• Read more about Community scrutiny driving better policing in Devon and Cornwall

Rev. Nathan Kiyaga and Joelene Sciberras discuss how they are ensuring policing is fair and transparent.

In 2020, concerns over heavy-handed policing during stop and search in Devon and Cornwall prompted the creation of the Devon and Cornwall Community Scrutiny Panel (DCCS Panel). Founded by Rev. Nathan Kiyaga, the Panel responds to longstanding community concerns, particularly from minority groups, regarding disproportionality and bias in policing.

At the time in Devon and Cornwall, Black individuals were 12 times more likely to be stopped and searched than the general population, despite making up only 0.2% of local people. By April 2022–March 2023, this had reduced to 4.15 times, reflecting measurable but incomplete progress towards equity.

How the Panel works

The Panel meets online monthly, reviewing body-worn video (BWV) footage and data from the previous month. Cases are selected to cover all areas, using themes based on factors such as ethnicity, age, repeat encounters, or officers with higher disproportionality rates based on the number of searches they have completed.

Footage is evaluated using established frameworks – GOWISELY for stop and search and PLANTER for use of force – and scored anonymously on a 1–9 scale, with results categorised as red, amber or green. A police liaison officer facilitates the process, while chief superintendents attend sessions to listen and act on feedback.

Membership is open to anyone over 16 who has not worked in policing in the last three years. From a modest start, the Panel has grown to over 100 members and is made up of a diverse range of backgrounds, with 19% and 4% of members coming from a Black or Asian background respectively and members’ ages spanning from 16 to 70+.

Impact and cultural change

Between December 2020 and August 2025, the Panel reviewed 421 cases, but unfortunately 161 had no BWV available. We have noted gradual improvement over time, with more cases meeting higher service standards.

The process has contributed to:

• A cultural shift, where officers are more aware and less defensive about their actions being independently reviewed.
• An increased openness from senior leaders, who respond quickly to feedback and have listened to those with lived experience, with a genuine willingness to learn from mistakes.
• Reflective learning opportunities for newer officers, fostering non-defensive engagement.
• A community of leaders who have learnt a lot about policing and act as a critical friend for policing.

Over the years we have seen a significant increase in the quality of the data that is presented for scrutiny. Since improvements in stop and search record-keeping, our scrutiny of both the data and BWV footage has been positive. We appreciate the efforts of Devon & Cornwall Police in these improvements.

Whilst there are mechanisms to escalate encounters that have caused concern, no cases reviewed by the Panel have required escalation to the IOPC. Concerns have been addressed through the reflective process - a remarkable achievement. All officers previously rated as ‘red’ in their service during an encounter are regularly reviewed by the Panel in our scrutiny meetings, and all recent encounters have positively been rated as ‘green.’

Public engagement and learning

The Panel held conferences at Exeter University in 2024 and 2025, bringing together community members, policing and students to build insight and share learning.

We also launched DCCS Satellite Panels engaging students at South Devon College and the University of Exeter, enabling more scrutiny work to be achieved by criminology and sociology students.

The results from our scrutiny work show a marked shift from predominantly ‘red’ ratings in the early years of the Panel to mostly ‘green’ in recent reviews. Our ongoing priorities include improving record-keeping, particularly in use of force reporting, to ensure consistent and reliable data for scrutiny.

Over the years we have learnt that:

• We are better together - the police and the community they serve.
• Accurate, complete data is essential for meaningful oversight.
• Deleting non-evidential BWV after 31 days prevents the type of ongoing scrutiny that the Panel offers.

With all these lessons we:

• Encourage other police forces to establish community scrutiny panels if they do not have one in place.
• Value knowledge-sharing between panels nationwide and have been delighted to work with the Dorset community panel. If you have a panel in your policing area, get in touch with us to learn from one another.
• Invite you to join a Panel session as a visitor - it might be the “best two hours of your month." Send us an email and we can arrange for your visit.
• Will continue to advocate for extending the retention of non-evidential BWV from 31 days to six months, especially for negative stop and search encounters, to enable meaningful learning and supervision.

We believe that when communities and police work together in this way, trust deepens and residents are guaranteed an outstanding police service.

• Read more about CASE STUDY 1: Police response to a report of a missing person

This case was locally investigated by the force. The IOPC reviewed the investigation to decide whether there was an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings.

A key worker at a drug support service, Mr A, contacted the police to report a service user, Mr B, as missing. He explained that Mr B had not been seen for a week and that he had frequent thoughts about suicide.

The call handler recorded that the risk to Mr B was unknown and that his whereabouts were also unknown. They advised Mr A to check Mr B’s home address and to call the ambulance service as he had concerns about Mr B’s mental health. This appeared to have followed the principles of Right Care, Right Person (RCRP).In reaching this decision no consideration was given to recording Mr B as a missing person.

Inspector C, who was temporarily acting up in this role, updated the incident log with an entry stating that “unless there was a significant and immediate risk of harm”, Mr B would not be treated as a missing person, as he was an adult and entitled to a private life.

About 90 minutes later, Mr A’s manager, Mr D, contacted the police to report Mr B missing. He explained that Mr B was addicted to heroin, had not collected his methadone and that his phone was switched off. Mr D stated that this was out of character for Mr B. He also confirmed that someone had checked Mr B's home address and that there was no answer. Mr D explained that Mr B had poor mental health and had been suicidal in the past. He confirmed that Mr B was last seen three days ago.

Inspector C updated the log to state that there was nothing to suggest that Mr B was at immediate risk of serious harm and that Mr B did not meet the criteria for a missing person. They did not undertake a further risk assessment based on this new information. It appears RCRP principles were again applied. In the meantime, Inspector C tasked police staff to speak to Mr D, who was unable to provide any more information about Mr B.

College of Policing Major investigation and public protection Authorised Professional Practice: Missing persons

The College of Policing defines a missing person as follows:
“Anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established will be considered as missing until located, and their well-being or otherwise confirmed.”

More information:
www.college.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-protection/missing-persons/missing-persons

The following day, police were informed that Mr B was found dead at his home.

The IOPC review noted that in the second call to police, it was confirmed that Mr B’s home address had been checked, and that Mr D had reported him missing. It found that at this point, Inspector C had misinterpreted the RCRP policy and had used it, when they should have used the missing persons guidance to decide what action the police should take.

The IOPC review also stated that because Inspector C had tasked police staff to conduct further enquiries, this created a duty of care on behalf of the police. It explained that Mr B should have been recorded as a missing person.

The review obtained confirmation from an RCRP lead at the force,  that RCRP principles should not be used to help determine whether a person is missing. 

Right Care, Right Person (RCRP):

Right Care, Right Person is an approach designed to ensure that people who have health and/or social care needs, are responded to by the right person, with the right skills, training, and experience to best meet their needs.

RCRP uses a threshold to assist police in making decisions about when it is appropriate for them to respond to incidents…. The threshold for a police response to a mental health-related incident is:

• to investigate a crime that has occurred or is occurring; or
• to protect people, when there is a real and immediate risk to the life of a person, or of a person being subject to or at risk of serious harm.

More information:

www.college.police.uk/guidance/right-care-right-person-toolkit

Key questions for managers, policy makers and trainers:

• How does your force make it clear that RCRP shouldn't be applied in missing person incidents?
• How does supervision ensure frontline officers and staff apply the correct policy?
• What measures are in place to ensure a missing person investigation is triggered at the correct point?

Key questions for police officers and staff:

• Do you understand the difference between the RCRP and missing persons policies, and when to apply each policy?
• How do you escalate concerns if you believe a case has been misclassified?
• What tools or resources (e.g., flowcharts, checklists) are available to help you make the right decision about the police response to an incident?
• How do you continue to assess risk and the application of RCRP throughout an ongoing incident?

Learning recommendations and action taken:

• Following evidence that there was some confusion with the application of RCRP in relation to missing person cases, the IOPC issued two national learning recommendations to the College of Policing and National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC). It asked the national RCRP team to clarify the framework’s scope in relation to missing persons, ensuring it is not misapplied to police deployment decisions. It also recommended that call handers are clear and transparent in their communication where the police will not attend.

Outcomes for the officers and staff involved:
There was no indication that any person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
During an informal debrief, it was clarified with Inspector C that RCRP principles should not inform decision-making in missing person’s reports.

 

A minimum policing standard?

Ben Bradford discusses recent work on developing a ‘Minimum Policing Standard’.

Public trust in the police in England and Wales has fallen markedly in recent years. This trend has many sources and consequences, but a central issue seems to be a sense of dislocation and distance. Many people feel that police are no longer present, active, and engaged in their communities, and that the service does not deliver appropriate outputs or outcomes.

What is the service police are meant to deliver, though? What do people think police are for? Research conducted by the Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre has probed these questions. Instead of assuming we know what people believe are the primary functions and goals of police – most obviously ‘fighting crime’ – we ran a series of focus groups that allowed participants to develop and present their own views on the role and purpose of police.

We asked what, under normal circumstances, was the minimum standard of service delivery people expected from police in their neighbourhoods or communities. This included ‘neighbourhood policing,’ traditionally defined, but also elements such as online crime and domestic abuse.

The focus groups were tasked with generating a list of essential activities and behaviours that all participants could agree on. They established three domains of activity: Response, the way police respond to crimes, calls for service and other stimuli; Behaviour and Treatment, the way officers and organisations interact with the public; and Presence & Engagement, the extent to which police are visible and involved in neighbourhoods and communities.

While dealing with crime and disorder was seen as central to the police role, most striking was participants’ concerns with the conduct of policing. They focused on the behaviour of police, and on relationships with the public. The Behaviour and Treatment domain included, for example, criteria such as building trust and relationships with the community, treating people with dignity and respect, and being role models of good behaviour. The Presence and Engagement domain included greater police presence, physical police stations and known local officers, and responsiveness to the community.

Concerns with the conduct of policing were also evident in a definition of what local policing is and should be that was drawn up by participants. This included criteria such as being available at any time, being visible, having good communication with the public, and being respectful and empathetic. Participants felt local police should respond to incidents in a proportionate and appropriate manner, investigate and solve crimes while providing adequate follow-up, engage in crime prevention, and engage meaningfully ‘with all peoples in the community’ in ways that foster ongoing communication and collaboration.

Building on the focus groups, we issued a nationally representative survey in November 2023 that included questions probing whether respondents felt police were meeting the standards set out by the focus groups. In general, they did not. Among the 18 indicators included in the survey in only two areas, both from the Behaviour and Treatment domain, did more than 50% of people agree police were meeting the criteria set out. These were ‘behave in a professional manner’ (62%), and ‘treat people with respect’ (51%).

Perceptions of whether police were achieving the standards developed by the focus groups correlated strongly with measures of overall confidence, trust and legitimacy, with the Behaviour and Treatment domain usually the most important factor. Whether or not police appeared to be delivering an adequate level of service and behaviour, as these were defined by the focus groups, was an important factor underpinning public trust and confidence.

These findings correspond closely with data collected by the IOPC. For example, its police complaint statistics show that in 2023/24 53% of  allegations related to the delivery of duties and service, which includes concerns about the general level of service, the provision of information, and so on. A lack of courtesy and respect also feature strongly as issues in complaints, including in cases involving racial discrimination. Similarly, the IOPC public perceptions tracker 2024/25 reported that among the one fifth of people who thought their local police were better than the police overall, factors such as being present in the community, responsiveness, and good communication seemed important in explaining this local success.

There is often an assumption that public trust will flow from policing that generates positive outcomes in relation to priority crime types and, in general, demonstrates ‘effectiveness’ in fighting and preventing crime. However, when we asked people what they really want from policing as a public service we found that while dealing with crime certainly figured, as or more important was the way in which policing is conducted and the relationships between police officers, organisations, and the communities they serve.

We need to develop better ways of understanding, measuring, and responding to the process-based and relational values of responsiveness, fairness, respect, and engagement that seem most important to public trust. People believe that demonstrating and living up to these values is central to the mission and purpose of the police. Expanding the meaning of success in policing to include such criteria, and actively working towards them, may help halt and reverse the recent decline in police-public relations.

For more on this research, please visit: https://vulnerabilitypolicing.org.uk/publications/  

Ben Bradford is Professor of Global City Policing at University College London and a member of the Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre

• Read more about CASE STUDY 2: Detainee injured in a fall whilst being transported to custody

This case was locally investigated by the force. The IOPC reviewed the investigation to decide whether the outcome of the investigation was reasonable and proportionate.

The police received a call that a man was making threats to their neighbours with a knife. The police received a further call from the neighbour to say that the man was trying to get into his property.

Five police officers, PCs A, B, D, E and PS C, were dispatched to the incident.

The police investigation noted that before officers arrived, the man had been locked out of his property by his partner. He was described as carrying a ‘big kitchen knife’ and seen hiding behind a parked car. The man was also seen shouting that he was going to stab somebody in the leg.

Upon arrival, PS C updated the control room and stated the man had left in a car with his mother.

PCs A and B were with the neighbour who described that the man had arrived at his property with a knife and was waving it around. PC B said they found a kitchen knife where the man had been hiding.

PS C, PCs D and E visited the man’s last known address. While there, the man arrived in a car.

PC D approached the car and explained why they were there. The man was then detained by PC D and placed in handcuffs. He was arrested on suspicion of being in possession of an offensive weapon.

PCs A and B heard the man had been arrested and made their way to support their colleagues.

The man used racist language towards PC A and was further arrested by PC D for racially aggravated public order.

PC F arrived and noted the man’s behaviour was ‘volatile’, and PS C stated the man was “acting aggressive” when he was arrested. The man then refused to get into the cell area of the van.

The police investigation noted that due to the man’s behaviour, the hot weather, and that the custody suite was some distance away, PS C did not want the man to be in the police van for a prolonged period. They requested the van drive to custody under emergency conditions.

PC F drove the police van as he was the only officer who was trained to drive it under emergency conditions. PCs B and PC F were joined by two other officers on the journey to custody.

While travelling to custody, PC B noted the man appeared to be very hot in the back of the police van, despite the air conditioning in the cell area being on. The man also said he was feeling faint due to an undisclosed medical condition and asked for some water.

The police investigation noted that while enroute to custody the man became agitated, stood up and refused to sit down. The IOPC review stated that body-worn video footage only showed the man standing up twice during the journey.

College of Policing Detention and Custody Authorised Professional Practice: Moving and transporting detainees

Every detainee must be properly supervised and monitored at all times during transport. Officers and staff should take particular care with individuals who have been subject to force upon arrest, particularly where they are restrained with handcuffs or leg restraints, as this can increase the risk of injury.

The following principles should be followed when transporting detainees.

• An officer must observe and monitor the detainee and react to any situation that may arise…
• Detainees who have struggled violently should not be placed in a vehicle unrestrained or unsupervised – to ensure appropriate control during a journey, the detainee should be seated upright where possible.

More information:

www.college.police.uk/app/detention-and-custody/moving-and-transporting-detainees

While in transit, the man fell in the caged area and injured his shoulder. The IOPC review noted the police van was not being driven in an erratic manner.

PC F stopped the van at a nearby service station, where the man was given some water.

PC B tried to give first aid to the man, but he threatened to spit at officers and refused any treatment.

The man was taken directly to hospital where he received stitches for his shoulder injury. After treatment, the man was transported to custody.

The police investigation noted that, had the man remained seated while being taken to custody it was unlikely that he would have received a shoulder injury

The man was charged with possession of a knife, racial harassment and two other offences.

Key questions for managers, policy makers and trainers:

• What guidance does your force have on transporting detainees in a cell area of a van, while driving under emergency conditions?
• What training is given to officers on how to safely regain control of a detainee should they refuse to remain seated while in transit?
• How do you support officers/staff who are subject to racial abuse while carrying out their duties?

Key questions for police officers and staff:

• Would you have driven under emergency conditions in this case? What are the risks with choosing to do so?
• What would you have done differently in this case?
• What safeguarding measures are available to you, should you be subject to racial abuse while carrying out your duties?

Learning recommendations and action taken:

• The IOPC issued one learning recommendation to the force. It asked them to take steps to ensure that if a detainee becomes violent and/or stands up during the journey to custody then officers should, where practicable, stop the vehicle and regain control before continuing with their journey.
• The force accepted the learning recommendation and issued guidance. The guidance will be reinforced during vehicle refresher training and safety training, to ensure officers understand their responsibilities when transporting a detainee in a police van. The guidance will also be shared on the force’s intranet and a senior officer will monitor compliance with the guidance.

Outcomes for the officers and staff involved:

There was no indication that any person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.

The impact of using body-worn video

Mateusz Dabrowski, Dominic Strange, Simon Payne, and Patrick Cragg discuss a fatal police pursuit, the subsequent IOPC investigation, and how body-worn video (BWV) provided crucial evidence.

PC’s Mateusz Dabrowski and Dominic Strange had stopped a suspicious car. They instructed the driver to get out so that they could perform a search, but he drove off at speed. Mateusz and Dom pursued the vehicle.

When did you activate your BWV?

Mateusz: My BWV was on as I initially approached the driver and talked to him. After speaking with Dom, we believed we had grounds to search the vehicle. Our decision making and rationale were captured on BWV, showing what was going through our heads.

Dom: I activated my BWV when I got back in our car and the pursuit began, but the 30 seconds before I activated my BWV were captured when we spoke to the driver. [BWV cameras have a buffer feature which captures footage of the last 30 seconds when the user is unable to immediately activate their camera].

National Police Chiefs’ Council: Body-worn video guidance 2024

…users should activate their cameras to record when making a decision to stop a

vehicle utilising police powers. Best practice will be for users to verbalise their decision-

making on BWV. If a vehicle fails to stop, BWV would then have captured the context leading up to that request, and evidence for that offence.

More information

www.npcc.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/media/downloads/publications/publications-log/local-policing-coordination-committee/2024/npcc-bwv-guidance-2024.pdf

Mateusz and Dom pursued the vehicle. Within a minute it had crashed and was on fire, with the driver still inside and unresponsive. Despite resuscitation efforts, the driver sadly died. A Post-Incident Procedure (PIP) was held, and an IOPC investigation was commenced. Simon Payne attended the PIP as the officer’s federation representative.

How was the footage used during the PIP?

Simon: At the initial PIP meeting we were able to quickly establish, with the IOPC, that Mateusz and Dom should be treated as Key Police Witnesses (KPW). [KPWs are police officers or staff who can give direct evidence of the death or serious injury or the circumstances leading to it and are not treated as subjects within an investigation].

We had three camera angles: the police dashcam and the officers’ BWV. You could see Mateusz attempt to extinguish the fire and both officers getting into the car to recover the driver. You had the complete picture.

Dom: I didn’t have much anxiety once I knew we were being treated as KPWs. I knew we’d done everything we could. When we watched our BWV footage back to write our detailed (stage 4) statements, it reinforced for us that we had done a good job.

The IOPC Lead Investigator, Patrick Cragg, facilitated the bereaved family’s viewing of the BWV footage. The family then asked to meet with the officers and thanked them.

How did viewing the footage impact the family?

Patrick: The BWV helped the family understand the incident. Prior to watching the BWV, they thought the two officers had just pursued the driver without providing an opportunity for them to pull over and comply. The family watched the BWV and realised what had happened, the officers had been polite and respectful. The family realised that the driver had driven off at speed by choice, and unfortunately a fatal collision occurred.

Mateusz: We explained to the man’s family that we tried to save his life. When they wanted to meet us I took this as a positive – they knew what we’d done.

What difference do you feel BWV made in this case?

Simon: If we hadn’t had the BWV footage, the officers’ status in the IOPC investigation would have remained uncertain. There wouldn’t have been closure for the bereaved family or the officers. BWV is there to protect officers and demonstrates how difficult the job can be.

Mateusz: It’s a job saver! If you do everything correctly, follow policies and procedures, and use BWV, it backs you up. It builds a bigger picture, rather than you just providing a statement.

Do you have any advice or reflections as a result of this case?

Dom: From the start of my training, I was told that having your BWV on standby is important. You can capture the 30 second buffer beforehand and potentially capture what someone has said or done.

You never know when a job is going to go wrong or escalate – BWV gives context. A suspect may have said something, or displayed certain body language that you haven’t noticed – then you watch the footage back and notice it.

It's better to have BWV running and capturing very little, than to have it off and miss something key.

Mateusz: I’ve reminded my colleagues how important BWV is based on this IOPC investigation – if I hadn’t had the BWV and the dashcam footage, I may not have been treated as a KPW.

Simon: I’ve previously represented officers who’ve turned their BWV off partway through an incident – there may be a valid reason for this, but it makes it more difficult to justify what happened. What Dom and Mateusz did was perfect in terms of showing their actions.

I want to instil in officers that when they have done something according to their training, they have nothing to fear from the IOPC.

Mateusz Dabrowski and Dominic Strange are Police Constables with Warwickshire Police.

Simon Payne is Chair of Warwickshire Police Federation (pictured).

Patrick Cragg is a Lead Investigator at the IOPC.

• Read more about Introducing our case studies

The IOPC oversees the police complaints system, reviewing police complaint handling and investigating the most serious and sensitive matters involving the police. We also share learning from our work to improve police policy and practice, to improve trust and confidence in policing.

The ten case studies included in this magazine are based on real investigations and reviews the IOPC has completed. We have carefully selected these cases because they highlight key themes we see in our work and because of the opportunities they represent to spark discussion and reflective thinking.

Many of the case studies demonstrate the range of situations that those in frontline policing can be confronted by. Officers can often be the first responders to incidents involving vulnerable individuals, having to make decisions in dynamic and fast-moving situations. We share these case studies to ask readers to reflect on existing training, guidance and resources to help prevent adverse incidents in the future.

Some case studies explore wider themes that might be seen in frontline policing, including risk assessment and communication with other emergency services or members of the public. These case studies might reflect scenarios you have or could imagine encountering and are designed to help you consider your own knowledge and confidence.

While this issue discusses more recent IOPC cases, previous issues of the magazine – covering areas such as roads policing, call handling, custody, and mental health – contain case studies that are still very relevant to frontline policing. We encourage you to continue to consider the learning raised in these issues to identify opportunities to improve policy and practice.

We include symbols at the beginning of each case study so you can quickly identify cases involving themes relevant to your role. All our case studies include reflective questions, designed to unpack key learning. If you are a frontline officer or member of staff, we ask you to consider your own answers to these questions. We hope this can help you to think about how you might approach future incidents that you attend to make sure you are in the best position to support yourself, your colleagues, and members of the public. By doing so you can help everyone to have trust and confidence in policing.

To read previous issues of the Learning the Lessons magazine, please visit:

Learning the Lessons | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

David Lee is the Learning and Improvement Lead at the IOPC
 

• Read more about More than just increasing numbers: rebuilding the connection between police and communities

Catherine Akehurst and Dennis Murray discuss the impact of the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee to strengthen public trust and confidence in policing. 

 Trust and confidence are fundamental to effective policing, community engagement and legitimacy, and over recent years we have seen a decrease in this nationally. 

Many factors play a part in building and maintaining trust and confidence, however we know neighbourhood policing and officers on the street are crucial for us to connect with communities. 

Visibility and engagement with communities has always been central to the British policing model and must remain at the heart of what we do. 

Through the implementation of its Safer Streets Mission, the Government has made a commitment to support forces in rebuilding neighbourhood policing, with the delivery of its Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee (NPG). 

The guarantee, which was announced by the Prime Minister in April, aims to increase public confidence in policing and enhance the capability and capacity of the neighbourhood policing workforce by 13,000 police constables, police community support officers (PCSOs) and special constables to address anti-social behaviour (ASB) and focus on crime prevention. 

Delivering the NPG is more than just increasing numbers though; it is about rebuilding the vital connection between the public and the police. 

Since the announcement, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has been working closely with forces to ensure specific commitments set out to be delivered by July have been met and are now being successfully delivered across all forces in England and Wales. 

Every community now has named and contactable officers dedicated to addressing local issues, with neighbourhood policing teams spending the majority of their time in communities, providing visible patrols, engaging with residents and businesses, and offering regular opportunities for the public to raise concerns through community meetings. 

A further commitment was made to provide a response to neighbourhood queries such as concerns about ASB, or local issues, within 72 hours. Every force now has a dedicated ASB lead to work with communities to develop action plans that tackle concerns seen on streets every day. 

These achievements lay the foundation for the next phase of the guarantee, and the progress sets a national minimum standard that communities can expect. 

The next focus is to support forces with achieving a further milestone over this Parliament: having an additional 13,000 neighbourhood policing resources in place to spend time on visible patrol and which are not deployed to plug shortages elsewhere. The first phase of this commitment is to have 3,000 officers, PCSOs and specials in place by the end of March 2026. 

The NPCC has also been working with the College of Policing to launch a neighbourhood policing career pathway to provide new training for neighbourhood officers that equips them with the skills and knowledge they need to deliver a trusted and effective service to the public. It also sets out standards for professional excellence to ensure neighbourhood policing is developed as a specialist policing capability. 

Part one of the Neighbourhood Policing Programme (NPP1) is exclusively online learning and covers engaging with communities, problem solving and tackling ASB. 

Upon completion of NPP1, participants will be able to apply community engagement strategies to build trust and gather intelligence, and use structured problem-solving techniques to address local issues. They will know how to implement appropriate interventions to tackle ASB, and contribute to creating safer communities through visible, effective neighbourhood policing. 

The complete programme will be made up of four parts and is expected to be available in full by 2027. To further support the Government’s Safer Streets Mission, earlier this year the NPCC established a new programme to specifically focus on “Trust and Confidence”. 

The work of the programme will coordinate national efforts to rebuild public trust, enhance police legitimacy, and strengthen community relationships across UK policing. By uniting stakeholders from policing, academia and government, the programme will develop a national Trust and Confidence Strategy – driven by evidence-based practice and community engagement – to ensure policing is fair, transparent and trusted by all. 

We are also taking forward initiatives including: 

• Developing a programme of national interventions, with the College of Policing and key stakeholders, to deliver the changes required to improve public confidence
• Developing a quarterly symposium, which has been running for over a year, bringing together strategic stakeholders to share information and share thinking on police legitimacy
• Agreeing joint commitments between the Home Office, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and the NPCC to develop a consistent, and sustainable approach to addressing trust and confidence 

Maintaining public trust and confidence is not a one-time achievement, but an ongoing responsibility which requires policing to demonstrate a deep commitment to serving with fairness, empathy and transparency. 

Temporary Deputy Chief Constable Catherine Akehurst is the NPCC programme lead for the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee 

Assistant Chief Constable Dennis Murray is the NPCC lead for the Trust and Confidence portfolio 

• Read more about Content warning

This issue contains descriptions of incidents involving death and serious injury, suicide, mental ill health, violence, and strip search. 

Reading this content can have a triggering impact. You can call Samaritans for free on 116 123 or visit www.samaritans.org if you would like support.

See page 48 for more organisations you can contact if you are affected by any of the issues in this publication. 

• Read more about Welcome

Frontline policing: a new challenge – and learning opportunity – every day. 

Welcome to this edition of Learning the Lessons, looking at frontline policing, where officers interact with the public and deal with difficult and unexpected situations on a daily basis. These interactions present an invaluable opportunity for officers to build the public’s respect and trust, but there is also the risk of damaging that fragile relationship if things go wrong.

Officers face daily challenges, usually being the first on the scene when there is a crime, serious incident or crisis. They have to make snap decisions under pressure, in fast-changing and difficult conditions. The IOPC hears the stories of when police contact with the public hasn’t gone well, and we are here to help officers, staff and forces learn from when things go wrong. We also get to see examples of first-class police work, practices and officer bravery, and it is important to share these stories too.

In this issue you can find out about work to transform local policing and increase confidence, via the Neighbourhood Policing Guarantee, and research on what people really want from the police. Officer wellbeing is also featured, including important information on suicide prevention, mental health, and how we at the IOPC safeguard police witnesses and subjects in our investigations. 

Two of our articles address interacting with young people: how to prevent falling into the trap of ‘adultifying’ the young, and how overlooking neurodiversity can lead to unnecessary escalation.

We look at important practicalities, such as how the Met are reforming their first aid training. Officers from Warwickshire Police share their reflections on a case demonstrating the importance of body-worn video: captured footage showed them going above and beyond to try to save a driver in a fatal incident. 

We also provide ten case studies from real-life incidents that we have investigated or reviewed, involving issues such as use of force, equipment, and encounters with young people. These provide an opportunity for learning, discussion and reflection: what would you have done in the same situation? We include the actual outcome of the cases, any recommendations made and what forces did to prevent the same problems occurring again.

I thank everyone who has contributed to this edition of the magazine. 

Every interaction between police and the public offers an opportunity to build trust and confidence in policing. To that end, I hope you find this magazine interesting, thought-provoking and, above all, useful. 

Rachel Watson 

Director General, IOPC