Plain-clothed officer conducted stop and search of man who thought he was being robbed - Metropolitan Police Service, September 2021

In September 2021, a group of three non-uniformed officers in an unmarked vehicle stopped and searched a man after officers said that he initially attracted their attention as he was sitting in his parked car near a crime hotspot in Southall, Hounslow. Our investigation found the man was parked in a street near his house.

One officer then claimed he could smell cannabis coming from the car. No cannabis was found. A check on police systems showed officers that the man was not known to police.
The man, a Polish national for whom English was not his first language, was pulled from the car, taken to the ground, handcuffed and PAVA (incapacitant spray) sprayed in his eyes.

He was handcuffed for 45 minutes and arrested for obstructing police, but later de-arrested. The man told our investigation that he was scared for his life during the struggle with the officers as he thought he was about to be robbed and they had not identified themselves. He resisted them and attempted to get away when they began to use force and one officer struck him several times.

The officers then took him to hospital as he had sustained injuries to his body, face and head as a result of his encounter with them.

We began an independent investigation in December 2021 following a complaint from the victim. It concluded in August 2022.

We established that the three officers were inappropriately dressed according to their force protocol.

We looked at the officers’ decision to approach the man and whether he was known by the officers; their use of force against him; and the after-care officers provided to him. We also examined the accuracy of their accounts.

During the investigation, investigators interviewed the officers, examined body worn video footage and obtained statements from several witnesses.

We sent a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider a charge of common assault against the officers. In March 2022, the CPS decided not to charge them.

Two officers claimed they could smell cannabis but none was found. The panel believed that it was not possible for one officer to have smelt cannabis coming from the car as the door and windows were closed. This allegation against the other officer was not proven as the panel accepted the officer had not lied over his claim that he could smell cannabis in the air.

At a misconduct hearing, which was arranged by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and concluded in January 2024, the panel found one officer had breached the police standards of professional behaviour in respect of use of force for beating the man repeatedly.

It also found he had breached the standards for:

• Honesty and integrity as it was proved he was dishonest when giving an account of the events that had taken place and the account he gave for why he did not activate his body-worn video lacked integrity.
• Authority, respect and courtesy for acting without lawful authority to stop the man; failing to identify himself as a police officer; assaulting the man; verbally abusing him; leaving him in handcuffs excessively; failing to take any steps to treat his injuries when first aid kits were available and delaying requesting an ambulance or taking him to hospital.
• Duties and responsibilities as he did not have sufficient grounds to stop and search the man; did not follow the correct stop and search procedure; did not wear the appropriate attire for police officers in plain clothes; failed to switch on his body-worn video; failed to sufficiently identify himself as a police officer; continued his detention when there were no longer reasonable grounds to do so; failed to provide appropriate aftercare for the man at the scene, or to ensure that he received prompt medical attention.

The panel found the officer’s actions amounted to gross misconduct and he was dismissed without notice. As a result, he has been barred from working in policing in future.

The panel found the case proven for the second officer for breaching the police standards relating to:

• Authority, respect and courtesy for his use of PAVA spray, verbally abusing the man, leaving him handcuffed excessively, failing to take any steps to treat his injuries when first aid kits were available and delaying requesting an ambulance or taking him to hospital
• Use of force for use of PAVA spray when it was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable and not in accordance with guidance
• Duties and responsibilities for not wearing the correct attire for officers in plain clothes; failing to switch on his body-worn video; and not providing the appropriate aftercare for the man at the scene.

He was given a written warning as the breaches were found to be at misconduct level.

A third officer will attend an internal misconduct meeting for his failure to wear suitable clothing or, as their supervisor, not ensuring the other officers were suitably dressed.  He will also face allegations of failing to ensure they activated their body-worn video, not using an interpreter, and not making sufficient attempts to calm and reassure the man while the physical restraint was ongoing.

The officer also did not reassess the need for continued force as the man was detained and handcuffed for longer than necessary.

The alleged breaches relate to the police professional standards of behaviour for duties and responsibilities, conduct and use of force.

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.

Our investigation also identified the following organisational learning for the force:

• Plain-clothed officers and their supervisors should be reminded of the perception to members of the public when non-uniform or non-business casual clothing, such as shorts, tracksuits, t-shirts and trainers, are worn on public-facing assignments.
• Officers should be reminded that particular attention should be paid to early identification of their police status in these circumstances, and prior to the exercise of police powers.
• Officers should be reminded that police vests must be worn overtly or covertly depending on the officers’ roles.
• Formal training for covert police officers should include the purpose of the role and how to effectively use plain clothed policing to obtain evidence and intelligence.

We are progressing these recommendations in discussion with the MPS.