Stop and search

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 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)

Stop Search External Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Tuesday 3 October 2023, 5pm

Venue: Sussex Police Headquarters and MS Teams

Attendees names redacted for publication.

Welcome and introductions

JR leads round table introductions and the earlier minutes were agreed.

Actions from previous meeting

JR updated current action Log.

Action (61) - in reference to Casey report recommendations on stop and Search. Request to thematically contextualize disproportionality in Sussex, to focus on racial profiling and use of force disproportionality around 163 road traffic stops.

Adult strip search and disproportionality

RO provided an overview and definition of Sussex Police procedure around strip search which involved exposure of intimate body parts (EIP).

With RO describing how officer training was designed to minimise embarrassment – for example, Officers do not remove all clothing at the same time. Usually, clothing will be removed above the waist first then allowing the person to redress, before removing the rest of the clothing. RO stated that Officers are trained to undertake the search as quickly as possible treating the person with respect and dignity. Sussex Police Officers conducted EIP searches on 117 adults and 13 Children and Young People between the 1 April 2022 and the 31 March 2023. RO provided an overview of several data sets of adults subject to EIP during the period cited, to identify any areas of disproportionality around EIP.

These included adult EIP searches and outcomes broken down by officer defined gender, ethnicity at the Divisional level, including the powers used and whether force was used to affect those EIPs.

RO highlighted a number of recommendations made by the Sussex Police review team, these included:

• Enhanced scrutiny of all Brighton EIP searches, reviewing grounds and Body Worn Video (BWV) footage prior to the EIP search taking place.

• Enhanced scrutiny of EIP searches where items were found to gain a greater understanding why arrest, community resolution, summons rates are low and what action (if any) Officers are taking.
• Sharing findings with Divisional PEEL / Legitimacy Boards for enhanced oversight and scrutiny.

SH noted that the outcome data showed that no further action (NFA) was the outcome in a high proportion of incidents where something had been found- this was an area that Sussex Police were keen to explore further SH stated as EIP was a highly emotive and invasive process, it seems counterproductive to find something as a result of EIP and then NFA.

• Action - provide copy of EIP  presentation with minutes for context.
• Action - SH/DH Explore reasons for high proportion of NFAs as a result of EIP search where something was found.

Advisors sought clarity around policy for EIP strip search for adults with mental health issues, especially where lack of capacity to understand and consent was a consideration. DH drew on previous experience as a custody sergeant to assure advisors that robust protocols were in place to ensure appropriate triaging of individuals who were experiencing mental health crisis– including onsite provision of appropriate adult services  to support the detainee. Advisors raised concerns that the small data set provided of EIPs could lead to a skewing of the results and imply different ranges of disproportionally than actually existed. Regarding Use of Force of detainees subject to EIP,  advisors requested that future data included the reason why force was used in any given EIP example and being included as standard for future EIP strip search records. In relation to Use of Force, MR/DH clarified that in the great majority of instances force was used solely in the context of compliant handcuffs, where detainees were handcuffed to contain, for theirs and officer safety while the search was taking place and for transportation and to minimise the risk of a detainee ingesting hidden articles or retrieving a concealed weapon where circumstances allowed.

• Action - SH/DH to explore reasons for use of force of detainees in custody and types of force and update at next meeting.
• Action - explore changes in EIP search disproportionality over time after introduction of new procedures around enhanced scrutiny of EIP searches in custody to update at next meeting.

Baroness Casey recommendations

Following the growing public concern relating to a number of incidents within the Metropolitan Police Service (MET), Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to lead an independent review on the Met’s culture and standards of behaviour. The review being in February 2022 and concluded in 2023. A number of recommendations were made, including that the use of Stop and Search needs a fundamental reset. Casey recommends that police forces establish a charter on how and when stop and search is used, with an agreed rationale, and provide an annual account of its use by area and by team undertaking stop and searches. Compliance with the charter should be measured independently, including the viewing of Body Worn Video footage. SH asked advisors to consider what they felt such a charter should look like and how it might function in terms of promoting legitimacy, transparency and accountability at the heart of Sussex Police’s Stop Search scrutiny policy. SH stated that this was a conversation which can develop over a period of time and after Sussex Police has received guidance from a national level of expectations.

Advisors expressed concern how the findings and recommendations of Casey might be impacted by the policies and outlook of the current Home Secretary to increase Stop Search rates by police across England. SH stated that stop and search remained a valuable and powerful tool for the Police and noted that the Home Secretary was referring to stop and search primarily around serious violence and the carrying of weapons as opposed to drugs. Some advisors were keen to see a more community led engagement and intelligence approach, to act on and target known weapon carriers rather than an indiscriminate increase of the number of stop and searches, also to understand and counter why many youths are feeling vulnerable enough to carry a weapon in the first place.

Advisors were mindful that this forum should remain focussed on what is right for stop and search policing in Sussex rather than being reactive to ongoing events at the Metropolitan Police which is a distinctive and separate organisation. Advisors noted that while there has been a much progress in the way Sussex Police conducts stop and search in recent years – especially compared with other forces, there is still much to be gained from learning lessons from other forces, especially when mitigating bad practice or poor conduct.

Body Worn Video (BWV) reviews

Action - to include up to three BWV clips to next meeting as substantive agenda item.

Pride 2023 stop search data

MR provided an overview of Stop and Searches which took place during the Brighton Pride weekend August 2023. 273 were conducted, which is an increase from 89 conducted in 2022. MR described the powers under which people were searched 97% (264) being for the misuse of drugs and the ethnic breakdown of those searched, 78% being white, 5% Asian and 8% black persons as well as self-defined gender. 213 were male with three identifying as non-binary. MR described the role of passive drug dogs, how they were deployed during the event and how passive dogs contributed to overall stop, search and find activity over the weekend. Through the lens of ethnicity, MR described outcomes where people were arrested as a result of a stop search for drugs and explained an apparent example where black people were being arrested disproportionality as the result of a single incident, where four black individuals were arrested after having been detained in the act of committing crime.

Action - MR clarify details and context of arrest of Black individual who was EIP strip searched at Pride compared with two who were had no further action.

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 there were no instances recorded.

Under-18s Exposure of Intimate Parts (Strip Searches)

Since the last meeting there have been three recorded strip searches taking place on children (under 18 years of age): a white 15 year old male EID in custody; a white male, searched in hospital because he had ingested a quantity of drugs; a white female arrested for drugs possession who was searched in custody. All instances were compliant with current legislation and  conducted with appropriate adult and Inspector in attendance.

Complaints

Five complaints made since last meeting. After investigation by Professional Standards Department there were no grounds to indicate stop searches had been conducted inappropriately, disproportionately or unlawfully.

Grounds

A reminder for all advisors to please complete the grounds for search forms and return.

Next meeting focus

Include BWV clips to next meeting as substantive agenda item. Theme to be discussed with Chair prior to next meeting.

Any Other Business

• JIH resigned as Deputy Chair of the panel and invited fellow advisors to consider the role in their stead. SH and advisors thanked them for their contribution to the meetings to date.
• Details of ride along observer scheme.
• MK of Police and Crime Commissioner's Office clarified that the Office was available for independent scrutiny of police complaints and would link with the Diversity Team around relevant work areas.

Date of next meeting to be confirmed.

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

ABS 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 qualitative 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 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 Race Action Plan Insight and Delivery (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 is not a barrier to restorative justice, particularly regarding possession of cannabis.

Advisors 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 were 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 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 provides verifiable name and address details.  Black communities were 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 referencing 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
• SH/Dte Invite CPS to a future meeting to overview prosecution criteria /restorative justice options  through lens of disproportionality.

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 Assistant Chief Office Anita Grant, sighted on by DCC Dave McClaren. The Sussex and Surrey Police Race Action Plan expands upon the national Race Action Plan (RAP) 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

Advisors 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 regarding 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.

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 those who were stopped were white people.

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 children (under 18 years of age). There were 4 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 Professional Standards Department ( 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: 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: October 3 2023 1700-1900, MS Teams.

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.