Community Monitoring Group Scrutiny Feedback Form December 2025.xlsx

	A	B
1	Field	Details
2	Clip 1
3	Borough	Tower Hamlets
4	Date of Viewing	15th December 2025
5	Panel Members Present	MG, RA
6	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
7	Category of Material	BWV
8	Percieved Ethnicity	Black
9	Incident Description	S&S of an individual in a car park, said to be looking for stolen items
10	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
11	GOWISELY Compliance	Partially - Legal power ('L') not given
12	Use of Handcuffs	No
13	Was a Taser Used?	No
14	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?	No
15	Object Found?	No
16	Did Object Match Suspicion?	N/A
17	Vulnerabilities Observed?	Yes - Person appeared to be homeless, English did not seem to be his first language, possible MH issues and facing deportation
18	Officer Communication	Panel observed that officer did not recognise and appropriately respond to the identified vulnerabilities during the interaction. Officer did not effectively and respectfully communicate.
19	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior	The panel observed that the officer’s behaviour escalated the situation and was influenced by bias related to the protected characteristics of the individual being stopped.
20	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Amber
21	Panel Assessment	The officers did not follow GOWISELY in that they didn't provide the legal power ('L') to the individual. The panel was concerned that the officer did not listen to the individual when he explained why he was there, instead he told him "you're not going to change my mind". This is concerning given a S&S is based on reasonable suspicion, which can of course dissipate during the search including based on what someone says (e.g. someone might have a reasonable explanation as to why they're in the area/have a particular item on them). The panel was also concerned that the grounds were flimsy and in large part focused on the area - we get a lot of thefts here - and so not specific to the individual. It is not clear why being sat by a van would suggest someone is intending to steal from it, particularly when that person appears to be of no fixed abode and street homeless. Further, it is not understood why him having a hi-vis would suggest he was going to steal. The panel felt the officer's tone was dismissive and he refused to listen to the individual who, at one point said, "I'll just shut up then". The officer also failed to pick up on the person's evident vulnerabilities including possible mental health issues (his mood oscillated throughout the search), street homelessness and immigration (he mentioned he's facing deportation). Lastly, the individual explained he had been at a friend's house who had given him packets of cheese. The officers could and should have spoken to that person, which may have invalidated the need for a search. The panel were additionally concerned that racial bias might have influenced the officer's suspicions. The panel would also note that given the person said he was Somali, he may have been Muslim and the officer should have considered that before asking him if he'd tried a sausage roll.
22	Category of Recommendations	Learning and development feedback (informal)
23	MPS Action Taken
24
25	Field	Details
26	Clip 2
27	Borough	Tower Hamlets
28	Date of Viewing	15th December 2025
29	Panel Members Present	MG, RA
30	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
31	Category of Material	BWV
32	Percieved Ethnicity	South Asian
33	Incident Description	S&S for drugs, individual found to have NOS cannisters in the car
34	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
35	GOWISELY Compliance	Compliant
36	Use of Handcuffs	Yes - Compliant
37	Was a Taser Used?	No
38	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?	No
39	Object Found?	Yes
40	Did Object Match Suspicion?	Yes - NOS cannisters (although not shown on BWV)
41	Vulnerabilities Observed?	No
42	Officer Communication	Officer effectively and respectfully communicated
43	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior
44	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Neutral
45	Panel Assessment	Officer's tone and communication was good. The panel is not clear why handcuffs were used given the individual's compliance and the number of officers' present and we would like to check whether a use of force form was used. If not, this may impact the rating. The panel was concerned the individual was told if he didn't let them search his phone, he would be arrested. The panel would like to ask under what power(s) the officers considered searching his phone and why refusal would make it necessary to arrest. It is noted that the officers did not arrest him.
46	Category of Recommendations	Learning and development feedback (informal)
47	MPS Action Taken
48
49	Field	Details
50	Clip 3
51	Borough	Tower Hamlets
52	Date of Viewing	15th December 2025
53	Panel Members Present	MG, RA
54	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
55	Category of Material	BWV
56	Percieved Ethnicity	South Asian
57	Incident Description	S&S of someone based, at least initially, on smell of cannabis
58	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
59	GOWISELY Compliance	Compliant
60	Use of Handcuffs	Yes - Compliant
61	Was a Taser Used?	No
62	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?	No
63	Object Found?	Yes
64	Did Object Match Suspicion?	Yes - The officers only found evidence of past cannabis use - rizla papers, grinder(s) and very small bits of cannabis (not shown on BWV)
65	Vulnerabilities Observed?	Yes - Person was on Crown Court bail. He said he lived in Salvation Army accommodation. He was with his partner who is a hospital patient - she was wearing a dressing gown and had a tube in her hand. He also explained he had been nursing her for the past 5 days and she had just given birth by C-section
66	Officer Communication	Panel assessed officer communicated somewhat effectively and respectfully.
67	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior	Panel observed that officer did not recognise and appropriately respond to the identified vulnerabilities during the interaction.
68	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Amber
69	Panel Assessment	1. In giving the grounds for the search, the officer only mentioned smell of cannabis. Reference to slurred speech and bloodshot eyes came after the search. Smell of cannabis alone is not adequate grounds for a search. 2. The panel was concerned the person's vulnerabilities weren't adequately addressed by the officers - he said he was on Crown Court bail, living in Salvation Army accommodation and his partner had just had a C-section and given birth to a premature baby who was in the ICU. I question why the officers did not consider asking him to give bloods voluntarily for the drugs test rather than arresting him - is that an option? 3. Officer comms were okay but the drug swipe officer was heard saying "be a man", which seemed unnecessary and likely only to escalate. The officer also was asking closed, cross-examination style questions but then accused the person of being too stoned to answer. If you say to someone as the officer did - "that's a crime, isn't it" - it is likely they will consider you have answered the question for them... 4. The panel was concerned that the officer had already decided to arrest the person before the test was complete. He is recorded as saying "he's going to fail this" and asking his colleague if she wants to do the arrest. The panel saw no evidence the test was positive for cannabis, although there was mention of cocaine. The panel seeks further evidence of the outcome of the drugs test. 5. The individual repeatedly asked for water. That was refused. That is not good practice for someone who, on his own account, is tired and has been in hospital for days. 6. The person was handcuffed. The panel would check if a UoF form was done.
70	Category of Recommendations	Learning and development feedback (informal)
71	MPS Action Taken
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100