Use of force

Use of Force (UoF) Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Date: Monday 4 September  1700-1900

Venue: MS Teams

Attendees: Redacted

Welcome, introduction and actions

RG led round table introductions and updated the action log. WKJ introduced SH as prospective new officer currently in the application process. They suggested inviting SH to ongoing meetings of the Use of Force Advisory Group to undertake a journey mapping exercise exploring how their attitudes and perceptions of using force develop over time as they make the transition from civilian-to police officer. Advisors agreed that this was a good idea  and felt it might also be worthwhile to include another officer from a more diverse background to provide a comparison of experiences. JC agreed this would be useful, but due to GDPR and data protection there may be issues around identifying suitable candidates in the immediate future, but that it is definitely worthy of consideration.

Actions:

• A13 WKJ to provide update and outcomes following advisor feedback given on incident highlighted in BWV April meeting.
• A14 JC to explore possibility of inviting new police officer from a diverse background alongside SH to compare  experiences and evolving attitudes towards of UoF as they progress through training and subsequent deployment as a police officer.

Emerging themes and discussion at the Internal Scrutiny Panel

RG thanked all advisors for their ongoing support and noted that their feedback was an important part of the Internal UoF panel in steering Sussex Police’s decision-making processes in this area. RG noted that a number of concerns highlighted by external advisors around apparent disproportionality had been relayed back to Divisional Command teams for clarification and would provide further updates to this and the internal meeting in due course. ND provided an overview of the UoF training day they attended and participated in. ND understood that the training’s purpose was to ensure officers maintained their competence to carry out use of force in a safe and practical manner but felt there was still too much emphasis on the physical aspect of gaining/maintaining control rather than softer skills relating to de-escalation tactics and awareness of mental health and neurodifferences as an aggravating factor in some circumstances. ND acknowledged that although  they had seen progress in many areas of training and attitude by police officers; from  comments made by some experienced officers like ‘playing the race card,’ RG felt there was still a lack of understanding by some officers around the disproportionate number of times many black people were stopped by the police and how those people may feel when they continue to be the subject of unwarranted stops or UoF. RG thanked ND for their contribution and highlighted the importance of legitimacy and proportionality training for new recruits at a very early stage in their police career, confirming they would be progressing this concept at Chief Officer level soon.

Body Worn Video (BWV) clips and discussions

WKD played two BWV clips for advisors to discuss – which were chosen to demonstrate some of the softer skills utilised by police officers to defuse and deescalate potentially violent situations when on deployment.

BWV 1 shows police officers entering a premises with TASER drawn, having received reports of a young male armed with a knife and causing physical damage. The male in question is known to have mental health problems and is in an assisted living context. Police quickly establish control of the incident using verbal commands only and once compliance is established quickly move from an authoritative command approach to one of empathy and conciliation. The TASER is not used, nor is any force applied to control the male and he is calm and compliant when taken to the police station.

BWV 2 Shows an officer in a police car arriving  to an ongoing incident– which features a compliant male already detained by two officers. The male is handcuffed placed behind his back while he is searched and is then placed in the police car and taken into custody.

Advisors raised several questions around aspects of UoF training –e.g protocols and procedures relating to use of hand cuffs  (behind back as opposed to in front, including safety mitigations and risk assessment especially regard neurodiversity ) and whether there could  be more emphasis on soft skills to de-escalate encounters between the police and public – especially where neurodifferences and mental health  and mental capacity were a factor in an encounter. RG noted that NL as head of Learning and Development department was best placed to overview.

Actions:

A15 Dte/RG  Invite Natalie Loxley future meeting to provide overview of Use of Force training practices.

Sussex Police update

RG updated that recent progressions to improve legitimacy and accountability in Use for Force these included:

• Introduction of Use of Force Supervisory review form which was  designed to mandate an  active review process for supervisors of use of force by their subordinates to negate a tendency toward ‘box ticking’.
• Introduction of procedure, that new supervisors going through their workplace assessment process were required to complete two assessments of incidents where force was used when disproportionality was a factor in the incident.
• Introduction of new Culture and Standards Board chaired by DCC which explores activities and behaviours of officers/teams/departments through several lenses of legitimacy (including use of Force) – to highlight areas where behaviours or practices should be improved.
• Internal Use of Force Panel is developing into a very robust forum to scrutinise all aspects of UoF for legitimacy. The panel is attended by senior officers representing all areas of Sussex Police activity and includes public advisors for accountability, including feedback provided by the external meeting.

Any Other Business

ND raised concerns about difficulties navigating the complaints process citing a specific incident involving use of force being applied to a vulnerable adult. RG confirmed they would liaise with ND after the meeting to progress.

Use of Force Scrutiny Panel Meeting

Monday 24 April 1700-1900

Sussex Police Headquarters and MS Teams

Names of attendees redacted for publication. To join the Panel please email [email protected]

Welcome and Introductions

RG welcomed all, including new members, updated the action log and confirmed minutes of the previous meeting.

Emerging themes and discussion at the Internal Scrutiny Panel

RG described relevant updates and emerging themes discussed at Sussex Police’s Internal Use of Force panel. That the meeting was now being represented by more senior officers than previously and by colleagues from the Command team. Aim is to apply feedback from force data as well as from the external group to demonstrably drive effective and impactive change within Sussex police around UOF, with suitable oversight– and recommendations feeding back into Force divisional, departmental and legitimacy boards. RG noted this work was also being closely tracked by Chief Officer Team. Current focus is on disproportionality considering new census data, work still to be done identifying reasons behind some aspects of disproportionality. RG described one example of this intent by understanding disproportionality at increasingly granular levels. RG spotlighted the Taser working group as an example of this granularity, with a specific subgroup established to explore disproportionality of Taser use on black and non-white individuals. RG agreed to share details of the Taser Working group findings with Use of Force External once report has been completed.

BWV clips and discussions

WKJ shared clips of two incidents recorded on Body Worn Video (BWV) for advisors to scrutinise.

Video one

Several Police attending scene after reports by motorists of a semi naked (white) man walking along a busy A-road armed with a crossbow. On arrival, officer draws Taser and orders male to kneel on the ground and drop the item he is holding  (which is clearly a wooden cross). Male complies and Taser is withdrawn, another officer secures the male by using handcuffs (behind his back),in order to search and ascertain the facts. The detainee remains compliant throughout although it appears he was experiencing some form of undefined mental incapacity. Investigation quickly reveals that the man was not armed with a crossbow and does not pose a threat to public safety – although concerns were raised by officers due to his proximity to traffic as he walked on the road.

Advisor comments

Advisors made several observations around the way officers handled the incident. Advisors expressed concern at the way the detainee was handcuffed- behind his back. Advisors agreed that the use of force deployed in this incident was appropriate, but they felt that once officers had established the detainee was compliant and not committing an offence – handcuffs should have been either loosened, placed to the front, or removed altogether. Not removing the detainee’s backpack was also an oversight – not only did it become uncomfortable for the detainee as the incident progressed– it hindered officer’s ability to conduct an effective search. Advisors felt that officer’s continued questioning, often repeating the questions from different individuals rather than one lead officer induced a degree of confusion and increasing frustration on the part of the detainee, which advisors believed could have been avoided. Advisors noted how important it was for people with neurodivergences that interactions like this are managed in a structured and consistent manner to mitigate rising anxiety and stress levels. Advisors noted that officers were clearly trying to do the right thing( but were ‘hearing rather than listening’ to what the detainee was saying) although the clear danger posed by proximity to fast moving traffic as well as apparent inexperience and lack of leadership in the team played a key part in the way this incident was managed, they also felt emphasis should always be on clear, concise communication and with consideration of the detainees capacity (which advisors felt was lacking here.)

Actions:

• RG speak to L&D (Natalie Loxley) about incorporating incident into a specific learning-based scenario for near future training sessions for police officers-
• WKJ – Review incident with officers involved and provide feedback
• WKJ – provide DJ with upcoming Officer Safety Training dates – DJ to invite all public advisors to attend sessions

Video two

Officers responding to reports of a robbery having taking place in the local area involving male in possession of a knife – descriptor being a young black male wearing black jeans, black jumper and black coat. BWV is with second unit to arrive at scene where a young black male has already been detained. The detainee is in in a very agitated state and being verbally aggressive, they are clearly angry and frustrated by the reason and nature of their detention – the detainee is accompanied by two friends both white who through the course of proceedings attempt variously to calm their friend and remonstrate with police officers -vouching for their friend’s non-involvement in the incident and express their concern about the apparent over use of force being applied against their friend – including allegation that the friend had been ‘red dotted’ by TASER armed officer. As incident is unfolding BWV officer seemingly lets their frustration cloud professional judgement and begins to remonstrate with detainee’s friends in  a dismissive and abrasive manner, WKJ acknowledges that this kind of scenario is quite common and sought advice and guidance on how we resolve these sorts of incidents more effectively and amicably with improved communication.

Advisor feedback

Advisors expressed their concern, disappointment even shock with the way police officers dealt with this incident, there was no attempt to inform the detainee or his friends about the context of why they were being stopped which advisors felt was a contributory factor in the way the confrontation escalated. They felt officers did not do enough to de-escalate the situation or build rapport – indeed they seemed to be actively escalating tensions throughout the incident through intimidatory crowding of the detainee and arbitrary application of process rather then attempting to communicate and explain what was happening and why. Advisors noted that officers missed several obvious opportunities to defuse the tension and seemed intent only on winning the power rather than the argument. Advisors noted that officers needed to be especially mindful of the distrust there is for the Police among certain sections of the community and review their behaviour accordingly (having BME awareness!). Views which are seemingly lent credence by high profile news events involving the Metropolitan Police and findings of the Casey Report. Advisors asked what training officers received in building trust and rapport with those people they interact with, they observed that the incident was not conducted in a structured way and officers involved would benefit from some leadership to direct proceedings. RG acknowledged the concerns raised throughout the meeting and reiterated their intention to improve application of Use of Force across Sussex Police – acknowledging that building legitimacy and reassurance through proportionality was a fundamental part of a successful community policing strategy.

Actions:

• RG to liaise with AB regards inviting IAG representative to attend internal Use of Force Scrutiny Panel – for insight and independent overview.

Sussex Police update

RG provided a brief overview of recent HMIC inspection – Sussex Police received a good score for the work the Force were doing around legitimacy within this area, but RG acknowledged there was still much more work to be done in this area.