Man becomes unwell in custody - British Transport Police and Metropolitan Police Service, August 2018

On 29 August 2018 at 10.13am, a man was arrested for robbery and handcuffed by a British Transport Police (BTP) officer. He was subsequently taken to a Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) police station, where he was strip searched, charged and remanded in custody to appear at court the following day. Prior to the arrest, the man had a large injury to his right leg and used crutches to walk. The custody officer was aware of this and a healthcare professional (HCP) was called to assess this leg condition at 12.13pm. However, the man allegedly refused to be seen by the HCP at this point.

At 8.39pm, the same day, another HCP was called to see the man and this time he allowed the HCP to look at him. The custody record states that the HCP assessed the detainee as having a “moderately sized leg ulcer”, which was “red and inflamed”.

At 9.53pm, an ambulance was called for the man. However, the London Ambulance Service (LAS) allegedly advised that there was a two-to-four hour waiting time. At 2.48am the next morning, as the ambulance had not yet arrived, the MPS cancelled their LAS request and transported the man to hospital themselves.

Later that day, at the hospital, the man suffered a deterioration in health and became unable to breathe independently. He was transferred to the high dependency unit and underwent multiple scans. Doctors were unable to confirm what caused the sudden deterioration in his health and suspected a possible blood clot on the brain.

The man was later found to have recovered and was returned to the MPS police station on 13 September 2018.

On 31 August 2018, we received referrals from both BTP and MPS regarding this incident.

Our investigators conducted a CCTV trawl where the arrest took place, contacted a member of the public who was present, acquired downloads of the relevant radio transmissions and obtained body-worn video from the officers involved in the arrest.

We also obtained: CCTV from the police station; video recordings from a police van used to transport the man; and numerous police logs of the man’s time in custody. Our investigators reviewed this evidence extensively and contacted over 30 witnesses to corroborate the events that took place.

Based on the evidence available we found no indication that any person serving with either force may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, or had committed a criminal offence.

However, our investigation highlighted some areas of concern relating to the man’s custody record: multiple MPS detention officers incorrectly made entries suggesting the man was in his cell when he would have been in hospital at the time. Also, the outcomes of a drugs test and a strip search were not recorded on the custody record.

After reviewing our report, the MPS proposed to share the findings of our investigation with the custody staff who completed incorrect entries on the custody record, so they can learn and develop their skills and knowledge. This will be done through informal learning rather than the formal unsatisfactory performance procedure process.

We agreed that their proposal was appropriate.