Recaps of past meetings

Community Scrutiny Panel – Constabulary Recap  

25 July 2023 – Use of Force 

Overall, the Panel reviewed 5 Use of Force incidents from May 2023 and gave 4 green ratings (3x Green-1 and 1x Green-3) and 1 Amber rating. 

An overview of the 5 incidents and Panel comments are below:  

1. UF/0469440226/23 (???)  

Background: Vulnerable young girl who is subject to deprivation of liberty order has absconded from care home. Officers who know the subject well identified her, she poses a significant risk of harm and danger to herself. Detained under care order. Subject had something in her mouth so the Sergeant tried to use a pressure point to encourage her to spit it out. 

Notes: BWV watched showed use of force recorded (the pressure point), however, Panel was confused as to why she was already in handcuffs and on her way to a police van.  

Uses of Force: Unarmed Skills – Pressure Point (Handcuffed - By Another Officer) 

Panel Comments: Panel were confused as to what they were looking at and emphasised the need for officers to have mental health training. 

• It was noted that the use of handcuffs was missing from the record – Constabulary explained this was because a Use of Force record records what force that specific officer used, there is another record for the handcuffs from the officer who applied them.  
• One member said it was a good, detailed, and accurate background. It gave sufficient reasons to understand why the use of force was used. 
• The use of pressure points was not clear on the BWV – difficult angle as BWV is officers own so attached to chest and only has a certain lens range. 
• One noted that it was good use of explanation on the records stated and that there was nothing wrong with the interaction. 

• The BWV didn’t show the reason why use of force was needed. – The Panel was reminded this was not a Stop Search so there is no requirement to give the full explanation written, they are not grounds.  
• The officer appeared to be very patient and kept a calm manner. 

Organisational Learning: Constabulary to assess records selected by Panel to see if other officer footage either prior or after would be beneficial, for example, seeing the handcuffing would have been helpful. Whilst the Panel selects by officer record and rightfully that officer only records the use of force they perform. The Panel wishes to scrutinise the incident as a whole so additional BWV needs to be made available..  

Rating: Green – G1 grading given. 

 

2. UF/1986582785/6 (???)  

Background: Officers were executing a drugs warrant where male had breeched bail and refused to come out of house, threatening to stab officers. During warrant execution a 3rd party tried to enter house and was physically blocked by officers standing in doorway. 

Notes: The use of force was very quick so rewatched several times. 

Uses of Force: Taser – Red Dot, Handcuffs, Other – on 3rd Party. 

Panel Comments: Very happy with how much could be seen due to BWV being turned on early, though questions about the number of officers.  

• Lots of officers at the scene – Constabulary explained that was the approach to executing planned Search Warrants with a need for a reasonable and proportionate number of officers to be present to secure the scene, mitigate threats and undertake the search with potentially multiple occupancy.  
• The time on the BWV was different to the time documented in the background. 
• The lead officer communicated well and gave a good explanation, this helped to keep the situation calm. 
• An officer was getting a little impatient with the other woman in the house which was apparent from his tone. 
• The use of the taser - red-dotted seemed proportionate. 

 

Rating: Green – G1 grading given. 

 

3.UF/1984232108/3 (2-Apr-23 19:30)  

Background: Tenant / Landlord dispute where a call were received about a damage to an address door and a van. 

Uses of Force: Handcuffs due to non-compliance; Other / improvised: Kick to the leg. 

UF/1090816036/29 – landlord / tenant dispute 

The panel questioned the necessity of the arrest. 

Feedback – the officer did not attempt to de-escalate the situation and was rude at times. It was not clear if the dog chain was the weapon referred to as an impact factor. The panel felt that there was favouritism shown towards the tenants in that the landlords friend was arrested. The neighbour who made themselves known at the end / appeared to be trying to help officers was spoken to in a rude manner by the officer. Amber grading given. 

 

4. UF/3300551278/25  

UF/3300551278/25 – Subject has been fighting with door staff and so arrested – Pava’ed, handcuffs, limb restraints 

Evidence of officers allowing him to recover from Pava before transferring the handcuffs from front to rear (where he resisted arrest),  

Feedback – 2nd video shows inappropriate language being used by officers as they shouted swear words out in a busy NTE environment (appreciating they had just watched a Subject be arrested for swearing in video 3 which was not as bad). Officers attempted to move the handcuffs from the front to the rear (where the Subject started to resist) prior to ensuring all officers were ready. This resulted in 2x security staff being heavily involved (which they had no legal power to do) rather than just police officers being used. The Subjects trousers had fallen down and no attempt was made initially to ensure his dignity was maintained. He was carried / dragged inappropriately to the van (all his weight being carried on his shoulders that were in an awkward angle / high chance of injury) with his trousers still down by his ankles in front of many people. When a member of the public intervened and stated that he should not be treated like an animal they were spoken inappropriately by the officer.  

Summary – the panel appreciated that it was a difficult situation due to it being a busy place with lots of onlookers, Pava was affecting staff and the male was being resistant. A single clear leadership voice was missing meaning a lack of grip and co-ordination. The UoF used was not appropriate when considering how he was dragged / carried to the van and his dignity was not maintained / other members of the community were not spoken to appropriately. Grading given was a G3 bordering Amber. 

5. UF/2772384742/6  

UF/2772384742/6 – Female arrested after threatening family with a knife – APU officers – Red Dotted, Handcuff, minor pressure  

BWC was turned on nice and early, good identification of risk (child still inside) and excellent communication skills used moving from assertive to friendly when speaking to child. Officer who spoke to Subject showed empathy and communicated well by introducing his name. G1 grading given.  

 

Panel Location: Cambridgeshire Constabulary Headquarters, Huntingdon 

Panel Attendance: x7 

OPCC Attendance: x3 

Constabulary Attendance: x3 

 

Community Scrutiny Panel – Constabulary Recap  

27 June 2023 – Stop Search 

Overall, the Panel reviewed 4 Stop Searches incidents from May 2023 and gave 2 green ratings and 2 Amber rating. 

1. SS/19745805641 – Search of 3x males and vehicle for gas cannisters. 

Clear GOWISELY and explanation given, relaxed style which was proportionate. The panel did ask why the persons were searched when the cannisters were large ones and could be seen on the seats of the vehicle. They also noted that officers were outnumbered. Green Rating given.  

2. SS/2137965768/3 – Search of male under Terrorism Act. 

The panel stated that the female officer came across as aggressive (especially when compared to the searching male officer) which was probably less proportionate when it can be seen that the male is visibly upset and compliant. Good use of BWC and excellent use of teamwork with a colleague assisting with an evidence bag for items (not sure if they had BWC on which would have been perfect). There were times when the searching officer was bent down in front of the Subject searching his ankles making him vulnerable. It is appreciated that there were two other officers either side of the Subject but best practice on how to search a Subject was not followed. The panel questioned what was been looked for as the officer looked in the tabaco pouch when looking for a bomb. Amber grading given.  

3. SS/0524828178/2 – Search for an offensive weapon after a robbery 

Officer adjusted approach and asked the Subject wanted clarification when it was explained that they were slightly deaf. Also took the time to adjust the handcuffs when Subject identified they were in pain due to the watch being caught. The panel noticed that the officer removed the Subjects hat. Amber grading given. 

We then reviewed two youth Strip searches in custody under S54 PACE as a trial for a Custody Scrutiny Panel 

 

4. SS/1079160099/5 – Drugs possession 

Officer was very friendly using the term “Buddy” (was the same age as Subject). Officer had a discussion prior to search re their grounds and only searched the one person. There was good communication between the officer and Subject whilst the search was being done. A good summary at the end explaining that the Subject was no longer being detained given by the officer. Green grading given. 

In summary, a good evening with no big issues being raised but some good feedback to be given to officers.  

Community Scrutiny Panel – Constabulary Recap  

May 2023 – Use of Force 

Overall, the Panel reviewed 5 Use of Force incidents from April 2023 and gave 4 green ratings (3x Green-1 and 1x Green-3) and 1 Amber (Amber-4) rating. 

An overview of the 5 incidents and Panel comments are below:  

1. UF/0986214963/32 (1-Apr-23 02:20)  

Background: Black male drove dangerously the wrong way down major roads and failing to stop for police (RPU). 

Uses of Force: Taser - Red Dot, Handcuffs, Tactical Contact 

Panel Comments: Generally supportive with a few questions about fail to stop tactics. 

Rating: Green - G1 grading given. 

 

2. UF/1728985034/3 (1-Apr-23 06:30)  

Background: White male being disruptive and violent at hospital whilst already under arrest so transported to cell block. 

Notes: x3 Body Worn Videos watched from various officers present. 

Uses of Force: Leg Restraints, Handcuffs, Carry Mat 

Panel Comments: Mixed reaction with praise for certain aspects but questions and concerns about other parts of the encounter.  

• BWC not turned on early enough so did not capture subjects initial actions that caused UoF to be used. 
• Lack of communication in general until custody sergeant arrived outside of cell block. 
• Female officer raised voice “Shut Up, I have had enough” which was unhelpful.  

• Subject’s trousers fell down and officers allowed the trousers to remain down, exposing buttocks for a significant amount of time. 
• Good calm officer communication when moving handcuffs from front to rear. 
• Custody sergeant identified for special praise as communications skills were excellent and thus allowed restraints to be taken off, subject to walk by himself etc.     

Rating: Amber – A4 grading given. 

                    

 

3. UF/1984232108/3 (2-Apr-23 19:30)  

Background: APU respond to 2x young Black males who matched the description given (description given to Panel) and matching the names of suspected robbery offenders who have a knife after a call from a victim. 

Uses of Force: Taser – Red Dot, Handcuffs (other officer’s UoF) 

Panel Comments: Positive and Panel agreed there were the males reported based on description and names, but some comments especially about APU tactics and dress. 

• Good initial assertive communication, offenders were young, very compliant, possibly scared.  
• Firearms officer continued to wear a face covering making themselves more intimidating. 
• Panel thought that the handcuffs were not required (personal choice as I appreciate that a knife had been reportedly used) 
• Not a Stop Search scrutiny panel but officers did do a Stop Search and Panel noted GOWISELY was not used.  

Rating: Green – G3 grading given. 

 

4. UF/1813505277/7 (4-Apr-23 01:15)  

Background: RPU tried to stop a car due to manner of driving, young Asian male driver failed to stop in father’s car.  

Uses of Force: Taser – Red Dot, Handcuffing – Co-operative. 

Panel Comments: Overall officers should be commended with the way this was dealt with, especially due to chaos at scene.  

• Good commentary during pursuit. 
• Subject showed clear signs of being distressed as being detained but understandable. 
• Good communication from arresting officer explaining what he was going to do. 
• Positive comments of how the officers dealt with multiple different family members who came to the scene and large crowd gathering. 
• Not a Stop Search scrutiny panel but officers did do a Stop Search and Panel noted GOWISELY was not used.  

Rating: Green – G1 grading given. 

 

 

5. UF/2369630193/3 (15-Apr-23 20:37)  

Background: x4 males and a female have been fighting on a train that has spilt over onto the platform.  

Notes: Dog handler attends the call as sole officer. 

Uses of Force: Dog Deployed 

Panel Comments: Very positive comments about encounter. 

• Very good use of BWC as switched on well before encounter began. 
• Good communication used.  

• Praise for separating people and dealing with multiple people whilst single crewed.  

Rating: Green – G1 grading given.

Panel Location: Parkside, Cambridge