Complaint about treatment in custody - Staffordshire Police, May 2017

In May 2017, Staffordshire Police arrested a woman at around 2am and took her to the Northern Area Custody Facility in Stoke on Trent, where she was booked into custody for an assault offence. During the booking in procedure, she informed the custody sergeant that she had epilepsy and required her medication, which she did not have on her. The custody sergeant placed a call to her partner, who said he would bring it in later that morning. The medication was given to custody staff at around 9am that day. National police guidelines state that medication cannot be given to detainees without first being approved by a healthcare professional (HCP) and that the custody sergeant should place the call for this as soon as possible. The initial actions of the first custody sergeant were in line with force policy, as she arranged for the woman to be seen by a HCP.

A call was placed to the force’s medical services provider at 11.10am by a second custody sergeant. He was informed that no-one was available at that time, but that a HCP would be coming on shift at around 1pm. During this time, the woman made several requests for her medication, but was told that only a doctor could administer this.

A police officer then interviewed the woman. During this interview, she experienced complex partial seizures. She asked for her medication, but was told again that this could not be given to her without a doctor’s authorisation. The police officer did not stop the interview and continued to question the woman. She was then taken to the custody desk at 1.30pm, charged, and bailed. While signing her release form, the woman had an epileptic seizure at the custody desk.

During the investigation, our investigators interviewed the police officer and second custody officer, examined custody suite CCTV footage and obtained statements from several members of custody staff, including the first custody sergeant who had booked the woman into custody.

The Investigator was of the opinion that the officer should have considered stopping the interview and seeking medical advice from either the custody sergeant or a HCP as to whether the woman was fit to continue in light of her partial complex seizure, and that she may not have been in a suitable frame of mind to confirm whether or not she felt fit to continue with the interview.

The Investigator was also of the opinion that the second custody officer should have explored other ways of obtaining the woman’s medication, including calling for an ambulance or facilitating (by other means) her examination at hospital. Evidence also indicated that the custody officer made derogatory comments about the woman while she was not present.

The Investigator formed the opinion that there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find misconduct for both the police officer and second custody officer.

After reviewing our report, the force agreed to hold a misconduct meeting for the second custody officer only, at which misconduct was found for the two allegations mentioned above. The custody officer received management advice in addition to a development plan to reflect on their development and learning, and share both within custody training courses.

The police officer was given management action, in the form of words of advice.