Complaints regarding arrest - West Midlands Police, June 2015

On 9 June 2015 West Midlands Police officers went to the home of a woman to arrest her for failing to provide her fingerprints, DNA and photograph in connection with a complaint of assault made against her. One of the officers searched the woman and placed her in handcuffs. As the woman was being led out of the front door she bit down on the forearm of one of the officers. Officers instructed her to let go, but she refused and gripped the skin tighter with her teeth. Two of the officers applied pressure to her neck and ear with their thumbs, but she continued to bite down. The officer who was being bitten then punched the woman in the face in order to get her to let go of her arm. One of the officers then used a key to loosen the woman’s teeth, and she eventually let go.

Once booked in custody the woman complained of pain in her eyes. She was seen by a healthcare practitioner twice and taken to hospital to have her eye examined. She was given eye ointment and analgesics, and returned to custody. She later saw the healthcare practitioner for a third time.

The woman was subsequently charged for assaulting a police officer.

The woman made a complaint in August 2015 that officers had used excessive force when they arrested her, resulting in her sustaining a fractured eye socket and losing her eyesight. She further complained that the officers had bitten her and left bruising marks to her body, and that she had not been provided with any medical intervention in custody.

During the investigation we reviewed witness statements from all the officers present, as well as from the complainant. We also reviewed the woman’s medical records.

Based on the evidence available, the Investigator was of the opinion that the force used by the officers was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances they faced.

The medical evidence and statements from the officers did not corroborate the woman’s allegation that she was bitten at any stage. In the space of 24 hours, the woman was examined by the healthcare practitioner three times and was taken to hospital to have her eye assessed. The Investigator was therefore of the opinion that she was provided with adequate medical assistance while she was in custody.

We found no indication that any person serving with the police had behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.

The investigation was suspended until after the woman’s trial concluded in August 2017 so as not to prejudice its outcome.