Agenda item

The Panel received a report and presentation on the Use of Drones by Durham Constabulary, presented by Chief Inspector James Patel and PCSO Amber Dolby, Durham Constabulary (for copy see file of Minutes). 

The DPCC noted there was considerable interest in terms of the use of technology by UK Police Forces.  He explained that locally, Durham Constabulary used drones in a number of scenarios to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour.  He assured the Panel that the work of the Constabulary in County Durham and Darlington was ahead of the game, with the Force looking at opportunities to help improve the use of drones through training and accessing various funding streams.

Chief Inspector J Patel and PCSO A Dolby gave the Panel information in respect of definitions, capability, funding and deployment constraints.  The Panel learned of the number of deployments to date, and the plans looking forward for the next 12 months, as well as the national direction of drone use. 

PCSO A Dolby explained that a further 20 pilots would be trained, to help cover more areas, and Chief Inspector J Patel explained where drones could be deployed from and constraints such as weather conditions.

The Chair thanked the Officers and asked the Panel for their comments and questions.

Councillor D Boyes thanked the Officers for their presentation and noted his concern about technology outpacing legislation.  He asked as regards any constraints in respect of the use of the footage, for example in terms of RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) and asked what emphasis was being placed on the use for drones compared to actual ‘boots on the ground’.  Chief Inspector J Patel noted that, in terms of intrusive surveillance, then any RIPA activity would need to be considered by a Senior Investigating Officer.  He added that where the drone use was in the detection or prevention of a crime then there was a right to track suspects or monitor crowds or protests.  He noted that the use of drones was very much a ‘support’ resource to help the efficiency of Officers on the ground, reducing the number of Officers and time spent conducting searches, as an example.  He added that this freed up Officers such that they were then available to deal with more high-risk issues.

Councillor K Robson noted that Newton Aycliffe appeared to be omitted from the list of areas covered and asked if this was correct, given that the local Area Action Partnership (AAP) had provided funding for drones in relation to tackling off-road bikes.  PCSO A Dolby noted that while not specifically referred to within the slides, Newton Aycliffe was an area with recent funding.  She explained that there was a drone pilot within the Neighbourhood Team in the area, with the funding being used to purchase a drone.  Chief Inspector J Patel noted that where funding had been provided by an AAP, the Force would look to predominately deploy that drone within that area, however, that would subject to requirements, for example if there was a high risk or harm issue elsewhere that required use of that drone.

Councillor A Savory noted her Electoral Division, Weardale, was predominately rural and noted reference within the presentation of a drone to be used from Stanhope.  She asked if there were any statistics for the use in her area.  Chief Inspector J Patel noted that the drone would be deployed in October this year, following pilot training.

Councillor G Lee explained he appreciated the benefits in the use of drones, noting 153 deployments.  He asked, if drones were operated by two-person teams, whether that equated to 306 Officers having been ‘tied up’ when drones were deployed.  Chief Inspector J Patel explained that Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) guidance was for two-person teams and was the practice going forward.

He noted in the past it may not have been two Officers, and that it was difficult to equate drone use with Officer time, as often drone use could reduce the overall number of Officers sent to an incident, allowing those Officers to attend other incidents.  PCSO A Dolby noted examples of where the use of drones helped to save Officer time, including: during the Miners’ Gala, where the primary use was for public safety; following a burglary, to track suspects trying to evade Officers across fields; and with Operation Endurance, helping to tackle the issue of off-road bikes, gathering evidence in order to track and seize bikes.  Chief Inspector J Patel noted that it was difficult in terms of giving specific savings in terms of drone use.  He explained that drones could be deployed where there was a suspected firearms incident, preventing the unnecessary deployment of Officers where a suspect had moved on from a scene. 

Councillor G Lee asked whether there had been a cost/benefit analysis in terms of the use of drones against having Officers ‘on the beat’.  PCSO A Dolby noted that the drone pilots made a decision in terms of whether there was justification in terms of deploying the drone, and it was another tool within Police resources to use where appropriate.  Chief Inspector J Patel noted the work undertaken in terms of persons missing from home and the cost and time of deploying a drone in comparison to a manned aircraft.

N Hallam noted the five drones in service and asked as regards how many could be deployed simultaneously, and how they were used.  Chief Inspector J Patel noted that the ideal position was to have at least one drone available to deploy within the north of the Force area, and one in the south.  He added that it was easier during the day as there were a number of Neighbourhood Team Officers were also able to pilot drone while on shift.

Councillor D Nicholls agreed the benefits of the use of drones, however, there were limitations in terms of deployment as outlined in the presentation, especially in terms of maintaining visual line of sight.  He added that he felt it would be beneficial for a mapping exercise be undertaken in respect of off-road bikes, to note gathering spots or routes that were used to try and evade Police.  He noted the value of drone use in the case of persons missing from home and acknowledged the example given in respect of potential firearms incidents.  He noted areas of his Electoral Division were relatively rural and added that he could see the benefits in terms of drone use in his area.  He asked if there had been any use of drone in connection with wildlife or environmental crime.  Chief Inspector J Patel noted he could not think of any examples relating to poaching; however, he noted several incidents involving theft of equipment from farms.  He noted the work with colleagues from Road Policing and with farmers.  PCSO A Dolby noted that her colleague, PCSO Andy Cusick, was very proactive in working with farmers in respect of tackling rural crime. 

Chief Inspector J Patel noted that the technology was always evolving and growing, with the Force always looking to improve and learn how best to use the resource.  Councillor D Nicholls noted that while rural crime was an issue, there was also crime in urban areas that could be tackled through use of drones, such as in cases involving organised crime groups (OCGs). 

PCSO A Dolby noted the issue in terms of maintaining visual line of sight and explained that the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC) were undertaking trials in North Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire areas as regards the use of a ‘drone as a first responder’ (DFR), which would be different than tactical deployment.

The DPCC noted that, as a former Police Officer, he could readily see the benefits of drones as an additional tool at the disposal of the Force.  He explained as regards the amount of planning in terms of responses to incidents and operations that could benefit from use of drones, both in saving Officer time and also in helping ensure Officer safety.  He noted that the vision of the PCC was for a drone within each of the 12 AAP areas, however, there was no intention for drones to replace Officers, rather they were an additional tool at their disposal.  Councillor D Boyes noted the importance of Neighbourhood Policing, often referred to as the ‘bedrock’ of policing.  The Chief of Staff, OPCC A Petty noted that the PCC and Chief Constable were very much on the same page in that respect.

Resolved:

That the presentation be noted.