Stop and search - Bedfordshire Police, October 2018
On the afternoon of 10 October 2018, two Bedfordshire Police officers stopped and searched a young black man in Luton town centre. They had been provided with intelligence that the man had been seen doing what looked like drug dealing. The officers attempted to restrain the man within seconds of speaking to him, and without explaining what they were stopping him for. He resisted their restraint, and repeatedly asked what he had done wrong. Without providing an explanation, the officers …
Recommendations
4 totalThe IOPC recommends that Bedfordshire Police amend their stop and search record slips to include a question about whether force has been used. The slips should also state where information about the type of force will be recorded. During this stop and search, a young black man was restrained in a public area using handcuffs and PAVA (incapacitant spray). Both police officers filled out stop and search and use of force forms and both failed to record that PAVA had been used during the encounter. This omission came to light as part of our investigation. Recording whether force has been used on the stop and search record will improve both transparency and accountability. The person being stopped and searched can immediately challenge any omissions. Additionally, by capturing use of force on stop and search records, it will be easier to monitor and address any trends in the use of force during stops and searches. Do you accept the recommendation? Yes
Accepted action: The stop and search computer form has been updated to include this question and a tick box for officers to complete. This has been implemented already by the Force lead Supt.
The IOPC recommends that Bedfordshire Police work with the members of their stop and search scrutiny panel to co-produce Governance policies and procedures that build in an option to recommend referral to the IOPC as part of their escalation process. Concerns about the manner in which this stop and search was conducted were raised by the Scrutiny Panel, which ultimately resulted in the IOPC conducting an independent investigation and findings of a case to answer for misconduct for both officers. Do you accept the recommendation? Yes
Accepted action: Professional Standards Departments (PSD) have agreed a new process map with the scrutiny panel and Supt XXXX as the force stop and search lead and the Chair of the Beds stop and search panel already has a direct route for referral into PSD who will create and submit this referral on behalf of both the Force and the panel. The Head of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire (BCH) PSD attends the Beds stop and search panel meetings to advice as Appropriate Authority and ensure any cases meeting the threshold for IOPC referral are submitted accordingly.
The IOPC recommends that Bedfordshire Police bring its local guidance on aftercare provided after the use of PAVA (incapacitant spray) in line with the national Personal Safety Manual (PSM). The PSM provides guidance for officers on the application of water to treat the affected area after the use of PAVA. In contrast, the force's local guidance makes no mention of the use of water at all. Do you accept the recommendation? Yes
Accepted action: This has been accepted and has been added to Beds guidance.
The IOPC recommends that the College of Policing include a recommendation in their stop and search Authorised Professional Practice that police forces work with the members of their stop and search scrutiny panel to co-produce Governance policies and procedures that build in an option to recommend referral to the IOPC as part of their escalation process. Concerns about the manner in which this stop and search was conducted were raised by the Scrutiny Panel, which ultimately resulted in the IOPC conducting an independent investigation and findings of a case to answer for misconduct for both officers. Do you accept the recommendation? Yes
Accepted action: The College of Policing (CoP) is clear on the requirement to produce evidenced based guidance. The IOPC recommendation to the College is evidenced solely on the circumstances of the Bedfordshire incident and there are no other examples highlighted that would support the proposed changes. That said, [the CoP is] concerned about the circumstances of the Bedfordshire referral, and the fact that a) The AA deemed it appropriate to refer the incident, and b) The IOPC subsequently assessed as it suitable for independent investigation… Having considered the circumstances and the recommendation, [the CoP is] of the view that we do amend the APP, but that instead of reference to the IOPC, a route through to force PSDs would be appropriate. [The CoP] appreciate[s] that the wording of the recommendation does not suggest that scrutiny panels should themselves be able to refer matters to the IOPC, but the issue in this instance appears to have been the inability of the scrutiny panel to escalate their concerns which, once considered by the AA in PSD, were referred. The AA will consider a strict set of guidelines when assessing whether a matter merits referral to the IOPC, and the fact that a scrutiny panel will have escalated the issue to them in the first place should (…) be sufficient and represent an appropriately graduated response. We are currently in the process of revising the section on Community Oversight within the APP, and I expect this to be agreed soon. The revised APP includes a paragraph on ‘Influence’... You will see an additional line… which [we are] proposing to add to reflect the IOPC recommendation. (…) “Forces should allow panel members to voice any concerns about stop and search which should include an agreed policy and process (contained within the Terms of Reference) for raising matters of concern relating to potential misconduct with PSDs for assessment by the Appropriate Authority.” (…) Once published, [the College of Policing] to identify/develop best practice in terms of wording contained within TORs and promulgate this to forces.