Use of force and reporting use of force - Metropolitan Police Service, July 2016

On 2 July 2016 two Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers stopped a 16-year-old boy with the intention of searching him for drugs. The teenager moved away from the officers and a struggle ensued, during which one of the officers twice placed the boy in a ‘chokehold’. The other officer sustained injuries and appeared to be momentarily unconscious. The teenager was arrested for assaulting a police officer and possession of a bladed article.

The MPS referred the incident to us after concern was raised about the level of force that one of the officers had used in his attempts to detain the teenager. In particular, the officer had claimed that he had used a ‘chokehold’ twice, on one occasion rendering the boy unconscious. We investigated the decisions and actions of the police officer in his interaction and detention of the 16-year-old.

After analysing CCTV footage of the time that the officer booked the teenager in to custody following his arrest, we also investigated whether the officer had appropriately reported his use of force to the custody officer and appropriately contributed towards the risk assessments concerning the boy.

During our investigation, we interviewed the officer under the misconduct caution. We interviewed several officers as witnesses, as well as the 16-year-old. We also reviewed body-worn footage of the officers’ interaction with the teenager.

The Investigator concluded that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal could conclude that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct for using a chokehold on the teenager twice, and for failing to inform the custody officer of his use of force and potential medical implications.

After reviewing our report, the MPS agreed in August 2017 to hold a gross misconduct hearing for the officer.

The gross misconduct hearing took place in October 2018. The independent panel found that the officer was justified in using the chokeholds “in the unusual set of circumstances he found himself in” and that his actions were “necessary, proportionate and reasonable”.

However, the panel found that the officer had breached the Duties and Responsibilities standard by not informing the custody officer that the teenager had lost consciousness. The panel concluded that the breach amounted to gross misconduct, and the officer received a final written warning.