Investigation into the stop and search and arrest of a man prior to a shooting at a police custody centre – Metropolitan Police Service, September 2020
During the early hours of Friday 25 September 2020, a man was stopped and searched by officers from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
For the search the man was handcuffed with his hands at the front of his body. His coat was not removed, but it was opened at the front and lifted at the back. All of his pockets were checked, as well as his waistband and shoes.
The man was found to be in possession of bullets and cannabis. No firearm was found at this stage. When the bullets were found the man was handcuffed with his hands behind his back, arrested and taken to a police custody centre in a police van.
The man remained handcuffed to the rear whilst seated in a holding area at the custody centre. Whilst officers were preparing to search him with a metal detecting wand, he stood up, produced a gun in his right hand from behind his back and fired four times whilst still handcuffed. The first two shots struck the custody police sergeant, the second struck the wall, and the final shot caused a serious gunshot injury to the man’s neck.
Officers restrained the man and one officer discharged a Taser on him.
Officers provided first aid at the scene. Whilst administering first aid to the man a gun holster was found under his coat. Both the man and the custody police sergeant were taken to hospital by ambulance. The custody police sergeant died as a result of his injuries.
The IOPC investigation focused on the actions of officers in dealing with the man on 25 September 2020. We examined the stop and search of the man and the reasons for it, his arrest, and transfer to custody. We also examined the supervision of the man whilst in custody and the use of force on him.
We obtained and examined footage from Body Worn Video and CCTV, as well as recordings of radio transmissions and downloads from a Taser that was used during the incident.
We examined the police car and police van that the man sat in, the handcuffs he wore, the Taser, custody centre and firearm. We obtained statements from police officers and staff who interacted with the man, relevant MPS training and policy leads and a firearms expert.
We finalised our investigation in June 2021.
We decided there was no indication any of the officers who came into contact with the man prior to his arrival at the custody centre, or any person who subsequently came into contact with him, had breached the standards of professional behaviour expected of them. These officers and staff were therefore witnesses to this investigation.
We commended the officers for their bravery in trying without hesitation to disarm the man after he produced the firearm, despite being in significant danger.
We determined there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner justifying the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
We carefully considered whether there were any 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.
We identified the opportunity for individual learning for two officers. We suggested one officer could benefit from some further training around body searches and transportation of detainees, and the second officer around body searches and their role in assisting the other officer.
We made the following national organisational learning recommendation to the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) under paragraph 28A of Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC recommends that the NPCC, in partnership with Chief Constables and relevant stakeholders, should consider the implementation of handheld metal detectors in all response vehicles and vehicles used to transport detained persons. This should include consideration of:
A) Any evidence that has been collated regarding instances where metallic items or weapons concealed upon detained persons have been brought into custody suites.
B) Any policies, guidance or training that would need to be developed or updated to ensure the effective implementation and use of handheld metal detectors by officers.
C) The financial implications and any potential unintended consequences of implementing handheld metal detectors, including how these might be mitigated.
This follows an IOPC investigation into the circumstances surrounding a detained person entering custody with a gun in his possession. Following a stop and search [that yielded no firearm], the man was arrested and transported to custody. Shortly after his arrival, the man produced a gun that was concealed on his person and shot and sadly killed a custody sergeant. The man was restrained by officers, during which time the gun was discharged again and the man received a serious injury. In addition, the IOPC have identified six other cases whereby detained persons have brought concealed metallic items into custody suites, despite being searched by officers prior to entering custody. In all of these cases, the detained person used the metallic item or weapon to harm themselves or others.
The IOPC considers the implementation of handheld metal detectors in response vehicles and vehicles used to transport detained persons may aid officers in locating metallic items or weapons concealed upon a detained person at an early stage and prior to transportation to custody – enhancing officer safety. If implemented, they should be considered as a screening device available to officers already conducting a lawful, justified and systematic physical person search after arrest. Handheld metal detectors should not be intended to replace the requirement for a physical search and, if implemented should be used at the discretion of the officer conducting the search, taking into account the search powers relied upon and the objective of the search.
In advance of making this recommendation, the IOPC has liaised with other forces who have or are adopting the use of handheld metal detectors as a search aid prior to detained persons arriving at custody. This process identified several forces across England and Wales who have implemented or are implementing handheld metal detectors to frontline officers or vehicles as an additional tool to assist physical searches of detained persons.
Do you accept the recommendation?
Yes
Accepted action:
Key observations would be:
The NPCC Local Policing Committee understands the implementation of handheld metal detectors in all response vehicles including those to transport detained persons would achieve the safeguards sought from the investigations into the heinous events leading up to the murder of Custody Sergeant, Matt Ratana.
Whilst several forces have issued handheld metal detectors to frontline officers or vehicles to assist with searches taking place outside of a custody suite, the NPCC Local Policing Coordination Committee, along with Operations and Criminal Justice Committees will work together to inform Chief Constables’ Council of the financial implications which may be significant but could be mitigated through economies of scale. Similar outcomes could be achieved if a wand search took place at a police station, but before entry to the Custody Suite. This would restrict the requirement for wands to Custody Suites, thereby reducing cost without compromising on the objective. The NPCC will explore all options.
The NPCC is unclear how the firearm was missed during a physical search of the detained person. This may be a search related training issue and committees will work with the College of Policing to revisit training requirements.
The NPCC will also consider training requirements and guidance to forces if wands are introduced more widely to ensure the standards of physical searches are not compromised.
Chief Constable Olivia Pinkney (Chair of the NPCC Local Policing Committee at the time this response was given)