Community Monitoring Group Scrutiny Feedback Form August 2025.xlsx

	A	B
1	Field	Details
2	Clip 1
3	Borough	Tower Hamlets
4	Date of Viewing	28th August 2025
5	Panel Members Present	MG, FR
6	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
7	Category of Material	BWV
8	Location of Incident	Tower Hamlets
9	Percieved Ethnicity	White
10	Incident Description	Search of a man on a boat suspected of having weapons and drugs based on a call from the public
11	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
12	GOWISELY Compliance	Partial - No mention that he was being detained
13	Use of Handcuffs	Yes - compliant
14	Was a Taser Used?	No
15	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?	No
16	Object Found?	No
17	Did Object Match Suspicion?	N/A
18	Vulnerabilities Observed?	Yes - It seemed like there was some language barrier to the person fully understanding what was happening
19	Officer Communication	Somewhat. One officer did rephrase a question when the person didn't understand but otherwise no - they did not check understanding
20	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior	Panel observed officer behaviour escalated the situation. Generally respectful and polite but the person became angry quite quickly and didn't understand what was going on. The officers were not able to effectively explain to him why they were there and what was happening and could have been better at de-escalating. They handcuffed the man very quickly. Handcuffing the person almost at the start appeared to escalate the situation in terms of making the person angry about what was happening. It may have helped to check understanding, use simpler language and speaking more slowly to explain so the man understood what was happening and why.
21	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Amber
22	Panel Assessment	Bodyworn cut off before the copy of the stop and search form was handed over to the man. The written notes said drug paraphanelia was found on the boat but the man was told that they hadn't found anything. Had the man by the wrist before they had finished telling him he was being detained and the reasons why he was being lawfully detained. Cuffs were put on very early and without a proper explanation given to the man about why this was done - leading to him getting angry. Written record does not seem to be accurate by stating drug paraphernelia - we just saw vapes and cigarettes and possibly rolling papers. And on the footage he did not say that he occasionally smokes cannabis as the writen record says. BWV does not cover entire encounter - stopped before stop and search form was handed back to the person. The man seemed not to fully understand what was happening or why he was being searched and this could potentially have been addressed by clearer explanation of the reason for detention, especially given the man's first language was not English and this seemed to be a barrier to understanding - speaking more slowly, rephrasing questions, explaining things using simpler language. No mention of section 23, just section 1 - even though officers went on to talk about drugs (Section 23) and the written record refers to drug paraphernalia. The officers were polite to the man throughout.
23	Category of Recommendations	Learning and development feedback (informal);Best practice feedback (informal)
24	MPS Action Taken
25
26	Field	Details
27	Clip 2
28	Borough	Tower Hamlets
29	Date of Meeting	28th August 2025
30	Panel Members Present	MG, FR
31	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
32	Category of Material	BWV
33	Location of Incident	Tower Hamlets
34	Percieved Ethnicity	Asian
35	Incident Description	Man stopped and searched after being seen by police officers smoking cannabis on the street
36	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
37	GOWISELY Compliance	Partial compliance - the officer said the man had dropped a joint of cannabis and it was on the ground but didn't state what he was searching for in the search
38	Use of Handcuffs	No
39	Was a Taser Used?	No
40	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?	No
41	Object Found?	Yes
42	Did Object Match Suspicion?	Joint of cannabis
43	Vulnerabilities Observed?	Yes - English not first language so the person took a long time to understand some of the officers' questions
44	Officer Communication	They could have spoken more slowly and clearly and in simpler language. Officer who was not conducting the search was rude and curt with the person and spoke very quickly so that the person could not always understand - officer then got annoyed when the person didn't understand as it looked like the person was smiling but this may have been out of nerves or not being able to understand. The officers told him he was being given a warning (presumably a community resolution) but it was not clear what that involved and what the implications of that warning would be. They also used the word caution so that was confusing.
45	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior	Good close to interaction. The tone of the officer who was not conducting the search could have been nicer - he appeared visibly annoyed with the person even though he was being compliant. It may have been because the person being searched did not always understand the questions but it should be down to the officer to communicate more clearly to address this.
46	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Neutral
47	Panel Assessment	The tone of the officer who was not conducting the search could have been nicer - he appeared visibly annoyed with the person even though he was being compliant. It may have been because the person being searched did not always understand the questions but it should be down to the officer to communicate more clearly to address this.
48	Category of Recommendations	Learning and development feedback (informal)
49	MPS Action Taken
50
51	Field	Details
52	Clip 3
53	Borough	Tower Hamlets
54	Date of Meeting	28th August 2025
55	Panel Members Present	MG, FR
56	Case ID/Reference Number	Removed
57	Category of Material	BWV
58	Percieved Ethnicity	White
59	Incident Description	Driver stopped because their car was registered and insured in two different places
60	Was Body-Worn Video Viewed?	Yes
61	GOWISELY Compliance	Non compliant - DId not give clear grounds for the search - burglaries in the area is not a reasonable ground Did not hear the officers say what they were looking for Officer tried to get the person to unlock the phone and gave an incorrect reason for doing this Officer did not identify himself or his police station No warrant shown No evidence that officers offered a copy of the search records
62	Use of Handcuffs	Yes compliant - although the person in this clip was not handcuffed we could see one of his friends being handcuffed - following what appears to be an unlawful search
63	Was a Taser Used?	No
64	Was the Individual Strip-Searched?	No
65	Object Found?	No
66	Did Object Match Suspicion?	N/A
67	Vulnerabilities Observed?	No
68	Officer Communication	Tone was appropriate but as mentioned above gave wrong information
69	Panel Feedback on Officer Behavior	Lewisham police officers. Panel not able to assess how the officers closed the interaction as clip cut off before the interaction was over
70	Overall Panel Scrutiny Assessment (RAG)	Amber
71	Panel Assessment	Stop and search forms were not accurately completed. They did not give the grounds provided in the written record verbally to the man He did not seem nervous or shaking He was not asked to account for his presence in the area contrary to what the written record implies Overall very weak written grounds for the stop and search - driving from Greenwich is not a reason for a stop and search
72	Category of Recommendations	Learning and development feedback (informal)
73	MPS Action Taken
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