Supplementary written evidence submitted by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (MAC0037)


  1. Thank you for inviting Chief Constable Ian Hopkins and I to provide evidence to your Inquiry ‘The MacPherson Report: twenty-one years on’ on the 24th June 2020. As part of that session we agreed to provide supplementary evidence in writing on a number of matters that arose. I am grateful to your Parliamentary Clerk for confirming these to us in writing on 26th June. I have also taken the opportunity to set out the next steps on the piece of work that I informed you that we have launched on race across policing. 


Fixed Penalty Notices – COVID-19


You spoke about your approach in Greater Manchester Police with regard to the use of issuing FPNs during Covid-19 specifically in relation to their possible disproportionate use, can you provide more detail on this approach and why you chose to initiate this approach?


  1. The approach in Greater Manchester Police (GMP) has been consistent and clear throughout the period. This was to use the NPCC national guidance and adopt the engage, explain and encourage approach, with enforcement only considered as a last resort. The rationale for this approach is documented in the Public Engagement Strategy written by the Chief Constable and communicated to his Chief Officers on the 5th April 2020. This is included in Annex A along with details of other communications, the local media response and a summary of interactions with GMP.


As part of the Covid-19 policing regulation guidelines there are four stages: engage, explain, encourage, enforce. The statistical evidence of ethnic disproportionality in the police use of FPNs during Covid-19 would appear to suggest either that BME individuals were less likely to respond to the first three stages of this process in advance of a FPN being issued; or, that police officers were more likely to move more quickly to ‘enforce’ in encounters with BME individuals than White individuals in those areas where disproportionality has been found.  Please explain what you understand to be the case.  What evidence can you provide in support of your response?


  1. We are unable to answer this question with the data that we hold as we do not routinely record the demographic background of individuals that the police engage with in the course of regular proactive policing activity unless formal action is taken against them. Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s


  1. report of ‘The Review of Policing’, produced in February 2008, which I also refer to later in this letter in my response to recording voluntary stops, noted that the ‘manually recorded’ system of stop and account took on average seven minutes per encounter and ‘usually leads to suspicion on the part of the member of the public involved’. Therefore, we do not hold information on the ethnic background of all those that were engaged under the Three ‘Es’ approach and did not require enforcement action. We do know that GMP recorded 2,591 incidents attended by the police which involved interactions related to COVID regulations, of which only 316 (12%) resulted in the issue of an FPN. This should not be seen as precise figure as this is based on incident data which is not subject to rigorous quality checks and many police interactions with members of the public will not have resulted in an incident being recorded. However, it provides an indication of how officers have applied the 4Es and used enforcement powers sparingly.


  1. I mentioned at the session with you and the Committee a formal piece of work that I had underway with the Government Statistical Service to review all FPNs. This work is analysing those tickets issued between the 27th March and 25th May and will explore the extent to which there is evidence of disproportionality in the way in which the police service enforced the new health protection regulations in England and Wales. Specifically, this is examining any variations in the level of such FPNs for contravening the regulations across different ethnic groups. This is a complex issue due to limitations of the available data and conclusions will be drawn based on a range of approaches to analysing the data. Results will be presented for England and Wales at a Police Force Area (PFA) level and will examine rates of FPNs issued on two different bases: the location of the force area in which the individual who was issued with the fine was present at the time, and the force area in which the individual issued with the fine is normally resident.


  1. I am pleased to also report that this work is progressing well. We have now just entered the peer review phase and hope to be able to publish at some point week commencing Monday 13th. This will probably be towards the latter part of that week, but we are working hard to release this report as soon as possible acknowledging its importance and the interest in it. I do not want to pre-empt its findings, especially as it is currently being peer reviewed, but the preliminary results indicate that the level of disproportionality suggested in the Liberty report appears to overstate the reality. These findings also suggest that compared with existing police powers, the police used enforcement activity of these new regulations relatively infrequently. The actual number of FPNs issued (17,039) represented a rate of 3 fines for every 10,000 residents in England and Wales during this period. We have previously reported[1] that during the 4-week period to the 24th May alone, the police recorded 134,188 incidents with a Covid-19 footprint. This includes incidents where officers have proactively offered advice to people, responded to reports from the members of the public about breaches of the regulation by others and offences where criminals have sought to take advantage of the pandemic to commit a crime.


  1. The relatively small number of FPNs issued reflects the guidance issued jointly by the NPCC and College of Policing about the policing of these new regulations. The College advocated enforcement to be used only as a last resort when attempts to engage with individuals to explain the regulations and encourage compliance had not been successful. It would not have been feasible for forces to record the number and detail of all such encounters. This makes the analysis of whether enforcement action occurred evenly across different ethnic groups challenging since it is not possible to know what proportion of such encounters resulted in enforcement action. I would like to share the report with you under embargo shortly before publication if you would find this helpful. Please let me know if this is something that you would like to do, and I will make the arrangements.


Policing of demonstrations during Covid-19


Can you provide clarification about the claim made by Stopwatch to the Committee that far right protesters in London on 13 June were not policed as heavily as the BLM demonstration in London on 6 June. On 13 June it was reported by the media that protestors included football hooligans connected to the Democratic Football Lads Alliance and representatives of the party-political far-right. Can you provide the Committee with the number of arrests that took place at both of these demonstrations? The Committee would be grateful for any further information you are able to provide about the police’s approach to its policing of these two demonstrations which would cast light on the decision-making process and factors considered in determining that approach.


  1. The policing approach to all recent protests has been consistent, based on a graduated response, taking account of intelligence and what activity occurred on the actual day, and using the four Es approach. Any situation of this nature presents the challenge for operational commanders to weigh up the risk of increased or further public order if the approach is not balanced. The data that we have both on a UK wide level and in London specifically shows that there was a lower incident rate of arrests for both on the 6th June BLM Demonstration than for the Protest groups that turned out on the 13th June. The UK wide figures show that there were 32 arrests on 6th June which equates to 0.057% of attendees.  There were 14 assaults on police officers in the Metropolitan Police Service. On the 13th June there were 137 arrests which equates to 0.36% of total attendees. On this date there were 36 assaults on officers (23 MPS, 7 BTP, 3 Northumbria, 2 Humberside, 1 Sussex). In London there were 29 arrests from 20,000 protesters on the 6th June and 115 arrests from 2,000 protesters on the 13th June.


Use of Tasers


a)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Can you clarify if Black people are nearly 8 times more likely than White people to be subject to use of Tasers as claimed by Liberty in evidence to the Committee?


  1. We do not recognise the figures or analysis used to arrive at this statement but would be keen to see the detail in order that we can provide comment. Taser use has risen across the UK however, this should be considered against the broader context. There has been a rise in the number of officers who are now trained to use Taser in response to concerns about the rise in serious violent crime and assaults on emergency workers.


  1. Taser use is not simply defined by whether a Taser is discharged or not. There are seven recorded ‘uses’ of Taser:  Draw, Aim, Arc, Red dot, Drive stun, Fired, Angled drive stun. The first four are classified as ‘passive uses’ where the mere presence of the device is enough to bring a violent or potentially violent situation to a swift conclusion. Official statistics on the use of Tasers are published by the Home Office annually[2].


  1. These ‘uses’ taken together demonstrate at a national level that the number of incidents, per head of population shows, that people from BAME backgrounds are subjects to a higher rate of use than those from a White background. However, the use of Tasers varies significantly across force areas and any analysis of disproportionality should take that into account as well as the disproportionate concentration of certain ethnic groups in particular parts of the country.
  2. The latest official statistics show that in 2018/19 there were 23,500 uses of Taser. Of those Taser uses, 85% were passive, non-discharge. 4% were unknown, the remaining 11% were discharges. The ethnicity (where known) of those that have been involved in incidents where police have used Taser are shown in the table below:



  1. These statistics have been published with a degree of caution as it is only the second year that statistics have been published in this way. However, the figures demonstrate that Black people involved in such incidents were more likely to be subject of non-discharge of Taser (88% compared with 83% for White people) and those from a White background (12%) were more likely to have Taser discharged on them than those with a Black background (10%). Taser is one of many tactical options that officers have in the face of violence or threats of violence.  


b) Can you provide the Committee with data for 1 April 2019 – 31 March 2020 the number of times police Tasers have been (a) drawn and (b) discharged, by ethnicity of subject. Does this data support Liberty’s claim that Black people are nearly 8 times more likely to be subject to use of Tasers compared with White people? If so, what is your explanation for this?


  1. The figures requested for 2019/20 will be published by the Home Office later this year and are not currently available. Data is collected within policing under the use of force database which is overseen by DAC Matt Twist, which are required to collect the minimum standard required by the Home Office.


c) In response to Open Society Foundation’s claim that not all officers are trained to use Tasers, can you outline if there are any requirements that must be in place before a police officer can use a Taser? Please provide us with the details of the training officers receive before they are issued with Tasers.


  1. Police forces decide the number of officers to train in the use of conducted energy devices (CED) (also known by the brand name Taser) through a strategic threat and risk assessment process. Therefore, it is true to say not all police officers are trained to use Taser, as if they do not carry one operationally there is no need to be trained in its use. Those officers that do carry a Taser are trained.


  1. Non-Taser-trained frontline police officers are trained to support Taser officers, they receive Taser awareness training as part of their officer safety training.


  1. Any officer trained in the use of a CED must complete a minimum of 18 contact hours training, typically delivered over three days and cannot be authorised for any longer than 365 days. To be re-authorised they must complete a minimum of six hours refresher training delivered over one day. Please see the link below to the College of Policing website for more details.


  1. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/armed-policing/conducted-energy-devices-taser/#training


  1. Before an officer can apply to be CED trained and authorised to carry a CED they must comply with a series of pre-requisites, including:








  1. If it would be of interest to you and your committee colleagues, then I would be very happy to arrange a presentation from one of the NPCC leads on Taser followed by the opportunity to see a full Taser training session.


d) It has been reported in the media that several members of the NPCC National Taser Stakeholder Advisory Group resigned in April accusing the NPPC of not taking disproportionality seriously in the use of Tasers. Can you explain to the Committee the reasons for these resignations and what work the NPCC has since done to address the concerns that were raised by those members?


  1. On the 25th March 2020 NPCC Lead for Taser DAC D’Orsi received a letter from some members of the National Taser Stakeholder Advisory Group (NTSAG) who tendered their resignation from the group. A copy of DAC D’Orsi’s response dated 14th May 2020 is attached at Annex B for your information. All of the signatories were relatively new members and had not attended many meetings of the group. A number of reasons were given, the most prominent was the failure of police to address disproportionate use of Taser on BAME communities and individuals. At this time these members were aware that the Less Lethal Weapons portfolio were already in the process of putting plans in place to address these concerns by developing work streams in line with an NPCC review of officer safety. DAC D’Orsi had also discussed that she was exploring the possibility of conducting a review of perceived Taser disproportionality under the NPCC officer safety review. This was the earliest opportunity that any meaningful review could have been carried out as the necessary data had only been available in the UK for two years. This is the first time that any meaningful analysis of our data can take place. We are extremely grateful to the remaining members of the group who are supporting us in taking this review forward. DAC D’Orsi is aware that the speed of entering a review was frustrating but it is a complex area and delivering a review which is supported by all relevant parties requires careful consultation. The National Taser Advisory Group is only one body with whom it is necessary to engage.


  1. We are also in the early stages of developing a proposed the terms of reference for an independent Taser review of disproportionality. We would welcome the Committee’s views on what this should cover. Initial thoughts from discussions with forces and others have suggested the following should be included:








  1. This will be the first review, so it is important to invest time in these early stages and ensure full consultation. The findings of this review will be used to inform the national piece of work that I have started to look at race mentioned below.


Stop and search


Ian Hopkins mentioned that your communities in GMP were asking for more SS to take place because of a rise in violent crime. Which communities have requested an increase in SS and how has this request been made? What reasons were given for this request?


  1. The GMP Stop and Search Coordination Group (SSCG) has two community representatives on the panel that are from youth support groups based in Manchester. They work closely with the local youth in Salford and Moss side. Graham Copper from the Broughton Trust raised at a SSCG meeting that the youths he works with had raised their concerns, that they did not feel safe due to knives being carried within the community.


  1. Graham stated that the youths had expressed that they wanted GMP to conduct more stop and searches to address this issue in order to keep the youth community safe. Graham has highlighted this point again this week stating he is in the process of drafting a public letter due to the recent negative press around stop and search. He wants to highlight within this letter that the youths requested an increase in stop and search. He has linked in with second group on the panel the Hideaway Project who echoes his comments.


  1. Overviews of the projects are below-


  1. The Broughton Trust was set up in December 1999 and it is a charity and company limited by guarantee. It has a board of fifteen members, with eight seats reserved for residents and seven for organisations including social landlords, the University and the Council. The Trust provides adult learning, youth work, and employment support and community development across the city.


  1. The Trust has ten-year record of effective youth interventions in Salford responding to street riots, gang rivalry, and rises in violent crime.



  1. The Hideaway Project aims to provide high quality youth work in a safe and secure environment where relationships and trust are developed and cherished, where young people have a voice and are heard, where difference is celebrated and where everyone works together to develop the full potential of all.



Ian also spoke about a number of stop and search scrutiny groups that you have in place at GMP including a stop and search coordinating group, two youth groups and an independent ethics panel; the latter group you said also scrutinises police use of force and SS.  Can you provide more detail on how these scrutiny groups function including:



Greater Manchester Police Stop and Search Coordination Group (SSCG)


  1. Chief Superintendent Shaun Donnellan chairs the Stop and Search Coordination Group as the force lead for Stop and Search. He is supported by the Neighbourhoods Confidence and Equality team. The Stop and Search Coordination Group takes place quarterly it is attended by-



  1. The last meeting took place on 16th January 2020. The April meeting was cancelled due to the coronavirus response.


  1. The SSCG receive the previous quarters of stop and search performance data and a quarterly report. These reports provide GMP districts breakdowns for their areas, including number of stops, ethnicity, age, power used, outcomes, quarterly figures against the previous year and any nominal stopped three times or more in a twelve-month period. Each district scrutinises the data and reports into the SSCG any changes to it. If there has been a rise or fall in the number of stops then this would be flagged and questioned. The detail of searches would then be considered such as if the number of stops has risen but the number of positive searches (where items were found) has not risen or has fallen. Other areas that would be looked at and questioned are any disproportionality in the ethnicity of searches and where an individual has been stopped three times or more in a twelve month by the same officer. These questions are to understand the data better and not necessarily indicative of an issue. In the last example it would be not be unreasonable for a known and active offender on a particular district to be stopped by the Neighbourhood Officer for that area. The data is also scrutinised by the community representative on the panel who will raise their views and any concerns. Other areas are also discussed such as planned community engagement around stop and search, and topics such as schools, youth groups and local events.


  1. Districts that currently have an Independent Advisory Group (IAG) will use this group to dip sample body worn video footage (BWV) of stop and search. All stop and searches must be recorded on body worn video. Districts are also expected to dip sample BWV to highlight good and bad practices and feed the results into the SSCG.



GMP Force Independent Advisory Group (Force IAG)


  1. GMP have a Force IAG in place that are currently involved in stop and search scrutiny and are assisting in the rewrite to GMPs stop and search policy form a public consultation perspective.


  1. The IAG is independent from GMP and is run by the group its self, GMP only assist with support the group needs. The groups overview is as follows-


  1. IAG Chair is Dr Erinma Bell MBE, highly respected leader from our GM African-Caribbean community


  1. The group consists of 16 members with 13 from BAME communities, the group members where sourced from community groups who expressed interest in joining the Force IAG. The group decided who would hold the posts of Chair and Vice Chair. The members are from community groups for across Greater Manchester. The group has members that represent the following communities: LGBT, Mental Health, Manchester Youth, BAME & Faith (reps from African- Caribbean, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Arab & Chinese communities), Disabilities & Learning difficulties Reps.


  1. Discussions are underway to get representative from Armed Forces Veterans onto this group.


  1. The group look at topics that affect the force as whole and topics the IAG wish to scrutinise, so the information given to the group can vary for meeting to meeting. The group has a terms of reference that they are guided by as they will be given information linked to critical incidents, sensitive topics and use of force etc.


Independent Ethics Committee


  1. Greater Manchester’s Independent Ethics Committee was created in 2014 to review ethical matters within policing. Its terms of reference include:



  1. The Committee is chaired by Bishop David Walker, the Bishop of Manchester.


  1. Vacancies are advertised and utilise diverse networks to share the opportunity. Recent EOIs were reviewed by GMCA (David Byrne, Clare Monaghan) and GMP (Arif Nawaz), then discussed with the Deputy Mayor. Those successful at EOI review were invited to interview.


  1. The interviews were conducted by the Deputy Mayor and Deputy Chief Constable for GMP.


  1. The diversity of the current Ethics Committee (9 members in total) includes 3 members from a black or minority ethnic background, 1 member who is Jewish, and 2 female members.


  1. The Ethic Committee have considered issues surrounding Use of Force on 25/02/19 and 02/09/19. This is in a broader context and not specific to stop and search. Stop and Search specifically were considered in meetings on the 15/01/18 and 12/03/18, with a follow up planned in the work schedule for this year.


The Macpherson Report stated that all stops should be recorded. We have heard that road traffic stops are not recorded. Can you outline why these stops are not recorded, and what work is being done by the police service to address this?


  1. Recommendation 61 of the MacPherson Report stated that a record should be made by police officers of all “stops” and “stops and searches” made under any legislative provision, not just under PACE. Non-statutory or so-called “voluntary” stops should also be recorded. The record should include the reason for the stop, the outcome and the self-defined ethnicity of the person stopped. A copy of the record should be given to that person.


  1. It remains a statutory requirement to record every stop and search (under any legislative provision) as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and PACE Code A. These records are required to include: the reason for the stop, the outcome, reason for arrest (if applicable), whether the outcome was linked to the reason for the stop (if applicable), the self-defined ethnicity and officer defined ethnicity. As part of ‘GOWISELY’, an acronym (See Annex C for details) which guides police officers to conduct mandatory steps before and during a search, individuals who have been stopped and searched by police are entitled to be offered a piece of paper with full details of the grounds and circumstances of the encounter (also known as a ‘search slip’). Technology changes now mean that in most forces a person will receive a unique reference number, which they can input into that force’s website to receive a copy of the record of their stop after being stopped and searched. This provides on-the-ground accountability to reassure those being searched that the officer has performed the search lawfully.


  1. Voluntary stops or ‘stop and account’ are those encounters in which police officers stop members of the public to ask them to account for their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything, but do not search them. The requirement to record stop and account was introduced in England and Wales in 2005 following recommendations made by Sir William Macpherson in 1999.


  1. Sir Ronnie Flanagan’s report of ‘The Review of Policing’, produced in February 2008 ([3]) noted that the ‘manually recorded’ system of stop and account took on average seven minutes per encounter and ‘usually leads to suspicion on the part of the member of the public involved’, and that it had been estimated that stop and account consumed over 48,000 hours of officers' time each year in London. He found that the process had become bureaucratic and was not fulfilling the need identified in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, namely to ensure ‘courtesy, respect and accountability’.


  1. From 7 March 2011 the Home Office removed[4] the national requirement to record stop and account in order to reduce police bureaucracy, saving thousands of police hours. It remains important that the police continue to monitor the professionalism of their encounters with the public, which the increased use of body worn video assists in this regard.


Ian Hopkins told the Committee that police officers receive training on diversity, inclusion and human rights. Can you explain to the Committee:


a)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     what diversity, inclusion and human rights training includes, outlining what topics are addressed?


  1. The mandatory curriculum set by the College of Policing for all new officers includes the following:



  1. Diversity and ethics are also prominent in other operational and practical learning for officers after their initial programme, and staff such as Police Community Support Officers, across the National Policing curriculum. Diversity and ethics form an important part of modules on public protection, managing conflict, victims and witnesses, response policing, conducting investigations and communication skills, allowing the core values of diversity and understanding communities to be emphasised throughout police training. These important areas are also included in the mandatory training for all prospective chief officers on the Strategic Command Course which is run by the College of Policing. The submission from the College of Policing to this Inquiry provides further detail on the content of the curriculum.


  1. As an example of a force’s standalone programme, Greater Manchester Police includes the following:


Student Officers



Specialist Operations


  1. Spec Ops courses, such as Personal Safety Training, are all opened courses open with a Welcome Video from ACC Nick Bailey. This video explains that there are golden threads throughout the training which include ECHR, Code of Ethics and the NDM.


  1. General Offer (Police Staff and Officers) – Non- Mandatory



Do all officers receive this training, and if not, why not?


  1. The detail set out at (a) is the current curriculum for the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship and other new routes, which are not yet delivered in all forces. All officers will have received equality and diversity training as part of the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme since 2006.


  1. Ongoing training is a matter for forces and delivery will vary. The College of Policing offer learning standards for a standalone equality and diversity module for all officers and staff which covers a general understanding of equality and diversity and the human dynamics of difference between individuals and groups, including institutional discrimination.


  1. As an example of a force’s standalone programme, within Greater Manchester Police all officers receive initial training on joining the Force and will receive refresher training including accredited and mandatory courses. The remaining training is for officers and staff and is the wider, non-mandatory CPD offer.


  1. The force is in the process of redesigning the Sergeants and Inspectors Leaders Courses, both of which will be mandatory, and which will include Inclusion and elements of all of the CPD core CPD training listed above (and as referenced in the presentation attached).


  1. It is also planned at that as part of the governance review of all training (to occur annually), that there will be a DEI review to ensure that they are in line with best practice.


Does this training include specific modules on antiracist practice including institutional racism, white privilege and racial microaggressions?


  1. The College standards specifically include institutional discrimination, but not white privilege or micro-aggressions. As delivery to officers will be determined by force programme content, training will vary in what specific examples of antiracist practice are included.


  1. Finally, I take the opportunity to say more about the work on race and equality that I have recently commenced and provide an indication to you and the committee on the timing of the next steps.


  1. The Committee will be aware of the statement that I issued on behalf of Chief Officers on 18 June 2020 as part of NPCC’s continued response to the death of George Floyd and to the international outpouring of emotion seen in BLM events.


  1. Over the last few weeks I have had numerous conversations with Chief Constables and there is no doubt that collectively and individually it has been a period of deep reflection on the relationship that we have as a service, and as leaders, with our black communities and with our black staff. There has been extensive discussion and listening, both internally and externally, in all forces and this has presented a challenging picture. Much work has been done and is being done, and real progress has been made. But it is not enough, and it has not moved fast enough.


  1. Your inquiry centres on progress since a previous ‘moment in time’ for police relations with the black community. There have also been others, but we are determined that the opportunity that this ‘moment in time’ presents not be lost.


  1. This work will involve all ranks in designing our plan of action. We will involve those groups that represent and support our BAME officers and staff. We will reach out to those who work with us and provide challenge in communities. The intention is to produce an inclusive and clear plan of action for sustainable change.


  1. It would be premature to outline the plan at this stage, but I would like to give an indication of the areas that are most likely based on the consultation that I have done so far with some of the key leaders in this work. The detail will be discussed in planned sessions at Chief Constables’ Council (CCC) on the 15th July. Discussions have suggested that we should begin by capturing the ‘voice’ of our black staff and communities, to understand their experiences. We will support this by working up plans to collect more consistent and comprehensive data across all forces to present a national picture that can be broken down. This must be both internal and external data. We know that consistent data is area of weakness within policing and needs work. However, much can be done with the data that we have if subjected to rigorous and contextualised analysis.


  1. Using this better understanding as a starting point, we will then apply this to agreed key areas. The group discussions that I have held have all pointed towards three areas that should be included in this: our internal police environment and organisation; the use of our powers, in particular stop and search, use of force and Taser; and considering the effectiveness of our community engagement. The skeleton of the plan of action will start to emerge in discussions at CCC later this month and will be subject to further discussion, wide-ranging consultation and challenge in the weeks that follow. I am considering the creation of a ‘commissioning group’ to provide oversight on the creation of the plan, and then on its implementation. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss with you and colleagues the emerging plan that comes from these initial discussions and consultations at some point in August to suit you and your colleagues.







July 2020










This Annex includes: (i) Public Engagement Strategy written by the Chief Constable, communicated to all Chief Officers 5th April 2020 (ii) Social Media Campaign (iii) Local media reporting of Campaign (iv) Internal force messaging (v) GMP Interactions Summary.





Further to the messages we shared this morning and my concerns about how we achieve compliance with current restrictions and avoid unnecessary conflict I have set out below a draft strategy for us to work up tomorrow. I will ask Nicola Spragg to arrange a video conference at the earliest opportunity tomorrow to allow us to work up further.


Public Engagement Strategy




We are now entering the third week of the restrictions the UK Government announced on 24 March 2020. It is clear that for many the restrictions are relatively straight forward to comply with and we are seeing a high degree of compliance across Greater Manchester. This is evidenced through data from GMPTE in terms of journeys by private vehicles, reduction in overall crime, compliance with social distancing in supermarkets and the majority of open spaces, the vast majority of businesses being closed.


We are seeing an increase in private parties in a residential setting and a growing number of large scale gatherings. This is to be expected as we move further into the restriction period as people become more complacent and seek outlets from isolation. This risk will only grow over time.


It is clear there is a social divide around the restrictions that policing must consider. More middle class and affluent parts of Greater Manchester may find dealing with the restrictions somewhat easier to cope with. This is because of the ability to enjoy their homes and gardens and outdoor spaces without breaching the restrictions; the ability to work from home may be easier; more likely to have maintained an income; more access to family and friends and entertainment through digital channels; greater ability to access food through collections and use of alternative sources such as local producers. This is of course a generalisation as we have seen high profile examples of significant breaches by high profile individuals such as footballers and the Scottish Chief Medical Advisor. Of course much of the excess travelling to beauty spots locally and further afield was by citizens in this group.


For many in Greater Manchester the current restrictions are proving very challenging. Policing needs to recognise this and be tolerant of peoples individual circumstances, whilst seeking solutions to help people understand the necessity to comply with the restrictions, for their own health and the health of others. Living in a flat with no outdoor space, or living in a small house with a number of adults and children and limited space, or having no income and limited access to food and necessities is a real challenge that we must show compassion and understanding to their individual circumstances.


Policing by consent is a fundamental strand of our democracy in the UK. Never before has this been so precious and is something we as a society should cherish. It is incumbent on all officers and staff to uphold the principles of policing by consent. Sir Robert Peels principles are clear that that at all times we maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to the duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.


Peels Principles should be our touchstone in combination with the Code of Ethics for our Policing style and communications throughout the Coronavirus Epidemic. Policing has found itself in a difficult position of being asked to enforce crisis led legislation, with no time to train or apply consistent application. Numerous high profile commentators have been seeking to highlight where individual officers or indeed Police Forces have moved away from Peels principles and appear to restrict the tradition of freedoms UK Citizens hold dear.


Trust and confidence by citizens in Greater Manchester Police and the wider Police service is paramount to our future relationships with our citizens. We must do everything we can to maintain trust and confidence now and moving through this crisis. We must recognise that not all citizens face the same challenges in dealing with the current restrictions. We should be empathetic, whilst applying a common sense approach to enforcing the emergency legislation. The Four E’s approach of engagement, explanation, encouragement and enforcement must be upheld.


It is very clear that this approach is challenging us in some communities and presenting our frontline colleagues with real issues. We have a dual challenge of maintaining confidence in our ability to achieve the aim of Protecting the NHS and saving lives as well as maintaining confidence in our leadership of our colleagues.


The longer the restrictions remain in place the more likely we are to see less compliance. This could potentially result in greater community tension and the risk of conflict between the public and the Police. We need to do everything we can to avoid this potential for conflict and subsequent loss of trust and confidence in Greater Manchester Police by the people we serve.




  1. Protect the NHS
  2. Save lives through stopping the spread of the virus.
  3. Achieve compliance by the majority of the public with Government restrictions.
  4. Maintain trust and confidence in policing.
  5. Avoid conflict between the police and our communities.
  6. Adhere to Peels Principles and the Code of Ethics.
  7. Ensure business continuity for Policing by avoiding having to deal with conflict and disorder.
  8. Give confidence to our staff through our leadership in demonstrating we are dealing with their frontline reality.




  1. Create a Police led coalition of trusted voices to deliver messages of compliance with restrictions to specific communities.
  2. Build a coalition of local media outlets to all give consistent messaging to communities.
  3. Promote good levels of compliance and positive community initiatives.





  1. Engage football clubs at Board level to assist with strategy and form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  2. Engage Lancashire Cricket Club at Board level to assist with strategy and form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  3. Engage Coronation Street at Producer level to assist with strategy and form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  4. Engage Boxing stars such as Anthony Corolla and Tyson Fury to assist with strategy and form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  5. Engage with music industry stars and influencers to  assist with the strategy and form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  6. Engage with social media influencers, social media influencers, reality TV stars to assist with the strategy and form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  7. Engage with Religious leaders to form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  8. Engage local community voices to form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  9. Engage individuals who have suffered from COVID 19 or lost a family member from communities we wish to target to form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  10. Engage local media, ITV Granada, BBC NW, BBC radio, Hits Radio, MEN to agree to support the campaign of trusted voices.
  11. Engage with key employers in most challenging communities to form part of the coalition of trusted voices.
  12. Ensure all officers and staff comply with our aims and objectives through effective internal communications




  1. Ensure Greater Manchester Police are not seen to be lecturing our more challenging communities or criticising their choices.
  2. Ensure better compliance particularly in private homes and public spaces.
  3. Minimise conflict with our communities across Greater Manchester.
  4. Enforce emergency legislation where necessary and appropriate.



Social Media Campaign


An outcome of this strategy was a Social Media campaign, utilising Manchester celebrities giving the Stay at Home message.

Link to Social Media videos – To Follow.


Local media reporting of campaign





Internal force messaging


A consistent approach was adopted in tone and the continued emphasis on engagement, and enforcement as a last resort.

Timeline of Key Internal Message by CC Hopkins:


24th  March

The Chief completed an internal video message where he reminded all staff of  policing by consent. (two days before the enforcement changes were made)

27th  March

This messages was included in the daily bulletin for all GMP staff (the day after the changes were made)

30th March

GOLD Decision. Project Servator was suspended – Due to the public misinterpreting why officers were stopping people in cars.  Staff concern that we were stopping due to Covid legislation.  The instruction is terms of policing style was these were rapidly enacted powers which were likely to have different interpretations.  Our style was one of policing by consent, no roadblocks, no drones, and enforcement as a last resort working with our communities.   

31st  March

Chief recorded another internal message explaining the four E’s process and the decision made at GOLD.

3rd and 4th April

Daily bulletin re-emphasised the importance of using the first 3 E’s.

9th April

Proactive media educating the public and reiterating GMPs stance.

21st April

Chief internal video message with contained messaging around the 4Es with specific regard to Ramadan and Eid.


GMP interactions Summary (As of 23rd June):

GMP established a system whereby all Covid-19 related incidents were given a closing code. This has enabled us to identify the instances where police officers have interacted with members of the public as a result of a report of breaching coronavirus legislation. From this closing code we know that the total number of interactions where there may have been potential to issue a notice was 2591 (Closing code of G24) but the total number of notices that were successfully issued were 316.  Simplistically this can be presented as only 12% of incidents resulted in enforcement activity. There are caveats around this in terms of rigour and quality assurance of implementing a new closing code – checks on the correct and consistent closure of incidents, and further does not allow for multiple FPNs issued at a single incident. However, these figures do give a sense of the proportion of interactions that have resulted in enforcement, against engage, encourage, explain. 



ANNEX B – Letter from NPCC Taser Lead DAC Lucy D’Orsi dated 14 May 2020 on Resignation of members of the National Taser Stakeholder Advisory Group


Resignation from the National Taser Stakeholder Advisory Group (NTSAG)


Thank you for your letter dated 25th March 2020 and I apologise for the delayed response. I was sorry to read that you have tendered your resignation to the National Taser Stakeholder Advisory Group. As per the protocols in the constitution, I have forwarded your letter and had discussions with the chair and other members of the group. I am encouraged to hear that the NTSAG will continue.


I thought it may be useful to reflect on the history of the NTSAG. You will recall that it evolved from the independent scrutiny groups introduced by the Metropolitan Police c2008. At that time, concern centred on the introduction of Taser for non-firearms officers and we felt that an independent group would be a constructive way for groups and/or individuals, with an interest in police Taser deployment and use, to share their views and suggestions with national policing. 


Whilst there has been much change since 2008, I remain firmly of the belief that the NTSAG is a really valuable group which is able to lobby, challenge and influence policing constructively. As you have acknowledged we will never agree on everything but different thinking and healthy debate is essential, and something I have always personally valued. I remain grateful to the NTSAG members for giving their time and commitment, as they are an extremely important member of the National Less Lethal Weapons Working Group.


Turning to some of the specific issues you raise in your letter, I thought it would be useful to comment on the key points:


Taser Usage


I do agree with you that Taser use has risen across the UK however, this should be considered against the broader context. There has been a rise in the number of officers who are now trained to use Taser[5] and some ‘violence’ crime rates have risen, including knife-enabled crime[6].




I have always recognised the concerns that you have vocalised around general police disproportionality. At the last meeting you attended, I explained that I felt the concerns you articulated were wider than solely the use of Taser. I highlighted the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) ‘Officer Safety Review’, which was due to be published and I felt there was a read across into this work. I advised the group that disproportionality was included within the review and, specifically to Taser use, one of the recommendations being that the NPCC and College of Policing investigate the concerns raised about disproportionality in Taser use and seek to offer evidence based solutions to minimise it through social research. That review is ongoing.


At a recent meeting I agreed to look at how we could look to evaluate the use of Taser further which I know you did not feel was a satisfactory answer. I did agree with you that there is benefit in securing independent research to look at the disproportionality in Taser use. Since then I have been exploring how to commission and fund independent research and hope to update the NTSAG imminently on progress. This will be an interesting and valuable piece of work and NTSAG will be key in developing and agreeing the scope of the research. I have discussed this with the NTSAG, and we have also been progressing discussions with the College of Policing on how to secure research through the Solutions Panel. I am grateful to the NTSAG member who has been helping us with this.


In terms of the broader topic of disproportionality, I know the College of Policing are aware of your concerns from other meetings you have been engaged with.


Specifically focussing on Taser, national statistics show that between 2018 and 2019 there were 23,500 uses of Taser[7]. Of those Taser uses, 89% were passive, non-discharge. The remaining 11% were discharges. If we look at ethnicity and in particular black and white ethnic groupings, the statistics show:



Total Taser use

Non-discharge of Taser

Discharge of Taser



3,874 (88%)

443 (10%)



12,029 (83%)

1,800 (12%)

Taser use 2018-2019, Office for National Statistics


Since 2007, there has been a steady decrease in the total number of Taser discharges per year. The figures demonstrate that black people are more likely to be subject of non-discharge of Taser (88% compared to 83% for white people) and white people (12%) are more likely to have Taser discharged on them than black people (10%). Taser is one of many tactical options that officers have in the face of violence or threats of violence.  


These statistics have been published with a degree of caution. It is only the second year that statistics have been published in this way and we anticipate that the figures will be more consistent and reliable as we go forward.


Police Use of Force


I was aware from the meetings you attended that this was an area you felt strongly about. At

July’s meeting DAC Matt Twist, the NPCC lead for Self-defence and Restraint (SDAR), attended and explained the national position. There was a strong view from the group on this and there were areas where we agreed, but also some where we could not agree. At this meeting and subsequent ones, I highlighted some key points which demonstrate the accountability of the use of force by police, namely:



In addition, I reflected that many forces have checks and balances in place to ensure that officers act in accordance with the law, such as:



I recognise that there may be times when an officer’s actions fall below what is expected of them and these are investigated, either by the IOPC or the relevant force’s Professional Standards Department.


Taser Policy


You highlighted Taser policy. I have tried to reassure the NTSAG that we continually review our policies and procedures. In addition to this, other bodies and groups such as Dstl and SACMILL review policy and ultimately there is Home Officer oversight[8]. The NTSAG is a further valuable group in the accountability of policy. We will continue to review policy and welcome the contribution of the NTSAG in this area.


Taser is an effective device and there has been many years of testing and evaluation. Officers attend a strict training course, which is pass/fail and the curriculum takes into account years of learning. I know some members of the NTSAG have attended the training. I would like to still offer you the opportunity to have full access to the training and participate. I know other members found this valuable and they have provided some excellent feedback.


My team and I have always welcomed suggestions to change and adapt. I am not aware of anything specific that has been put forward in this area for consideration, but we will continue to work with the NTSAG in this area.


National Decision Model


You mention the National Intelligence Model[9] as not being fit for purpose in your letter. I assume you mean the National Decision Model (NDM). This model is a key part of policing and is used in operational and non-operational decision making. I cannot agree that it is not fit for purpose when I reflect on the research, thinking and evidence base, which sits behind it. However, I recognise the strength of your feelings on this so I would suggest that this is something you discuss with the College of Policing whom I know some of you are in contact with. I will also share your concerns with them. I will of course discuss with the NTSAG if there is anything specific relating to Taser and the broader area of less lethal weapons and the use of the NDM, as nothing specific to date has been raised.


Consultation with the NTSAG


I must disagree with your assertion that policing has not consulted with the NTSAG. In your letter you mention two specific areas where you feel you were not consulted, uplift to Taser and the Officer Safety Review. The financial uplift to forces for the purchase of Taser was a Home Office decision. Any increase in the number of Tasers is owned by individual Chief Constables who consider the necessity against their annual Strategic Threat and Risk Assessment and local IAGs are consulted. In addition, there is accountability through the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.


As explained above, the Officer Safety Review is not governed by the Less Lethal Weapons working group. However, we will be considering the recommendations of the review with the Less Lethal Weapons National Working Group, of which the NTSAG is a member. I will give feedback that you felt there would have been benefit in your inclusion. 


Every decision and development in respect of less lethal weapons and Taser is discussed at the national Less Lethal Weapons Working Group, which meets four times a year. NTSAG is a member and always has a representative present so I am unclear on how you feel you are not included in discussions. In addition, the NTSAG meets at least quarterly and we attend with other key stakeholders such as the College of Policing, Dstl, SACMILL and the Home Office.


I feel disappointed that you have not reflected the involvement that the NTSAG had in the decisions around the carriage of Taser by probationary officers and special constables. These were extensive pieces of work and the NTSAG was involved in both. I was grateful for the work of your colleagues in both of these areas as they brought fair challenge and without question influenced our approach, thinking and final recommendations to National Police Chief Constables’ Council.


Of course, there is still more we can do and we are not complacent. At the last meeting, NTSAG members raised some key areas for us to do more work on together. I welcome scrutiny and recognise the benefit of the NTSAG in achieving this.


Taser is an effective device for policing: the mere presence of the device, in 90% of occasions brings violent or potentially violent situations to a swift and safe conclusion, without the need to fire or use physical force, thus ensuring the safety of the public and officers. I will continue to work with the NTSAG and together I am sure we will make a significant impact, striking the balance between the human rights of individuals and upholding the law.


I am copying this letter to all members of the NTSAG.



ANNEX C – Stop and Search Acronym GOWISELY explained




A clear explanation of the officer’s grounds for suspicion, eg, info/intel or specific behaviour of person.


A clear explanation of the object and purpose of the search in terms of the article being searched for.


Warrant card, if not in uniform or if requested.


Identity of the officer(s): name and number or, in cases involving terrorism or where there is a specific risk to the officer, just warrant or collar number.


Station to which the officer is attached.


Entitlement to a copy of the search record within 3 months.


Legal power used.


You are detained for the purposes of a search.















[1] See https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/d57449ab50eb4c2994dea494bd31b5c2



[3] https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/media/flanagan-review-of-policing-20080201.pdf

[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-gives-first-major-speech-on-policing

[5] There are currently c35,000 Taser trained police officers. A year ago, there were c31,000. 

[6] Office for National Statistics (ONS), https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice



[7] Office for National Statistics, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-use-of-force-statistics-england-and-wales-april-2018to-march-2019. 23,500 uses of Taser against 428,000 uses of force in general across policing. 

[8] The Scientific Advisory Committee on the Medical Implications of Less-Lethal Weapons (SACMILL) is an advisory nondepartmental public body of the British Ministry of Defence set up to advise the British government in regard to the medical implications of less-lethal weapons.

[9] The NIM is the model that provides intelligence that senior managers can use to help them formulate strategic direction, make tactical resourcing decisions and manage risk.