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.

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.