Complaint regarding arrest and detention - Metropolitan Police Service, September 2014

On 18 September 2014, four Metropolitan Police Service officers were called to a disturbance in a flat. On arrival, officers found that someone had been stabbed and they arrested a man. The man started to bang his head against the wall. He was restrained and carried down to the police van. On the way to custody, the man continued to bang his head against the cage. A risk assessment was undertaken but not completed as the man did not co-operate. His previous custody records showed warning markers for violence and self-harm. The man was then booked into custody. He was taken to a cell and strip searched, with officers looking for a possible knife. The man’s clothing was taken and he was left in his underwear. He was placed on 30-minute observation. CCTV shows that the man started to bang his head against the cell wall. He then removed his boxer shorts and tied them around his neck. Officers went into the cell and one of them removed the boxer shorts. The man was left naked in his cell and was not provided with alternative clothing.

A forensic medical examiner (FME) was called to assess the man due the cuts on his forehead and injury to his right wrist from the handcuffs. The FME recorded that the man was unconscious, and an ambulance was called.

On arrival at hospital, the man was given a CT scan, which did not show any brain injury. However, he was placed in an induced coma for six days, due to concerns over his fluctuating consciousness. He then remained in the intensive care unit under police guard. A mental health assessment determined the man did not require psychiatric admission and could be returned to custody and kept under observation by the FME.

On 25 September, the man was discharged from hospital and taken into custody. He was placed on the highest level of observations. The FME assessed the man and recommended he be taken to hospital, as he appeared to present delusional symptoms. In hospital, the man was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid psychosis and detained for 28 days.

This incident was referred to us by the force as a death or serious injury matter. A relative of the man then made a complaint to us on the man’s behalf about his arrest and detention.

During the course of our investigation, we examined CCTV footage of the custody suite, as well as the man’s custody record, medical records and contemporaneous notes made by the officers. We interviewed nine officers involved in the man’s arrest and detention under misconduct caution. We also took statements from paramedics and hospital staff who had contact with the man.

Based on the evidence available, the Lead Investigator was of the opinion that two officers had a case to answer for misconduct in respect of the level of observations that the man was on, and of the completion of his custody record, as these decisions did not appear to be consistent with guidance. The other seven officers had no case to answer.

After reviewing our report, the MPS agreed with our findings and held misconduct meetings for the two officers. One officer was found to have a case to answer, which was dealt with by way of management action. The other officer retired from the MPS before the misconduct meeting took place.