Complaints regarding arrest and detention - Thames Valley Police, August 2017

We investigated a number of complaints made by a woman regarding the arrest and detention of her partner by Thames Valley Police (TVP) in May 2016. He had been arrested by TVP officers approximately four weeks after attempting to take his own life. Shortly after being placed in a cell, he was found with a ligature round his neck, made from his own clothing. The man was provided with oxygen and seen by a healthcare practitioner. He was then placed on constant supervision while he remained in custody.

The woman initially complained to TVP in June 2016. The force investigated her complaints. It did not uphold one of the woman’s complaints, but found two other allegations proven. One officer received management advice and another officer was due to attend a misconduct meeting. After receiving a letter from TVP in August 2017 with the outcomes of the investigation, and further details about the misconduct meeting process, the woman appealed against the decision.

In February 2018 we upheld the woman’s appeal, and directed that we would investigate her complaint.

We looked at:

• the information known to TVP regarding the man’s mental health condition and vulnerabilities
• the booking in procedure, risk assessment and subsequent care plan put in place for the man and how this was recorded and communicated to custody staff
• what other measures were, or could have been utilised, to safeguard the man while in detention
• the nature of any delay by TVP in referring the matter to us

During the investigation, investigators interviewed the officer, a number of other police staff employees, examined custody footage, and considered relevant policy and procedure. We also obtained an account from the complainant.

The evidence obtained by the investigation indicated that a TVP officer may have failed in his duty of care towards the man. We found evidence that the officer had not completed the detainee care plan prior to allowing the man to be taken to his cell, despite having identified a number of vulnerabilities. In our opinion, there was an unnecessary delay in the officer completing the care plan and setting the observation levels for the man.

We were also of the opinion that the officer’s omissions in relation to the care plan did not constitute conduct that was intentional, deliberate, targeted or planned. Evidence also showed that the officer took a number of actions which could be considered consistent with them having due regard the detainee’s welfare and taking positive steps to reduce potential anxiety.

Based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that the officer may have a case to answer in respect of a breach in their duties and responsibilities. In view of the circumstances, we were of the view that the most appropriate way to address the officer’s alleged failures would be by way of management action focusing on the importance of documenting decisions and following processes in accordance with guidance and policies.

We also considered the woman’s other complaints and upheld two of them: the first one being that officers did not arrange for an appropriate adult to attend when the man was in custody, and the second one that the officer did not complete an incident report or record/report the matter internally and externally to the IOPC as a near miss.

We completed our investigation in April 2019.

After reviewing our report, TVP agreed that management action for the officer in relation to their omissions was the most proportionate response.