Investigation into police contact with a man - Cleveland Police, December 2020
In December 2020, a member of the public contacted Cleveland Police to report that a man was causing damage to their address. The caller informed the call handler that the man had mental health problems.
A single crewed police officer attended the address and, after knocking on the door, was sworn at by a man with a knife. The officer updated the control room and requested assistance. Firearms officers were dispatched with authorisation to use firearms if necessary.
Armed police officers attended and repeatedly asked the man, who was inside the property with three other people, to come outside. Officers reported seeing the man appear to stab somebody inside the property and obtained authorisation to force entry into the address. Officers entered through both the front and rear of the address.
Officers saw a man with a knife in his hand, they repeatedly told him to put it down. The man did not comply and an officer discharged a baton launcher hitting the man in his genital area. The man complained of pain and officers provided him with first aid.
Paramedics attended and transported the man to the hospital where he was treated for his injuries, that were not life threatening. The man made a complaint about the level of force used.
Our investigators obtained statements from officers who had contact with the man. We analysed police Airwave communications and Body Worn Video footage alongside local and national policies and procedures. We also obtained an account from the man.
During the investigation there was no indication any police officer may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings or committed a criminal offence.
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 learning was identified in relation to the handling of access to viewing the body worn video after the incident.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC recommends that Cleveland Police should ensure that Authorised Professional Practice (APP) is adhered to when requests are made by parties outside the Post Incident Process (PIP) to review body worn video (BWV) and other relevant footage should they wish to conduct a debrief.
During the early stages of the investigation the IOPC were informed that an inspector, outside of the PIP process, viewed some of the BWV days after the stage 3 accounts were obtained. In accordance with the relevant APP, the body worn footage should not have been viewed by anyone outside of the PIP process without prior consultation with the Post Incident Manager (PIM), and the IOPC as the Independent Investigatory Authority (IIA).
Whilst footage can be reviewed for the purposes of both a safety critical debrief, and an organisational learning debrief in accordance with APP, however, we as the IIA should be consulted and the timing and parameters of a review agreed in advance.
Cleveland Police should ensure that APP is followed should there be a need for a debrief when a PIP is in place. APP states that debriefs ‘should only take place after providing detailed accounts or evidential statements to the IIA; and where there is an indication that, having considered available evidence, there is no suggestion of criminal action or misconduct on the part of anyone attending the debrief.’ The APP also confirms that ‘it is not appropriate to address the specific actions of individuals, evidential issues relating to witness accounts or scene, and post-incident management during such a debrief.’
Finally, the APP provides that ‘the individual(s) tasked with facilitating the debrief should have an appropriate knowledge of local and national guidance relevant to the incident, and should be an accredited PIM who did not perform an operational or command role in said incident. Where this cannot be achieved, a trained debriefer supported by a PIM should be used.’
Accepted:
As referred to Cleveland police have conducted a review of the process in order to ensure APP and IOPC guidance is followed.
The recommendation is split into 2 sections
1. The APP and IOPC guidance refer to the timing and reasons for holding a debrief following an incident which Cleveland Police do adhere to. There is no section in the APP or IOPC guidance which refers to the viewing of BWV footage by a supervisor who is not connected to the deployment. It may be that the only way to identify if a debrief is required would be to review the footage. It is agreed that the IOPC should be informed that a debrief is being considered at the earliest opportunity.
2. The recommendation as I understand it is that it is good practice to inform the Post Incident Manager and the IOPC that a supervisor wishes to review body worn video footage prior to doing so during the PIP process. This recommendation is accepted.