On 21 July 2018 in Castle Park, Bristol, an officer from Avon and Somerset Constabulary arrested a man of Somali ethnicity for refusing to provide his details to a police constable after behaving in an anti-social manner, and verbally objecting to the arrest of another person. He was subsequently acquitted of this offence on appeal.
During the arrest, officers took the man to the ground on two occasions and also deployed incapacitant spray against him twice.
At the time of the arrest, police officers in the area had been authorised to use their legal powers to disperse individuals from Castle Park for up to 48 hours. These powers apply where officers have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of an individual has contributed, or is likely to contribute, to members of the public feeling harassed, alarmed or distressed, or to the occurrence of crime or disorder. A police inspector authorised the use of the powers following a report of affray the previous day, which involved individuals who were of Somali ethnicity.
The man complained to Avon and Somerset Constabulary that only people of Somali ethnicity had been dispersed in this manner, that he had been unlawfully arrested and that officers had used excessive force against him due to his ethnicity. The force referred this matter to us in August 2018.
Our investigators issued an appeal for witnesses (which received no response) and reviewed CCTV, police body-worn camera and mobile phone footage of the incident. They obtained accounts from the man and from all police officers visible in the video footage of the arrest, and interviewed the officers who used force against the man under criminal caution. Investigators also obtained expert opinion on the use of force.
Evidence indicated that the decision to authorise the use of dispersal powers was reasonable and not based on ethnicity. The evidence did not indicate that officers discriminated against the man who was arrested, or anyone else in Castle Park, due to their ethnicity.
Although the magistrates’ court subsequently found that the arrest of the man was unlawful as the officer did not give the grounds for arrest as soon as reasonably practicable, the officers believed at the point of arrest that the arrest was lawful, and acted in line with their common-law right to self-defence.
Regarding the use of force, the investigation found that the use of handcuffs, the initial decision to take the man to the floor and the first use of incapacitant spray were reasonable and proportionate. It was not possible to tell whether the man was resisting against officers before being taken to the ground for the second time. Evidence showed that the officer who discharged incapacitant spray on the second occasion did so at less than the minimum recommended distance of one metre from the man – national guidance indicates this can be justified in some circumstances. Evidence also showed that the man did not receive appropriate aftercare in the initial period after being subject to the use of incapacitant spray; he was given only cursory verbal reassurance and was shut inside the police vehicle for a short period before being exposed to fresh air. He suffered no lasting effects as a result.
The investigation also found that, when the man was detained in the police vehicle, the officer who used the incapacitant spray on the second occasion, and who alleged that the man had assaulted him in the initial moments after the arrest, made comments to the man that were inappropriate and unnecessary in the circumstances.
Based on the evidence available we found no indication that any person serving with the police may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, or had committed a criminal offence.
However, we suggested to the force that the arresting officer should receive a debrief regarding the danger of applying pressure to the back of a subject in the prone position, and that the officer who discharged incapacitant spray on the second occasion should be debriefed regarding doing so at less than the minimum recommended distance, and regarding their use of language. We also suggested that both of the officers who discharged the spray should be debriefed regarding the provision of aftercare after using it.
We completed our investigation in March 2019.
After reviewing our report Avon and Somerset Constabulary agreed to implement the suggested actions. The force also advised it would be improving record-keeping relating to the use of dispersal powers.
An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Deals with someone’s inability or failure to perform to a satisfactory level, but without breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Focuses on putting an issue right and preventing it from happening again by encouraging those involved to reflect on their actions and learn. It is not a disciplinary process or a disciplinary outcome.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
Refers to lower-level misconduct or performance-related issues, which are dealt with in a proportionate and constructive manner.
This means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IOPC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IOPC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IOPC.
The organisation that is responsible for assessing how to deal with a complaint. For example – whether it can be handled locally or reaches the criteria for referral to the IOPC. The appropriate authority may be the chief officer of the police force or the PCC for the force. If a complaint investigation finds that someone has a case to answer for misconduct, the appropriate authority is responsible for arranging any misconduct proceedings. If you make a complaint, the appropriate authority for your case will contact you.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.
Policing bodies include police and crime commissioners, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
IOPC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
A complaint or recordable conduct matter that doesn’t need to be referred to the IOPC, but where the seriousness or circumstances justifies referral.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
A person is adversely affected if he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
This is where a manager deals with the way someone has behaved. It can include: showing the police officer or member of staff how their behaviour fell short of expectations set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour; identifying expectations for future conduct; or addressing any underlying causes of misconduct.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A breach of standards of professional behaviour by police officers or staff so serious it could justify their dismissal.
A matter where no complaint has been received, but where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Quarter 1 covers 1 April - 30 June
Quarter 2 covers 1 April - 30 September
Quarter 3 covers 1 April - 31 December
Quarter 4 covers the full financial year (1 April - 31 March).
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IOPC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into matters and produces a report that sets out and analyses the evidence. There are three types of investigations: local, directed and independent.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
List of officers and staff who have been dismissed from policing, or would have been if they had not retired or resigned.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would justify at least a written warning.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
This is a format where information is written in plain English and short sentences.
The IOPC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
