Self-harming incident in detention - Essex Police, August 2017

At approximately 12.40pm on 22 August 2017 Essex Police officers arrested a young man for criminal damage at his care home. His detention in custody was authorised. The young man’s police national checks record included warning markers for anxiety and self-harm. The custody observation level was set to level 1 – general observations, where he would be visited every 30 minutes. The young detainee was deemed by a healthcare professional to be fit to be interviewed.

The young man’s custody record showed that, while in police custody, he banged his head on the walls in the interview room and on the floor when in the corridor. It also confirmed that he tied a ligature around his neck after he went back to his cell. As a result, a strip search was carried out by police officers without the presence of an appropriate adult. His clothes were removed and he was provided with anti-harm clothing. The young detainee was subsequently placed on level 4 observation – close proximity with rousal checks. The young man remained in his cell with his appropriate adult from 7.16pm until he was released at approximately 9.58pm.

During the investigation, investigators interviewed custody officers and staff. We interviewed five officers under the misconduct caution in respect of a number of allegations in relation to safeguarding the welfare of the young man and conducting the strip search. The young man and his appropriate adult were also asked to provide statements, but declined to engage with us. All relevant custody CCTV footage was also collected as evidence. We also reviewed relevant legislation and policies.

At the end of the investigation, based on the evidence available, we found that one officer had a case to answer for misconduct and should receive management action for not being diligent in the execution of his duties, in that there may not have been adequate consideration to reviewing the young man’s observation levels, or searching him or his cell, or a lack of appropriate record keeping about this. We recommended management action for the same officer for not recording his rationale to order that a strip search be carried out without the presence of an appropriate adult. It was agreed with Essex Police that the officer would be subject to an operational debrief regarding the findings of our investigation, outcome and standards expected, which would include reinforcing his knowledge and understanding of risk assessment and expectation, and procedures with particular attention to searches.

We found that there was no case to answer for a second and third officer in relation to conducting the strip search.

We identified some learning for the fourth officer. Essex Police recommended that the officer be reminded of force procedure on digital CCTV systems in custody, with particular attention to searches.

We found that there was a case to answer for misconduct for a member of police staff for conducting inadequate cells observations and failing to record changes in the young man’s behaviour in the custody log.

After reviewing our report, the force agreed with our views and held a misconduct meeting for the member of police staff. He admitted breaching the standards of professional behaviour duties and responsibility and was issued with a written warning.