Investigation into police interaction with a domestic abuse incident – Cleveland Police, March 2019
In March 2019, a man alerted two Cleveland Police officers to a domestic abuse incident between a man and a woman in a town centre. Street pastors and the police officers spoke with the couple before the officers allowed them to move away.
One of the officers saw the same couple fighting a short time later. The officers separated the couple. They took the woman home and allowed the man to make his own arrangements to stay elsewhere for the night. The officers made no record of their interaction with the couple on police computer systems.
Cleveland Police received a further report of a domestic abuse incident at the woman’s home the next day. Officers visited her home and found that the man had returned and seriously assaulted his partner. The officers took the woman to hospital before going back to the house and arresting the man on suspicion of assault.
One of the officers who dealt with the couple during their first contact with the police later made a potentially false and misleading entry on police computer systems. This entry did not accurately reflect the circumstances of the earlier police interactions with the couple.
Cleveland Police made a mandatory death or serious injury referral to us.
We opened an investigation into the conduct of the officers. We analysed the initial and subsequent responses to the report of domestic abuse, the truthfulness and accuracy of the log entry, police contact with the woman before she sustained injuries, and if there was any evidence that police contact may have caused or contributed to the woman’s injuries.
We also considered whether the officers acted in accordance with local and national force policies, procedures and guidance.
We interviewed several Cleveland Police officers as witnesses to establish the full circumstances of the incidents. We interviewed the two street pastors who witnessed the initial domestic abuse incident and reviewed CCTV footage which captured part of the police interaction with the couple.
We examined police records of the incident containing the potentially false and misleading entry and analysed information about the previous domestic abuse history between the couple.
We also listened to police radio transmissions that captured conversations between officers after the second report of domestic abuse at the woman’s home. We examined relevant local and national policy and procedure for dealing with domestic abuse incidents.
The available evidence indicated that one of the officers may not have dealt with reports of domestic abuse appropriately, nor adequately safeguarded a reported victim of domestic abuse. It also suggested they had made a potentially false and misleading entry on police computer systems. We interviewed the officer under both criminal and misconduct cautions.
We finished our investigation in December 2019 and found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct. We shared our report with Cleveland Police, who agreed.
We referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In May 2020, the CPS decided to charge the officer with corrupt or improper exercise of police powers. The officer denied this charge. The trial, which had been due to take place in November 2021, was re-listed three times. It went ahead in June 2023. The CPS decided to withdraw the prosecution against the officer during the hearing.
Cleveland Police made arrangements to hold a gross misconduct hearing following the conclusion of criminal proceedings.
The gross misconduct hearing concluded in November 2024. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for duties and responsibilities; discreditable conduct; and honesty and integrity. He will be barred from working in policing in future.
We carefully considered whether there were any organisational 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.
No learning was identified in this case.