Stop and search

Stop Search External Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Tuesday 25 April 2023| 1700 – 1900hrs

Sussex Police Headquarters & MS Teams

Attendees: - names redacted for publication. To join the panel please email [email protected] 

Welcome and introductions

AB leads round table introductions and the earlier minutes were agreed

Actions from previous meeting

SH updated current action Log.

Officer Originated Drug Searches disproportionality

MR provided an overview of self-initiated stop/searches conducted under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 between 1 May 2022 and 31 October 2022 concerning officer initiated stop searches for drugs. This review was requested by advisors at a previous meeting to scrutinise data for disproportionality, not just around stop and search but also for outcome and resolution. Reviewed data showed a range of areas where disproportionality was demonstrable both in grounds and outcomes. Proportionally, members of the black community were more likely to be searched on suspicion of being in possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply(rather than simply being in possession) than white people, although corresponding finds for paraphernalia  linked to supply were 2% less for black people than white. Where a subject was found in possession of a suspected controlled drug, black subjects were arrested disproportionately more than white subjects, although quality of grounds for stop/search was better regarding black subjects than white. A qualitive analysis was commissioned to develop understanding on the reasons for these differences. Analysis focused on officer-defined ethnicity rather than self-defined to better capture any indicators of unconscious bias and explore several impact factors which might influence an officers’ decision making. These findings to be shared internally through the Legitimacy Board and the RAPID board. To aid in developing a plan to reform behaviours. Incorporate these findings into Stop Search training to ensure they influence future decision making for front line officers conducting stop searches and for those officers making policy decisions. Regarding the issue of previous convictions/disposals being a barrier to community resolution, authors concluded that this needs re-visiting to ensure this isn’t a barrier to restorative justice, particularly regarding possession of cannabis.

Advisor feedback

Advisors thanked MR for their overview of the data. They asked about the statistical reliability of the data being presented– considering the overwhelming disproportion of white residents in Sussex to black residents and how the larger majority of black people being stop searched for drugs in this sample set were from outside of the county (88% of white subjects resident in Sussex compared to 58% of black subjects searched).DH acknowledged the concerns raised but clarified that this research was specifically designed to mitigate skewing derived from census demographics, therefore focus was solely on individuals who had already been stop/searched for drug possession, also acknowledging that broader context is lost owing to the granular detail that this report provided. Advisors responded to apparent disproportionality of arrest and prosecution rates arising from the fact that out of court disposals such as community resolution could only be applied where the perpetrator issues a full admission without defence and/ or provide verifiable name and address details, owing to historic mistrust of the police, black communities are much less likely that white counterparts to provide this information and are therefore disproportionately more likely to face prosecution. Deferred prosecutions recommended by Lammy are now sole remit of Crown Prosecution Service. Advisors were concerned that reviewed data highlighted that black people were less likely than white people to receive an out of court settlement such as community resolution if they already had a previous caution for an offence or similar offence within a proscribed time-period (in this instance drug possession), arguably because they were stopped more disproportionately in the first instance. Advisors expressed concern that use of force (application of handcuffs onwards) was applied to compliant black detainees disproportionately (13%) more than compliant white people – despite data showing black people were only 3% more likely to become violent during a stop and search than white people. Advisors felt that this disproportionality derived from common racist tropes about black people being stronger, more aggressive, and more resistant to pain than white people. Advisors referenced death in custody of Joy Gardner and arrest of Dalian Atkinson, also referenced was adultification of black children re Child Q and sought reassurance that these kinds of incidents will not be repeated.SH acknowledged concerns and outline a number areas where Sussex Police sought to improve their approach – including scenario based training, RAPID, Use of Force Scrutiny panel and an upcoming legitimacy training package which SH would preview at this meeting before it went live. Advisors requested that future documents be circulated at least one week prior to the meeting to allow tie for advisors to consider.

Actions

• SH contact Sailesh Limbachia and get an update of Lammy Meeting Group to update the meeting, understanding that remit of this meeting is for stop and search.
• SH /DTe Share review findings with Use of Force chair Rachel Glenton for discussion
• MR /DTe circulate review document to advisors post meeting
• DTe Action invite advisors to attend Use of Force Scrutiny Panel / circulate dates for staff safety training for advisor invitations

Race Action Plan overview

NS provided an update on implementation of the National Race Action Plan via the RAPID board (Race Action Plan Insight and Delivery Board) chaired by ACO Anita Grant, sighted on by DCC Dave McClaren. The Sussex and Surrey Police Race Action Plan expands upon the national Race Action Plan to improve the lived experience of Black officers and staff within the organisation and improve service delivery to the Black community. NS described the architecture of the plan, which was split into four work streams, stating that Sussex Police had chosen to first focus on a workstream relating to internal culture and inclusivity, the aim being to ensure Sussex Police has the right culture of inclusivity in place and aspiring to become a demonstrably anti racist organisation. NS described  the process of dividing the actions into three sections: nationally identified milestones, locally identified milestones, and “quick sprints/wins ” to make an immediate difference ( examples included updated protocols around s163 traffic stops, instigated by this meeting, now adopted nationally as best practice and national consistency applied to body worn video prerecording, demonstrable inclusion of anti-racism awareness and action during sergeant and inspector promotion boards)  with implementation of a parity tracker to ensure RAPID is having a real effect on the outcomes it intends to deliver. NS stated that Sussex Police were still waiting the final iteration of what the RAP would look like but were expecting some delays in response to the findings of the Casey Report and would continue to provide updates to this meeting platform in due course.

Advisor feedback

Advisors thanked NS for their overview of RAPID and the RAP in general – they asked if the demonstrable anti racism statement behaviours were scored or graded in some way and whether Sussex Police had made an official statement regards Institutional racism because of the Casey report conclusions. SH responded that Sussex Police would remain in line with other forces – acknowledging the need for positive change but not necessarily accepting the term institutionally racist. SH confirmed that robust scoring was in place during the interview stages and the diversity and inclusion behaviours section was a required pass for the candidate to be considered for later stages of the promotion process. Promotion process was also subject to scrutiny, exploring all aspects of proportionality and balance re candidate demographics and a part of the RAPID Board plan. Advisors expressed their concern that Police forces were not taking on board the term institutionally racist – but acknowledged there was a lot of political influence/pressure  being applied to national police forces by incumbent Government – despite this, advisors  felt this was immaterial if  progress was made in resolving the underlying problems of racism within the police service.

Action: SH/DH To include relevant Casey report recommendations relating to stop, search and disproportionality to future meetings for consideration (DH only vehicle stops – legality and legitimacy)

Section 60 and Grounds

Section 60 is the power to search a person without having to justify the grounds for the search and is authorised by an inspector or above in response to the likelihood of serious violence. Since the last external panel meeting. Twice used in Hasting and twice in Worthing – all white.

U18s Exposure of Intimate Parts (Strip Searches)

Since the last meeting SH has scrutinised one year’s worth of data. In that time there have been 13 recorded Strip Searches taking place on people who were under 18 years of age. 4 were conducted outside of custody: two these two were not identified as children until after the strip search (although conducted in police stations) 2 were not conducted in line with current policy, but subsequent incident review  by PSD showed these took place at the time change of policy was being implemented and  new requirements had  not  fully cascaded to all levels of the force.

Action: SH/DH Future agenda item deep dive Strip Search of Adults and disproportionality including update of 3 cases cited by Children’s Commissioner

Next meeting focus is District Data.

Future agenda items

• Deep dive: Strip Search of Adults and disproportionality - substantive
• Body Worn Video - substantive
• Gatwick Data Points
• Review of Brighton Pride previous Data Points

Any Other Business

Chair congratulated all present and highlighted details of recent HMICFRS report of Sussex Police – the force was rated as good for the quality of stop and search scrutiny that Sussex Police  undertook , much of that being due to the robust and honest engagement from public advisors who took part in this forum.

Date of next meeting: July TBC

 

Stop Search Scrutiny Panel Meeting

• Date: Tuesday 31 January 2023 1700 - 1900
• Venue: MS Teams & Sussex Police HQ
• Names of attendees redacted for publication

Welcome and Introductions

AB led round table introductions and welcomed new attendees to the meeting

Actions from previous meeting

SH provided the group with an update of the actions. Re action 55 , SH noted that a written statement had been circulated to the group and the authors could provide a brief update at next meeting if this is what the group would like to see.

Body Worn Videos – Complaint Case Body Worn Video (BWV)

DH introduced advisors to FA, a member of the public who had been stop searched while out with their family in Chichester during the summer. The incident was recorded on BWV by one of the attending officers and was played for attendees, with supporting narrative provided by DH/FA. They described how FA had been wrongly stopped by uniformed police officers who were acting on reports received of a black male who had stolen money from a customer at a local bank. The theft had taken place two hours prior to FA being stopped and attending officers were the last points of a circuitous chain of information from when the theft was first reported. DH described how subsequent investigations showed that FA’s description did not match that of the suspect, aside from the fact that he was a black male  ( in a very predominantly white town centre) and conclusions were drawn by DH and police colleagues investigating the incident that intentionally or not, Racism was a key factor behind FA’s stop. FA stated that they had lost their sense of faith in the police after this incident and did not trust the police to act in an unbiased way towards them or their family in future encounters. FA also described the complaint they made to Sussex Police Professional Standards Department(PSD) which was  ‘dismissed’ arbitrarily without even an apology for the mistaken stop, stating that the stop had been conducted ‘legally’. DH noted that legitimacy was as fundamental to our operations as legality and described reasons why this was not a legitimate stop search. DH profoundly apologised for FA’s experience on behalf of Sussex Police and thanked them for pursuing the matter, which gave Sussex Police an opportunity to reform its practices to ensure this type of incident did not re occur. DH highlighted a number of measures enacted as a response to this incident: These included an assurance that all future complaints received by PSD involving stop and search would be reviewed by The Local Policing Team and scrutinised for legitimacy, DH also stated that the officers in question had received extra training/guidance and ongoing monitoring. DH informed attendees  that FA’s permission had been granted to use the two videos with FA to help deliver training to the whole force on Legitimacy, and that he agreed.

Advisor feedback:

Advisors expressed concern after watching the incident and how subsequent events re: complaint unfolded. Advisors thanked FA for their bravery in coming forward, to share their experiences and for following up with their complaint where others would not have done. Advisors acknowledged that in doing so –important learning insights for Sussex Police could be gained and acted on. Advisors felt that the whole sequence of events felt very systemic, that at no point did anyone involved take time to review the information they had received or question the legitimacy of FA’s detention, nor was any apology given for the error made, or any regard given for how FA felt about the unfair way they had been treated .Advisors noted that the level of mistrust and lack of faith towards the police was high across many ethnically diverse communities in Sussex and feelings of resentment were exacerbated when the police did not apologise for mistakes made. SH responded that Stop and Search was a vital tool for combatting serious crime, but not at the expense of undermining confidence and legitimacy from the very communities it was trying to protect. Owning our mistakes and apologising for them where appropriate where a fundamental part of building legitimacy. Advisors asked if there were procedures in place to monitor disproportionality of stop search by individual officers or ongoing behaviour of officers who had received retraining. DH sought to reassure advisors that robust systems were in place to monitor stop search disproportionality as described – that stop searches and BWV were regularly scrutinised by supervisory grades up to the rank of Chief Inspector also force I.T systems (Power B.I) allowed officers behaviours to be scrutinised at a very granular level, with oversight being provided by Sussex Police’s own internal stop search scrutiny and this public scrutiny panel. SH farther described a number of initiatives taking place across Sussex to improve our practices around proportionality and legitimacy, these include working to deliver National College of Policing’s Race Action Plan, incorporating guidance provided by HMRCFRS around legitimacy in policing and a new video training package, currently  in production about what a good stop and search looks like.

Action: Invite Sgt Noel Simmonds to attend next meeting and provide overview of work conducted by the RAPID board and progression of the Race Action Plan.

SH /DH thanked advisors for their insights stating the police need to be much better at understanding the personal impact of stop and search, that it is a big responsibility and officers need to have the confidence to clarify and consider the investigative option before applying stop search.

Crawley Stop and Search -Deep Dive

BS introduced themselves as Sussex Police Communities engagement lead and provided a brief overview of Crawley stop search data, including Crawley demographics overview, stop search data with Sussex comparison & disproportionality data using 18+1 self-defined ethnicity codes alongside age. BS outlined Operation Override designed to reduce serious (often weapon based violence) and tackle serious organised crime such as the supply of illegal street drugs. BS provided a data dive into stop search records of two individuals who had been stopped more than 5 times in the last 12 months and those officers who had performed the highest amount of stop searches in that time. BS then described a ‘double blind’ process where BWV of stop search incidents were scrutinised by different reviewers for disproportionality and to ensure robust monitoring practices were in place.BS described three searches where insufficient grounds had been identified in the stop search record. These searches related to three separate officers who had tasked to recomplete the College of Policing Stop search package and the relevant stop search identified to their supervisor for management discussion and reflection and ongoing scrutiny.BS would also speak to these officers personally. As part of ongoing reassurance efforts in Crawley, BS described the establishment of the Policing Positive Engagement Forum, a community focussed event that meets quarterly and aims to improve confidence local policing. BS stated that this was a model they hoped to deliver across other Divisions in Sussex. To further this reassurance work BS also noted that Panel members would be invited to attend proactive days and operations as part of the lay observer scheme. BS stated that  throughout 2023 there was expectation that 50% of stop searches would be reviewed using Sgt, Insp and C/Insp ranks to scrutinise grounds and BWV. Owing to time constraints, BS invited advisors to tender any questions they may have about the data presentation (which was circulated to advisors prior to the meeting) via email after the meeting and they would respond or return to future meetings and update if required.

S60 Updates

An S60 is an occasion where stop searches can be authorised without usual grounds being required, authorised by Inspector level or above. SH stated that only one S60  had been enacted since the previous meeting, in response to instances in Eastbourne  involving children armed with knives fighting. SH stated that 5 children had been stop searched under s60 - all were white. SH was reassured that S60 had been used appropriately.

U18s Exposure of Intimate Parts (Strip Searches)

SH recommended this form part of a larger agenda item in future meetings exploring disproportionality of strip searches involving adults as well as children.

Next Meeting Focus / District Data

Exploration of stop search data for drug possession/supply. Explore disproportionality around ethnicity and percentage of find rates . LPST Team to deliver.

AOB

• DH thanked the chair and advisors for all the work and insight this panel had provide over the last two years to investigate and scrutinise disproportionally regarding S163 &164 road vehicle stops. As a result, this work was now on the verge of being incorporated into the National Police Race Action Plan and would have an impact of informing police policy and best practice at the national level.
• DT advised group that they were leaving the force and thanked the chair, advisors and  colleagues for their support and dedication towards Stop Search progression shown over the last 6 years,  providing scrutiny and challenge where necessary in order to improve the experience of our communities around stop and search, that these efforts were now being replicated at a national level was testament to the effectiveness of this group’s work. AB thanked Dt for their allyship and consistently patient approach in this sometimes difficult arena. AB stated DT had helped to build long lasting and meaningful relations between public advisors and the police during this time and they would be greatly missed.

Date of next meeting: Tuesday 25 April 2023 1700-19005pm to 7pm

Stop Search Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Date: Wednesday 12 October 2022 5pm-7pm

Venue: Sussex Police Headquarters and MS Teams

Names redacted for publication

Welcome and Introductions

AB leads round table introductions

Actions from Previous Meeting

SH updated current action Log.

18 to 24 year old Stop Search Data

KB provided an overview of stop search rates for children and young people they noted that the most recent census data (2021) was not available for analysis & Sussex Police were still relying on 2011 information – so information presented was likely to need updating again in the near future in line with 2021 census data .The estimated population of Young people (18-25) in Sussex is 105,506. 41,088 are in West Sussex, 26,479 are in East Sussex and, 37,939 are in Brighton and Hove (data taken from ONS Census 2011). Higher percentage in Brighton and Hove due to the universities.

Between 01/10/2021 – 30/09/2022 the total searches in Sussex were 5,825 – 1,608 of these stop searches were conducted on under 18 – 24yo, which is 28% of all searches. 193 were female, 1,407 were male and 8 were unknown. 87 were Asian or Asian British, 216 were Black or Black British, 54 were Mixed, 72 were other, 1,179 were White (self-identified) and 214 were Not stated/ recorded.608 were CAD (Calls from member of the public) initiated, 69 were Intel Tasking, 58 were Op Order and 873 were Self-Initiated.

Objects being searched for – 134 were searched for articles used in theft, 34 were searched for articles used in Criminal Damage, 1,085 were for drugs, 312 were for offensive weapons, 144 were for other and 2 were for terrorism.

Advisors feedback:

Advisors asked what was meant by “Any other Black background” in the police officers stop search check form. SH clarified that “this was the category that officers used to describe a person’s ethnicity as a ‘best guess’ based on their physical appearance – alongside any self-defined characteristic that the person they are interacting with provides. Advisors were concerned about the number of  self-initiated searches that were carried out by Police officers and the accountability of their searches. They sought reassurance as to legitimacy to ensure there was no bias and  individuals were not being targeted or profiled unfairly.

KB reassured the advisors that out of the 5000+ searches conducted, Supervisors scrutinised approximately 20% of the Body Worn Video (BWV) to check whether they are carried out in accordance with the appropriate policy and regulations. KB stated that where stop searches were found not to have been conducted in line with policy the officers concerned would receive extra training/action plans etc and regular monitoring to ensure correct standards are followed. KB explained that where a subject was known to the police for criminal activity there would always be an element of suspicion which may make future stop searches more likely .Advisors asked about the training officers receive around unconscious bias, whether its online or in person – SH has stated that all recruits receive in person training and noted that there is a programme in place which continuously reviews and updates training requirements around all aspects of Inclusion awareness.

Section 163/164 Traffic stops – Power to stop a vehicle and ask driver for details

DH provided an overview of Section 163 vehicle stops to explore aspects of disproportionality.

DH acknowledged – that due to national methodologies around recording S163 traffic stops, very little data had previously been collected, which made scrutinising any data in detail for disproportionality difficult. DH updated that following HMIC guidance Sussex Police had taken measures – to apply appropriate levels of recording (In line with standard stop and search procedures) to allow for detailed scrutiny of 163 stops, with more detailed analysis available at future meetings. DH did reference a survey conducted among police officers who had undertaken S163 traffic stops and noted when asked about how often the officers knew the ethnicity of the driver, (whether through data or visual means), they were stopping, before they acted. DH stated that out of 450 returns to the survey, only 15.5% of officers said they were aware of a driver’s ethnicity before they stopped them.DT and DH thanked advisors, acknowledging that it was advisors from this meeting who flagged up recording of S163 traffic stops as an area of concern in the first place and this was an excellent example of how public scrutiny can influence real change and improve transparency and accountability around aspects of police public engagement.

Advisors feedback:

Advisors thanked DH and their team for the ongoing improvements that Sussex Police were making in this area, acknowledging that Sussex Police listened and acted on concerns brought forward by Stop Search Scrutiny Panel members

Body Worn Video (BWV)

2 Officers were patrolling in a specific area, that was known locally as a centre of drug dealing and drug use and where local complaints had been made. Two officers stopped a male who was visibly non-white, the encounter escalated until the male was placed in handcuffs before being searched in situ by the officers.

Advisors feedback:

Advisors expressed concern with why the male was stopped in the first instance for appearing to change direction when he saw the officers, as Advisors noted there may be many reasons why they might want to avoid an interaction with police officers, i.e., previous negative experiences with the police, or even that they had other things on their mind and were not fully aware that the two were in fact police officers. Advisors were concerned with the very public way the man was dealt with – and felt he should have been taken to a quieter spot prior to the search. Advisors also felt that the line of questioning by the officers was poor- even patronising. Advisors noted that because the officers didn’t explain the reason for their stop properly or give him chance to comply, he might have responded a lot differently, advisors noted that the male looked scared and vulnerable throughout the encounter. SH stated that although they felt the officers had reasonable grounds to stop and search the male, they did not explain themselves clearly as to why the stop was being conducted -which had they done so may have helped to reassure the male and make the encounter more amicable. SH noted that it wasn’t possible to move him to a quieter place as the Law under Section 1 in PACE states to search in situ, or close by.

Complaints

Update on the complaint surrounding the strip search of a black minor at a children’s home instead of at Custody (as stipulated in policy). The officers and supervisor involved were given feedback, but after the complaint was made by the individual they declined  to engage  any further in the process.

Section 60 and Grounds

Section 60 is the power to search a person without having to justify the grounds for the search and is authorised by an inspector or above in response to the likelihood of serious violence. There have been none since the last external panel meeting.

Action: MR to resend out the grounds, to get feedback. Discuss in next meeting.

U18s Exposure of Intimate Parts (Strip Searches)

Since the last meeting there have been 4 recorded Strip Searches taking place on people who were under 18 years of age. 3 were conducted after they were arrested and already in custody, so this comes under different legislation to usual stop and search. 1 person was taken to custody for an intimate search which was conducted in line with policy, this person’s ethnicity was self – defined as other mixed background, but visually described by the officer as Asian.

Next meeting Focus/ District Data

Future Agenda Items:

• Re invite Mark Robinson and Rebecca Ostach re Trans and Pride search data.
• Invite CI Nick Dias to the meeting to explore Stop search disproportionality self-initiated stops undertaken on the black community previous 12 months for the Crawley District.

Action: SH to ask Nick Dias if the members of the community he has been in contact with, wish to join the panel.

Date of next meeting: TBC

Stop Search Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Date: Tuesday 12 July 2022, 1700 - 1900

Venue: Sussex Police Headquarters and MS Teams

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Actions from previous meeting

SH provided the group with an update on the outcome of the BWV that was presented at the previous meeting. One of the officers involved left the force (unrelated to the incident), one officer moved to another force (feedback has been passed onto their new force), RO spoke to the sergeant who reviewed dealt with the complaint to highlight that this is not right. The supervisor has since been reviewed on the BWV they have reviewed.

Advisor feedback

Advisors were pleased that this incident had been thoroughly investigated and followed up - they looked forward to hearing final outcome.

Body Worn Videos (BWV)

A 17-year-old male is stopped and searched due to a call from a victim who had been chased by a group after an assault where a knife had been pulled on by the victim. The victim does not give a description as their phone batter is running out but provides the police with the name of the person involved. CCTV picked up a group in the locality and suspected them of being involved.

Advisor feedback

Advisors questioned if people who are stopped and search are asked about their experience after? SH informed the group that there is a voluntary survey to understand how their experience was and how they felt they were treated.

Advisors felt the search was protracted but felt it could have been made clearer at the beginning why the group were being stopped. Overall, they were impressed with the manner in which the Officer interacted with the person searched, showing respect and courtesy throughout.

Additionally, they pleased to hear they were not criminalised, and safeguarding measures were put in place.

U18s Exposure of Intimate Parts (Strip Searches)

Since the last meeting there have been 5 recorded Strip Searches taking place on people who were under 18 years of age. These have been investigated with the officers who conducted them, and it was clarified that 0 included intimate parts exposure resulting from a stop search. 3 were recorded in error by an officer and have since been rectified and 2 were conducted after the arrest where different police powers & legislation apply so does not qualify as a stop search strip search. So, there were no searches of this nature conducted since the last panel meeting.

Focus: Under 18s  

KB provided an overview of young people, demography, and stop & search statistics for Sussex. The estimated population of Children and Young people (0-17) in Sussex is 350,697. 183,292 are in West Sussex, 111,190 are in East Sussex and, 56,215 are in Brighton and Hove (data taken from ONS Census 2011).

Between 01/06/2021 – 31/05/2022 the total searches in Sussex were 5,763, 1417 of these stop searches were conducted on under 18’s, which is 25% of all searches. 20 were Asian or Asian British, 65 were Black or Black or Black British, 53 were Mixed, 99 were Not stated/recorded, 13 were other and 1,167 were White (self-identified). 864 were CAD (Calls from member of the public) initiated, 28 were Intel Tasking, 27 were Op Order and 498 were Self-Initiated.

Advisor feedback

Advisors felt it would be useful to see the breakdown of ethnicity by Divisions to understand the data further.

Advisors asked if the group can be shown the data for Transgender people who are stopped and searched.

Advisors felt it would be useful to see a further break down of age to understand which age group specifically are being stopped and searched.

Advisors questioned if the figures for stop searches relating to specific operations, county lines and burglary can be shown at a future meeting.

• Action: Breakdown of gender to bring to the next meeting
• Action: CAD data breakdown

Complaints

MR informed the group there has been 1 complaint in the last quarter which came in on 25 June and is currently ongoing. This is being investigated further as the application was not filled out clearly.

Action: MR to provide update of outcome of complaint at the next meeting

Section 60 and Grounds

Section 60 is the power to search a person without having to justify the grounds for the search and is authorised by an inspector or above in response to the likelihood of serious violence. There have been none since the last external panel meeting.

• 56% of the grounds said they were well lawful and good standard.
• 35% were lawful but improvement is required
• 8% were unlawful

National Update: Race Action Plan

DT provided an overview of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) first iteration of the Race Action Plan which they have just launched. DT welcomed advisors to visit the website and provide feedback on their thoughts. Once all feedback has been received a second version of the plan will be created and will be published in January. DT invited advisors to attend the Race Advisory Group next week where a large portion of the meeting will go through the Race Action Plan and to understand the groups views on it.

DT provided an overview of Sussex Police’s local response to the NPCC Race Action Plan which is much more detailed and takes interest in all underrepresented ethnicities.

• Action: DVT to send out the link for the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) first iteration of the Race Action Plan
• Action: DT to send the group Sussex Police’s local response to the NPCC Race Action Plan

Independent Office for Police Conduct Learning Review

In April the IOPC carried out an independent office of Police Complaints learning review where a number of changes were needed across policing. Some were for the college of policing, some for the nation police chief council. A number of actions were created for Sussex Police in understanding disproportionality around training to staff and history background of stop and search impact. A number of internal meetings have been set up to understand and tackle the 9 actions. Advisors felt it would be useful to see Sussex Police’s response to the actions to understand the learning and see the actions set for the force.

• Action: SH to provide update of this at a future meeting
• Action: DIV to send out independent of Police Complaints Learning Review

Next meeting focus - District Data 

DT provided the group with the comparisons of Ethnicity by area in Sussex for August 2021 – July 2022.

Future agenda items:

• 18 – 24-year-olds stop and search
• 15 – 17-year-olds – once new census data is available

AOB

In August there will the findings of a detailed piece of work looking at 80 Body Worn Video that the Force has conducted as part of the Deputy Chief Constables performance meeting. An update to be given at October meeting.

Discussion to be held between AB and SH around setting up a subgroup to review BWV. Conversations on going to have young people as part of this panel. 

HMICFRS inspection is being carried out in October, HMICFRS have requested that they attend the October meeting, which the panel agreed to.

Date of next meeting: Wednesday 12 October 2022, 1700 - 1900

1. Welcome

2. Crawley District Data – WKJ

Crawley has an estimated population of 106,417 people, 79.9% are White, 12.5% are Asian or Asian British, 2.9% are Mixed, 3.3% are Black or Black British, 1% are other Ethnic Group (2011 Census).

Between March 2021 – February 2022 633 Stop Searches were conducted. 64% were White, 18% were Black, 3% were Mixed, 13% were Asian, 2% were Other. WKJ highlighted in the breakdown of ethnicity there are a relatively high proportion of those who self-identify Pakistani (6), any other Asian background (30), African (27) and any other Black background (50) who had a stop search conducted on.  The majority of those stopped are aged between 18 – 24, with the second largest category being people ages between 25-19.

WKJ informed the group that the highest reason for how a stop search is instigated is through self-initiation, followed by Computer Aided Dispatch Responses (CAD). A CAD search is when a member of the public calls the police about suspicious activity taking place, which requires a police response. Individuals are mainly stopped for two reasons; they are to search for drugs or offensive weapons.

Advisor feedback

Advisors were concerned that in the table displaying the population break down ‘Asian or Asian British’ ethnicities are grouped together in categorisation, but ‘White’ ethnicity is categorised on its own. SH explained to the group that government set five categories of ethnicity ‘White, Asian or Asian British, Mixed, Black or Black British and Other’ to display the data in the report to the Home Office but informed the group that this has been broken down by 18+1 further into the presentation. 

Advisors were concerned of the amount of people between the ages of 10 – 17 being stopped and searched and asked for a further breakdown of this category to understand how many young people are stopped. Agreed that children who are searched would be the focus of the next meeting.

Advisors questioned what class of drugs officers are searching for when conducting a stop and search? WKJ informed the group that officers are generally looking for Class A drugs, however sometimes they incidentally find marijuana.

Advisors felt that people under the age of 25 in Crawley do not have a good relationship with the police and suggested asking older community members to invite some young people to interact and talk to the police it would help build a trusting relationship. Advisors invited the police to hold these sessions with the young people at their Mosque. WKJ expressed the force would be more than happy to facilitate this to understand concerns and build relationships.

A Body Worn Video of a stop search conducted on a male was shown to the group. This stop search was conducted as the police believed the male was acting suspicious and believed he may be dealing drugs.

Advisor feedback

Advisors were concerned with the questions that were asked to the male and felt some of them were unnecessary and insulting, such as how long he has been here.

Advisors were uncomfortable with the judgement from the officers that the male was already guilty and were concerned what the follow up with the officers is after the stop search was conducted and how further training can be provided to prevent this. SH informed the group that he will give the officers included feedback from the meeting and will speak to their supervisors to create a plan to improve their interactions in future.

Advisors questioned how many people are handcuffed when stopped and search and if the data can be shown to them broken down by ethnicity?  It was agreed that this data would be explored and presented at future panels.

3. District Data – DT

4. Complaints – MR

MR informed the group that since the last meeting there have been no complaints related to stop searches.

5. Review of Child Q

SH informed the group of ‘Child Q’ who was a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was searched for drugs whilst at school and menstruating. The school phoned the police because there had been a history of smelling cannabis in the past on the individual and believed she was involved with drugs. The police attended the school with the grounds to conduct a stop and search and smelt the cannabis near or around her and took her into a classroom, with a teacher outside, and conducted a strip search. The did not find any drugs and she was not arrested. SH highlighted that legislation was broken as a search on an under 18 needs an appropriate adult present, the child’s parent was not informed, and the supervisor was also not informed. In Sussex police officers inform the parents of the child who has been stopped that a search has been conducted on them.

SH informed the group that Sussex have had 23 occasions where children have been detained and had a strip search conducted on them, in the past 12 months. These have been reviewed and comply with the legislation.   Force policy has been updated to ensure these searches all occur in the custody environment going forward. SH offered to have this as a standing item at the panel and update on number of searches and any issues.

Advisor feedback

Advisors questioned how young these children are? SH informed the group that they are all between the ages of 10 - 17.

Advisors felt reassured that in Sussex officers have guidance given to officers, so they understand that they need to treat young people differently and ensure there is safeguarding in place by informing their parents or carers.

6. AOB

Next meeting to focus on Children and young people (under 18)

Date of next meeting: Tuesday 12 July 2022

Title: Stop Search Scrutiny Panel

Date: Wednesday 9 February 2022

Venue: MS Teams

Apologies

Welcome and Introductions

Actions from the previous meeting

Complaints

DT informed the group there has been one complaint regarding Stop Search since October, this complaint alleged that the Stop Search conducted on an individual had been motivated by Race.

The searching officer’s supervisor contacted the complainant and met with the individual at the police station to review the body worn video of the Incident. The supervisor talked through how the grounds were developed, during this discussion the complaint was satisfied with the officers’ actions, and the grounds for the stop and felt it has been conducted appropriately. DT highlighted the importance of body worn videos and benefit of positive engagement following a complaint.

Advisor feedback

Advisors felt it is healthy to receive complaints and questioned if enough is done for people to make a complaint. SH informed the group that after an individual is stopped and searched, they receive a receipt or can be emailed a receipt around the stop and search which contains a survey. Through this format Sussex Police are receiving feedback in relation to stop and searches, some of this has been positive. SH highlighted that Sussex and Surrey are the only two forces in the UK doing this.

Advisors questioned what the most common complaint category is? SH suggested to the group that categorised complaints can be totalled up over 12 months for the group to analyse and discuss trends at a future meeting.

Action 37: DT/MR to show the body worn video of the discussed complaint at the next meeting.

Action 38: SH to bring feedback data of Stop Searches survey to next meeting

Action 39: DT to collate trends of categorised complaints to show at a future meeting  

Grounds

Advisor feedback

DT questioned if there is a more suitable way of sharing grounds for review with the group? Advisors felt reminders are useful as it is important for advisors to have reviewed the grounds before the meeting.

Adur and Worthing

SL provided the group with stop and search data for Adur and Worthing. Worthing is estimated to have a population of 104,604 people, 93.8% are White, 2.7% are Asian or Asian British, 1.7% is mixed, 0.9% is Black or Black British and 0.4% is other ethnic group. Between January 2021 and December 2021 there were 694 stop searches in Adur and Worthing. 87% were conducted on white individuals, 6% on Black, 2% on mixed, 3% on Asian and 2% on other.SL provided the group with data that showed a breakdown of stop searches conducted in Adur and Worthing between Jan 2021 – Dec 2021, these were broken down by 18 + 1 self-defined ethnicity codes. The breakdown of stop searches by age was shown to the group. 28% have been between the ages of 10 – 17, 27% between the ages of 18 – 24, 13% between the ages of 25 – 29, 19% between 30 – 39, 9% between 40 – 49, 3% between 50 – 59 and 1% between 60 – 69. SL informed the group about Operation Signal, which has been running for the past 2 years and focuses on serious youth related violence amongst young people, where the violence is being caused, specifically on 11 – 16-year olds. This was instigated in October 2019 following the Operation Denmark cases where a number of young people, aged 12 – 13 years were convicted at court of serious violent offences against other children.

SL provided the group with data which showed people who had been stopped and searched more than three times in a 12-month period. This data included the number of searches, item found, their age, ethnicity and if it was a repeating officer.

Advisor feedback

Advisors felt and thanked the CI for doing a great job interacting with the community in Worthing.

Advisors questioned why the ‘not stated / defined’ category for self-defined ethnicity is so large for those who have been stopped and search. SL informed the group that individuals who refused/ decline to advise the officer of their ethnicity fall into this category. In this case the officer will make a more general assumption of ethnicity using the five different categories so there is a professional perspective of their ethnicity in a much broader categorisation. Advisors were concerned the amount of stop searches on under 24-year olds is high and questioned what the medium average of stop searches is for the category 10 – 12-year olds. SL did not have this data to hand but suggested this would be available for the next meeting.

Advisors shared concerns that officers conducted stop searches based on bias and racism and felt it would be useful to see data around self-initiated stop searches rather than response to intelligence or an operation order. Advisors felt it would be useful to see stop searches broken down by the five categorised ethnicity codes and the 18 + 1 ethnicity codes for comparison and to discuss highlights and trends.

Advisors were concerned that the 10 – 17-year-old white male who had been stopped 5 times but only one item was found by the same officer. Advisors felt that if the item was found on the first search the individual may have learnt to not repeat this again so when they are searched again no items are found but were concerned if the item was found on the fifth search and not on the previous. SL did not have the data to hand but suggest this could be discuss at a future meeting.

Action 40: SL/ SH to provide the group with the breakdown of stop searches on 10 – 17-year olds.

Action 41: DT speak to technical team to see if a split by age, ethnicity and gender can be bought to the group for discussion.

Action 42: DT to provide initiating grounds by 18 + 1 to future meeting

Action 43: SH/DT to collate stop searches broken down by the five categorised ethnicity codes and the 18 + 1 ethnicity codes and send out to the group 2 weeks before the next meeting.

Action 44: SL to provide a breakdown of the searches of individuals who are stopped more than three times in a 12-month period.

District Data

DT provided the group with District Data of stop searches in each district by ethnicity over a 12-month period and asked the group which district the group would like further detail on?

Advisor feedback

Advisors were interesting in looking at district data for Crawley as they felt this has the highest disproportionality. Advisors were also interested in Mid-Sussex as it has a lower disproportionality.

Advisors felt it is important to look at areas where disproportionality is lower to understand what officers are doing in that area.

AOB

DT provided the group with a body worn video of two white young males being stopped and searched after reports of shoplifting. SH questioned if advisors had a preference of videos they would like to see and discuss at a future meeting?

Advisor feedback

Advisors suggested viewing body worn videos of a stop and search on young Black Males.

Some advisors suggested keeping the names of those who are being stopped and searched hidden when the group views the videos. DT highlighted to the group that all members in the meeting have signed a confidentiality agreement which states that group discussions can not be shared outside of the meeting and is in line with GDPR Protocols.

Action 45: SH to collate body worn videos of young Black Males from East Sussex, West Sussex and Brighton being sop and searched to discuss and view at a future meeting.

 

Date of next meeting: Wednesday 13 April, 1700 – 1900, TBC.

Minutes

Title: Stop and Search Scrutiny Panel

Date: Monday 25 October 1700-1900

Venue: MS Teams

Welcome AB welcomed all, introductions made, previous minutes and actions signed off

Follow up from previous meeting SH responded to previous meeting request to provide a demographic break down by ethnicity for young people who attended Sussex wide crime avoidance programs organised by various agencies – stating that most programs were group based and that demographic data was not routinely kept. Advisors stated that captured demographic information was important in order to accurately monitor disproportionality and requested SH could explore ways of making this data available. Action 33 agenda item next meeting SH to provide overview of current programs taking place across Sussex

Stop Search Legislation – Refresher DH provided an overview of current Stop and Search legislation, describing the statutory powers and grounds where stop and search may be lawfully employed by officers and described how S.H.A.C.K.S (seen, heard, actions, conversations, knowledge and smell) and G.O.W.I.S.E.L.Y (grounds, object, warrant, identity, station, entitlement, legal and you) protocols were employed as oversight to ensure stop and search activities  were conducted appropriately. DH also described how 18+1 ethnicity codes were defined (using census data descriptors) before detailing a number of organisations – statutory and not statutory that provided governance, oversight and scrutiny of Sussex Police’s stop and search practices via the quality assurance framework – including the scrutiny provided by advisors at  this meeting . Q Advisors requested reassurance that GOWISELY protocols were being completed properly and that governance was monitored effectively -DH assured advisors that there were robust compliance protocols in place for supervisors to regularly monitor all stop searches including measuring disproportionality. Action 34 DJ to share stop search presentation including the SHACKS & GOWISELY protocols

Complaints and Grounds MR noted that 3 complaints were made in the last quarter and these were still being investigated.  they would provide a fuller update at the next meeting. Q- advisors sought reassurance that alternative pathways to complain were available if GOWISELY protocols were not followed. MR noted that Sussex Police had changed recent complaints procedure from a national system to be able to monitor and respond to complaints more effectively. MR also stated that receipts included signposting links to alternative pathways of complaint. MR noted that receipts should be offered in all instances. There was acknowledgement from all, that the public are often unsure about their rights under stop and search.

Grounds Advisors scrutinised grounds for a number of stop & search incidents – DH confirmed that supervisors were incorporating feedback provided by advisors to assess and inform actions of issuing officers. DH noted advisors concerns that future grounds assessments should be weighted towards Black, Asian and minority ethnic people in order  to reflect ongoing disproportionality that these groups are subject to.

Use of S163 of the Road Traffic Act PT provided an overview of Operations Command, their roles and responsibilities and how Ops Command contribute to Sussex Police’s overall of stop search statistics. Of 7289 stop searches conducted by Sussex Police, 1179 ,16.1% were carried out by Ops Command units. Within this context, PT was reassured that stop search statistics – particularly find rates - conformed very closely to those of Sussex Police as a whole. PT then described the legislation around roads policing and the powers a constable had under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988.Since August, officers had conducted S163 RTA stops on 1257 people, which is 76% of the total Across Sussex Police.  PT noted that recording these stops had only been mandated since August and Initial data appears to show that disproportionality was in not a factor in those s163 stops.( Especially as forthcoming census data is expected to show an increased % of ethnic diversity in Sussex). Q-Advisors queried apparent discrepancies relating to the ‘term self-initiated stops’ appearing to affect a disproportionate number of Black people. PT noted that the term could be misleading as self-initiated could also result from an officer acting on specific intel, being tasked to attend an incident and there was always a context to be applied. Q- Advisors noted that all drugs were included into the same category, but noted some drugs are associated with specific ethnic stereotypes and requested future meetings include types of drug found with ethnicity   Advisors were invited to ask any questions arising from  the circulated  presentation with the diversity team, who would collate and request response from PT Action 35 DJ to share S163 RTA presentation with advisors

Body Worn Video (BWV) – Review Advisors reviewed BWV of a stop search following a s163 RTA vehicle stop. The stop involved a young male, stopped on their motorbike. They tested positive for drugs, was arrested at the scene with parents attending. Feedback from the panel was that the searching officer was professional, courteous and had followed the GOWISELY protocols. District Data Advisors agreed to scrutinise Worthing data at the next meeting

AOB SH advised the group of forthcoming legislation to enact Serious Violence Reduction Orders. These would make anyone convicted of knife crime by the courts subject to being stop and search by an officer at any time and without usual grounds being necessary. Sussex Police is one of four forces chosen to pilot the scheme. SH noted this was solely a punitive piece of legislation and was not being incorporated as part of wider prevention or divergence work, acknowledging this was likely to raise a number of questions among advisors Action 36 SH Agenda Item to update in more detail at next meeting

Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday 9 February 2022

Minutes

Title: Stop Search Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Date: Tuesday 20 July 2021, 17:00-19:00

Venue: MS Teams

 

Welcome

AB welcomed the group and led round of introductions. NP requested future agenda item to update on Sussex Police Communications activity.

2. Follow up from previous meeting

NM provided an update on Rother disproportionality, given the high rate presented at previous meeting, but low actual numbers (10 stop searches over a 12month period). NM has reviewed that S163 searches have full scrutiny arrangements in place, and in reviewing the Black subject stops, detailed scrutiny had been applied and provided. NM also updated that Chief Officers have agreed to record all S163 vehicle stops. JM asked why LGBTQ identities are not captured in Stop and Search data – explained that the Home Office have set the data recording requirements, but recognise why this is important so can inform future discussions with NPCC.

3. Complaints

MR provided an overview complaints received by Sussex Police. Since the last meeting the force received 7 complaints, 3 following vehicles tops and 4 stop and search. MR informed the groups that ethnicity was only provided in one complaint.

Advisor feedback

Advisors suggested resending demographic forms once complaint received, which may encourage further sharing. Concerns raised that ethnicity data was still not being comprehensively recorded which made subsequent scrutiny very difficult. MR/DH acknowledged concerns and were actively looking at ways to improve data recording including post incident follow up and forthcoming feedback survey.

4. Grounds

DH/MR provided the group with a new grounds assessment format and demonstrated how grounds can be assessed using this format. The intention will be to send ground in between meetings so that advisors can return with feedback in advance of the scrutiny panel, whereby MR will provide an overview. This is intended to enable more time for District presentation and Body worn video footage at future meetings, and enable improved analysis of quality of grounds e.g. for ethnicity.

Advisor feedback

Advisors suggested the document format could be in Word, so easier to complete on different computer operating processes. A detailed discussion was held using examples to run through the templates.

5. Rother district data

AC provided the group with data from the district of Hastings, providing the estimated population from the Office of National Statistics data Census 2011, including population for ethnicity.

There were 437 Stop Searches conducted across Hastings between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021. 86% of these searches were White, 8% were Black or Black British, 3% were mixed, 1% were Asian or Asian British and 2% were other ethnic group.

AC provided a breakdown of stop search by Age, the majority of searches were conducted on under 30s, with 140 for 10 to 17year r olds and 155 for 18 to 29 year olds. AC described activity on the district around safeguarding and diversion of young people.

AC provided an overview of reasons searches were initiated compared by different ethnicities. The most common reason was self-initiated by an officer [173] and responding to calls from the public [181].

Details of two recent Operations taken place in Hastings were provided, including related stop searches with information on ethnicity and outcomes. One related to an organised crime group, the other was concerned with the exploitation of vulnerable young people in the District, to address issues regarding the dealing and supply of controlled drugs. AC also described the supervisor scrutiny process. AC provided a detailed account on the most stop searched person within the operations, with details on grounds and outcomes.

AC provided data on the items being searched for (Drugs, Offensive Weapons, Articles for use in theft and criminal damage, etc.) again by recorded ethnicity. This data included the find rates for each category. The most common item being searched for across all ethnic group was Drugs. Data was provided on people who had been searched more than three times in the last 12 months, this also included their ethnicity and outcomes of the search.

The final data showed the highest amount of stop searches officers were conducting, this also included data on subject ethnicity. The highest searching officer conducted 15 searches in a 12 month period, one of those searched identified as Black.

Advisor feedback

1. Why there was such a high proportion for young people? AC described some of the operations on the district to safeguard young people and diversion from crime.
2. How much activity is conducted with parents of young people? AC described a number of activities, to support parents and develop a joined up relationship – recognising it was critical to work with parents to keep young people safe. AC also described the work with care homes to support looked after children.
3. The Stop and Search panel asked for a more detailed breakdown of ethnic groups when presented with proportionality.

6. Body Worn Video (BWV)

DH provided panel members with recent BWV footage – SH shared the police assessment framework ‘SHACKS’, to assist advisors in assessing the appropriateness of the stop search. The video showed searches conducted on three young men who had entered closed premises of a paintball site in Sussex. DH informed that no items were found, and described how officers had informed parents – in line with Sussex policy - and completed required referral forms, no charges were made. DH clarified the legal position that Sussex was showing data under agreement it (or any details) would not be shared outside of the meeting.

Advisor feedback

Advisors feedback that the interaction was professional, sensitive and polite. Suggested that govt. Need to provide spaces for young people to go. JIH asked if they were provided a receipt, DH confirmed it was electronic – via email.

Actions

Action 29: SH will provide details around ethnicity and age for 3 divisions for diversion activity around serious violence at the next meeting

Action 30: SH Advisors requested Ethnicity data to be broken down into the 18+1 ethnicity codes for next meeting.

Action 31: DH Future inputs to present find rates by % in next presentation as well as ‘actual’.

Action 32: DH to provide panel members with data breaking by 18+1 for Stop Search (Request by SH).

7. Any Other Business

AB thanked NM for his commitment to transparency and support for public scrutiny, as NM hands over to SH.

Date of next meeting: Tue 19 October 2021, 17:00-19:00 MS Teams. Focus: Searches following a Section 163 vehicle Stop

Minutes

Title: Stop Search Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Date: Tuesday 20 April 2021, 17:00-19:00

Venue: MS Teams

Welcome

AB welcomed the group and led round introductions.

1. Complaints

MR provided an overview complaints received by Sussex Police. Between the months of January 2021 – March 2021 the force received 3 complaints. MR informed the groups that these individuals did not disclose their ethnicity and the force have found people are not disclosing this on the complaint forms filled out by themselves.

Advisor feedback

Advisors questioned if the complaints received by Sussex Police are a similar amount received by other forces? MR informed the group other forces receive complaints with regards to disproportionality where as Sussex Police do not received these complaints. MR did not have the data to hand to on other forces expand on this question.

2. Grounds

MR provided the group with recent grounds for review of stop and searches and asked advisors for feedback on whether they felt the grounds were sufficient enough.

Advisor feedback

Advisors felt the detail in description is key with regards to the grounds for review so that the reasoning for the stop and search can be understood better.

Advisors questioned the ethnicity of the individuals who were stopped and searched and felt this information would be important to know. MR informed the group that one individual was a Black male and the others were white males and noted that it would be useful to know their ethnicities included in the descriptions of the grounds.

Advisors felt the intelligence part need to be explained in the first sentence of the grounds because it gives a clear understanding why the officers were concerned.

Advisors felt that descriptions of behaviour need to be expanded on with further detail to understand the reasoning of the grounds for a search.

3. Rother district data

CV provided the group with data from the district of Rother. The estimated population of Rother is 96,080 people (Office of National Statistics data estimate 2021). The population of Rother by ethnicity: 97.2% are White, 1.2% are Asian or Asian British, 1.1% are mixed, 0.3% are Black or Black British and 0.2% are other Ethnic Group (Data taken from Census 2011).

CV provided the group with an overview of Stop Search activity. There were 195 Stop Searches conducted across Rother between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021. 92.3% of these searches were White, 3.6% were Black or Black British, 2.05% were mixed, 2.5% were Asian or Asian British and 0% were other ethnic group. CV provided data on the items found on the stop searches that were conducted.

CV informed the group of the recent Operations taken place in Rother. Operation Reclaim refers to the target hardening surrounding the supply of class A and B drugs, predominantly within the Rye area of Rother District. The operation led to six warrants and currently remains active in ensuring that we support those most vulnerable and disrupt those causing harm and exploiting vulnerable members of the community through coercion and drug supply.

Operation Thornhill (Bexhill) relates to a partnership operation which assists in supporting young people away from the key divers of crime, whilst ensuring the community have confidence in our policing approach in mitigating the risks surrounding Anti-Social behaviour and criminality in the Bexhill and Sidley area.

CV provided data that showed the amount of stop searches officers were conducting and the ethnicity groups they conducted them on. The data showed 61 stop searches, 59 were conducted on white individuals and 2 were conducted on black individuals.

Advisor feedback

Advisors asked for the ethnic group ‘White’ to be expanded on. CV defined ‘White’ to be White British, White Irish or any other White background from the Home Office codes and understood this should be explored deeper.

Advisors were pleased to know a low number of Black individuals had been stopped and searched in Rother and thanked Sussex Police for their work.

Advisors were concerned that for the Black individuals stopped there was no items found on them and questioned if officers are spoken to understand why there was a need to conduct a stop and search if no item has been found on them? CV informed the group currently this does not happen but will begin to do this going forward.

Advisors questioned if the correlation had been explored between the stop and searches in weekdays to weekends and if this could explain why some officers conduct more stop searches than other officers? CV did not have this data to hand but is something that is explored and felt it would be helpful to compare the number of hours worked by the officers.

Advisors questioned if Chinese individuals are included in the ethnic group Asian? CV gave the definition of Asian or Asian British to be, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or any other Asian background.

Advisors felt the data for Black individuals was a true reflection of the ethnic population in Rother.

Advisors questioned if there is a concern for county lines in Rother? CV informed the group county lines issues are a national problem and due to being surrounded by Metropolitan areas county lines are something Sussex Police have been tackling in partnership across the whole of Sussex. With regards to

Rother the issue is not as prominent as other areas, but the areas Sussex Police have been working predominantly recently are within Rye and Bexhill area. There are a number of operations running and partnership work on this.

4. District data

DT provided the group with data that showed the amount of stop searches taken place on each ethnic group in different areas of Sussex.

DT asked the group which area they would like further detail on to scrutinise for the next meeting. Advisor feedback:

Advisors showed interested in exploring Hastings district data for the next meeting.

5. Any Other Business

Suggested agenda items:

• Road policing

Advisors questioned what materials are available on stop and search that they could share with young people regarding their rights whilst a search is being conducted. SB informed the group of a video created by young people called ‘Rewind’ on YouTube. 

Date of next meeting: Tuesday July 202021 , 17:00-19:00, MS Teams

Stop and Search Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Monday 11 January 2021, 17:00 – 19:00

Venue: MS Teams

1. Welcome

AB welcomed the group.

1. Children & Young People Stop Search Data

PC KB provided an overview of their role at Sussex Police in the Youth Safety Intervention Team and shared data with the group which shows Sussex Police carry out an average of 23 stop and searches, across Sussex per day, of the 23 searches on average 5 are under the age of 18.

KB stated that while it was a legal requirement to inform parent/carers of those under 18 if their children were arrested, this was not the case for those stop/ searched, however Sussex Police has made the decision to inform all parents /guardians when this is the case. By contacting the parent/carer in this way it allows Sussex Police to explore whether further safeguarding measures are necessary. This safeguarding might include referrals to one of a number of Multi-Agency Service Hubs (M.A.S.H) in Sussex. These M.A.S.H units include colleagues from children services, social services and early help services – professionals who are better placed than the Police in determining the welfare needs of children.

KB provided an insight into work that Sussex police has carried out to inform and educate children around stop and search.  These include Schools Liaison officers visiting schools to provide presentations that covers rights and how the police should conduct stop searches. Although COVID-19 has curtailed these visits in the last year, there were a number of other measures Sussex Police were putting in place to improve and inform the experience of stop and search related to under 18s. These include: The production of a short educational film to help improve understanding around Stop & Search, enhanced safeguarding training for police officers to consider when they conduct stop and searches and the establishment of a local scrutiny panel for young people which will convene when COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted.

KB provided data to the group which showed that between 01/12/2019 – 30/11/2020 there had been a total of 8,334 searches in Sussex, for all ages. For children between the ages of 10-17 there had been 1,926 searches, of this 216 self-identified as Black Asian Ethnic Minority (B.A.M.E). For people between the ages of 18-29 there had been 3,828 searches, of this 725 self-identified as B.A.M.E. KB informed the group that 50 under 18’s were searched more than twice in the last 12 months, of this 38 were White and 8 were Black or Black British and provided examples of why these searches were conducted and what the outcomes were.

KB also provided an overview of Operation Safety which was an operation conducted across Sussex and designed to mitigate, prevent and deter knife crime. The police carried out multiple patrols in local parks and train stations areas where intelligence indicated knives had been carried before. The operation was also supported by a comprehensive community /schools awareness campaign to educate children on the dangers and consequences of knife crime.

Advisor feedback:

Advisors had mixed views on the data provided regarding the amount of Stop Searches that were carried out on under 18’s but were encouraged that the amount of stops were lower than expected.

Advisors asked if there were any specific policies outlining procedures relating to under 18s who were from a refugee or migrant background, where they may not necessarily speak English as their first language? KB informed the group that officers would typically have direct access to translations services, which can be facilitated using their mobile data terminals on speaker phone to communicate with someone who does not speak English as their first language. Officers will also put through a referral to the multi-agency, who work 24/7, to gain access to information that will show where the individual is being housed and who is responsible for them.

Advisors also asked whether there was any input from diverse communities, using their experiences to help inform current police training around stop and search. KB informed the group all training goes through Sussex Police’s Learning and Development department which does  cover aspects of diversity but there were always opportunities to take away learning  from other areas.  

Advisors were concerned about the effects of being stop searched disproportionately – (with less likelihood statistically of being found in possession of a searched for object(s) for Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic under 18’s.  KB understood this has a big impact on under 18’s as this could be their first interaction with the police and if it was  a negative experience then this may have a detrimental impact on their future interactions with the police. KB reassured the group that this is something Sussex Police are working towards, to make officers fully aware of the impact that a stop and search has on an individual. And this is one of the reasons why Sussex Police chose to inform parents/carers of under 18’s about the stop and search which had taken place.

Advisors questioned if officers follow up the stop and searches on under 18’s who have no object found on them to see if this is happening in a particular area or conducted by particular officers. KB reassured the group there was an oversight policy in place and officer’s stop and search records were regularly were scrutinised for signs or patterns which may suggest bias. KB informed the group that he himself looks through every stop search conducted on under 18s to ensure the correct safeguarding has been carried out.

Advisors questioned what reaction officers receive when they inform the parents of a Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic under 18 that their child has been stopped and searched?  KB felt that although more research needs to be done in this area to fully understand this question, they informed the group that in general, parents are usually thankful to officers for making them aware of developing behavioural issues and allowing them the opportunity to resolve within a family setting.

1. District Data

DT provided an update on District Data that showed the total number of stop searches conducted over the last 12 months and a percentage by ethnicity and breakdown for each district in Sussex.

DT asked the group if they would prefer to carry on looking at all the stop searches carried out in Sussex or if they are interested in the breakdown of a specific area? Advisors expressed interested into the breakdown of stop searches in Rother.

1. Complaints

MR provided the group with complaints data received to Sussex Police since the last meeting and reassured advisors that none had been related to race or ethnicity.  11 complaints were made in the last quarter, of these 2 have been resolved locally with a telephone call. 4 of these complaints were looked into and found to be unsubstantiated. 1 of the 11 complaints was withdrawn and the organisation currently has 4 complaints that are ongoing. MR informed advisors that there was a concern that people were not providing their ethnicity data on complaint forms. This made it difficult for Sussex Police to accurately present data around disproportionality MR stated, out of the 11 complaints received only 2 people disclosed their ethnicity.

Advisor feedback:

Advisors asked about ways to improve disclosure of ethnicity and suggested we proactively asked individuals to disclose this. MR informed the group this would be difficult as the majority of complaint forms received are sent through online and therefore a conversation with the individual beforehand would not happen. MR expressed this could be made a mandatory field for individuals to fill in. Advisors felt there should also be an option for individuals to not disclose their ethnicity if they do not wish to.

Action 27: DT to invite MR to next meeting to provide an insight into the grounds of complaints made.

Action 28: DT to send advisors the two slides from the presentation led by MR outlining the grounds.

1.  AOB

Advisors expressed interest into the multi-agency approach to training.

Date of next meeting: Tuesday 20 April 2021, TBC

Department/Division: CDD

Name: Stop and Search Scrutiny Panel

Location of meeting: MS Teams

Date: Tuesday 6 October 2020

Time: 17.00 – 19.00

 

1 Welcome

AB led round table introduction and welcomed new members.

2 Eastbourne District Stop Search Data

DL provided an overview of their role as Lewes & Eastbourne District Commander and presented to the group Eastbourne District Stop and Search data for the period 1^st July 2019 to 30^th June 2020.  During this period there were 622 searches made of which 550 were unique subjects (meaning the individual had only been stopped once). 72 searches self-identified as Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic, of which 68 were unique subjects.

Advisor feedback:

Advisors were concerned that the stop search data range for 10-17 year olds was too broad to extract meaningful insight and enquired whether parents or guardians of those stop searches had been notified. DL described how Sussex Police scrutinise all stop searches of under 18’s where police powers have been used and are currently looking at reviewing the policy to ensure that a child’s parent/guardian is always contacted, including those instances where informal stop and account has taken place.

DL outlined that 55.6% of stop searches conducted by police officers were self-initiated. This is where an officer has witnessed something which then leads them to instigate a stop search. Of those people stopped, 63.4% self-identified as either Black, Asian or from a Minority Ethnic background.

Advisors expressed concern at the high level of apparent disproportionality shown by the self-initiated stop search data and shared their own experiences of culturally specific social interaction which may be misconstrued by police officers as being a sign of illegal activity. Advisors asked what training Police officers received to better understand diverse aspects of cultural interaction, in order to avoid similar misinterpretations taking place in future. DL acknowledged the advisors concern and agreed there needed to be a greater understanding and awareness by police of different cultures. DL also affirmed that grounds for search must always be recorded. DL presented data to the group which showed apparent disproportionality of Eastbourne District’s officers with the most recorded stop search. Advisors were interested to find out more about the outcomes of those searches, DL agreed to scrutinise the data further and update at future meetings.

DL then presented data showing what the outcomes were by different ethnicity of those who were found to have an object on them as a result of a stop search. Advisors expressed concern that the total number of ‘no further action’ (NFA) was 76.2% and sought further clarity around this statistic. NM provided the group with different examples of what NFA might mean for example, with regards to children being stopped and searched, depending on the item found, the outcome may be to speak informally with their parent and this would then be classed as NFA.

DL then provided an overview of the impact that the COVID pandemic had on policing and the community in Eastbourne. DL described that Operation Foresight was Sussex Police’s response for homeless people at the start of lock down who needed temporary accommodation. DL noted that Eastbourne had the highest amount of temporary accommodation sites within Sussex. The impact of this was that people from different parts of the county were being housed in Eastbourne which had seen a change in the types of offences being committed, such as anti-social behaviour and increased drug use. This operation was in place throughout the whole of lockdown and led to a number of arrests and recovery of drugs. DL stated Op Foresight had allowed Sussex Police to work closely with local stakeholders and partners in local housing, enabling the force to better understand who is being housed in the town. DL also described Operation Hyphen which resulted from Op Foresight and was in relation to drugs coming into Eastbourne from outside of the town including, from London and Southampton. DL commented on a dispersal operation that took place over the lockdown period in Gildredge Park. The park had seen large gatherings of youths and were having a negative impact on the local community and risked the potential spread of COVID. Advisors thanked DL for their time and looked forward to seeing requested updates at future meetings

• Action: SB to bring data breakdown of 10-17 year olds stop search & the grounds for the stop search at the next meeting.
• Action: DL to bring data of 10-17 year olds linked to county lines for the next meeting.
• Action: DL to provide updated Eastbourne Officer stop search outcome data to the next meeting

3 District Data

DT presented the group 12 months District Stop Search Data by recorded ethnicity across Sussex.

Advisor feedback:

Advisors were keen to see more detailed statistics to include information around stop search statistics for 10-17 year olds at the next meeting.

Complaints

Between July and October 2020 Sussex Police received one complaint regarding a stop search that took place 10 years ago, where they did not receive a copy of the record of the search.

Advisors expressed that some individuals who have been stopped and searched may lack confidence to make a complaint and were concerned that the complaint/feedback procedure was not always robust enough to acknowledge those concerns. MR informed the group that there are a number of different ways individuals can make complaints/feedback. This can be done via the QR code on the back of the stop and search paper receipt, or via the stop and search record. DT informed the group that individuals should receive a receipt when stopped and searched, which includes details on how to give a complaint or feedback.

4 AOB

Advisors were keen to hear an update about recruitment promotions. DT informed the group there will be an update at the Race Advisory Group where the group will also get the chance to meet the new Race Equality Champion. With regards to support for people interested in applying for jobs in policing Sussex Police are really hopeful that once the COVID restrictions have been reduced the force will be able to engage more with communities to encourage a greater diversity of candidates into a policing career.

New agenda items:

• Grounds for why 10-17 year olds are stopped and searched with data from SB
• All district data for 10 – 17 year olds

 

Date of next meeting January 11 17.00-19.00 TBC

Title: Stop and Search Scrutiny Panel

Date: Friday 17 July 2020 1400-1530

Venue: MS Teams

ATTENDEE NAMES REDACTED

Item 1 – Welcome

AB welcomed the group, led round the table introductions and advisors agreed housekeeping rules for the meeting.

Item 2 – C19 Enforcement Notices – Disproportionality

SB provided an overview of Operation Apollo, which commenced on 23^rd March and was Sussex/Surrey Police’s joint response to policing challenges raised during the Covid-19 period, particularly data relating to disproportionality of fixed penalty notices issued during this period.

Op Apollo was classified as a critical and major incident.

• Critical incident: ‘any incident where the effectiveness of the police response is likely to have significant impact on the confidence of the victim, their family or the community’.

• Major incident: ‘an event or situation with a range of serious consequences which requires special arrangement to be implemented by one or more emergency responder agency’.

Op. Apollo coordinated the response of several public organisations including the Military, Fire and Rescue, local government & health authorities and other key partners as part of the Local Resilience Forum.

SB provided an overview of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) that had been issued during the lockdown period since 23^rd March, and provided a detailed presentation looking at the 8^th May; which saw the greatest number of

FPNs issued and 12^th April; which showed the highest disproportionality. The presentation included the ethnicity, age and area travelling from by those who received fines, as well as the grounds provided by the issuing officer for scrutiny and feedback from advisors. SB also stated that the Home Office was due to publish peer reviewed national Police FPN figures taken during this period and agreed to make this available to advisors when it was released.

SB described the four step plan Sussex Police employed to policing the community during the pandemic: Engaging, Explaining, Encouraging and finally Enforcement. SB Stated it was Sussex Police’s priority to police by consent and maintain community cooperation through positive engagement during this period.

Advisors expressed concern that mixed messages from the media and government had caused confusion, with constantly changing regulations. Advisors also explained that people might have been more reassured had they known this plan for the ‘4 E’s’ was in place. SB agreed with advisors that this had been a challenging time for Sussex Police who often had to interpret and apply guidance from the government which sometimes lacked clarity, he recognised that there were lessons for Sussex Police to learn, particularly around public messaging and thanked advisors for their input.

SB explained to advisors that Sunday the 12^th of April showed the greatest disproportionality of BAME FPN recipients (46 in total of which 9 identified as BAME in Brighton alone) and invited advisors to provide feedback on the recorded grounds which were shared. Advisors were in broad agreement that the FPNs were fairly issued but would like to understand in more detail the circumstances of these engagements and the criteria employed to determine when FPN’s were issued. SB stated that it was a challenge to provide information in such granular detail due to the sheer volume of interactions that took place during this time (in the tens of thousands) but understood advisors concerns in relation to transparency and ensuring public trust in the police was maintained.

SB shared data indicating that the most FPNs were issued on 8^th May, which was VE day and a public holiday. 104 FPNs were issued across Sussex, 6% self-identified as BAME. 88 of those fines were issued to people who were not Sussex residents. SB asked advisors to consider the ethical dilemma of whether fines should be issued to every member of a group engaged or just to a nominated individual. Advisors felt the ticket should be issued to everyone present as this would reduce the opportunity for bias to take place and as the enforcement stage was the last step in the four part process, advisers felt people had already been afforded every opportunity to comply with the legislation. Advisors commented on how the negative publicity surrounding the activities of certain government officials/advisors during this period had made the police’s role of enforcement much more difficult and were concerned about how enforcement of the forthcoming face mask regulations would be accepted by the public especially if double standards were perceived to be employed. Other advisors agreed and felt consistency of approach was important in order to manage community perceptions of what is going on; they highlighted the apparent discrepancy shown between the ways beachgoers at Bournemouth or Liverpool fans were not moved on by police, whereas a pre-arranged Black Lives Matter event in London attracted police attention, and subsequent outbreak of public disorder.

Action: SB to find out how many under 18’s had their tickets issued to their parents. SB explained that 4 tickets were issued to parents over the whole force during lockdown.

Item 3 – District Data – Times More Likely

DT provided an overview of Sussex Stop and Search disproportionality at district level. The data included ethnicity % for each district for contrasting proportionality. Advisors requested that the next meeting would scrutinise the data for Eastbourne District, with future meetings to consider Rother and Wealden district data and also to consider adding age as an aspect to stop/search scrutiny

Item 5 - AOB

DJ asked advisors for suggestions around ways Sussex Police can be better informed about developing Stop and Search issues at a more local

SB thanked all for attending the meeting.

 

Date of Next Meeting 8 October