Complaints raised after police contact with man - Greater Manchester Police, January 2022
In January 2022, a woman called Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to report being assaulted by her partner. She also reported concerns she had for his mental health. Two police officers arrived at the address, followed by two more officers.
The man was placed under arrest for assault and a handcuff was placed on one of his wrists. A struggle ensued and the officer was unable to secure his other wrist in the handcuffs. The other officers moved to restrain the man, who continued to struggle with them. The officers used incapacitant spray, however, officers stated that this had little effect. An officer then deployed a Taser which momentarily subdued the man, before he removed the barbs and stood up. He was Tasered a second time before he ran out of the address with the handcuff still attached to one of his wrists.
The man scaled a railway structures and approached overhead electrical wiring to evade police contact. He fell onto the tracks suffering severe burns and a fracture. The emergency services attended and first aid was provided.
Complaints were raised in regard to how information was shared and that a police officer left a radio at a residential address.
Our investigation concluded in January 2023. We waited for all external proceedings to conclude before publishing our findings.
We concluded two officers would benefit from undergoing the reflective practice review process (RPRP) but that no police officer had behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings or had committed a criminal offence.
An officer reflecting on their actions is a formal process reflected in legislation. The reflective practice review process consists of a fact-finding stage and a discussion stage, followed by the production of a reflective review development report. The discussion must include:
- a discussion of the practice requiring improvement and related circumstances that have been identified, and
- the identification of key lessons to be learnt by the participating officer, line management or police force concerned, to address the matter and prevent a reoccurrence of the matter.
We shared our findings with GMP who agreed that certain actions of the officers compounded the distress experienced by the family. As such, they agreed to offer an apology.
We upheld one complaint in regard to how initial information was shared with the police and the subsequent actions of the attending officers.
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 identified organisational learning.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC recommends that Greater Manchester Police amend their ‘Body Worn Video Policy (BWV) and Procedure’, to include direction for officers around use of body worn video in the post-incident process. The policy should be developed in line with the NPCC national guidance on BWV.
This follows an IOPC investigation where response officers were given a non-conferring warning over the radio, following a man sustaining life threatening injuries. Within the warning, the officers were told to keep their BWV on until they had arrived at the post incident procedure (PIP), however, every officer turned their BWV off prior to leaving the scene. The officers were issued Reg.17 notices in relation to a potential breach of the standards of professional behaviour for Orders and Instructions.
During the IOPC investigation, it was identified that the Sergeant responsible for transporting the officers to the PIP was not aware of any policy which stipulated that the officers BWV should be kept on. GMP’s BWV policy states that it is considered advisable that an officer continues to record for a short while after an incident to demonstrate that the incident had concluded. The policy does not offer any guidance in relation to officers keeping their BWV switched on in order for the PIP process to be seen as transparent. The audio recording functionality of the device provides reassurance that inappropriate conferring has not occurred.
Consideration should be given to bringing the GMP BWV policy in line with the NPCC BWV guidance in relation to Post Incident Process (PIP and Post Incident Management (PIM).
This recommendation is intended to protect officers from misconduct proceedings as well as protect the integrity of the PIP process.
Accepted
Greater Manchester Police accept this recommendation to review and republish the Body Worn Video (BWV) Policy and Procedure document.
We have engaged with our stakeholders in the Criminal Justice and Custody branch. The relevant guidance from NPCC will be rehearsed within our policy to ensure that correct directions are given in respect of post incident procedures.
The BWV policy and procedure has been updated following a number of force and external changes. It has been through the consultation process and is now ready for sign off by chief officers prior to publication and dissemination.
I am awaiting a confirmation meeting date for the chief officers weekly meeting but envisage that the updated version will be published by the end of September 2023.