Gross misconduct proven for Met officer who put Taser to the neck of a boy during stop and search

A Metropolitan Police officer who held a Taser to the neck of a 16-year-old Black boy during a stop and search in south-east London has been given a final written warning.

Police Constable (PC) Connor Jones faced a gross misconduct hearing following our 11-month investigation into the Greenwich incident. 

He was one of two officers who initially stopped five teenagers while responding to a report of a boy carrying a samurai sword and chasing two other boys on Armitage Road, SE10. The suspect was described as Black, wearing an all-black tracksuit with the hood up.  

At around 10.50pm on 4 September 2020 a group of four Black boys, including Jamar Powell, and one White boy was stopped by PC Jones and another officer. 

While police body worn video from the two officers was not available to the IOPC (PC Jones did not activate his body worn camera and the Met was unable to provide us with the other officer’s body worn video), the second officer described in their account to the IOPC that after they stopped the group, Jamar attempted to walk away from them.  

Officers then drew their Tasers and aimed the red dot at Jamar, handcuffed him while he was on his knees in the road and, it was alleged, PC Jones held a Taser against his neck, which the officer denied. 

Firearms officers also attended the incident and the five boys were subsequently released when no weapon was found.  

A disciplinary panel, headed by an independent legally-qualified chair, agreed with our findings that the officer’s action in pressing the Taser against Jamar’s neck was not necessary, reasonable or proportionate and breached the police standards of professional behaviour relating to use of force and authority, respect and courtesy. 

The panel found these breaches were proven at the level of gross misconduct. The final written warning will be in place for three years.

However, the panel did not find that there was sufficient evidence to prove that PC Jones’ actions were influenced by the boy’s ethnicity and concluded there was no breach of the standard of professional behaviour relating to equality and diversity.

It also found that PC Jones did not breach the standard of use of force for threatening Jamar that if he moved he would be Tasered.

IOPC regional director Mel Palmer said: “When used correctly, stop and search is a very useful component of the policing toolkit. But it must be used reasonably and proportionately. 

“There was no need for the Taser to be placed on Jamar’s neck to handcuff him when he was already kneeling in the road, with his hands clearly visible and placed on his head. 

“This would no doubt have been a frightening experience for Jamar, with officers armed with firearms and Tasers, and PC Jones’ behaviour was oppressive and bullying.

“He denied pressing his Taser against Jamar’s neck, however, after hearing the evidence, the panel found that he did what was alleged and that this use of force was not justified, proportionate or necessary.” 

The incident was initially looked at by the Met following a complaint by representatives of Jamar’s family and no referral was made to the IOPC at the time. The Met’s report in December 2020 found that no officer should face any disciplinary proceedings.

A request for a review of the MPS investigation and its outcome was later submitted to the IOPC. We assessed this and, in June 2021, we decided that there should be an independent investigation into the complaints.

During our investigation, we conducted house-to-house and witness enquiries, obtained and reviewed mobile phone and body worn video footage, radio airwave transmissions, national and local policing policy and legislation and interviewed the officers involved in the incident. 

In most cases, the relevant police force would present the case at a disciplinary hearing using our evidence, but we presented this case using our powers under regulations introduced in February 2020. 

We believed on this occasion that the IOPC presenting the case was in the public interest, would enhance public confidence in the police complaints process and also because the Met disagreed with some of our findings in relation to the gross misconduct allegations against the officer.