Use of Force - meeting minutes - October 2021

JavaScript is not enabled

Without JavaScript enabled forms will not work.

Administration

Date: 28 October 2021

Time: 6.03pm to 9.06pm

Venue: Microsoft Teams

Available online Y/N: Yes

Attendees

Panel members

Montell Neufville - Chair

Martin White – Vice-Chair, Community Panel Member

Doreen Chindezwa – Community Panel Member

James Turner – Community Panel Member

Elaine Keen – Community Panel Member

Aisha Sana – Community Panel Member

Ana Andreescu – Community Panel Member

Francesca Keen – Community Panel Member

Audrey Hall

Phil Dickson-Earle – Community Panel Member

Theresa Hatchett – Community Panel Member

Police

SPT 1415 Nick Skipworth

CHF INSPT 1328 Hobibul Hoque

PC 5017 Ommer Khan

PC 1537 Steven Beer

Welcome / Apologies / Introduction

MN – Welcomes all, goes through previous minutes and goes through introductions of all that are in attendance. PC Ommer Khan/ Chair Montell Neufville

Purpose of the panel and process

Explain to the group what they will be seeing and what they are expected to be doing whilst as acting as Panel members. This will be to gain all your opinions of the videos watched and then collate a common panel view. We will also RAG rate it. This is (RED, AMBER or GREEN)

Green is good, Amber is that there is learning needed, Red is unacceptable.

In use of force we will use an Acronym called PLANTER :

P – Was the use of force Proportionate for the risk faced by the officer?

L – Was the length of time the force used acceptable?

A – Do the actions of the member of the public warrant force to be used?

N – Was it necessary to use force?

T – Was the type of force used appropriate?

E – Was it ethical to use force in the situation?

R – Was it reasonable for the officer to use force?

HMIC say the minimum amount of force should be used, we as a panel want to make sure that Bedfordshire Police are adhering to this requirement.

Use of Force Quarterly Review

1,536 Use of Force recorded between 1st July – 30th September 2021 and 60.3% resulted in an arrest

18.6% (212) were female, 80.1% (921) were male and 1.3% (6) were unknown.

19 officers responsible for 15% (168) of use of force.

52 Officers and 79 subjects injured in use of force.

The ethnicity table shows that if you are of a black background the use of force used is 4.58 compared to 1.0 if you were of a white background. If you are of an Asian background you are 1.43 likely to be used force on and 2.90 if you are of a mixed/other background.

Of the 1,536 Use of Force:

11.1% (171) 11 – 17yrs

50.9% (781) 18– 34yrs

29.2% (449) 35 – 49yrs

6.9% (106) 50 – 64yrs

0.3% (5) 65+yrs

1.1% (17) Blank / Unknown

The highest recorded use of force occurred on 1 day was 39 on the 21st July 2021.

Use of force occurred mostly in a dwelling at late afternoon and evening.

Out of 103 use of force, 27 took place in an ambulance (this is down from the previous quarter).

Majority of the rational for use of force was Protect Self and/or Protect Other Officers.

Out of the force used the highest type of force was tactical communications at 72%.

52 Officers were injured in Use of Force. 6 Officers were injured on 2 separate occasions and 2 Officers on 3 occasions

2 officers were deemed to be severely injured.

Officer data – 19 Officers responsible for 15% of Use of Force.

Four of these officers appeared in Top 14 for Use of Force in the last quarter.

Questions from the Panel

MN – Use of force is used four times as likely against members of the black community. We would like an explanation as to why this occurs.

NS – I would like to see what the arrest figures look like. I will go back to the analyst for these figures, as I suspect there is a disproportionality across the Criminal Justice System.

MN – In the past, when we have had cases where Use of Force has been used against children under 10, we would ensure that these were checked. Do you still look at under 10’s?

NS – Absolutely, we are going to be having a look at all incidents of Use of Force against children under 10.

PDE – Would it be possible to compare PC 6158 to other members of the Boson team, as we see him frequently come up on our Officer data?

NS – Yes, we will do that and compare 6158 to other members of the Boson team to see if there is any disproportionality.

MN – Would it be possible to have the angles in custody changed so that we can more clearly see any use of force that occurs against people being brought in?

HH – I will speak with custody about the camera angles and about the blind spots.

Video 1

Officers have attended an address in Luton to carry out a Section 8 warrant related to drug dealing at the location. Officers have forced entry at the location and have not found any drugs, but a number of methadone bottles were found. The male in question was interviewed at scene rather than arrested.

The officer used tactical communications and Taser AIMED as recorded in the use of force.

RAG Graded – Green 3

The panel has reported that the use of force was necessary and proportional and reasonable overall. The panel stated that it was good to see commentary from the officer at the start of the video to provide context beforehand, however they did question why taser and handcuffs were utilised straight away.

Video 2

Male was detained for Section 1 PACE after information received stating that the male had committed a theft from a petrol station and possibly assaulted staff. It was established after speaking to male that he had committed a theft earlier from the station but returned the stuff and paid for the drink he stole. Male was given a banning order from the shop.

The officer has used tactical communications, unarmed defensive tactics, ground restraints and non-compliant handcuffing.

RAG Graded – Green 2

The panel has reported that this is use of force was necessary and proportional. The panel had no problem with the officer using handcuffs to detain the male and they were happy with the force used to keep the suspect from leaving the scene, plus they were also pleased that the officer checked the suspects welfare after the force had been used. However, the panel noted that the officer did not use GOWISELY for the Stop & Search.

Video 3

Male was seen by member of the public with a knife in Bedford. Police have attended and male has made off from officers. Officers have chased after male and after a short while the male was caught up and detained under Section 1 of PACE with Taser red dot being used. No knife was found on the male; however, a large quantity of drugs has been found which has led to the male’s arrest.

The officer used tactical communications and taser red dot.

RAG Graded – Green 1

The panel has reported that the use of force was proportionate and necessary when dealing with this subject. The length of time that force was used was considered fine and the actions were considered proportionate given the information officers had received regarding the potential risk. This use of force was considered ethical and responsible. There were no other ethical issues.

Video 4 (Video)

Male was arrested for GBH after a violent disorder in Luton and brought into custody. Male was uncooperative and refused to go into his cell. Male was aggressive towards officers and threatened to hurt officers if they came closer and tried to escort him into his cell. Male was taken to the floor and continued to struggle with officers who then carried him to his cell. The male continued to behave violently within his cell, but eventually calmed down and claimed that he had received a head injury.

Two officers were looked at during this video. The use of force used by the first officer included non-compliant handcuffs, tactical communications, unarmed defensive tactics and limb/body restraints.

The use of force used by the second officer included unarmed defensive tactics and ground restraints.

RAG Graded – Amber 6

The panel has reported that the use of force used by the first officer was not proportionate and not necessary. The panel did not believe that the officer acted reasonably overall and that the use of multiple punches to the back of the suspect was not deemed a suitable use of force given the situation.