What Is the
GOWISELY Protocol?

The GOWISELY protocol is not merely a piece of police training; it is the operational manifestation of PACE Code A, the statutory code of practice for the exercise of stop and search powers. Understanding the legal weight of GOWISELY requires an analysis of how primary legislation (the 1984 Act) interacts with secondary statutory guidance (the Codes of Practice).

Under Section 67(10) of PACE, the Codes of Practice are admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings. While a failure to follow the "letter" of GOWISELY does not automatically make an officer liable to a criminal charge, it is a critical factor in determining the lawfulness of the detention. If the detention is found to be unlawful, the entire search constitutes a trespass and a battery.

In the 2026 iteration of the Home Office Best Use of Stop and Search Schema (BUSSS), the recording of GOWISELY delivery has been digitized. Every time an officer detains an individual, the Body-Worn Video (BWV) metadata is tagged to indicate the point at which the grounds were delivered. This digital accountability loop ensures that supervisors can audit the "quality" of the GOWISELY delivery, not just its existence.

To understand the institutional weight of GOWISELY, one must look at the era of "Voluntary Searches" and the "Sus Law" (Vagrancy Act 1824). Before PACE 1984, the police frequently relied on the consent of the individual—often coerced or misunderstood—to conduct searches. There was no statutory requirement to justify the stop or identify the officer in the way we see today.

The Brixton Riots of 1981 and the subsequent Scarman Report acted as the catalyst for the GOWISELY framework. Lord Scarman identified that community tension was driven largely by "arbitrary and unexplained" police interference. The solution was a two-pronged reform: the introduction of Objective Reasonable Suspicion and a mandatory Transparency Protocol.

Over the decades, GOWISELY has evolved from a simple mnemonic into a foundational pillar of Policing by Consent. It represents the "Social Contract" in action: the citizen agrees to submit to a temporary detention, but only if the State (via the officer) identifies itself and explains its justification in real-time.

The legal community often debates whether a breach of GOWISELY is a "procedural irregularity" or a "fatal flaw." The 2026 jurisprudence is clear: while minor technical slips (such as stating the wrong police station) might be forgiven, fundamental failures regarding Grounds or Identity often render the search unlawful.

Internal consequences are equally severe. In 2026, a "Gross Negligence" failure to deliver GOWISELY on video is typically treated as a Performance/Conduct issue, leading to immediate removal of search powers.

There is a persistent myth that the "suspicionless" nature of a Section 60 search (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) means that GOWISELY does not apply. This is incorrect. While the officer does not need "individual grounds," they must still follow the procedural spirit of PACE Code A.

The "G" in a Section 60 context changes from personal suspicion to Collective Authorization. The officer must explain: "I am searching you because a Section 60 authorization is in place for this area following reports of serious violence involving weapons."

GOWISELY is only the first stage of the legal protocol if a stop and search escalates. It governs the initial detention and the "Outer Clothing" search on the street. If an officer determines that a More Thorough Interal Search (MTIS) or a full strip search is required, GOWISELY is superseded by the much more rigorous safeguards of PACE Code C Annex A.

Crucially, GOWISELY information must be given before the street search. If that search provides grounds for a strip search, a second set of information must be provided regarding the station, the Sergeant's authorization, and the welfare safeguards (such as Appropriate Adults for minors).

A critical distinction in UK procedural law is the transition from a "Search in Public" (JOG - Jacket, Outerwear, Gloves) to a "Strip Search" (MTIP - More Thorough in Private). GOWISELY remains the foundational requirement, but it is not sufficient for a strip search.

Crucially, GOWISELY information must be given before the street search. If that search provides grounds for a strip search, a second set of information must be provided regarding the station, the Sergeant's authorization, and the welfare safeguards (such as Appropriate Adults for minors).

Implementing GOWISELY in a sterile training environment is simple; implementing it during a high-speed chase or a violent disturbance is a significant operational challenge. The courts recognize "Fast-Moving Scenarios" where the safety of the officer or the public might require a search to begin seconds after detention.

In these cases, the information must still be provided, but the timing may be slightly delayed. However, Code A is strict: the search must not start until the essential information (Identity, Grounds, Object) has been delivered.

Misinformation surrounding stop and search is rampant. To maintain institutional authority, we must debunk the most common myths that often leads to unnecessary friction on the street.

The defining case for procedural compliance remains R v Fennelley [1989]. The court was unequivocal: an officer must strictly comply with the information-giving requirements before the search occurs. If the officer fails to do so, the search is without legal authority.

In Osman v Southwark [1999], the court reiterated that if an officer does not identify themselves and their station, the subsequent search is unlawful.