Stop and search
Remember, under the Stop and Search legislation, everyone has rights. This includes the person being stopped and searched and the officer doing the stop and search. A stop and search must be conducted lawfully and legitimately, regardless of race, religion, belief, gender, sexuality or ethnicity. The intention of a stop and search is to prevent unnecessary arrests and to keep you and others safe.
Every person who is stopped and searched is entitled to a receipt. This is offered at the time of the search via email, on paper, or can be requested at a later date from a police station within a year of the stop and search taking place.
It is our policy for our officers to record a stop and search using their body worn video. The person being stopped and searched, or any other person in a public place, can also record the interaction so long as they are not obstructive.
When stopped, the officer will give their name and the police station they work from. The officer will explain:
- The reason for the stop, known as the grounds
- What they think they may find, the objective of the search
- Why a person is being detained for a short while and which police power they are using to do so
If the person who is stopped has a problem understanding what is being explained by an officer, they have the right to ask for an interpreter or for an appropriate adult.
Officers understand that being stopped and searched can be worrying for some people. Our officers will do what they can to protect a person’s dignity and privacy during a stop and search.
Our advice is to try to remain calm during the interaction, and if you have any feedback or have a complaint, this can be raised with the officer at the time, or subsequently via the links on the receipt or by visiting our Complaints pages.
Normally the officer doing the search will be the same gender as the person being stopped though there may be occasions when this isn’t possible.
If there is a need for a strip search, this will always be done by an officer of the same gender. A strip search will never happen in a public place.
During a stop and search, the officer may ask the person who is stopped to remove their jacket or other outer garments such as hats, gloves and scarves. They will search through any items being carried, for example a rucksack, wallet or handbag.
We have a responsibility to ensure we use Stop and Search powers effectively and fairly. Being held accountable over what we do is fundamental to the trust and confidence people place in us.
For an overview of our Stop and Search statistics, please visit police.uk.
Community Complaints Trigger
You can request a Community Complaints Trigger by completing our online form.
Submissions will be independently reviewed by a Stop and Search Scrutiny Panel made up of members of the public. Reviews can also be requested by a third party such as MP, local councillor, community group, or a carer for a vulnerable person or for someone with disabilities that would prevent them from requesting a case review themselves.
A third party can only request a review on behalf of a subject if they have the subjects consent. Checks will be made to ensure that third party requests are genuine; the subject will be contacted to ensure that they are happy with the request being made.
Stop and Search Independent Scrutiny Panel
Sussex Police regularly hosts a Stop and Search scrutiny panel; meetings take place every few months and can be attended in person at Sussex Police Headquarters in Lewes or through our digital meeting platform. The panel comprises community members from across the county. The purpose of the panel is to improve the trust and confidence of communities, and provide an opportunity for members of the public to independently quality assure the use of Stop and Search powers in Sussex. This includes exploring disproportionality of thematic and district level data, reviewing body worn video footage, assessing the lawfulness of grounds and subsequent outcomes of activity.
If you would like to get involved, email [email protected]
- Use of Force and Stop & Search summary 2025-2026
- Download the terms of reference for the Scrutiny Panel.
We are aware that the documents above may not be full accessible to all users. Please email [email protected] if you have any queries about the content.
Stop and Search Scrutiny Panel minutes
Stop and search scrutiny panel 28/09/2026 1700-1900
Attendees
- Independent Chair – Jed Murray (JM)
- CI Jim Loader (JL)
- DS Katie Clack (KC)
- Insp Liz Parkhouse-Burton (LPB)
- Mark Rendell (MR)
- 5 x Community Advocates (A1, A2, etc)
1700 – Opening from chair and apologies.
Introductions
JL – We are now gathering data about how are not using force, about 45% of the time on stop searches we are not using force.
JM – I would like to see regular data on young black men and stop searches moving forwards. There is still disproportionality and outcomes and I’d want to be updated.
A1 – I would like to see how that links that to the outcomes of the race action plan.
JM – Gatwick airport has 43 million people pass through it each year – this inflates our statistics about stop and search in that area, and it reflects across the whole county. So thought we could drill down into data about what this looks like.
JL - presents Gatwick data – this shows stop and search in Gatwick area not just airport. There have been 182 stop searches in last year. This makes up 2-7% force total last year. There are 43 million annual passengers, very diverse, tourists etc. Find rates are 35%-39% in other districts the find rate is 42%.
A1 – is this people just in customs?
JL – Outside and inside airport.
A2 – How have percentages been in the past – how can you relate this to previous ones?
JL – It’s a high find rate – it’s been going up in Sussex, some training gone into this and discussions as to what do we want from stop and search. When we teach it we talk about ‘suspicion’ power. Suspicion and belief are two different tolerances. Believe is about 50% on scale of 1-100 and suspicion is at about 25%
A2 – wanted to know what the figures were a few years ago.
A3 – Should be high at Gatwick because you have dogs?
LPB – Lots of CCTV too.
A3 – Trained drugs dog are on the lookout all the time. Not the same on the streets.
JL – Central search at Gatwick – if something is found on someone there, then that is not a stop search so not in stats. They will call Police but not in stats.
JM – Does this include knives in hold luggage?
JL – There’s separate for scanning for that I think
JL – (in answer to A3’s question) 2023 force average find rate was just over 35% now it is 38/39% so it is increasing.
JM – is that because there are more people or because you are doing things differently?
JL – Number of stop searches we do has gone down and find rate as come up.
JM – are the statistics similar for race?
JL – Find rate for Black people and White people were similar - a few percentages apart.
JM – Going back to suspicion - I always think back to the 70’s and 80’s and the ‘sus laws’
JL – Sus laws were prior to PACE, PACE does address suspicion. That’s why we ask officers ‘what does suspicion mean?’ This was misused/abused prior to that power when it did not exist. It’s quite a subjective question.
JM – It explains the problem the Black community have with trust and it’s important to explain – it goes back to slavery – just because you’re Black seen as not having any money and therefore a target to be arrested. Ancient laws and conversation still going on today. I would be interested to see if intel stops are different to suspicion stops.
A4 - could you stop and search someone if you believe they have something?
JL – Yes because it’s gone past the same suspicion point. Officers go through a scale of suspicion to knowing.
A5 – When you’re a youth you have thoughts that you’re going to be stopped, so you look at officers, and it’s how you approach them that counts. (Talking about a BWV watched last time where two Black boys were stop searched on Brighton beach).
A6 – Suspicion or not, it’s down to you and your discretion. What about calls when you get people saying I’ve seen someone behaving untoward and Police go out?
JL – Police record why they have done a stop search – either Officer initiated, or CAD initiated. We have been trying to ask ourselves - what if the member of public who calls us is biased? What if they are thinking there is a Black person hanging around and they look suspicious? Officer needs to be thinking ‘why am I here?’ Current work has shown bias from the callers. It is the officer’s decision to stop search, not just because someone has called us.
A6 - Do you in Sussex Police have performance indicators? Could pressure be applied to Sussex as to how many stop searches they are supposed to do?
JL – No, but we do look at teams that do a lot and teams that don’t.
JM – Is that reported on the Sussex Police website? I don’t think you put out enough information about what you do. You get a lot of negative press, and it’s important you get more good work out.
JL – Best use of stop and search said every force should release data. We’ve been doing that for a few years – not last year as we were reviewing how we were going to present it. Last month’s document is about 5 slides which shows statistics of stop and search data – find rates, ages, outcomes etc. With ethnicity data.
JL – Next time I will go back further on find rates by ethnicity.
(Continuation of presentation) - Object of search – drugs is 26% in Gatwick and 41% is stolen goods. We also do some searches for terrorism.
Searches by ethnicity - 11% were Asian, Black is 18%, and Mixed is 7%. Different demographic coming through Gatwick more than anywhere in Sussex. If the person refuses their ethnicity, then the officer will record it themselves as to the best of their knowledge.
JM – talking about the IC codes – I am opposed to it.
JL – We have moved away from that.
BWV 1
Black male stopped in vehicle for having provisional driving licence. Drug swipe completed. Admitted to smoking cannabis some hours before being stopped. Produces cannabis and then 23 MDA search. Compliant. Male arrested.
A1 – Officer leading I was happy with, the comment ‘you look docile’ was a bit rude -it was a calm situation it that could have ignited it. Lead officer did his job well. There was no need for cuffs, just the docile comment for me.
JL – Do you think he tried to wind him up?
A1 – Yes
A2 – Police were explaining situation really well. It kept him calm. Docile comment – language he may not have understood, not everyone would understand that.
JM – When someone’s driving details come up do convictions come up?
JL – Yes, these are traffic officers, they stopped him because of the licence. Then more came up. SHACKS then comes up. Went up to suspicion and then he admitted he had it (cannabis)
A2 – Why so many Police officers at the end?
JL – It’s 3 in the morning so maybe not much more going on. Not excusing it but this may be why
A2 – Could be quite intimidating.
A3 – Was this a random stop?
JL – There is no CAD so self-initiated, my assumption is that they were out on patrol and have stopped him.
A4 – Thought the officer was good, experienced, polite and respectful.
BWV 2
Theft of sunglasses. Number of black males stop and searched. Tracked via CCTV from shop. Officers separated to complete searches. Nothing found.
A1 – Boys were calm and relaxed and had not done anything. One officer shook hands with them. Their expressions – they look vivid, must have been embarrassed. The shop has no CCTV? This is racial profiling. I understand because Police have to do their job, and it was done to the best of their ability.
A2 – I agree. Really busy place, officer did try to go somewhere private, saying he was going to go quick as he could.
A1 – This is the middle of Gatwick, why is there no CCTV in the shop?
JL – Sunglasses Hut do regular stock take because there is lots of theft. Between stock take some sunglasses went missing. They told Police these males were in the store between the time of the stock take. But should they have stop searched them?
A3 – But other people would have been in the shop at that time though?
A1 – That shop should have CCTV if it’s going on all the time.
A4 – Officers were good – it goes back to the shop as to why they reported that group of boys.
A5 – Could they have not just asked the boys – turn out your pockets and then be done? Did they have to take it as far as they did?
JM – They were searched in a public area; people must be thinking ‘a load of Black boys have done something wrong.’ Officers were armed? Why couldn’t someone else have come and done it?
A5 - Does Gatwick have security not just Police?
A1 – These were decent guys going on holiday.
JM – This community is being over-policed. Who else was stop searched? (from CCTV from Sunglasses Hut)
A6 – did it not hit the alarm? Was it tagged?
JM – it’s putting Police under pressure. You have to deal with it straight away. It wasn’t very private.
JL – Gatwick don’t have security roaming around. We can’t ask someone to turn their pockets out, they could say no. If we stop search someone they are detained. If you are going to do stop search, then do a stop search. They did not ask him to take his jumper off so they did use their discretion.
A1 – it comes back to the shop –they should have CCTV. They just decided it was the Black boys.
A5 – saying they should have gone somewhere more private – so where would you have taken them? They found the best place.
JM – this is a huge area with loads of shops, if they are going to do their job there should be somewhere to be searched.
A5 – Gatwick was busy and that was the least busiest part. They tried to find the quietest place by not diverting the boys somewhere else.
BWV 3
Stopped people drifting round a roundabout in BBH causing a nuisance. Officer says he saw someone throwing something out the car. Officer smells cannabis. Officers stop search occupants of the car- S.23 MDA. Occupants are Black and Asian. Nothing found.
JM – There was lots of finger pointing and gestures, treating him like he is a kid. He had done wrong driving crazily, but I thought the officer sounded like he had made his mind up. After all that it was not what he thought it was. He put his own bias on it. His demeanour was unnecessary.
A1 – He was aggressive, gesturing, that’s bad policing. He was patronising, he needed to bring himself down. He was shouting over him. It was poor, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
She said (female officer) ‘do you look like I was born yesterday’ - they are supposed to be the ones who are calm. That’s what I would expect the boys to say! There was aggression, was it because they were Asian boys, or because they looked Black? This should be shown in training. Bad policing – awful.
A2 - Officer spoke over the female officer. Maybe he was the most senior officer?
A3 – They said they were getting irritated because of the car, they showed how irritated they were when they got there.
JM – If you’re a warrant card holder and have all the power, maybe just say about the manner of driving and damage that could be caused – but they were patronising.
A3 – the boys stayed calm even though the officer was going at them.
A4 – I agree, next time I’d like to see a White person searched so I can compare? If that had been a group of White kids would it have been the same?
JM – next time we can put some comparisons in there.
A1 – I wonder how this could have escalated.
A3 – do you think they were treated that role because of ethnicity?
A1 – I can’t say but the officer was hyped
A5 – I can understand the reaction because of the anger but he lost his sense of professionalism.
A2 – He undermined his own colleague, the process was good – he mentioned the grounds and his name. He lacked in communication skills.
JM – who decides who leads on a stop like that?
JL - It’s in the moment really.
EPB – Could be a gender thing.
JM – it felt like, ‘I’m the male I’ll lead on it.’
JL – or the most hyped up.
1910 Meeting ends
Feedback
JL – completes feedback task.
Stop and Search Scrutiny Panel Minutes
Date: 29 June 2026
Time: 1700–1905
Present
- Superintendent Jon Gillings (JG)
- Chief Inspector Jim Loader (JL)
- Mark Rendall (MR), LPSIED
- Jeff Bassett (JB), PST Instructor
- Michelle Peckham (MP), Performance Analyst
- Jed Murray (JM), Chair (via Microsoft Teams)
- Inspector Liz Parkhouse-Burton (LP), LPSIED
- Detective Sergeant Katie Clack, Culture and Inclusivity Sergeant
- 7 x Advocates (A)
Introductions
JL explained the legal framework surrounding stop and search.
MP presented data on Sussex Police stop and search activity, including who was searched, the grounds for searches, and positive outcomes.
Discussion
JM: How does this compare with national figures?
JG: Sussex carries out relatively few stop and searches compared with other forces, which can affect disproportionality data. With lower overall numbers, a small increase in searches of Black people has a greater impact on the figures.
A: The figures rely on officers completing stop and search records. There are examples within the Met where searches are not recorded. What happens if a search is not reported?
JG: Officers are trained to activate BWV and follow GOWISELY. This is embedded from the start of their training. BWV is reviewed by Sergeants, and plain-clothes officers are now monitored to ensure compliance. Robust governance is in place.
A: Can complaints be cross-referenced against stop and search records?
MR: We have only had one complaint, which was found not to relate to a stop and search.
A: How many repeat searches involve known individuals, such as drug dealers, where prohibited items are found? If nothing is found within the Black community, does this indicate an issue?
JG: We do not categorise searches as "positive searches".
JL: Success is measured by finding the item officers were searching for.
A: Are there figures linking stop and search, convictions and ethnicity?
JG: These systems are not currently linked, making this analysis difficult.
JL: It may be possible to review this later in the year if the systems are integrated.
A: Are stereotypes and unconscious bias covered during training?
JB: Yes. This forms part of both initial recruit training and refresher training. How individuals apply this in practice is a separate matter.
JG: Officers are trained to continually ask themselves why they are carrying out the search.
A: Is data available on the ethnicity of officers conducting searches? For example, are white officers searching Black people more frequently?
JL: No overall data is available, but individual officer activity can be reviewed where appropriate. This is also relevant to use of force monitoring.
MP continued presenting data on the items officers were searching for.
JG: Sussex applies a high threshold before searching someone's pockets compared with many other forces. Although stop and search use is low nationally, Sussex has comparatively high find rates.
A: Do police forces share learning around challenges and good practice?
JG: HMICFRS publishes inspection reports, and forces engage with each other monthly.
JL: Sussex also shares policies with Surrey Police.
MP presented Sussex Police stop and search find-rate data.
A: Stop and search can be traumatic, particularly when over 60% result in nothing being found.
JG: Stop and search is not always perfect, and its use can affect public confidence.
JM: Why is disproportionality so high?
JG: Gatwick Airport is included within Sussex figures and attracts a diverse international population. In addition, Brighton receives approximately 11–12 million visitors each year, many travelling from London, which also affects the data. Community reporting may also be influenced by unconscious bias (ie, elderly population).
Body-Worn Video (BWV)
The theme for this meeting was children and young people. Feedback forms were circulated.
BWV 1
Stop and search of two young Black males on Brighton beach. Officers observed what they believed to be an exchange while the males were looking towards police officers. Daylight hours.
Feedback:
- Officers appeared abrupt and did not ask the children's ages.
- The same legal requirements apply to children; however, training around adultification is important.
- Officers should establish age at the outset. Offering a receipt without ensuring understanding was questioned.
- No apology or thanks was given at the conclusion of the encounter.
- Four officers were present for two children.
JG: Officers are trained to conduct searches in pairs, with one officer acting as cover.
Further feedback included:
- The children were cooperative but appeared uncomfortable.
- More reassurance and compassion could have been shown.
- Greater privacy should have been provided where possible.
- Looking towards police officers is not necessarily suspicious behaviour.
JG: Officers are expected to remain suspicious where appropriate, but this feedback is valuable and helps improve practice.
Questions were also raised about providing receipts and informing parents or guardians.
JL: Parents or guardians are entitled to receive the information. In this case, a Child to Notice form was completed as required.
JG: Even where nothing is found, safeguarding concerns may still exist. Parents and Children's Services are informed. Records are reviewed monthly by a Detective and Social Worker.
BWV 2
Two White youths stopped in Bognor after officers observed them smoking cannabis during daylight hours on a residential street. One youth admitted smoking cannabis and handed over the joint. The matter was dealt with by Community Resolution.
Feedback:
- Officers appeared focused on process and spoke too quickly.
- Officers used the youths' names and asked about parents, which was viewed positively.
- Only two officers were present.
JL: This was a self-initiated stop and search.
A question was raised regarding PCSOs.
JL: PCSOs do not have stop and search powers but may act as the cover officer where appropriate.
Overall, advocates felt these officers appeared genuinely concerned and made greater efforts to put the young people at ease.
BWV 3
Police responded to reports of approximately 15 youths drinking alcohol. As officers left the scene, they overheard comments suggesting someone was going to be stabbed. Officers returned and attempted to search a non-compliant child during the evening in a rural location near Hailsham. The child became violent, made threats towards officers, and the incident escalated to an arrest while other youths filmed the encounter.
Feedback and discussion:
- The child appeared to be showing off in front of peers and may have benefited from being removed from the group.
- Officers remained relatively calm despite difficult circumstances.
- The female officer raised her voice only after threats were made.
- Police managed the surrounding group as effectively as possible.
A discussion followed regarding assaults on police officers.
JG: Assaults do occur, although officers do not always report them. Sussex is encouraging improved reporting, including incidents involving racial abuse.
JL: Case law has affected the threshold for offences involving abuse directed at police officers.
Some advocates questioned whether officers should have disengaged and returned with additional resources.
JG: Given the reported stabbing comments, officers had to consider the immediate risk to public safety. Delaying intervention could have had serious consequences.
Further discussion acknowledged:
- Knife crime remains a significant concern in Sussex.
- Public safety must remain a primary consideration.
- Officers often have to make decisions with limited information and limited resources.
- Ideally, additional officers would be available, but this is not always possible.
Reference was made to the murder of Charlie Cosser in Warnham as an example of the serious consequences of knife crime.
Advocates also noted that where stop and search is used inappropriately, the individual subjected to the search may feel like a victim and should always be treated with dignity and respect.
JG: Officers should treat people as they would wish to be treated.
JM: Respect should be mutual wherever possible. There is a history of police brutality affecting young Black people, and policing remains a difficult role.
Meeting concluded at 1905 hrs.
|
Department/Division |
Local Policing Service Improvement & Engagement Department |
||
|
Meeting Title |
Police Stop and Search External Scrutiny Board |
||
|
Location |
MS Teams |
||
|
Date |
20/08/2024 |
Time |
|
|
Chair |
Supt. Michelle Palmer- Harris |
|
Attendees |
Jay Mendis- Gunasekera (JMG), Mark Rendall (MR), Michelle Palmer-Harris (MP), Angela Blackwell (AB), Anusree Biswas (AS), Lim Loader (JL) Adam McCaig (AM) |
|
Apologies |
|
|
2 |
Discussion around the charter |
Nothing has been officially written down with regards to The Charter yet for Sussex Police. Jim has reached out to The Met with regards to their results from the questions which were asked to specific community groups. Also having spoken with the National Lead for Stop and Search to also request those questions.
Clarity across the board – to the subject, and as an officer to be clear and accountable with your actions. |
|
|
3 |
|
Action - Jim to speak with Angela with regards to link in through focus groups. Asylum seeking young person’s group. Action –To have questions ready to be consulted on for the next board. Suggested – wide public consultation/social media channels. |
JL
|
|
4 |
|
Suggestion on further training to our call handlers with regards to unconscious bias. |
JMG |
|
5 |
Body Worn Video viewed |
Member of the public called in that a male dressed in black had entered her drive and attempted to enter her car. Officer attends and conducts an area search and found a male in the area matching the description. Male was stop/searched due to Section 1. Male was not local; subject was found to have a bank card in another person’s name. Male then arrested. |
MR |
|
6 |
Discussion around video |
Angela – First time watching a body warn video. Very calm atmosphere and felt the subject was kept well informed throughout. Excellent experience to watch that. Anusree – Human and kind approach. Jim – Nice that he wasn’t handcuffed. Jay – Positive nice natured stop search, professional, no attitude. How it should be done properly. Michelle – very pleased, great to see. The officers who attended as back up, did not introduce themselves to the subject. This would have been nice to see. Action - Will contact the officer to recognise very good practise. Mark – Discussion around use of handcuffs with officers with a dog unit. |
MPH |
|
7 |
Body worn Video viewed |
Group of 3 adult males in a public area, drug paraphernalia surrounding them, detained under Section 23. 2 male officers and 1 female. 1 subject accepted being searched by the female officer. Body worn camera worn by female officer. Subject placed under arrest, placed in cuffs (at the front) |
|
|
8 |
Discussion around video |
Angela – Brilliant search conducted, good communication. Anusree – Didn’t introduce herself, abrupt, no rapport with the subject. Contrast to previous video. Quite a loaded feeling when watching the video. Jay – Feels like the officers may have had bias towards them. Didn’t need to be escalated to this level. Jim – Didn’t hear the question asked about age. Michelle - Officers originally thought they were youths; however, they were adults. Circumstance was pushing the limit for the arrest; however, I understand the thought process. They also didn’t search around the area the subjects were sitting/found. Action – Jim to feedback to staff safety, with regards to emerging trends we are seeing within stop and search. Dealing with adrenaline, recognising rising anxiety, dealing with how to manage your own emotions. AM – Had previous discussion with Jim with regards to training in different environments, different levels of exposure, levels of pressure. Supervisors being able to witness their staff. Providing feedback and learning to staff. In the pipeline |
JL |
|
9 |
Section 60 |
No Section 60s in the last quarter, 2 stop/ search complaints. Both were reviewed and deemed acceptable. Nothing with regards to bias or disproportionality. EIP (Exposed intimate parts) Searches April – 15 May – 10 June – 6 None of these searches were under 18 years of age. Action – A body worn video to be found for the next meeting, which starts as a stop/search and results in a strip search. Action – EIP Data to be collected and compared against out statistics, context, and narratives. |
MR |
|
10 |
AOB |
None |
|
|
11 |
Focus for next meeting |
Adam to present in next meeting. To make sure the next meetings are scheduled in advance. |
|
|
Department / Division: |
LPST |
|
Name of Meeting: |
Stop and Search External Scrutiny Panel Meeting |
|
Location of Meeting: |
Sussex Police Headquarters and MS Teams |
|
Date / Time: |
Tuesday 6th February 2024 1730-1930 |
|
Chair: |
Anusree Biswas (CHAIR) |
|
Attendees: |
Name |
Initials |
Position |
|
|
Stuart Hale |
SH |
T/Chief Superintendent, Sussex Police |
|
|
Dan Hiles |
DH |
Chief Inspector, Sussex Police |
|
|
Alex Theodoridou |
AT |
Chief Inspector, Sussex Police |
|
|
Rebecca Ostach |
RO |
A/Chief Inspector, Sussex Police |
|
|
Mark Rendall |
MR |
Local Policing Project Officer |
|
|
Andy Dunkling |
AD |
A/Inspector, Sussex Police |
|
|
Felix Annan |
FA |
|
|
|
Maria Kean |
MK |
|
|
|
Joanne Monck |
JM |
|
|
|
Georgina English |
GE |
|
|
Apologies: |
Name |
Initials |
Position |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Item |
Content: |
Owner |
|
01 |
Welcome and Introductions The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions completed |
Chair |
|
02 |
Actions from Previous Meeting Actions from the previous meeting were accepted and completed |
Chair |
|
03 |
Stop and Search CHARTER This is the Sussex Police Stop and Search Charter 2024. It is born out of the Casey Report and this was following the growing public concern involving a number of incidents within the Metropolitan Police Service (MET). Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to lead an independent review on their culture and standards of behaviour that began in 2022 and concluded last year. From this it recommends establishing a Charter on how and when we Stop and Search used with an agreed rationale and to provide an annual account of its use by area and by the team undertaking Stop and Searches. A Charter is a formal statement from Sussex Police, co-authored by members of the public on how Stop and Search should be conducted in Sussex. There are 4 phases of Charter Phase 1- Scoping Sussex Wide Engagement Phase 2- Co-producing the Charter Phase 3- Delivering and Embedding Charter Phase 4- On-going Review and Scrutiny of Charter There is no time frame on this because each stage may deliver new challenges or suggestions. ACTION: Attendees to think about questions for External Panel and to feedback to Andy/Rebecca or Mark and to bring back to next meeting to update
SH: This is one of the bigger pieces of work over the next 12 months and charter is almost like an agreement with Community and Sussex Police about when to use Stop and Search and how we use this. Spoken several times, around how we speak to others, build form of legitimacy, having fully explained the stop and search and have we contacted the parent/guardian? Then look to publish and most importantly, be held accountable to this. Other than MET Police, Sussex Police are the only other Force looking at completing this. CW: It’s the engagement with the public, the public need to see that you are trying to do this as well. There has been some damage from certain individuals within Forces. There needs to be an open and honest discussion with the public. JM: The age bracket should be across the board. Stop and search can happen to anyone of any age, then the consultation phase should be within any age bracket. AB: It is essential to reflect on those who are stopped and searched, who are mainly younger generation and men. It doesn’t need to be the same but needs to make sure the consultation phase has these groups and possible those who are 10 and above who are also being stopped and searched. AD: So to look at all age brackets for the consultation phase but essentially we need to reflect those being stopped and searched which includes young adolescent males. DH: What would be an appropriate way of facilitating the youth voices involved? AB: For this to happen you need to go where they are or have support from someone else to have these conversations and youth voices involved. AD: We are actively doing this already and approaching youth groups through different organisations such as Brighton, Hove Albion which we are partnering with on an exciting project. In relation to the age bracket on youth adolescents is to include them in the Charter in terms of what would they like from us as Police Officers. AB: How should we seek the trust of hard-to-reach members of the Community, least likely to trust us (Police) rather than hard to reach, change to seldom heard members of the Community. JM: Transgender members of the Community do not trust the Police. There has been a historic lack of trust from the transgender community to Sussex Police for a while. How can we look to break this and get this trust to get them in this consultation phase. This would mainly be through community engagement. SH: Purpose of bringing this to the meeting is to develop the Charter for Stop and Search, to ask for your guidance and help around how we can get those not heard groups involved. We are looking at how we carry out the engagement as a whole piece. AB: And around mental health and capturing this because sometimes are present in a particular way. It would be good to see what this means regarding stop search and those with learning disabilities and autism. AT: We are reviewing the way we are using our advisory groups and the way we engage with the Community. We are reviewing all our engagement plans currently and we are working with external consultancy to do this review. We are waiting for some recommendations, which won’t come in until end of March. ACTION: Maria to see if there are funds to support this piece of work and to link in with Anusree
AD: This Charter will be as per the Casey review. Currently, stop and search charter is designed specifically around this. SH: Our proposal is stop and search charter and around the annual report that we place on the website for example. This is about trying to explain to others, when we got the arch and having consulted people, when you think we should use it and how we should conserve. Positive Engagement Group in Crawley is a good example of where we do take stop and search to and discuss. In relation to funding, we have discussed this with DCC in Culture and Standards Board and some of our work in the Race Action Plan. AB: Around the Seldom Community, is this something to scope and get a sense of cause? Also, how about people who are homeless, or substance misuse might be good to consider their view. AD: Need to bring this to the panel and to see which groups we are going to engage with. AT: Meeting with the Home Office to add some of those onto the Intranet. The discussion is not only around stop and search but Domestic Abuse and what should be doing. Also providing the right leaflet for the right person. There is an ongoing piece of work I’m involved with currently. So, if someone gets stopped and searched, there could be a link to our website as well to help them read through. If they don’t understand it, that is something we could add on the single online home page which is our front Intranet pages. SH: They key is to know what people can expect. What does the Police and Criminal Evidence Act say the Police can stop and search someone for. This doesn’t always mean that we should still do this and it doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do, but it is also about how we’ve treated them. We want to get into quite a level of detail and then train our staff around what the expectations when you stop and search somebody and around thoroughly explaining in in a language they understand. How do we know that the quality of stop and search we have done with someone and for example; the Charter could say that every year as part of our practical staff safety training, everyone has to complete a stop and search which is a debrief. So there could be some tangible things that we could think about including. FA: Wanted to find out if you already have some standards around these. AD: Standards around College of Policing, APP Sussex Police Policy and have put out e-learning training within. What this Charter is, is not about what standards we expect if we aren’t going out stop searching someone. This is about finding out what the Community expects from us and getting the standards from the Community. Maybe some of the groups that aren’t quite Boy Scouts, we would then go and visit and might be they have some unrealistic expectations from the Police and are not going to be answering everyone and all the suggestions we receive. This is a fact-finding mission, where we listen to what the Community says and then take this away and developing what we can from this. DH: One of the primary things we should be getting right is making it clear and a promise to our Communities that we should never be making our decisions to use our stop search powers based on ethnicity alone. This is the minimum standard and should be getting right and feel its cancelled as we don’t necessarily get that right. FA: Telling a member of the public, me assuring my children that if a Police Officer stopped them for any reason it will be down to some evidence rather than the officers on arbitrary suspicion. A lot of people who get aggrieved with stop searches, especially from an ethnicity point of view, is mostly because of arbitrary reason for the stop search rather than Police Officer having some concrete evidence. JM: Been liaising to be part of eight training days for frontline and neighbourhood officers, specifically around hate crime. Through this training, if we can get the level of commitment and knowledge of diverse communities that are recipients of hate crime and can then link it in with having similar trust for stop search. ACTION: Joanne to link in with Andy to give more information of the training taking place and feed this back into the Charter
DH: When our Inspector came to inspect our performance in all areas of Force performance, there were only two areas of business where the Force was rated as performing good and one of them was this area of scrutiny. It is worth highlighting when it comes to the scrutiny process, we think of nationally leading in terms of we don’t just look at the grounds that were recorded on the ticket inviting at the time but have a whole process for scrutiny that’s built around the person who conducted the stop search and viewing the body worn video and providing feedback. That is an opportunity for training the scrutiny and learning it with the individual and then gets documented and recorded. AB: Body worn videos may be time consuming, but they are good at illustrating good and bad practice. It is finding the time and who will scrutinize this. May be interesting to look at more details. If have a breakdown of data and really investigate the data, this would be great. AD: The BWV is scrutinised across the Force daily by supervisors. MR: We’re introduced two other levels of scrutiny within the Force now. We’ve got the normal scrutiny where District or Division and supervisors would look at the body worn videos for officers. We’ve now introduced another level where there are dip checks by supervisors due to not being able to watch body worn and they’ll make that as part of the officer’s development meeting to watch the body worn footage and give them live feedback. This feedback is then recorded, so its good feedback in need of further training. In addition to this, there was another recommendation which was that all senior officer’s complete scrutiny of body worn, and this is being implemented. SH: As an offer, the body worn videos are very useful and we can carry out more of this. We can have ½ day every month, we can’t send out the footage via teams where we can facilitate people looking at it, but if there are volunteers and people who want to watch more body worn video and give us feedback, we are happy to facilitate this. ACTION: Panel members to email Stuart/Rebecca if they would like to volunteer to view body worn video and provide feedback on this.
CW: Observer shifts are good at getting an idea of what frontline policing is about and be able to see stop search and how they deal with individuals. JM: I’ve completed three of these including Gatwick which gave an insight into policing, and should we undertake scrutiny differently? Got to remember is there is a huge difference between external panels and what to discuss internally but you are selecting cases at random of stop and search of body worn video that as non-police members of the panel we off positive or negative feedback and that is what is important and must not change. ACTION: Andy to get a project plan together by the next meeting, to give the next steps/timeline on the plan.
|
A/Inspector Andy Dunkling |
|
04 |
Body Worn Video Reviews First body worn video, the grounds recorded were male was stopped after being seen walking in centre of the road. Male was spoken to and admitted to smoking cannabis earlier in the day. Males eyes were bloodshot and was slurring words and appeared under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. First Body Worn Video shown to all. JM: Thought this was brilliant. Person was being searched and very compliant. The conversation between officer and who was searching was 100% accurate. Grounds were correctly identified. AD: Totally agree with you. The tone of voice of the officer was fantastic and showed the male respect. Does go to show the level of compliance was gained immediately from the tone of voice and they met on a level and maintained. SH: Will pass these onto the officer. Usually, we bring ones that aren’t very good, but it is useful to show ones that are good as well. What struck me was the human nature of the officer and the good rapport with the person and seemed genuinely to care. Second Body Worn Video shown to all. JM: From this body worn video, the person had no trust in Sussex Police in investigating and supporting him for something that happened a week ago. Seemed the conversation was heated backwards and forwards. SH: Question is, did we have a report from the previous week and can understand from tone of voice, if we didn’t respond. Also, the officer was chewing gum when talking, but could have stopped chewing the gum when talking to the person. AD: Did look into this and two separate officers had gone back for that location. They researched our command and call system which means we can identify a shop or area and narrow this down into codes and search this back over two weeks and there was only a report of a disturbance at the shop. SH: There is an argument that it may well have happened and he didn’t have the trust and confidence to call us, but pleased that other officers looked back because he had told us something had happened and we checked if we did have a report or not. JM: The officers could have shown a little more compassionate as they would not have known about whether anything happened a couple of weeks ago. SH: Different times where the officer was responding to the male was up and down. What we’d ideally like is, when we have completed the search and whether we found a knife or not, we’ll more than likely get an update at the end of what we dealt with the individual. If we didn’t find a knife that is our opportunity to scale right back because if the threat is gone and ideally we would then be having a conversation with the individual about what did happen a week ago. MR: The outcome was no further action with the knife but I believe he was taken and believe he was arrested but not relating to the stop search. ACTION: Andy to look through the investigation and speak to the officer concerned to see if he did report anymore about the incident previously and provide recent update at the next meeting |
Mark Rendall |
|
05 |
S60 Updates No section 60 updates |
Mark Rendall |
|
06 |
Updates on Complaints Had some complaints come through but nothing about ethnicity. We had some complaints this quarter regarding asked to give name and address. Looked through the complaints and everything was found to be satisfactory. The conduct was found to be satisfactory |
Mark Rendall |
|
07 |
Stop and Search Grounds ACTION: Mark to send out the form relating to Stop and Search Grounds to fill out before the next meeting |
Mark Rendall |
|
08 |
Strip Search Update |
Mark Rendall |
|
09 |
Focus of Next Meeting SH: I believe Rebecca was going to have the disproportionality of the different districts. If there is a particular district, because we used to talk about a particular area in a geographical area. RO: I have been approached by a colleague in Horsham that has been completing some work around disproportionality and could consider this. SH: Horsham is the second highest, proportion wise of disproportionality relations to stop and search. We could ask the District Commander from Horsham to bring some data and talk through some of the work in that particular area and some of the work with the community. CW: It would be quite interesting to hear what has been going on. JM: What has been good to see is some more engagement from the PCSO around the district. March 31st is Transgender day of visibility and Pride months coming up as well. We need to be aware of that and how we look at potential stop and search to members of the LGBT Community and the key is pronouns and respect. FA: Anything around the West Sussex. That should be fine. AB: If we could look at Horsham for the next meeting and then after Bognor Regis as an area, we are familiar with. SH: For the next meeting we could look at Body Worn from Horsham area and Bognor Regis and focus on the areas we are talking about. |
Chair |
Date / Location of next meeting: (Complete)