Man sustained a serious injury while in custody – Cleveland Police, August 2019

The IOPC recommends that Cleveland Police should take steps to ensure that custody officers follow Authorised Professional Practice when determining and recording levels of obsevation for detainees. This should include consideration of whether:

- any changes are required to force custody systems (e.g. Niche) so that levels of observations are recorded in line with APP.
- any training, guidance or reminders are needed to ensure custody staff understand APP obervation levels.
- any further monitoring or oversight is required to ensure custody staff adhere to APP observation levels.

This follows an incident where a man self-harmed in custody, removing stitches from an existing inury to his arm. The investigation found that the custody officer placed the detainee on level 3 constant observations with 15 minute rouse and respond checks from the outset although this was not clear from the custody record. The custody officer also recorded on the custody record that the detainee would be going on "constant" due to him self-harming in the cell. However, the detainee was already on level 3 constant observations and would be going onto level 4 close proximity observations. The investigation found that this was not in line with the observations levels defined in APP and that it was not clear what level of observation was required for the man. The investigation found that custody staff within Cleveland Police don't always follow APP in terms of observation levels. By not aligning correctly with APP there could be potential for confusion as to which observation level a detainee is on. As such, there is a potential risk that a detainee may not be monitored at a level appropriate to their risk.

The IOPC recommends that Cleveland Police should review the working practices used in custody, specifically in relation to CCTV observations, to ensure that the principles set out in the Authorised Professional Practice (APP) are followed. This should include consideration of;

- the procedures in place to ensure custody staff carrying out CCTV observations are not engaged in other tasks.
- the procedures in place to ensure there are sufficient monitors and staff available so that detainees are safely supervised via CCTV.

This follows an incident where a man self-harmed in custody, removing stitches from an existing injury to his arm. The custody officer placed the man on level 3 observations with CCTV monitoring for self harm and epilepsy.

The investigation found that CCTV operators continue to be given adminstrative tasks and therefore cannot focus solely on monitoring CCTV footage of at risk detainees. However, it is apparent that this practice continues at Middlehaven custody suite. There is also evidence to suggest that the CCTV observations are not always recorded on the custody record. This is not in line with APP.

These issues have previously been raised by the IOPC and the AA responded in August 2020 as follows;

"Cleveland Police have taken steps to resolve this and remove the multi tasking function from the D.O. conducting level 3 constant observation by monitoring CCTV. A review of resourcing and procedures will be carried out to to ensure compliance with APP"

HMICFRS also identified the same issue when they inspected the custody suites in December 2014. HMICFRS recommended;

"There should be sufficient monitors and staff available so that detainees are safely supervised via CCTV; where possible staff carrying out those observations should not be engaged in other tasks.

The IOPC recommends that Cleveland Police should take steps to ensure that all searches in custody are completed to a high standard and that force policies and Authorised Professional Practice (APP) are followed.

This follows an incident where a man self-harmed in custody, removing stitches from an existing injury to his arm. The investigation found that the detention officers carried out a search which did not follow the force's Standard Operating Procedures and APP. This potentially gave the detainee the opportunity to secrete an object which he later used to self-harm with. The search took place in the cell and was not overseen by the custody officer. This was not in line with APP which states the custody officer is responsible for overseeing the search of detainees. Given that the overall responsibility for the care of the detainee lies with the custody officer, it is important that the custody officer adheres to APP, particularly in relation to searches. If a detainee is not approrpriately searched then there is a potential increased risk to the detainee and to custody staff if they have secreted an item.