Allegation of assault during arrest - Metropolitan Police Service, March 2016

On 24 March 2016 two officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) went to a flat in east London following a call to assist with a reported domestic incident. When they arrived, a man was inside the flat and his mother, who was outside, provided keys to officers and gave them permission to enter her home. The man allegedly made threats to harm officers should they enter the property and officers called for other units to attend.

Other officers arrived and entered the flat, where the man was arrested. He began to resist and was later found guilty in parallel criminal proceedings of assaulting one police officer by biting them and assaulting another officer by head-butting them during the incident. The man’s eye socket was broken during the incident. The man alleged that he had been taken to the floor in a choke-hold and repeatedly punched and kicked in the head and face by officers while on the floor. The man also alleged that he was arrested unlawfully, that excessive force was used when officers applied handcuffs and that the officers’ actions were motivated by discrimination based on his ethnicity and his mother’s mental health condition.

During the investigation the man and his mother were interviewed and we obtained and examined medical evidence as well as a medical expert’s report. Investigators also obtained and examined call logs, airwave recordings, police van CCTV and the evidence heard at court during the parallel proceedings against the man.

The investigation found an indication that one officer had committed grievous bodily harm and gross misconduct, and four other officers had committed actual bodily harm and gross misconduct against the man. These five officers were interviewed under criminal and misconduct caution. We also found an indication that a supervisor present had behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings in relation to the management of the incident. This officer was interviewed under misconduct caution.

We found that, based on the evidence, no reasonable tribunal could attach more weight to the man’s account rather than the officers’ in relation to the force used on him and recommended that there be no further action for any of the officers under investigation. We also did not uphold any of the man’s complaints.