Complaint of excessive force and discriminatory behaviour - Metropolitan Police Service, October 2017

In October 2017 a number of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officers were deployed to an area of south-east London to deal with a group of known gang members. Two officers saw a group matching the description of the gang members and approached them to conduct a stop and search. The group attempted to run away. One officer took hold of one of the young men, resulting in an altercation. The two officers used force to restrain and arrest the young man. He was taken into custody and charged for assault. The young man was aged thirteen at the time of the incident.

During the incident a large crowd gathered. An MPS inspector attempted to calm the situation, during which he used potentially discriminatory language towards one member of the public.

The boy’s mother made a complaint to us about the MPS. She alleged that the force used by the officers was disproportionate and that her son had been discriminately targeted and spent excessive time in custody.

We found an indication of misconduct for the two officers and the inspector. During the investigation our investigators took statements from the officers involved and the complainant, and interviewed the teenager. They obtained and reviewed body-worn video and CCTV footage.

We found no evidence to support the allegations made by the teenager’s mother and did not uphold her complaints.

However, we were of the opinion that one officer had a case to answer for misconduct for using offensive, excessive and/or uncontrolled language with the teenager when they were in the police van, which may constitute a breach of the standard of authority, respect and courtesy. We were also of the opinion that the inspector may have a case to answer for gross misconduct for using discriminatory language with the member of the public. We completed our investigation in May 2018.

After reviewing our report the MPS did not agree with our views. They determined that both officers should be subject to Unsatisfactory Performance Procedures (UPP).

We considered their rationale and agreed that UPP was appropriate for the officer in the circumstances, but recommended that the inspector should attend a misconduct meeting.

The MPS agreed to hold a misconduct meeting for the inspector, which took place in late 2018. The chair of the meeting found the inspector had not misconducted himself. No further action was taken.