Source · IOPC Learning Case

Use of force against man during unlawful arrest – South Wales Police, February 2021

South Wales Police Ref: 2021/149315 Recommended 3 Jul 2023 Response due 28 Aug 2023

Use of force and armed policing

Case background

Text published by the IOPC.

We began an investigation into the actions of an officer in February 2021 after a complaint referral was received from South Wales Police, following the arrest of a man in Cardiff in January that year.

We examined allegations including whether there were legitimate grounds for arrest, and whether the force used in punching the man several times to the face while holding him in a headlock and kneeing him in the ribs was proportionate in the circumstances. It was also alleged that the officer escalated the situation unnecessarily by his use of force, and that he later provided a statement that described a different version of events to those captured on police footage.

During our four-month investigation, we gathered evidence including body worn video footage of the incident and we took accounts from the man who was arrested and officers present, as well as interviewing the subject officer.

When our investigation ended in June 2021, we concluded that the officer had a disciplinary case to answer for gross misconduct.

We waited for all external proceedings to conclude before publishing our findings.

At the hearing carried out by South Wales Police and overseen by an independent and legally qualified Chair, the panel heard how the officer took an angry and confrontational tone of voice before grabbing the man by the throat. He was accompanied at the incident by two other officers, and had claimed to be acting in self-defence.

At the end of the hearing on 6 April, the disciplinary panel determined that his initial four punches were reasonable and in self-defence, but that further punches when the man was no longer a threat were disproportionate.

He was dismissed and added to the police barred list.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

We did identify potential organisational learning in relation to custody logs and body worn video. We will consult with the force before determining whether we issue learning recommendations in relation to these matters.

In July 2023, we issued two recommendations.

Recommendations and responses

2 indexed

National recommendation 1

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: National Police Chiefs Council

Linked bodies: National Police Chiefs Council

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that the National Police Chiefs' Council asks force custody leads to review their systems and processes to ensure that risk assessments completed during the booking-in process support custody officers to identify if a detainee has a potential head injury.

This follows an incident when a South Wales police custody Sergeant did not appear to consider this possibility despite being aware that force, including strikes, had been used during the arrest. It appears that the force’s systems or processes do not explicitly prompt a custody officer to ask if the detainee has suffered a head injury. This resulted in PS A not calling for a HCP to examine [the man] which resulted in a delay in him receiving medical attention. The next morning [the man] complained of feeling as though he had concussion and was experiencing tightness in his chest. He was seen by a HCP and then transferred to hospital.

The College of Policing APP states that staff must be aware of the risks associated with head injuries, particularly when dealing with detainees ‘who may have been involved in a fight or a road traffic collision’; and should also be aware that people with a serious head injury can present as though they are drunk. The APP states that, "A head injury may result in a rapid deterioration in the health of the detainee."

Research has found that some forces have introduced questions (both in electronic and paper formats) within their risk assessment process to help the custody officer identify if a detainee likely has a head injury.

Response published by the IOPC

Recommendation accepted:

To satisfy this action, a request for change was submitted to our digital services division, requesting that a Supplementary question was added to the niche custody risk assessment, specifically asking officers to disclose any incidents or Injuries that may have occurred prior to or enroute to the custody suit.

This request was discussed by the Niche Minerva group. This is a national group made up of representatives of all niche forces. The group recommended an additional element be added to the custody risk assessment.

This update allows for greater scrutiny and focus on injuries that the Detained Person (DP) may have at the risk assessment stage, asking the Delivering officer to add any additional details regarding use of force/issues at the point of booking in. I have included a screen shot of the new updated risk assessment questions to the email for your reference. In addition to this: • Force communications have been issued to Staff reminding of the importance of relaying information to custody officers and staff. • All custody staff have been briefed to ask the question, if there are any injuries or information known that is relevant to safely detain the individual.

Check the original case on the IOPC website

Recommendation 2

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: South Wales Police

Linked bodies: South Wales Police

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that South Wales Police Custody Sergeants are reminded to complete and document a full handover whenever there is a change in Custody Sergeants, including cover for meal or rest breaks. Any handover should be in accordance with Authorised Professional Practice on detention and custody.

This follows an IOPC investigation where PS A recorded on the custody record that he handed ‘the wing’ back to another custody officer PS B following a meal break. There are no notes of any handover recorded on the custody record, and neither PS A nor PS B recorded that the detainee’s risks, vulnerabilities and welfare had been discussed. The Authorised Professional Practice on detention and custody states, "It is essential that enough time is allowed for a full and effective briefing and debriefing between custody officers and staff when handing over responsibility for detainees," it goes on to say, "The information entered should include the risks, disabilities, medical needs, vulnerabilities, emerging issues, control strategies and welfare needs of each detainee.

Response published by the IOPC

Recommendation accepted:

Your recommendations were progressed to the force Strategic lessons learnt group for consideration and action and the following outcomes have been achieved.

• Communications have been circulated regarding Screen and detainee care. • Importance of handovers is something that has been impressed upon the Custody Bronze Inspectors.

Check the original case on the IOPC website