Allegations of assault during custody - Merseyside Police, October 2016

On 6 October 2016, Merseyside Police arrested a man and took him to a custody suite to be held overnight. Shortly after the man had been taken to a cell, a custody detention officer completing a cell check entered his cell and restrained him. The officer reported they saw the man behaving suspiciously and believed he had drugs in his hand. Other custody staff sounded an alarm when they saw the custody detention officer restraining the man and a number of officers present in the custody suite entered the cell to assist.

The man later complained of soreness to his ribs and was seen by a custody nurse. He was prescribed pain relief tablets. The following morning the man complained again of soreness to his ribs and of having difficulty breathing, but refused to see a second custody nurse. The man was transferred to court and then to a local prison by staff from a police contractor. The man made an allegation to prison staff that he had been assaulted while in police custody. He was taken to a local hospital, where he was found to have three fractured ribs and a collapsed lung. He was admitted to hospital for treatment for four days, before he was returned to prison.

In February 2017 the man formally complained to Merseyside Police that he had been assaulted during his restraint by the custody detention officer who had first entered his cell, that he had been verbally abused by him, that he had been denied medical treatment and that the staff member who had taken him to court had threatened him in his police cell.

The force referred this matter to us in March 2017.

During our investigation, we obtained accounts from all staff and officers who had contact with the man during his period in custody, including the custody nurses. We reviewed CCTV footage from the custody suite along with all documentation related to the man’s stay in custody. We interviewed the man regarding his complaint. We also interviewed the custody detention officer under criminal caution. We obtained the man’s medical records from the prison and from the local hospital, detailing his injury and treatment.

We provided all of the evidence to a forensic medical expert, who provided an expert opinion on the cause of the injury and the provision of healthcare to the man while he was in custody.

We were of the opinion that there was sufficient evidence upon which a panel could find that the man’s injuries had occurred while he was in the custody of Merseyside Police. We found that there was limited evidence to explain how the injuries were sustained. The cell the man was detained in had no CCTV. The accounts of the man and of the detention officer conflict in part – although both are consistent in agreeing that the detention officer took hold of the man’s hands/wrists. The officer stated that he applied a knee strike. The man alleged that he was lying on his back and suddenly felt pain. The medical expert’s opinion was that the injury was ‘highly consistent’ with the detention officer kneeling or leaning over the man with his weight on his chest or throwing his weight on his chest.

We were of the opinion that it was for a panel to determine which of the two credible conflicting accounts they preferred and to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, the detention officer may have a case to answer for gross misconduct for using the force which resulted in the man sustaining three fractured ribs and a punctured lung, and may also have a case to answer for misconduct for using derogatory language when dealing with the man. We completed our investigation in May 2018.

We also submitted a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to consider allegations that the detention officer may have committed an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. After examining the evidence, the CPS decided not to prosecute. The man exercised his right to a review of the evidence, and the CPS concluded again that there was no case.

After reviewing our report, Merseyside Police was of the view that the officer had no case to answer for the allegations.

We recommended that they proceed with a gross misconduct hearing, which the force agreed to hold.

At the gross misconduct hearing, held in spring 2019, the chair found that the officer had no case to answer. No further action was taken.