrutiny and governance will remain vital and required. He assured the panel that any updates or changes will be communicated through TDC.

Q (NC): Asked whether this period of change presents an opportunity to increase public awareness of the role and purpose of the PCC and the office.
A (SB): Explained that Bedfordshire has a population of approximately 700,000 residents, and noted that the PCC currently holds public “hold to account” meetings. As the process evolves, engagement will shift to better understand what the public want from future arrangements.

Actions

TDC went through the current actions:

Action 1:

To review current strategies and initiatives in Bedford and Luton that may contribute to lower disproportionality ratios and assess whether similar approaches could be implemented in other areas.

MC assured panel members that practices should be consistent across the county, and the force regularly identifies both good and poor practice across the system. He noted that a new BCH Q&A framework has been introduced, which he will present in more detail at the upcoming Data Panel meeting.

Action 2:

To verify and confirm whether the recorded death was an error, and for TDC to circulate confirmation to all panel members.

TDC confirmed that the information has been shared with panel members and that the recorded death was indeed a system error. Panel members requested reassurance regarding data validation processes prior to information being presented at panel meetings. Although the incident was due to human error, members highlighted that it should have been identified earlier. They noted that there should be a trigger mechanism for any death following police use of force.

Action 3:

To provide outcomes for incidents where use of force was applied to juveniles.

JA has now provided these outcomes to panel members.

Action 4:

For JA to review the 15 recorded use‑of‑force incidents involving the subject with the highest number of entries, and clarify whether they represent separate incidents or a single incident with multiple officer reports.

JA delivered a briefing on this and presented the findings to the panel.

Action 5:

To confirm the process that follows a dog‑bite incident.

MC outlined the process, explaining that when a dog bite occurs, the officer’s ticket is temporarily removed until the incident is reviewed. Panel members raised concerns that PSD did not appear to provide learning to the officer following the dog incident which the panel reviewed.

ACTION: TDC to arrange training with the Dog Unit so panel members can learn more about the process and ask questions.

Action 6:

To print NDA forms for the Stop and Search Main Meeting.

Completed.

Video 1 – 40CH/3535/25

Forced Used: Other/Improvised

Date of incident: 06.12.2025

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 years

Training: 2-5 years

Requirements:

• Protect other officers from violence
• Protect self from violence
• Effect arrest
• Prevent escape

 

Grounds:

It has been alleged that the DP has been turning up at the victim’s address, threating to turn up at her works address, he has been controlling her daily activities, who she speaks to and control of her money, which has been going over the last 2 years.

After the arrest of DP, he was handcuffed. When putting DP into the cell van, he stood on the ledge of the van and refused to get inside and his demeaner became aggressive. Reasonable force was used to get DP into the cell van whilst under arrest. I had hold of DP right arm and used reasonable force to push him into the cell.

Scrutiny panel feedback

(1) Panel members raised concerns about the level of force used to place the subject into the cell van. They felt the male officer appeared aggressive and that the situation could have been de‑escalated. The subject reported sustaining a head injury during this interaction, yet no welfare checks were carried out. Panel members acknowledged that this could have been a false claim, but agreed that it should still have been addressed.

(2) The female officer was initially rude, including slamming a door in the subject’s face. When the subject referenced the death of his father, the officer responded, “It’s not that deep, bruv,” which panel members regarded as inappropriate and insensitive.

(3) The female officer was observed wearing long acrylic nails, which posed a safety risk to both the subject and herself. This raised concerns around adherence to dress‑code standards.

(4) Inappropriate language was used by officers.

(5) The male officer did not have his BWV activated and excessive force with DP hitting head.

No aftercare to ensure no serious injury

(6) Panel members felt that, despite her initial behaviour, the female officer made attempts to de‑escalate the situation as the interaction progressed.

Grading for female officer – Amber 4

Grading for male officer – Red 7 (Grading spread ranged from G3 to R9)

Video 2 - BP-09122025-0017

Forced Used: Handcuffing (Non Co-operative), Ground Restraint, Limb/Body Restraint

Date of incident: 09.12.2025

Officer’s length of service: More than 15 years

Training: 7-12 months

Requirements:

• Protect self from violence

Grounds:

Male found unconscious in the street with a serious head injury. First aid given and ambulance called. Prior to arrival of ambulance male woke up and was very confused, unable to speak, had no capacity and tried to run off. Very unsteady on his feet and tried to fight with officers. Repeatedly falling over. Ambulance arrived and male continued to be aggressive. Male tripped and was restrained, handcuffed to the rear and ambulance crew came to attend. Male had repeated seizures, cuffs moved to the front, and was conveyed to A&E in handcuffs which remained on until sedated at A&E.

Scrutiny panel feedback

(1) Panel members felt that the officers handled the situation well given the circumstances. Officers appeared compassionate and demonstrated appropriate care. Their communication with the subject was clear, and they identified themselves appropriately.

(2) Some panel members felt that the officer could have attempted basic first‑aid checks, such as placing the subject in the recovery position or checking his airway. Additionally, when speaking to the ambulance service, the officer stated that there were no other injuries, although he did not appear to have checked this beforehand.

(3) Panel members understood the rationale for using handcuffs and generally felt the action was proportionate. However, some felt that the handcuffs were left on for too long or could have been positioned at the front to support the subject’s breathing. A few panel members thought the cuffs could have been removed when the subject was seizing, while others felt it was appropriate to keep them on until medical advice was received from professionals.

Grading: Green 3

Video 3 - BP-15122025-0188

Forced Used: Handcuffing (Co-operative)

Date of incident: 15.12.2025

Officer’s length of service: 2-5 years

Training: 0-6 months

Requirements:

• Effect stop and search

Grounds:

Front Stack

(An ABH has occurred to unknown person by unknown suspects. A fight has taken place between two groups of unknown people. The fight has happened for unknown reason. The sixth form itself has temp excluded a few people who were linked to the fight but weren't the ones who was actively involved the fight.)

Scrutiny panel feedback

(1) Panel members felt that the grounds provided were not sufficient and required greater detail.

(2) The officer was friendly throughout the interaction and demonstrated good intelligence‑gathering skills. Overall, panel members viewed the interaction positively.

(3) Cuffs were applied immediately. Panel members understood the rationale, and the officer explained their use clearly. However, the officer stated, “I’m not worried about you,” yet continued to keep the subject handcuffed. The cuffs remained on for 11 minutes, and panel members felt the officer repeatedly found reasons to prolong their use; for example, keeping the cuffs on during the search, then until other individuals were searched, and then until the subject was run through the system.

(4) Panel members raised concerns about the terminology used when providing grounds to the subject. Referring to them as an “IC3 male” should be explained appropriately to ensure understanding.

Panel members requested that this case be referred to the Stop and Search Panel for grading.

Grading: Green 3

Video 4 - BP-16122025-0021 & BP-16122025-0021

Forced Used: Limb/body restraint, Other improvised / Handcuffing (Non Co-operative), Unarmed Skills

Date of incident: 16.12.2025

Officer’s length of service: 6-10 years

Training: 7-12 months

Requirements:

• Effect arrest,
• Prevent escape,
• Protect other officers from violence,
• Protect self from violence

Grounds:

Female has been arrested. Several chances provided to the female to co-operate with police and handcuff compliantly. Female became actively resistant and then aggressively resistant after striking an officer to the face.

DP had earlier that morning been involved in an attempt GBH where she has allegedly driven her motor vehicle at a member of the public. Officers have attended her HA to conduct enquiries, and she has become hostile towards police presence and upon arrest aggressively resistant by striking an officer.

Scrutiny panel feedback

(1) Panel members were very concerned about the lack of care shown regarding the daughter, whose wellbeing the subject repeatedly raised. Panel members felt it was important that officers checked on the daughter as part of their duty of care.

(2) Officers used inappropriate and unprofessional language. Panel members felt the officer’s behaviour was confrontational from the outset and contributed to escalating the situation. The officer’s tone was aggressive at times, and escalatory comments were made, including remarks about the condition of the subject’s home.

(3) Panel members felt that officers could have applied handcuffs sooner, which may have helped prevent the situation from escalating.

(4) Panel members also noted that officers did give the subject opportunities to comply calmly.

(5) Panel members raised concerns about the consideration given to the subject’s dignity, particularly as her trousers were down during part of the interaction.

(6) Panel members questioned the proportionality of the force used.

Grading: Red 8

OPCC Update

Due to time constraints, TDC was unable to deliver the OPCC presentation. This will instead be emailed to all panel members.

PDE thanked all panel members, the force, and the OPCC for attending.

Stop and Search External Panel

Thursday 15th August 2024 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Agenda

Welcome and Introduction of Tarushi De Cruze (new compliance Officer OPCC)

Attendees:

Phil Dickson-Earle PDE
Simon C SC
Kim Taylor KT
Hayley Scott HS
Elaine Singaram ES
Lizzie Ginns LG
Bev Drummond BD
Myrna Loy ML
Samantha Denness SD
Tarushi De Cruze TDC

Force:

Supt Ian Taylor IT
PC Ommar Khan OK

Apologies:

Salateen M
James Tuner
Mary Perry
Lauren Cox
Zion A

Actions Update

One BWV requested was unavailable – notes for Officer feedback.

Force Update

IT updated that within the last three months there have been 330 serious youth violence incidences across the county. 42% of those (138 in total) occurred in Luton, 29%  (95 in total) in central, 29% (96 in total) in Bedford. This is a slight reduction from the previous quarter where the force had 340 offences.

May 2024:

1 Murder Bedford

1 Attempt Murder in Luton

June 2024:

1 Firearms discharge with sustained gunshot wounds Central Beds

1 Violent knife incident Central Beds

1 Firearms discharge in Luton

July 2024:

1 Violent disorder in Luton

1 Firearms discharge in Luton

1 Stabbing Bedford

1 Violent disorder Central Beds

August 2024 (Halfway thorough):

1 Stabbing Bedford

1 Firearm discharged Bedford

1 Stabbing Bedford

1 Attempt murder in Bedford

1 Attempt Murderer Luton

1 Violent disorder Bedford

1 Violent disorder Luton

The operating environment that the force has faced over the last three months has meant there have been a number of dedicated operations ongoing within Bedfordshire to try and tackle it.  As part of our tactics to tackle elevated levels of violence there is targeted activity particularly those individuals that are perpetuating violence.

So, stop and search across the last three months has seen a 39% positive outcome (up from 24%) and an 18% arrest rate. So hopefully demonstrating that the force is targeting the right people and effectively working towards reducing levels of violence.

Disproportionality:

1. Self-defined

• Black 4
• Asian 1.5
• Mixed 1.1

Note: 0ver 20% not recorded so data is not qualitative.

2. Office-defined

• Black 3.2
• Asian 1.5

Increased gang tensions in Luton are from gangs that membership is primarily young black males.

The force is doing quite a lot of targeted activity with those gangs to reduce the harm that they're causing to each other.

BW video 1:  SS/3388256999/14 GREEN 3

Feedback:

1. S1 was carried out in a private space and therefore was illegal - wrong power was used
2. Search was quick as English was not first language.
3. BWV was on and clear
4. Male officer super quick in explanation of the grounds could have slowed down and made sure that detainees understood.
5. The actual search was conducted well

   Graded Green 3 prior to knowledge of search being non-compliant with PACE.

BW video 2:  SS/0303879519/2 RED 7

Feedback:

1. 1. Must have been very close to see red eyes in report
   2. Handcuffs remained on even though nothing was found.
   3. Officer held onto ID which is not acceptable
   4. Why do officers think that young people cannot be out if they are under 18?
   5. Understand that cuffs used as S.23 search but on too long.
   6. Felt a bit chaotic as people talked over each other
   7. Told to clear away even though it’s by a bus stop in a public place - does not help build relationships.

BW Video 3:  SS/4243201763/5 GREEN 3

Feedback:

1. Hard to hear and BWV under jacket
2. Communication was good though and effective to build a rapport
3. Grounds met but GOWISELY covered in bits
4. Officers radio can be heard with personal information so that DP can hear - GDPR issue

BW Video 4:  SS/0709821006/7 GREEN 2

Feedback:

1. Jacket was covering the BWV to begin with and late turning it on - normally Firearms put it on prior to engagement
2. Officers manner was good, GOWISELY completely
3. Intel "load rubbish who would send us this information to piss you off" Are the public affecting disproportionality issues (response provided further in the minutes).
4. Hear radio transmission which means there could be a GDPR breach.
5. Care over detained person, personal effects which was well done

AOB & Date of next main meeting to be advised.

Panel asked: How is intelligence graded and how do officers apply it.

IT Responded: Ultimately, there are two sort of tests that need to be applied and that is whether the intelligence is recent and whether its relevant. So, this means intelligence from 50 years ago would not be acceptable to apply now and relevance would be the source (so how do we know that and where has it come from).  

Action: SD to follow up with IT on getting the current procedure and gradings for intelligence. Report back to panel at next main meeting or training day.

PDE asked IT regarding the number of reports made by the public to the police that lead to disproportionate Stop Searches in the black community.

Commissioned academic study looking into public bias to understand disproportionality in Bedfordshire. There are two professors, one from the University of Leeds and one from a

London-based university. They will be looking at date from the past two years which is some 9000 Stop Searches.

From 1^st May to 31^st July 45% of searches were initiated due to public information. There are four areas that officers can record how the stop search was initiated. The statistics below indicate the differences between those from black ethnicity to those from a white ethnicity.

Stop Searches Black ethnic background:

• 32 Incident related
• 13% public informed
• 18% Intel led
• 37 % Officer led

 

Stop Searches White ethnic background:

• 38% Incident
• 10% public
• 16% Intel
• 37% Officer led

So, the breakdown is not vastly different between those of black and white ethnicity. However, when you compare these using areas the number of public reports leading to a stop show:

Luton

• 43% Black
• 42% White

Central Beds

• 61% Black
• 52% White

This will be picked up in the academic study and hopefully a reason for this disparity. The study is due to complete early 2025.

Action: IT to bring the study to the panel

Stop and Search External Panel

Thursday 05th December 2024 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Agenda

Attendees:

Simon Cacioppo (SC), Bev Drummond (BD), Harley Scott (HS), Madeleine Whitley (MD), Ursula Smithson (US), Marcella Smith (MS).

Hampshire OPCC:

Pathak, Ranjeev (RP) – Observer

Bedfordshire Police:

PC Ommar Khan (OK), Supt Ian Taylor (IT)

Bedfordshire OPCC:

Katie Beaumont (KB)

Introduction

SC opened the meeting and informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.
RP introduced himself and stated that he will be observing the meeting in order to gain extra knowledge on how scrutiny panels work.

Apologies:

Samantha Denness (SD)
Tarushi De Cruze (TDC)
Tom Steyn (TS)
Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE)
Peju Akintomide (PA)
Marcella Smith (MS)
Lizzie Ginns (LG)
Elaine Singaram (ES)
Mary Perry (MP)
Theophila Remy (TR)
Natasha Loftus (NL)

Actions and minutes from previous meeting

Minutes were approved and no adjustments to be made.

Action 1 – TDC previously tried to arrange this for the panel, however due to paternity leave had to cancel the training. TDC to follow up with intelligence officer and book training for the new year.
IT also provided the panel with a brief presentation on intelligence grading.

Action 2 - IT explained there is a slight delay on the study looking into public bias. The study will now be commencing in January and conclude in April next year. IT stated that once completed, results can be shared with the panel.

OPCC Updates

The OPCC provided a presentation on the panel updates

SC was confused when observing the number of videos seen, as he thought the amount of stop and search videos seen should be more than 8. KB to check with TDC on the confirmed amount. SC suggested if any of the panel has any questions which KB is unable to answer, can SD or TDC circulate these by email to the committee.

Video 1 SS/2030750132/1

Date of incident: 20/10/2024
Initiation reason: Intelligence Led
Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Grounds:

Subject was part of a group which included individuals linked to the supply of class A drugs. Individuals from within this group have been seen by officers entering a property linked to the local drug line. Within the past 5 days another individual associated with the group was stop searched and located with a large amount of drugs on their person.

Feedback:

1. Subject was compliant, and officer was calm, collective and polite. Officer tried to keep the subject calm and attempted to build a rapport with him which was professional.
2. GOWISELYE was partially mentioned. Copy of the search was stated, however, members could not hear if station was said.
3. Inappropriate language used.
4. The length of time cuffs were on the subject was appropriate; however, whether the cuffs were completely necessary was questionable.
5. Some panel members understood the reasoning for cuffing and stated the officer has every right to apply the handcuffs; however, the panel members did not understand why cuffs were used straight away without any meaningful engagement or communication. Furthermore, no explanation was given to the subject or in the stop and search record as to why the cuffs were used.
6. BWV switched on early and on time which was positive to see.
RP added the disproportionality in cuffing is also seen in Hampshire, specifically in relation to disproportionality in ethnic minorities including young black males. As the grounds do not mention violence and the detained person did not resist or seek to run away, RP challenged why the subject was cuffed. In addition, RP mentioned he also notices that many young people, in Hampshire too, do not take up the opportunity to receive a copy of the search and as a result miss out on that opportunity. RP believes this is due to a lack of trust and confidence between young ethnic minorities and the police.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: Green 2

Video 2 SS/1941816027/27

Date of incident: 14/10/2024
Initiation reason: Officer Self-initiated
Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Grounds:

Subject was the driver of the vehicle; another male had been seen to enter the car with a large rucksack. When officers drove towards the car, it had driven away. Officers later see the car again, as if it had just done a short round trip nearby. When officers got behind the vehicle it seemed to be trying to get out of sight, until they turned and parked into a cul-de-sac. Previous intelligence links the vehicle to drug dealing.

Feedback:

1. Cuffs were on for 25 minutes; panel members found this a little excessive and unnecessary. Officer was waiting for another unit to arrive and details to be confirmed over the radio before cuffs were taken off.
2. GOWISELYE was completed. However, when asking if the subject wanted a copy of the search, officer sounded a little negative and not encouraging.
3. BWV switched on early and on time which was positive to see.
4. Panel found the grounds (a man with a rucksack entering a car) unreasonable.
HS asked if you were to stop a vehicle for a stop and search, does that mean the officer has the right to obtain the drivers details? SC clarified officers are able to obtain a person’s details as they would have to check if the vehicle is insured by them. If the subject refuses to provide their detail, there may be further consequences.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: AMBER 6

Video 3 - SS/2555782069/2

Date of incident: 20/10/2024
Initiation reason: Incident related
Legal Power: S.60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Grounds:

Section 60 – due to two separate reports of stabbings in the area. Subject matched the description of the suspect. When officers called the subject over, he acted suspiciously. Subject immediately started to walk faster as if they were about to break into a jog. There was also a strong aroma of cannabis coming from DP.

Feedback:

1. Officers provided an explanation for the reason for the search.
2. Officer is heard saying to suspect ‘if we take you into custody, you might get hurt’ which was concerning to panel members and unacceptable. Officer used threatening language and threatened the subject which was not appropriate.
3. BWV switched on late.
4. Panel felt as if the officer’s behaviour was belittling and passive aggressive towards subject as he said comments like ‘bro, speak properly’. It was as if the officer was trying to trigger the subject and escalate the situation.
5. Some panel members felt as though the officer was trying to find reasons to use force.
6. Subject kept shouting ‘you kicked me in the head’, this was not acknowledged by officers and officers did not engage it.
7. Situation escalates as soon as the cuffs go on.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: RED 8

Panel members wanted to make it clear, the grading was based on the threatening language used by officer.

Video 4 – SS/1741283766/3

Date of incident: 20/10/2024
Initiation reason: Incident related
Legal Power: S.60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Grounds:

Section 60 – due to two separate reports of stabbings in the area. Subject matched the description of the suspect. When the subject was seen by officers, he quickly left the scene by walking away.

Feedback:

1. Officers provided an explanation for the reason for the search.
2. Panel members found it positive that the officer thanked the subject for the search.
3. When first putting the cuffs on, officer was quite aggressive, seeing as it looked like the subject was not resisting or violent.
4. A lot of inappropriate language used by the officer.
5. Camera was switched on early which was positive.
6. Officer was seen to be passive aggressive and belittling in his tone of voice.
7. The time taken to search the male took around a minute, which was not a thorough search.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: AMBER 6

US wanted to clarify that an explanation was given to the subjects, as some panel members were under the impression the only explanation given was that it was a section 60. Other panel members agreed. Some panel members still did not believe that was a sufficient explanation to young people.

HS wanted to feedback to the force that it is crucial to provide young people with more information with the hopes of building a rapport and to avoid giving the wrong perception. SC thought that was a valid comment and agreed information should not be limited as it is crucial for people to understand why they are being searched.

Action: To arrange a meeting with chair, vice chairs and Sam to discuss the possibility of having a slightly amended RAG purely for Section 60.

SC asked IT for clarification on whether it is best practise for GOWISELEYE to be used by officers during a S60. IT explained there is no national guidance. When a section 60 is placed, it allows officers to search anyone within the geographical area without the need of reasonable grounds. However, it would be unethical to just search everyone, and in ITs view, he believes officers should still be able to justify their search.

SC followed up by asking if officers are aware they are still expected to use GOWISELEY during a section 60? IT responded that not every officer may be aware of this as it is still an ongoing communication and training to officers.

Video 5

Video 5 was not seen by the panel members.

Policing Update

IT presented a presentation on Intelligence grading.

SC questioned at what point does intelligence become irrelevant. IT clarified all intelligence is assessed for its recency, however there is no national guidance around the recency of intelligence. IT explained officers are informed to not rely on intelligence alone depending on its recency. For example, if there was intelligence on a subject that was a month old and they were searched everyday based upon that intelligence, it is no longer reasonable nor proportionate for that intelligence to be utilised as the sole catalyst for a search. IT added, unfortunately there are no rules and therefore, no definitive answer.

SC explained the reason as to why the panel is interested in intelligence is due to intelligence led being the main explanation provided on the disproportionality of stops.

IT stated within the last three months, in terms of officer defined ethnicity, white individuals are stopped:
44% of the time due to initiation of officers
27% of the time due to incident related
22% of the time due to Intelligence led
8% of the time due to a member of the public informing the officer on what they witness

Asian individuals are stopped:
52% of the time due to initiation of officers
23% of the time due to incident related
22% of the time due to Intelligence led
3.65% of the time due to a member of the public informing the officer on what they witness.

Black individuals are stopped:
44% of the time due to initiation of officers
28% of the time due to incident related
19% of the time due to Intelligence led
10% of the time due to a member of the public informing the officer on what they witness

IT provided the panel with a couple of policing updates. Firstly, a slight variation to the GOWISELYE, as officers are now instructed to follow GOWISELYER. Panel members will not be able to see much difference as the extra E stands for Explain and the R stands for respect. IT explained the E was based on an internal audit which revealed many officers complete GOWISELY quite robustly. The E is now put in place to humanise stop and search and to ensure the subject understands it properly. The R is for Respect, guaranteeing people are treated with fairness and communicated in the correct way.

Secondly, the other element the force is delivering is training officers to switch their BWV on early. The force is asking officers to swich their body worn camera on at the earliest opportunity, for example as soon as they arrive in the area. In addition to provide a bit of commentary about what is occurring to provide context.

IT went on to discuss the HMIC Peel Inspection, which is currently an embargoed report, however IT believes it will be made public early in the new year. IT explained Stop and Search is in a good place. However, he will share with the panel the grading once it has been made public.

ACTION: IT to share with the panel the results following the HMIC Peel Inspection.

Lastly, IT also announced Bedfordshire has been classed 10th out of 43 forces nationally in terms of finding an object when searching.

IT presented the data for the last three months, from the 1st of September to the 30th of November. In total 1013 searches were conducted within that period, which is a 6% reduction from the same period in 2023. 38% of those searches were positive, which is a 2% increase from the same period in 2023; and there was a 19% arrest rate which is a 5% increase from the same period last year.

273 drugs were seized and 36 weapons.

Operation Broadway is currently running in Luton, specifically the Marsh Farm area due to the rising tensions between gangs. Operation Highgate which is operating within Bedford is also targeting gangs. Both operations have reported back that the demographic of the gangs they have encountered are largely from a black ethnic background. This could explain the disproportionality within young black males.

Operation Mensa is operating within Luton, targeting gangs also specifically in the north and west of Luton. In addition, operation Octan which is in central Luton.

Both these operations have been the main drivers of stop and search.
The force has seen a near 7% reduction in serious violence across this period compared to the same period in the previous year. This equates to 98 fewer crimes than the previous year. IT stated that across all three CPS areas (Central Bedfordshire, Bedford and Luton) Central Bedfordshire had the greatest decrease of nearly 15%, Luton had the lowest decrease of 2%.

In relation to knife crime, there was a 13.5% reduction compared to last year which equates to 20 fewer offences. The solve rate increased from 10% to 18.8%. Bedford was the only area to see a slight increase in knife crime. Central Bedfordshire again showed the largest decrease of 31%.

In relation to firearms offending, IT stated that there were slightly more offences than last year, with majority in the Luton area.

IT explained there were 4 homicides relating to knife crime and firearms across this period. One relating to the triple murder in Luton, and then one other murder in Bedford.

Any Community Issues

None

AOB

SC thanked all panel members, force and OPCC for attending.

Stop and Search External Panel

Thursday 03rd April 2025 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Agenda

Attendees:

Simon Cacioppo (SC)
Bev Drummond (BD)
Madeleine Whitley (MD)
Ursula Smithson (US)
Marcella Smith (MS)
Arto Armagan (AA)
Elaine Singaram (ES)
Lizzie Ginns (LG)
Mary Perry (MP)
Natasha Loftus (NL)
Salateenm Masih (SM)
Louise Tomlin (LT)
Arti Patel (AP)
Mia Wilson (MW)

Bedfordshire Police:

PC Ommar Khan (OK)
Supt Ian Taylor (IT)

Bedfordshire OPCC:

Katie Beaumont (KB)
Tarushi De Cruze (TDC)

Introduction

SC opened the meeting and informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Apologies:

Samantha Denness (SD)
Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE)
Theophila Remy (TR)
Adian Vaughan (AV)

Actions and minutes from previous meeting

Minutes were approved and no adjustments to be made.

Action 1 – Completed as training was provided to the panel

Action 2 – TDC explained there is a slight delay in the S60 RAG. TDC has drafted a copy of the RAG and feedback has been provided by the chairs. At the next sub panel meeting the panel will go through the RAG and provide feedback before being finalised.

Action 3 – Completed. IT updated the panel within the meeting.

NL asked if there is a more recent SS RAG.

ACTION: SC requested if TDC could send an email following the finalisation of the S60 RAG with all the recent RAGs to the panel.

OPCC Updates

TDC presented a presentation to the panel.

MS found the feedback provided by the officer interesting. She commented that in a previous meeting some panel members did not hear GOWISELY stated and upon rewatching the video, it was stated. She therefore suggested the panel need to be more mindful going forward as she does not want this to affect the panels credibility. OK agreed and stated that going forward if there is any uncertainty between panel members, he is happy to replay the video.

SC agreed. He mentioned it is also important to close the loop from the panel’s perspective too. If the panel has missed anything, it is essential that they learn from that also. SC explained the panel should rewatch the video to clarify if they have missed out on this, and if they must go back to the officer to apologise, they can do.

ES added in relation to the panels feedback to the officer, there are a lot of positive comments which the panel wanted to relay to the officer. Therefore, it was a pity that the officer was not able to receive that positive feedback.

SC added that it is also important to remember that it is the public's point of view,

so even if the Sargent believes it was stated clearly. Its whether or not a member of the public would be able to understand what the officer is saying.

SC mentioned in the AOB he will discuss with IT the process and protocols of providing officer feedback. If a supervisor does not feel like providing feedback to an officer, protocols must be put in place.

OK mentioned that when looking at Power BI data he is finding that no section 60s is showing up. OK asked TDC if this is an issue with Power BI or is it officers not inputting this correctly into the system? TDC believes it is due to the officers not clicking on the correct reason. SC and OK will raise this with IT in the AOB.

AP asked what the black population is in the CPS areas to compare the disproportionality rates. TDC stated that she doesn’t have this information currently. SC stated that the data is available, as it was shown at the UoF main panel. 

Video 1    SS/0740010898/8

Date of incident: 20/01/2025

Initiation reason: Incident Related

Legal Power: S.1 PACE 1984

Grounds:

Female was found walking through the town centre heavily intoxicated. PCSO’s were flagged down by support workers due to the females physical and mental state. Female had been detained under S136 the day before and been found in possession of a knife. Staff also stated that the female had been in possession of broken glass the day before.

Feedback:

1. GOWISELY was clear and was done in the best endeavours within that situation.
2. The search was conducted thoroughly with sensitivity and a duty of care.
3. At first it looked as if there were too many officers but with a knife involved it was understandable.
4. Difficult situation but dealt with well.
5. Officers were criticizing the NHS support services. The panel understand that this is frustrating, however panel members did not think this was appropriate in front of the public.
6. BWV switched on late.
7. Male officers’ manner was a bit sarcastic and unnecessary, which didn’t represent the right level of care.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: Green 2

MS wanted to clarify what the protocol is if panel members knew the officer who BWV they are viewing. SC stated that members of the panel are going to know officers from previous videos, therefore his understanding is that there is only a conflict if you know the member of the public. KB agreed and clarified if panel members know a member of the public then they should excuse themselves from the meeting. TDC mentioned that the only concern is biases within the grading, therefore if panel members know the officer on a personal level, they are allowed to watch the video, however they should refrain from grading.

ACTION: TDC to add to the TOR the protocol when members of the panel know the officer.

There were some discussions and disagreements between panel members on whether GOWISELY should be stated to an individual who is intoxicated/unconscious. Panel members agreed to discuss this with IT later in the meeting.

Video 2   SS/0470339712/1

Date of incident: 29/01/2025

Initiation reason: Intelligence Led

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Grounds:

Intelligence showed that the subject vehicle was involved in the supply of drugs. Vehicle also has information to suggest that a knuckle duster may be present within the vehicle. Based on the information available to officers at the time, and the fact that the DP was recently arrested for a PWITS class A offence, the vehicle and its occupants were all detained under S23 of the Misuse of Drugs act to search for drugs.

Feedback:

1. Panel members thought the search was conducted well. Officer maintained calm and well mannered. Detained individuals were calm and compliant.
2. GOWISELY was stated clearly and officer explained this again to other members within the vehicle – which the panel members appreciated.
3. BWV switched on late so panel members were not able to see the stop.
4. Panel members thought the officer was a little sarcastic when it came to the seatbelt issue. Panel members also felt the officer’s manner was a little patronising, for example saying ‘was that hesitation’ when the subject answered his question.
5. The panel members thought it was a little risky letting the subject back in the vehicle to clarify the seatbelt issue.
6. The panel members did question why the officer stopped the car to begin with.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: Green 3

MW asked if it still classified as a standard search if the officer untucked the subjects top to search the waistband and if some of the subject skin was on show briefly. IT stated that a standard search allows an officer to ask the subject to remove their outer coat and gloves. It certainly does not include the exposure of intimate body parts. In regard to lifting a shirt, the search will need to be effective; IT’s interpretation would be that it still classifies as a standard search as the subject has not removed the shirt.

SC asked IT for clarification on the previous discussion on whether GOWISELY should be stated if the subject is intoxicated/unconscious. IT stated that his expectation would be that officers should still verbalise their grounds on BWV as this provides an audible and transparent record of the search. However, it is accepted that a person incapable of understanding due to intoxication would not be able to understand this. The officer should also raise safeguarding considerations in these circumstances.

Video 3 – SS/0778289990/2

Date of incident: 24/02/2025

Initiation reason: Officer Self-Initiated

Legal Power: S.1 PACE 1984

Grounds:

When officers approached the vehicle, the subject has approached the car and identified the vehicle as being his, he was engaged initially due to his parking and the location. Subject has opened the vehicle door, and a smell of cannabis has come from the vehicle which has prompted the officer to look inside the vehicle. Officer has seen a knife in the centre console of the vehicle, subject was then detained for a search.

Feedback:

1. Officers were respectful and had a good tone.
2. Panel members thought officers explained themselves well and provided reasons behind the use of handcuffs. Officer mentioned what he was doing whilst he was searching.
3. Officer was searching through the subject’s wallet. Panel members questioned why this was necessary, if searching for a blade?Subject made comments about feeling violated, panel members thought the officers dealt with the situation well and explained themselves clearly.
4. One panel member felt like the supervising officer was a little passive aggressive and did not have much empathy.

GRADING:

Main Panel Grading: Green 2

Policing Update

IT explained GOWISELY has been recently introduced, with the E representing explain and the R representing respect. The force has picked up that officers are going through GOWISELY quickly therefore these elements have been introduced to humanise the delivery of GOWISELY, ensuring this is understood by the person searched. The R ensures the person is treated with respect and courtesy in accordance with the broader circumstances.

IT moved on to addressing the HMIC Peel Inspection. He explained they inspect every police service across England and Wales and undertake a peel assessment. One of the areas that are assessed is the use of police powers and treating the public with fairness and respect. IT explained the force was graded adequate for this. The reason the force was not rated higher was due to use of force. There are some recommendations of areas of improvement in relation to use of force. HMIC did not feel like there were sufficient internal scrutiny around use of force and a lack of understanding of disproportionality.

Use of Force has now been given to IT to be the strategic lead and Mike Chand will remain the tactical lead. IT explained there is now an improvement plan put in place for this.

IT mentioned the HMIC assessment of stop and search was positive. They reviewed 101 stop and searches, and they were content with 93%. The force has an effective performance framework and were content with the independent scrutiny provided by the panel.

HMIC also identified that the force has promising practise on a national scale which they would like the force to share. This is the internal mechanism the force holds which reviews stop and searches in relation to children and assessing whether safeguarding has been catered for. It also looks at whether the force has followed up with the child at risk or vulnerable adult to ensure the police and multi-agency partners to consider ongoing safeguarding. 

KB shared the link to the PEEL inspection as they are publicly accessible documents.

AP asked if a student were to be stopped by the police, how does this get passed on to the school and how quickly? IT explained that this would not be passed on to the school every time, it would be dependent on the context. If officers have concerns in relation to gangs or criminal exploitation, then a safeguarding referral will definitely be implemented. This process would take a few days after the search has occurred. AP requested if this could be escalated faster to schools. IT stated that he will speak with the public protection team and ask them about their information sharing protocols.

ES asked if the force was disappointed about the grading they received, and whether it was anticipated. IT stated that he was disappointed with the overall grade, as the force is doing lots of good work in relation to Police powers. However, he stated that the areas for improvement identified by HMICFRS in relation to use of force are fair, with the force working to address these.

ES asked who is the HMIC made up of? IT explained the head of HMICFRS is a retired chief constable and inspectors who are employed by HMICFRS.

SC asked IT if there were any policing updates he wanted to update the panel on.

IT mentioned that there were 2 S60’s implemented over the weekend. This was a result from two serious violence incidents within the Marsh Farm/Lewsey area of Luton. Two people were physically search under the authority. Therefore, this will be passed on to the panel for their review.

IT also mentioned that the S60 was advertised and promoted to the community as part of the process. IT was surprised that a vast majority of public comments on social media were supportive of the use of S60, with comments such as “these should be in place more frequently”.

Regarding stop and searches over the last quarter, the positive outcome ratio is at 38%, earlier in the year it was at 45% which is positive. The national average is around 31%.

In regard to disproportionality, it is 3.8 times more likely for a black individual to be stopped and 1.9 times more likely for an asian individual. IT explained the force has a lower disproportionality rate than the national average, but work is still ongoing to improve this further.

IT clarified that the force has a number of ongoing operations that have contributed to stop and search use.

MW asked what IT means by positive outcomes from stop and search. IT explained a positive outcome could be an arrest, summoning someone to appear in court, issuing them with a caution or a community resolution and more.

Any Community Issues

IT mentioned that there was a community trigger where a member of the public approached IT. IT thanked the panel for providing their deliberation on this situation. The member will attend June's main meting to share their views and personal experience. 

AOB

SC wanted to discuss with IT the current process put in place when sergeants refuse to provide feedback to officers. IT stated in his view it is not acceptable for a supervisor to not accept the feedback given from the panel. IT has spoken to TS (the tactical lead for SS) who agrees with IT’s views on this situation. The officer in question sits under TS’s command, and therefore he will be directly speaking to that officer. IT explained that unless the panel has got the feedback entirely wrong, supervisors should not be politely declining the feedback as it defeats the point of the panel.

IT stated that the panel will not be receiving responses to green grades and will only receive feedback on red or amber gradings due to the force trying to reduce the workload on supervisors.

SC agreed and suggested if they find that the panel has got the feedback wrong, TS can come back to the panel and let them know. Which in turn creates learning for them too.

IT clarified that OK would issue the feedback from the panel and there is a Microsoft link which the supervisor should complete. IT stated there are some gaps in which this is not always completed, however IT will be sending out comms to state what is expected from them.

OK provided another question the panel had on the S60 in regard to officers not inputting the correct details on the form correctly. IT stated that he will pick this up with inspectors during briefing.

AP asked if officers look at their footage as part of their training to find ways in which they can improve? IT responded that officers themselves will not, however the force has a comprehensive regime where supervisors review BWVs as well as the community panel and the internal governance board. The officers are then shown this feedback and BWV to highlight areas of improvement.

SC thanked all panel members, force and OPCC for attending the meeting.

Stop and Search External Panel

Thursday 24th June 2025 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Agenda

Attendees:

Stop and Search panel members: Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Kim Taylor (KT), Simon Cacioppo (SC), Maddie Whitley (MW), Arto Armagan (AA), Theophila Remy (TR), Louise Tomlin (LT), Ursula Smithson (US), Hayley Brown (HB), Natasha Loftus (NL), Lucia Scozzari (LS), Peju Akintomide (PA), Adian Vaughan (AV), Lizzie Ginns (LG), Marcella Smith (MS).

Bedfordshire Police: DCI Tom Stean (TS), PC Ommer Khan (OK)

Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office: John Tizard (PCC JT), Tarushi De Cruze (TDC), Samantha Denness (SD)

Apologies

Ian Taylor (IT)
Mary Perry (MP)
Elaine Singaram (ES)
Myrna Loy (ML)
Bev Drummey (BD)

Introduction

PDE welcomed everyone to the meeting and informed the panel of the agenda for the meeting.

Actions

TDC went through the actions and discussed any updates with panel members.

Action 1: Completed and shared with panel members. TDC explained there may be some further changes, however she will keep the panel updated.

Action 2: Completed.

PCC John Tizard Introduction

The PCC started by saying thank you to the panel members.

The PCC discussed the aim to build trust and confidence in policing. He mentioned the PCC office will be sending out polls to get a better understanding of where the public would like to see policing priorities.

The PCC spoke about disproportionality, which is a current concern within Bedfordshire, as this leads to further distrust of police. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how the public feel and to have the panel provide an oversight.

He explained his aims are to strengthen the work of the panel and grow the number of members within the panel to ensure that it is representative of those who may be more affected by stop and search powers.

In the summer, as part for the new Summer Safter Streets Initiative, the force will start facial recognition. He mentioned the possibility of having the panels views on how we can establish a panel to provide scrutiny and feedback for this.

Policing Update

TS presented the stop and search data to the panel.

Q: MS asked why the data showed one individual between the ages 0-5 had been stopped and searched?
A: TS stated that this was an error in the data and officers did not stop and search anyone under 5.

Q: MS questioned the Bedford borough statistics for stop and searching black individuals. She asked how many black individuals were stopped in relation to gangs.
A: TS responded that there is currently a piece of work on going regarding stop and searching gangs in the area. This work should be complete on the 21^st July and should be able to provide him with data on a month-by-month basis. He mentioned

ACTON: TS to identify how many stops and searches within the black community are linked to gangs.

Q: AV asked if both officer perceived ethnicity and self-defined ethnicity is both required for a stop and search form.
A: TS answered yes, officers are required to complete both fields.

Q: PDE asked if having operations such as Op Salus would create the danger of over policing?
A: TS stated that he governs the Salus operation and there are 13 locations that currently cause the most harm which Salus then targets. The aim is that we should be able to see a reduction of violence. He mentioned that every quarter he will be able to review the outcomes of this operation and be able to share this with the panel.

ACTION: TS to share the outcomes of Op Salus operation.

The PCC also added that the Summer Safer Streets Initiatives will focus on 6 town centres and the outcome of this will be published. Referring to PDE question, the PCC stated that most of the community would say that the area is under policed.

In regard to disproportionality, compared to national statistics, Bedfordshire has less disproportionality however it still needs to be addressed.

Q: KT wants to know where certain ethnicities are being arrested. She stated that she would question if black individuals were stopped and search in areas known for being predominantly white.
A: TS stated that the new piece of working currently being carried out should be able to answer this question.

Q: SC asked why central Bedfordshire has the highest disproportionality rate of 6.7.
A: TS mentioned that central Bedfordshire has always had a higher rate. He stated that he has just had a meeting regarding this and will provide an update next time.

Q: SC asked TS about the supervising officer that sits under TS’s command.
A: SD explained we have a meeting with all the stop search leads to discuss this matter and how to move forward.

Video 1    SS/1524871140/129

Date of incident: 31/03/2025

Initiation reason: Officer self-initiated

Legal Power: S.60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

Grounds:

DP has been riding subject vehicle along pathways in line with stop location. Stop location is within the S60 authorised area. The 2 leading incidents that have contributed to the S60 being authorised have involved motorbikes riding off road. DP has been identified as previously being associated to firearms in LUTON, albeit several years ago.

Feedback:

1. GOWISELY completed in full and reason for the stop was justified.
2. Search was conducted effectively.
3. Good communication from officers, and subject was compliant.
4. One panel member questioned the need for handcuffs; however, the officer explained his reasoning for the cuffs which was good to see.
5. BWV was switched on late
6. The section 60 was implemented because of an incident involving black males on e-bikes. Some panel members questioned the stop as the subject was on a motorbike and not an e-bike, however male was riding across a pavement giving reason for the stop.
7. One officer thanked the subject at the end of the search. Panel members thought this was nice.

Grading: Green 2

Video 2    SS/1308851215/5

Date of incident: 12/03/2025

Initiation reason: Officer self-initiated

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

Grounds:

Officers were on mobile patrol when a car crossed paths in the opposite direction. The driver of the vehicle paid massive attention to police. When the police looked back at him, the driver ducked down and tried to hide. When officers have followed the vehicle, it has conducted numerous odd manoeuvres to evade Police.

The vehicle took an unusual turn into a car park and when questioned as to why they were there, the occupants both stated that they were on their way to B&Q. The car park was nowhere near B&Q and the driver became very defensive with officers.

Subject was front seat passenger. Due to my experience of being a Police Officer for 10 years and having many encounters with persons dealing and hiding drugs, in my professional opinion this behaviour is very similar to those encounters. I believed the subject was attempting to create time and space to conceal any drugs or evidence.

Feedback:

1. BWV switched on late. If this would switched on earlier, it could have provided better context.
2. Panel members thought the officer was aggressive and was in an agitated state. Officer was yelling at subject asking to put his hands up (even though his hands were up), which resulted in the subject getting angry.

Panel witnessed Officer having to remove himself from the situation to calm down, which is why he went to his vehicle. Supervisors at the incident did not intervene or manage the interactions.

3. Was there a welfare check on the child in the car? Was anyone looking after the child?

Actions: Subsequently was the child referred for safeguarding – being driven by disqualified driver. Organisational Learning.

4. GOWISELY completed fully.
5. Panel questioned the length of time the subject was handcuffed once search was completed?
6. Panel members did not disagree that there was an offence of disqualified driving, and this matter needed to be dealt with.
7. Panel member felt that there was disproportionality between the way officers dealt with the passenger than the driver.
8. Officer found a disabled badge in the car, maybe he could have asked the subject if he needed any assistance?
9. Panel members felt that original grounds were weak and lacked initial evidence.

Grading: RED 7

Panel members wanted to note that there was a large disparity between the grading; it ranged from G2 to R9. Some panel members did not agree with others’ views.

Video 3    VSP/2312613516/2

Date of incident: 23/03/2025

Legal Power: Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act

Grounds:

Officer was on operation Despan which focuses on ANPR/Drug markers on vehicles.

Officer stopped this vehicle as the vehicle had a high volume of ANPR hits.

Feedback:

1. Officers BWV was obstructed at the beginning of the video.
2. Panel members thought the officer created a good rapport with the subject.
3. The officer stopped the vehicle and quickly sent him on his way without wasting time, which was nice to see.
4. Officer was polite which put the subject at ease.
5. The only concern the panel had was the officer leaving the subject in the car alone with the engine still running. Officer then lent his head in the car, with the engine running which was risky if the driver was to drive off.

Grading: Green 1

Video 4    VSP/3325652713/1

Date of incident: 17/03/2025

Legal Power: Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act

Grounds:

Child was seen moving freely in the rear. Officers stopped the vehicle to prevent danger of injury due to manner carried.

Feedback:

1. Camera switched on at approach to the vehicle which was positive.
2. Panel members thought the officer was professional, however, at times he was a little sarcastic.
3. Panel members thought the male officer started off reasonably however, after the female officer joined the conversation, the situation escalated.

Grading: Green 3

Second officer feedback:

1. Officer did not have any empathy.
2. Officer did not have any consideration to the child in the back of the car especially when talking about the possibility of the child getting injured (going through the front window and dying). Panel members thought this conversation could have been had outside the vehicle and away from the child to prevent this child from getting frightened.

OPCC Updates

Unfortunately, the meeting ran late so the OPCC was not able to present to the panel. SD reminded the panel to complete their expense forms.

PDE thanked all for their time.

Stop and Search External Panel

Thursday 25th September 2025 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Attendees:

Stop and Search panel members: Simon Cacioppo (SC), Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Ambrose Kwan (AK), Elaine Singaram (ES), Amelie Denness (AD), Zaeem Majeed (ZM), Nicholas Carey (NC), Aidan Vaughan (AV), Joshua Dargan-Hayes (JDH), Harley Scott (HS), Lucia Scozzari (LS), Elizabeth Ginns (EG), Mia Wilson (MW), Marcella Smith (MS), Louise Tomlin (LT), Ursula Smithson (US), Myrna Loy (ML).

Bedfordshire Police: Supt Ian Taylor (IT), PC Ommer Khan (OK)

Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office: PCC John Tizard (JT), Tarushi De Cruze (TDC), Samantha Denness (SD)

Apologies

• Hayley Brown
• William James
• Loveness Bishi
• Bev Drummey
• Theo Remy
• Mary Perry

Introduction

PDE welcomed everyone to the meeting, and all members introduced themselves.

Due to connection issues, a decision was made for SC to chair the remainder of the meeting.

SC asked if anyone had any comments regarding the minutes of the previous meeting.

SC noted that the minutes referenced him questioning the supervising officer. He clarified that his intention was to ask about the process followed when a supervising officer declines to provide feedback on the panel’s observations.

ACTION: The force to inform the panel of the process followed when a supervising officer declines feedback provided by the panel.

SC also enquired whether any feedback had been received from the officer who was issued an R7 at the previous meeting. TDC confirmed that feedback had been received and is included in her update.

PCC’s Stop and Search Charter

The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) started by recognising the valuable work of the panel members and the positive impact they’ve had on the scrutiny of stop and search practices in the county. He noted that this has contributed to raising the quality and standard of how stop and search is used by the police. The PCC expressed his enthusiasm for engaging with the new panel members.

He emphasised the importance of ensuring that individuals subject to stop and search understand their rights and know what to expect from police interactions.

As the Police and Crime Commissioner, JT outlined his expectations, beginning with the rights of individuals and the appropriate use of stop and search by police officers.

He announced the launch of the Stop and Search Charter, which is endorsed by the Chief Constable and specifically supported by Superintendent Ian Taylor. The PCC hopes the panel will welcome the Charter, as it builds on their existing work and supports their aim to ensure stop and search is used effectively and that police are held accountable.

AV expressed his appreciation for the Charter, describing it as informative, concise, and well-presented. He congratulated JT and his team.

NC echoed AV’s comments and added feedback regarding the inclusion of links in the "Codes of Practice" section. SD confirmed that these links have since been added and thanked NC for his input.

Q. AK asked how will the Charter be distributed publicly?

A. The PCC responded it will be published on the PCC’s website and promoted via social media across various channels. Panel members are encouraged to help disseminate it, especially to communities more likely to be affected by stop and search.

Q. ES asked whether the Charter be available in different languages and in an easy-read format, considering the mention of neurodiversity?

A. SD mentioned the website has accessibility features to support users with additional needs. The PCC added that while translation poses challenges, the aim is to provide versions in languages relevant to the county’s population.

HS noted that individuals most likely to be stopped and searched may not follow the PCC or Bedfordshire Police online. She suggested exploring more meaningful ways to share the Charter. The PCC welcomed ideas and asked that suggestions be passed to TDC.

MS proposed converting the Charter into a poster or rolling screen format for display in town centres.

Q. MS asked whether the stop and search cards issued by the force were included in the Charter?

A. SD confirmed that this is included within the charter.

The PCC thanked everyone for their positive feedback and confirmed that all suggestions will be taken into consideration.

OPCC Updates

TDC reviewed the actions from the previous meeting.

Action 1: Completed.

SC asked whether the information on stop and searches within the Black community, specifically in relation to gangs, was just simply not collated or whether the force does not collect this data at all.

ACTION: TDC to speak with TS to clarify why this information is not available.

Action 2: Completed.

OK informed the panel about the purpose of Operation Salus.

Following this, TDC presented the next item on the agenda, the OPCC update:

Q. SC asked panel members how they felt about the officer’s feedback regarding the R7 grading.

EG stated it was positive to see that the officer had been engaged in the discussion and that further Body-Worn Video (BWV) footage was reviewed as a result of the panels grading.

Q. ML suggested it would be beneficial for a panel member to attend internal meetings where these discussions take place.

A. PDE assured ML that he sits on the internal panel and provides a community perspective.

MW felt that some of the panel’s feedback was not addressed by the officer, particularly comments about the officer’s aggressive and agitated behaviour.

HS believed the officer’s response lacked substance, noting that only a few of the nine points raised were addressed. MS agreed with HS’s observation.

US added that the grading varied from green to red, indicating that not all panel members agreed the officer was overly aggressive.

Q. AV asked whether a video graded as red is automatically flagged to Professional Standards.

A. SD explained that it depends on the level of red grading. If it was a Red 9, this would go straight to professional standards. Red 7 and 8 would go to either the Chief Inspector or Superintendent.

SD acknowledged the panel’s concerns and noted that if they wish to focus further on this officer, they can do so in the next quarter.

SC commented that the organisation appears not to be addressing all points raised by the panel and suggested that a response should be provided to each individual point. PDE agreed, stating that addressing each point would help build confidence in the feedback process.

JDH offered an external perspective, as having recently joined the panel. He proposed that a summary paragraph could be provided to reflect the panel’s overall sentiment, followed by specific questions for which the panel seeks responses.

PDE requested that SD organise a meeting with the panel chairs to discuss this further.

ACTION: SD to organise a meeting with the chairs to discuss officer feedback and present a proposal to the panel on the way forward.

Video 1    SS/4147529230/75

Date of incident: 27/05/2025

Initiation reason: Member of Public Led

Legal Power: S.1 PACE

Grounds:

Officers have been approached by members of the public stating a phone theft has just taken place on the street. The members of the public have pointed out the suspect. Officers have detained the male for a search based on multiple members of the public stating it was him.

Feedback:

• Some panel members felt the officer was generally polite and handled the situation well.
• GOWISELY was covered appropriately; however, some panel members noted that the "Respect" element of GOWISELY-ER was not demonstrated.
• The officer’s tone was described as sharp and slightly aggressive, particularly at the start. The use of inappropriate language (e.g., “stop making f*** threats”) was considered unnecessary and unprofessional.
• Physical actions such as grabbing the victim’s top and pointing a finger were viewed as aggressive and inappropriate. One panel member found the officer rude to the victim; others felt the officer’s involvement was unnecessary given that other officers were present.
• Some panel members understood why the officer may have lost his temper, as the victim was reportedly making threats and intervening during the search, which could be considered provoking.
• The stop and search process appeared disjointed, with the officer starting and stopping the search while walking away, which may have caused confusion for the individual being searched.
• BWV was activated late, making it difficult to understand why the officer appeared irritated and to fully grasp the context of the interaction.
• Panel members felt that other officers present did not effectively control the scene or intervene when necessary. They suggested that those officers should have managed the victim, allowing the searching officer to focus on the subject.

Grading: Amber 6

Video 2    SS/2389956147/2

Date of incident: 11/07/2025

Initiation reason: Officer self-initiated

Legal Power: S.1 PACE

Grounds:

Reporting person informed the police two persons have approached them and threatened him by producing a knife and holding it to their throat. Reporting person has provided a full description of alleged offenders. On arrival to the incident location two persons have been seen around the alleged incident location matching the provided description.

Feedback:

• The officer was assertive and maintained a calm, professional approach throughout. Panel members were generally content with how the stop and search was handled.
• The interaction was well conducted, with a calm explanation provided both during and after the search.
• Although all aspects of GOWISELY were stated, they were delivered very quickly, making it difficult for some panel members to follow. In future stop and searches, this should be slowed down to ensure the public can understand what is being said.
• BWV was activated early, which helped provide clear context for the interaction.
• The use of a taser was considered reasonable based on the grounds provided. Handcuffs were removed promptly, and the officer became noticeably more polite once they were off.
• Panel members thought the interaction with the subject and officer regarding the phone was not good.
• However, the officer had his taser drawn and pointed at the subject. There was no verbal communication used to inform subject of the taser.

Q. ML asked if there are any policies regarding subjects requesting access to their phones while being searched.

A. IT explained that there is no formal written policy on this matter. However, the decision is typically based on operational control and the need to secure potential evidence. Allowing a subject access to their phone during a search could enable them to contact others and potentially arrange for the disposal of evidence—such as drugs that may be located elsewhere, like at their home. Additionally, if not closely monitored, the subject could delete important evidence from their phone, such as messages or images.

Grading: Green 2

Video 3    SS/1308851215/19

Date of incident: 26/06/2025

Initiation reason: Officer self-initiated

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act

Grounds:

The vehicle had recent intelligence to suggest that vehicle is involved in drug supply whereby packages have been seen to be passed, and drug users have congregated around the vehicle and entering the vehicle. Upon approaching the vehicle, the subject has attempted to make off heightening the suspicion around the vehicle. All occupants inside the vehicle are class A drug users. Inside the car was items consistent with drug use.

Feedback:

• The officer was polite, professional, and maintained a good tone throughout. GOWISELY was completed in full.
• Panel members understood why the search took a long time, given the number of individuals involved and the vehicle that needed to be searched. As a result, handcuffs remained on for an extended period, but panel members acknowledged the justification.
• BWV was activated late, making it more difficult to assess the initial interaction.
• Panel members expressed concern about the subject’s welfare while seated in the car with handcuffs on. He appeared unwell and slumped. Although the officer asked if the subject was okay at the beginning of the video, panel members felt that more consideration should have been given as the subject’s condition seemed to worsen. They suggested that moving the subject out of the vehicle for fresh air may have been more appropriate.
• The seated position appeared uncomfortable, and panel members questioned whether the subject could have done something with his hands behind his back while in the car.

IT raised a question regarding why one officer was seen wearing a balaclava during the incident, and panel members agreed.

ACTION: IT and OK to investigate the reasoning behind the officer wearing a balaclava.

Grading: Green 2

Video 4    SS/1941816027/42 BP-06062025-0366 

Date of incident: 06.06.2025

Legal Power: S.1 PACE

Grounds:

Subject matched the description given for male involved in a serious GBH whereby 2x males had been stabbed multiple times at Eid Fest, subject was found in the area with other males.

Feedback:

• The officer was respectful and spoke to the subject politely, maintaining good rapport throughout. Panel members were generally satisfied with how the situation was handled, and the search itself was carried out well.
• The individuals involved were heightened when approached, but officers collectively de-escalated the situation. The officer ignored distracting comments from a person recording the incident, which was noted positively by panel members.
• The interaction was somewhat chaotic at the beginning. Although GOWISELY was stated, it was not delivered clearly. Panel members also noted that the grounds for the search were not provided to the subject until some time after he was cuffed.
• Initially, the officer could have given more attention to the subject being searched rather than focusing on other individuals.
• While the subject’s items were handled with care, they were placed on the ground. Panel members questioned whether this was appropriate, as the items could have been easily trampled.
• The officer repeatedly referred to the search as a Section 1 search, assuming the subject understood what that meant.
• Panel members understood the urgency of placing handcuffs on quickly due to the nature of the incident (a stabbing).

Grading: Green 3

Video 5    SS/0410522618/57

Date of incident: 23.05.2025

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act

Grounds:

Information to suggest this isolated location is being used for drug dealing. Subject observed by officer to carry out an exchange through a locked gate. Subject made off from officers

Feedback:

Due to time constraints, this video was not viewed during the main meeting. Panel members wished to note that the video was shared with the main panel to highlight the good policing demonstrated in this instance. OK will ensure that the feedback provided at the sub-panel meeting is still passed on to the officer.

Grading: GREEN 1 – This grading was agreed at the sub-panel meeting.

Policing Update

IT provided a policing update to the panel.

From a policing perspective, the current data appears positive. Between the beginning of June and today, Bedfordshire Police have conducted 14,122 stop and searches across the county, representing a 19% increase compared to the same period last year. The positive outcome rate stands at 40%, with a 17% arrest rate.

In comparison, the national average for stop and search shows a 31% positive outcome rate and a 14% arrest rate.

Bedfordshire Police’s find rate is currently 29%, with 373 drug seizures and 41 weapons recovered during this period.

In terms of disproportionality:

• Individuals from the Black community are 3.4 times more likely to be stop and searched based on self-defined ethnicity, and 3 times more likely based on officer-defined ethnicity.
• Individuals from the Asian community are 1.6 times more likely (self-defined) and 1.9 times more likely (officer-defined) to be stop and searched.

IT noted that disproportionality rates are a key focus within the Police and Crime Commissioner’s (PCC) Stop and Search Charter.

IT shared his screen to present the internal analysis undertaken by the force, aimed at ensuring stop and search is conducted appropriately and exploring how disproportionality can be explained.

IT announced that the force is hoping to participate in a pilot project involving the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to support supervisory reviews of stop and search. This initiative is being coordinated by the College of Policing and builds on work conducted by the British Transport Police.

However, IT explained that due to ICT challenges, the force will not be able to join the pilot in October. Despite this, there remains a strong internal commitment to adopting the product in the future.

IT also informed members that the academic study commissioned by the force on disproportionality has been completed and is currently under review. The professors who authored the report have expressed willingness to present their findings to interested parties. IT proposed that they could be invited to a future panel meeting.

IT read out the executive summary of the report to panel members.

AV welcomed the idea of a presentation or requested a copy of the report. PDE expressed interest in reading the report and requested that IT extend an invitation to the professors to attend a future panel meeting. IT confirmed he would coordinate with TDC outside of the meeting to arrange for the presentation.

AOB

Q. PDE asked whether another session would be arranged for the Live Facial Recognition (LFR) introduction, for those who were unable to attend.

A. IT confirmed he is happy for TDC to coordinate either a Teams call or an HQ event to accommodate other panel members.

Q. PDE asked if there was any further information on the scrutiny process for LFR.

A. IT stated that he welcomes public scrutiny and encourages the panel to hold the force to account, as this helps build broader trust and confidence.
SD added that the PCC has decided the OPCC will establish a separate panel dedicated to LFR scrutiny. This panel will include members of the public and professionals. SD confirmed that the OPCC will provide an update once the panel is operational.

IT also noted that the first LFR deployment took place in Bedford and was deemed a successful operation, resulting in one individual being identified and arrested. The next deployment is scheduled for 26/09/2025 in Luton.

MS informed panel members that the Christmas get-together is being organised and is confirmed for 29th November. Further details will follow.

AK shared that he is involved with youth clubs across Bedfordshire. As TDC is currently engaging with youth clubs to raise awareness of stop and search, AK offered to extend an invitation to TDC. TDC confirmed she is happy for this to be arranged.

SC thanked all members, the OPCC and the force for attending.

 

Stop and Search External Panel

Tuesday 16^th December 2025 held between 18:30 – 21:00

Attendees:

Stop and Search panel members: Simon Cacioppo (SC), Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Ambrose Kwan (AK), Amelie Denness (AD), Joshua Dargan-Hayes (JDH), Lucia Scozzari (LS), Marcella Smith (MS), Ursula Smithson (US), Mary Perry (MP), Everton Sutherland (ES)

Bedfordshire Police: Supt Tom Stean (TS), PC Ommer Khan (OK)

Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office: Tarushi De Cruze (TDC), Samantha Denness (SD), Manisha Kalyan (MK), Caitlyn Morton (CM), Amy Cartwright (AC)

Apologies

• Bev Drummey
• Elaine Singaram
• Nicholas Carey
• Aidan Vaughan
• Natasha Lane

Introduction

PDE welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Actions

TDC presented the actions from the previous meeting and updated the panel.

Action 1: Completed. TDC presented the panel with the agreed flow chart, created with the force, detailing the steps taken when a supervisor refuses to provide feedback to an officer.

Action 2: TDC explained that earlier this month there was a meeting to discuss ways to improve officer responses. The conclusion was to adapt the current email sent to supervisors when providing feedback to officers. TDC noted that she has updated the email to include points raised by the chairs but has not yet had the opportunity to share the adapted version with the chair or vice-chair for sign-off.

SC suggested presenting the draft email to the panel to gather their views and feedback as well.

Action: TDC to share the draft email with panel members and then forward it to the chair for sign-off.

Action 3: Completed. OK provided an update and reasoning for the officer wearing a balaclava in the previous main meeting.

Policing Update

TS presented the policing update.  

1. MS asked whether the gangs have remained the same over the past year or if there have been changes.
2. TS explained that gang-related data is remapped every six months. He further noted that most of the gangs listed have existed for two years or more, but the individuals (nominals) within those gangs change frequently. Therefore, reviewing and updating this data every six months ensures a more reliable dataset.

Q: SC pointed out that within the dataset, 10 individuals were listed under the “unknown” category for ethnicity. SC questioned why this would be classified as unknown if the force is aware of the individual and confirms they are a gang member.

Action: TS to investigate the “unknown” category and provide the panel with an update explaining the reasoning behind this classification.

Q. AK noted that the item’s found rate is quite high within the 16–24 age range and asked what is included in this classification.
A. TS stated that the majority of items found are drug-related, with a smaller proportion involving weapons. He explained that many individuals in this age group could potentially act as runners, which often results in them being found with drug-related items.

Q.SD asked why the age ranges are not evenly distributed. For example, the 20–24 category spans 4 years, whereas the 35–49 category spans 14 years. She noted that an equal split might provide more accurate data.

Action: TS to consult with the data analysis team to identify the reasons behind the current age categories and why they are not evenly distributed.

Q. ES asked whether the age ranges are populated this way nationally or if this categorization is unique to Bedfordshire.
A. SD and TS confirmed that the data is collected in this format nationally.

Q. When reviewing the number of stops by ethnicity, SC asked whether the force could investigate why, despite Asians having a larger population count than Black individuals, Black individuals are twice as likely to be stopped. He questioned whether there is any learning that could be applied to understand what is being done differently between the two communities.
A. TS explained that this dataset relates specifically to Luton. Data would vary across different areas. The increase could be due to several factors, including differing policing priorities in the area and variations in gang nominals within the location.

Q. SC asked if it would be worth considering an additional section that states the number of stop searches and the number of individuals stopped and searched.

Action: TS to check if he can obtain data on the number of stop searches and individuals stopped and searched or alternatively provide the positive outcome rate and no further action rate.

Q. ES asked how confident the force is in this data.
A. TS explained that there is strict guidance from the Home Office on what qualifies as a “gang member.” He also noted the distinction between confirmed gang members and those at risk of becoming gang members. The force avoids classifying everyone as a gang member because this designation remains on their record.

Action: TS to share with the panel the Home Office criteria for what is considered a gang member.

Q. AK asked why the highest stop search rate occurs at the airport rather than in the town centre.
A. TS explained that many stop searches involve individuals entering the country with prohibited items. OK added that there are also numerous shoplifting incidents at the airport.

 

Video 1    SS/00401640181

Date of incident: 06/10/2025

Initiation reason: Incident Led

Legal Power: S.1 PACE

Grounds:

Outside a college a call whereby police had been called to the location following a fight which appeared to have been pre-planned. There have been recent high tensions around the college and previous reports of people fighting whereby weapons have potentially involved. On arrival of the location a male ran in front of my police car, and another police officer was chasing the male, the male did not stop and the officer was in pursuit of the male on foot which lead to suspecting he had an offensive weapon on his person.

Feedback:

• BWV was activated late.
• The situation was very chaotic. Panel members felt the officers could have moved the subject away from the crowd to gain better control and provide privacy.
• Panel members noted that the officer was respectful and calm, did not act aggressively, and did not escalate the situation. The officer took the lead at times and directed other officers to manage the scene, which was viewed positively.
• The reasoning behind the Amber 4 grading was due to the grounds, as some panel members did not believe that running alone constituted sufficient grounds for a search.
• The officer stated she was searching under Section 1; however, further explanation was needed, as not everyone is familiar with what Section 1 entails.

There was a split in grading, with an equal number of votes for Green 2 and Amber 4. The Chair decided on Amber 4 due to the vague grounds. If more questions had been asked prior to the search, stronger grounds could have been established.

Grading: Amber 4

 

Video 2    SS/1524871140/153

Date of incident: 19/09/2025

Initiation reason: Officer self-initiated

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act

Grounds:

DP was the sole occupant and driver of subject vehicle. Police have spotted this vehicle and were aware of recent information stating that the occupants of the vehicle are involved in the supply of drugs. Upon stopping the vehicle compliantly, the vehicle drove off when officers stepped out theirs. A pursuit ensued, albeit for 100 meters, where he then came to a stop. It is suspected the DP done this due to being in possession of drugs and that he was trying to conceal and/or destroy evidence.

Grounds for strip search: 3 phones located in the initial search, 1 of which was in the vehicle and damaged. It is suspected that the time that the DP drove off from police, he had done this to damage the phone and conceal drugs on his person. Following the DP being made aware of the enhanced search he stated that he had concealed hash down his underwear.

Feedback:

• Panel members found the officer’s approach at the start of the incident provocative and confrontational. They felt the officer could have explained himself earlier to calm the situation. However, the panel acknowledged that heightened emotions may have been due to the subject failing to stop for officers.
• The officer stated GOWISELY in full, and the panel felt he explained himself thoroughly. Members appreciated the clear explanation of powers and the reasoning behind asking the self-defined ethnicity question.
• Although the situation was tense initially, the officer de-escalated effectively. He remained friendly, professional, and respectful during the strip search. Panel members also noted positively that the officer was gaining intelligence during the strip search.
• Panel members expressed concern when the officer placed the subject in the vehicle without cuffs, as this could have allowed the subject to dispose of items inside the vehicle.
• The officer maintained a calm and controlled environment throughout.
• Panel had slight concerns regarding the grounds, noting that the stop search form indicates the officer initiated the stop; however, the BWV footage shows the officer stating it was due to intelligence.

Grading: Green 3

 

Video 3   SS/2389956147/4

Date of incident: 18.09.2025

Initiation reason: Incident Related

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act

Grounds:

Officers were on routine patrol when a vehicle sped past. Officers have spun on the vehicle and eventually located it unoccupied in a car cark with a member of the public passing a description of the male who had declaimed from within it. Officers commenced an area search for the driver of the vehicle and located the subject who matched the description of the driver.

Feedback:

• GOWISELY was completed fully and delivered clearly.
• The officer provided good detail and communication, explaining the need for cuffs. Panel members appreciated how quickly the cuffs were removed.
• BWV was activated late, the officer did not use his earpiece, and the panel noted that some comments regarding the subject’s tag sounded somewhat sarcastic.
• A panel member felt the grounds were not as concise as they could have been. There was some confusion regarding where Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act applied. More detail in the written grounds is needed to clearly link the stop to the legal power.
• Overall, panel members were happy with the search, describing it as very professional and well-conducted.
• A panel member raised a potential data breach concern: the officer was seen typing subject details into notes on their phone.

Action: To find out whether entering subject details on a work phone is considered a data breach.

Grading: GREEN 3

 

Video 4    SS/2471029054/28

Date of incident: 10.10.2025

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act

Grounds:

Officers stopped subject vehicle after it had links to the supply of drugs. The vehicle was also involved in an incident two days ago whereby a knife was involved.

Feedback:

• The officer remained calm throughout the stop and handled the situation well. Panel members described the officer as professional and conversational.
• BWV was activated slightly late.
• Half of the search was conducted in the middle of the road. Panel members felt the officers could have moved to the pavement sooner.
• Officer to be reminded to use his earpiece.

Grading: Green 2

OPCC Update

Due to a lack of time, TDC will share the OPCC update presentation with the panel.

AOB

PDE thanked all members, the OPCC and the force for attending.

Stop and Search External Panel

Tuesday 31st March 2026 held between 18:00 – 21:00

Attendees:

Stop and Search panel members: Phil Dickson-Earle (PDE), Simon Cacioppo (SC), Bev Drummey (BD), Aidan Vaughan (AV), Myrna Loy (ML), Ambrose Kwan (AK), Elaine Singaram (ES), Lucia Scozzari (LS), Natasha Lane (NL), Liz Ginns (LG), Marcella Smith (MS), Ursula Smithson (US), Zion Ayetuoma (ZA), Everton Sutherland-Adebiyi (ESA)

Bedfordshire Police: PC Ommer Khan (OK)

Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office: Tarushi De Cruze (TDC)

Apologies

Supt. Tom Stean

Arti Patel

Rebekah Godbold

Zaeem Majeed

Introduction

PDE welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Actions

TDC presented the actions from the previous meeting and updated the panel.

Action 1: Completed.

Actions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6: To be carried forward to the next main meeting.

Video 1    SS/1399529678/54

Date of incident: 19/12/2025

Initiation reason: Officer self-initiated

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act

Grounds:

DP has been sighted by officers. This is an area with recent and relevant intelligence for drug supply. The DP himself has recent and relevant intelligence for drug supply and is on bail for drug dealing offences. Officers have got out on foot and walked the opposite way to the DP. The DP has sighted officers and has looked nervously. DP has then quickened the pace to walk away from officers.

Feedback:

• The body‑worn camera was activated slightly late.
• GOWISELY was stated fully, and the search was carried out well. The officer was respectful and friendly, and the interaction felt professional and conversational. Panel members felt the officers explained themselves clearly.
• Some panel members queried the grounds for the stop. They noted that being in a known drug‑supply area, being known for drug supply, and looking at officers would not, on their own, justify reasonable grounds for a stop and search. However, other panel members had no concerns regarding the grounds.
• The search could have been conducted a little more discreetly rather than at the side of a busy road.

Grading: Amber 4

Video 2   SS/2844296280/5 - BP-05012026-0000

Date of incident: 05/01/2026

Initiation reason: Intelligence led

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act

Grounds:

Officers have sighted a Black BMW driving, officers had been passed information that recent intelligence suggested the occupant and vehicle are linked to the supply of drugs. The vehicle was stopped and driver spoken to. Subject was detained under section 23 Misuse of Drugs Act search due to the recent intelligence, full grounds passed to subject. Two mobile phones were seized in relation to a conspiracy to supply drugs offence.

Feedback:

• The body‑worn camera could have been activated slightly earlier to provide fuller context to the interaction.
• GOWISELY was stated in full.
• The officer was polite, professional, and demonstrated good rapport‑building skills. Handcuffs were removed promptly once the search was completed.
• From an officer safety perspective, panel members noted that the subject was holding a lit cigarette while being handcuffed, which could have caused burns or accidental injury to the officer.
• Good tactical communication was used; however, panel members questioned the comment referencing an “AK47 or grenades in your pockets.” While understood to be humour, they felt it could be misinterpreted negatively by the subject or members of the public.
• Officers provided clear information regarding access to the search record and the process around the phone seizure.
• The subject’s radio was on loud, which could pose a GDPR concern as sensitive information may be overheard.
• The panel noted that officers should avoid criticising BWV equipment in front of members of the public, to maintain professionalism.
• When seizing a phone, officers should provide a clear explanation as to why the seizure is necessary.

Action: OK to check if a phone is seized after a stop and search, whether that should be classed as NFA or not? 

Grading: Green 3

Video 3    SS/1341325191/17

Date of incident: 24/12/2025

Initiation reason: Incident related

Legal Power: S.1 PACE 1984

Grounds:

The reason for stop was due to two males peering through the letterbox of a premises. One male had been seen to then leave the area. This male made his way to the other side of the street away from police but was stop searched when officers caught up with him. This was a S.1 stop search with the aim of finding any stolen goods or any articles that could be connected with the person that could be on them.

Feedback:

It is important to note that the panel had very varied views on this stop search (ranging from G3 to R8) and did not all agree with the overall grading. Due to a split vote between Amber 4 and Red 8, the Chair made the final decision to record the stop as a Red 8.

The panel felt that the grounds given to the subject were questionable and did not match the written grounds. The officers stated grounds to the subject included:

“Your mate was seen looking through a letterbox. It’s not really you, it’s your mate. You’ve just been seen with another male and he’s been seen looking through letterboxes. Plus, you have been slightly avoiding the police, it’s more XXXX than you, but because you were with him.”

Panel members felt that these grounds suggested the subject was stopped and searched solely by association, which they considered unlawful. Suspicion cannot be based on simple association, assumptions, or stereotypes, and there must be a clear link between the subject and the suspected offence. This formed the main justification for the Red 8.

Panel members also noted the following:

• GOWISELY was only partially stated, with elements spread across the interaction rather than clearly delivered.
• Officer safety concerns: the officer was positioned directly in front of the subject with a busy road behind him. The panel felt the interaction should have been moved away from the roadside.

The panel also emphasised that, had the grounds been met, the stop and search would have been excellent. They were keen that the Red 8 does not imply criticism of the officer’s conduct or communication style.

Positive points included:

• Good communication and rapport‑building
• Officer remained calm and conducted the search smoothly
• Officer was polite, respectful, and courteous throughout

Following the meeting, the Chair determined that this would be better reviewed and actioned by a senior officer, rather than being referred to PSD.

Grading: Red 8

Video 4    SS/0410522618/102

Date of incident: 12/01/2026

Initiation reason: Officer self-initiated

Legal Power: S.23 Misuse of Drugs Act

Grounds:

Information linking subject to the supply of controlled drugs in the immediate area that he was stopped. Subject was a current missing person from other force area and was circulated amongst Beds as missing with concerns he was drug dealing or being exploited in this area

Feedback:

• Panel members appreciated that the officer moved the subject to the side to conduct the search, as this helped maintain safety and privacy.
• GOWISELY was delivered in full.
• Body‑worn video was activated slightly late.
• The officer was polite, professional, and respectful throughout. Panel members also noted strong rapport‑building and good consideration for the subject’s welfare.
• Some panel members raised concerns about the officer’s early comment: “I’m not an idiot, I know you’re here to supply drugs.” They felt this could be perceived as labelling the subject. This type of comment could affect the likelihood of the subject engaging positively with officers in future.
• Overall, the panel agreed that this interaction was a good example of a well‑conducted stop and search.

Grading: Green 2

OPCC Update

TDC presented the OPCC updates.

SC observed that, in the feedback received from supervisors, they often reference GOWISELY rather than GOWISELYER.

ESA mentioned that he has noticed that, following stop and search encounters, the cards created by the force are no longer being handed out or enforced in practice.

US shared her recent experience from a ride‑along she attended. She was very impressed by the officers and found the experience highly informative. She encouraged other panel members to take part as well.

PDE added that if any panel members wish to participate in a ride‑along, they should inform TDC so this can be arranged.

AOB

PDE thanked all members, the OPCC, and the force for attending.