Complaint regarding arrest - Norfolk Constabulary, May 2017

In the early hours of 17 May 2017, a 999 call was made to Norfolk Constabulary to report a burglary. A police dog unit was called to the area to track the suspects of the burglary in a field nearby. The police dog tracked one man, who was arrested by police. The dog continued to track for the other suspects and found another man lying in the field. The police dog bit the man and the man sustained an injury to his ear. He was arrested by officers, given first aid and taken to a custody suite. On arrival at the custody suite he was taken to hospital for his ear injury.

In October 2017 the man made a complaint in relation to the dog bite, the force police officers used during his arrest, as well as comments made by one of the officers, which the man felt were discriminatory and inappropriate.

During the investigation our investigators obtained accounts from police witnesses involved in the incident. No video evidence was available due to the time that had elapsed between the incident and the complaint being made. We also reviewed policies and obtained the man’s medical records. We interviewed two officers under misconduct caution.

The only accounts available were those of the complainant and the officers who were present.

Based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that the force used by the officer was reasonable and proportionate, and that the dog had bitten the man in response to his moving his head. We were also of the view that the force used while the man was handcuffed and arrested, and while he was being walked to the police car, was not excessive. In our opinion there were sufficient reasons for the officer to arrest the man: a serious domestic burglary may have occurred and the circumstances around where the man was found were suspicious. We did not uphold the complaints.

Two of the complaints related to behaviours on the officer’s part which, if proven, could mean that the officer would be considered to have breached the standards of professional behaviours. These related to comments made by one of the officers and to the decision to take the man into custody, rather than directly to hospital. In both cases we were of the opinion that there were no indications that the officer had misconducted himself, committed a crime, nor that his performance had been unsatisfactory.

After reviewing our report, Norfolk Constabulary agreed with our findings.