Use of force during arrest – Cleveland Police, March 2021

In February 2021, Cleveland Police officers attended Stockton High Street to a report of a man who was wanted for theft. Upon arrival, they detained two men and arrested one of the men on suspicion for theft. Before confirming his identity, the officers placed him in the rear of a police car. It was established that the other man was not involved, and a third officer arrived at the scene.

The man can be heard on the officer’s body worn video (BWV) protesting his arrest. Due to his behaviour, a police van was requested. Shortly after this, the man begins knocking on the rear police car door window with the palm of his hand. The arresting officer opened the door and the man kicked out before being pulled out of the car.

The man responded aggressively, and the arresting officer inflicted several knee strikes to the body of the man. The three officers restrained the man, and he was taken to the floor and pinned down by the officers. While being detained, the man becomes agitated and made various threats to the officers. The officers used more force including the placement of a knee and leg over the neck and head area of the man and a wrist lock restraint. One officer was seen to strike the detainee several times whilst on the floor.

Additional officers arrived and assisted by restraining the man, searching him, placing him in leg straps and putting him in the rear of a police van.
While the search is ongoing, the other man remained in near proximity. An officer is seen to advise the man on several occasions to move away. The officer guides the man by pointing and reinforcing this with a guiding push.

After the detained man is placed in the rear of the police van, the other man can be seen again in near proximity to the officers. He is advised again to move away and appears to be pushed by two officers at the same time. He does not move away until the arresting officer approaches and pushes the man twice more. The man demands to be arrested, but the officers do not respond.

During this part of the incident, the detained man removed his handcuffs within the police van. Officers used incapacitant spray on the man before pulling him out of the van for handcuffs and leg restraints to be reapplied.

The man is again safely secured in the back of the police van. As a result of the arrest, the arresting officer received minor injuries to his hand.

While in custody, it is recorded that the detained man has grazes to his hands and face. A visit by the mental health diversion scheme is made, however it appears the services were refused by the man.

This was referred to us in March 2021.

During our investigation, we reviewed body worn video footage of the three officers involved. We also reviewed town centre CCTV footage from the local authority, a shopping centre and custody suite CCTV.

We took witness statements from two of the officers and the fourth officer who attended the scene. We made attempts to interview the arrested man and the second man at the incident, however both failed to respond to requests for an interview. We assessed all available evidence in line with relevant policing policies and legislation.

We served one officer with Regulation 17 Notices and interviewed the officer under caution.

Our investigation was finalised in September 2021.

We concluded there was no indication any police officer had behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings or had committed a criminal offence.

We concluded that elements of the officer’s behaviour were unsatisfactory which should be dealt with accordingly as unsatisfactory performance. We recommended to the force that the officer involved should be informed of the standards and behaviour expected and to receive suitable words of advice to inform his actions to prevent any repeat of this incident in the future.

After sharing our findings with Cleveland Police, they appealed our decision for unsatisfactory performance. After further consultation, we agreed the threshold for misconduct may have been met. The officer attended a disciplinary meeting on 25 February 2022 and he was sanctioned with a written warning.

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents. In this case, the investigation has not identified any learning.