Investigations into a number of complaints regarding arrest - Metropolitan Police Service, March 2016

In October 2013 Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers arrested a man at Heathrow Airport on suspicion of taxi touting. They restrained the man and took him back to the police station, where he complained of being unwell. He was then taken to hospital by ambulance. Upon his return he was interviewed and released on bail.

Following his release the man made a number of complaints to the MPS regarding how he had been treated by officers, including the necessity for arrest, use of force, discriminatory behaviour and missing property.

Due to the ongoing criminal case against the man, the MPS deferred investigating his complaints until the resolution of his trial.

In July 2014, the man’s complaints were referred to us. We made the decision that this was suitable for local investigation by the MPS. Four police officers were interviewed under caution. The investigating officer found that there was no case to answer in relation to the man’s complaints.

The man then appealed to us about the outcome of the investigation. In March 2016, we decided that we would re-investigate this.

During our investigation we investigated ten police officers (including the original four) for allegations which could amount to misconduct or gross misconduct. We interviewed all of them under caution.

We obtained a large quantity of evidence both from the MPS in relation to their earlier investigation into the complaints, and from the complainant. We also obtained additional evidence. We reviewed and analysed all the material. We also sought comparator evidence from a wide range of sources so we could explore the complaint of discriminatory treatment. We were unsuccessful at identifying eye witnesses to the incident.

In all, we investigated twenty different complaints made by the man.

Two of the complaints and part of a third one involved allegations that, if proven, could result in the officers facing disciplinary proceedings. No case to answer was found regarding the officers who were served with misconduct notices in relation to these complaints.

Of the remaining complaints, two were upheld and the remainder were not.

The first complaint we upheld was that the man’s initial complaint did not result in a meaningful investigation and that the original investigation report did not fulfil its objectives. The complainant had specifically highlighted concerns that the complaint regarding discrimination had not been investigated fully. We dealt with this through the appeal and when we reinvestigated the matter.

The second complaint we upheld related to one of the officers involved in the man’s arrest remaining as his disclosure officer in his subsequent court case. This had already been dealt with by the MPS during the original investigation, and learning from it previously shared and implemented.