Investigation into the conduct of police officers and staff towards a man in custody - Metropolitan Police Service, July 2018

On 4 July 2017, a man was arrested by a Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) officer on suspicion of assaulting a neighbour. The man was alleged to have become aggressive towards his neighbour, which led to the neighbour suffering a minor face injury.

After his arrest, the man made a counter-allegation against his neighbour. The man also told the arresting officer he had a sore neck and asked for an ambulance. An ambulance was requested but cancelled shortly afterwards, and the man was told he would be able to see a custody nurse for his neck pain.

While the man was being transported to custody, he appeared to become unresponsive in the back of the police van. On arrival he was placed on the floor of the custody area, still unresponsive, and an ambulance was called. The man appeared to be breathing and his condition was monitored by a custody nurse until a paramedic arrived, within 10–15 minutes. After approximately two hours in custody (no ambulance was available straightaway) the man was taken to hospital by ambulance. The man became responsive in hospital, where he was diagnosed with whiplash, before being returned to custody.

After his release from custody, the man complained to the MPS about the way he had been treated. While his complaints were being investigated, concerns were raised about the conduct of a number of officers in the custody area after review of the CCTV footage. At no point did the man allege that the actions of the police had caused his whiplash injury.

The MPS referred this to us in July 2018 as a conduct matter. We reviewed material generated by the MPS complaint investigation, including witness statements, pocket notebook entries, custody records and medical documentation.

We obtained and reviewed recordings of 999 phone calls, radio transmissions and incident logs as well as CCTV footage from the custody area. We obtained an assessment report from a senior medical professional about the standard of care given to the man while he appeared unresponsive. We also considered guidelines for dealing with unresponsive patients, in addition to applicable law, policy and guidance.

During our investigation we served two police officers and two members of police staff with notices indicating their individual conduct may have fallen below the expected professional standards. We obtained and reviewed their written responses to allegations that:

• One detention officer had engaged in conversations about the man which appeared to be impolite, sarcastic and intolerant.
• One custody nurse had failed to complete a full assessment of the man in line with appropriate medical guidelines, failed to investigate the fact he had complained of neck pain and failed to take control of the situation and direct officers and staff appropriately in the circumstances’; the custody nurse’s medical care had also been ‘lacklustre’ and without a sense of urgency given the circumstances.
• One custody sergeant had failed to challenge the behaviour of police officers and staff who appeared to be making discourteous and mocking comments about the man.
• One police officer had taken part in conversations, and displayed behaviour towards the man, which were inappropriate and discourteous

Based on the evidence available, at the end of the investigation, we were of the opinion that:

• The detention officer had a case to answer for misconduct, which could be dealt with through management action reminding them of the public’s expectation that police officers and staff maintain high standards and show tolerance even when faced with difficult and challenging circumstances.
• The custody nurse had no case to answer. CCTV footage showed that the custody nurse remained in proximity to the man to carry out observations, which appeared recorded retrospectively in the custody record; the evidence indicated the custody nurse acted in line with guidelines for dealing with unresponsive patients, which state that, where a patient is breathing they should be left in the recovery position and monitored for change.
• The custody sergeant had a case to answer for misconduct, which could be dealt with through management action, emphasising the public’s expectation that police officers and staff maintain high standards even when faced with difficult and challenging circumstances such as this, and the role of senior officers in ensuring their staff act in this manner.
• The police officer had a case to answer for misconduct, which could be dealt with through management action. CCTV showed the officer engaged in conversations regarding the man, which included negative and potentially sarcastic comments about the man’s clothing and tattoos, and comments about his medical condition and observations he was not unconscious

We completed our investigation in July 2019.

After reviewing our report, the MPS agreed that the detention officer and the police officer both had cases to answer for misconduct. They didn’t agree that the custody sergeant had a case to answer for misconduct. Both the custody sergeant and the police officer received management action, by way of reflective learning. The detention officer received management action.