Source · IOPC Learning Case

Recommendations - Sussex Police, April 2021

Sussex Police Ref: 2020/135656 Recommended 21 Apr 2021 Response due 16 Jun 2021

Custody and detention

Case background

Text published by the IOPC.

A man was arrested and detained in custody where he was asked to provide his fingerprints, photograph and DNA. After already having refused once, the Custody Sergeant opted to obtain the samples by force. The man was verbally resistant and became physically resistant once officers attempted to take hold of him. The Custody Sergeant then discharged Captor spray into the man’s face and placed him in handcuffs and a spit guard. He was then taken to the fingerprint room where he was held for an hour due to technical issues with the fingerprint machine. The Custody Sergeant stopped the attempt to take his fingerprints and the man was escorted to a cell. The Custody Sergeant, along with other officers, performed a cell exit manoeuvre and the Custody Sergeant removed the spit guard belatedly.

Recommendations and responses

2 indexed

Recommendation 1

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Sussex Police

Linked bodies: Sussex Police

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police review their policy in relation to cell extraction to ensure it provides guidance on the continued use of, and the removal of, a spit guard during the technique. The policy should define responsibility for the removal of the spit guard prior to exiting the cell. The policy should be consistent with national guidance.

This follows a case where a male detainee had been sprayed with an incapacitant spray, handcuffed and placed in a spit guard. The male had been physically resistant towards officers and upon taking the male to his cell, the escorting officers performed a cell exit manoeuvre.

Current officer training states that there should be an officer allocated to each arm, an officer allocated to the legs, an officer allocated to the hips and another officer allocated to the head of the detainee. If resources are limited, then the officers allocated to the hips and head of the detainee can be used as other limb restraint officers.

In this instance, there was no officer allocated to the head of the detainee, who was still wearing a spit guard. Upon exiting the cell, the Sergeant (who was leading the manoeuvre) was required to re-enter the cell to remove the spit guard.

The recommendation requires that when a spit guard has been utilised and a cell exit manoeuvre is needed, an officer should be allocated as being specifically responsible for the removal of the spit guard. Due to the process of the cell exit manoeuvre, it would be logical for that officer to be the last one leaving the cell.

Response published by the IOPC

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

The action that is being taken is:

- Improvement of Policy 586/2019 (in particular appendix C – Use of Equipment procedure Spit guard section).
- Updating of Spit guard lesson plans to reflect policy amendments. Given the number of stakeholders and the policy review process it has not been possible to finalise these changes within the deadline for responding to this recommendation, however, I provide below the draft wording that will now be included within the Spit Guard section to address the learning recommendation. The Recommendation is tracked via our Organisational Reassurance Board to completion and it is unlikely this draft wording will be significantly changed in the final version.

Custody Centre considerations Upon presentation at the Custody Centre the officer will inform the Custody Officer if a Spit Guard has been applied and the circumstances leading to its application. Where a Spit Guard is used in the Custody Centre the Custody Officer will ensure that a Safety Officer is appointed to closely and constantly monitor the subject and the Spit Guard removed where any sign of breathing difficulty becomes apparent. On occasion an elevated level of distress may be experienced by the subject following application of the Spit Guard. Where such an event occurs the Safety Officer should provide verbal reassurance and continually assess the subject with a view to removal of the Spit Guard if necessary for the subject`s safety. Where a cell placement or cell extraction of a subject is necessary the Custody Officer will ensure that a Safety Officer is appointed to ensure that all equipment, including the Spit Guard is removed from the cell before leaving the subject alone. Where a Spit Guard is used in the Custody Centre an adverse incident report will be completed by the Custody Officer.

Check the original case on the IOPC website

Recommendation 2

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Sussex Police

Linked bodies: Sussex Police

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police should review their policy in relation to the use of a spit guard after incapacitant spray has been used. Any detainee should be regularly reassessed to ensure continued use of a spit guard is appropriate and justified. Consideration should be documented with regard to the removal and replacement of an uncontaminated spit guard, should the continued use of a spit guard be required.

This follows an investigation appeal where a physically resistant detainee had been sprayed with Captor spray and placed in handcuffs and a spit guard. The male was then taken to a fingerprint room where he remained in the spit hood for an hour whilst technical issues were addressed with the fingerprint machine.

Whilst the male detainee had been physically resistant initially, there was no suggestion that he was deliberately spitting at officers. After a period of 10 minutes he became compliant and the spittle he produced appeared to be as a direct result of being subjected to the incapacitant spray.

It is considered likely that the spit guard became contaminated with the incapacitant spray and lengthened the effects of the spray by keeping it in close proximity to the male's face, making him continue to produce spittle.

The male was then taken to a cell, whilst still wearing the spit guard and then removed once inside the cell. No specific aftercare was provided, except removing him from the area where the incapacitant spray had been discharged and wiping his face with some tissue.

The current Force Policy does not specifically consider the use of a spit guard after an incapacitant spray has been used, nor any aftercare to be considered in such instances. The Force Policy should be reviewed in this regard.

Response published by the IOPC

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

Sussex Police have reviewed the recommendations and are grateful for them has they have allowed us to strengthen our policy and training around this subject. The action that is being taken is:

- Improvement of Policy 586/2019 (in particular appendix C – Use of Equipment procedure Spit guard section).
- Updating of Spit guard lesson plans to reflect policy amendments. Given the number of stakeholders and the policy review process it has not been possible to finalise these changes within the deadline for responding to this recommendation, however, I provide below the draft wording that will now be included to address the learning recommendation. The Recommendation is tracked via our Organisational Reassurance Board to completion and it is unlikely this draft wording will be significantly changed in the final version.

Incapacitant Spray considerations

Following exposure to Incapacitant Spray a subject may cough and spit to clear residue of the spray from their mouth. The officer will need to determine whether the subject is spitting at someone, or merely trying to clear the taste from their mouth prior to applying the Spit Guard.

Where the Spit Guard is applied after the subject has been exposed to Incapacitant Spray there is the potential for the Spit Guard to `trap` the product against the face of the subject and lengthen the effects. Consideration should be given to the replacement of the contaminated Spit Guard with a new Spit Guard if continued use is required. Rationale for any such replacement should be documented. Where the Spit Guard has been applied to a subject after they have been exposed to Incapacitant Spray the subject must be closely and constantly monitored and the Spit Guard removed where any sign of breathing difficulty becomes apparent.

Check the original case on the IOPC website