Use of force investigated after man experiences mental ill health – Essex Police, May 2024

Essex Police received a call about concerns for a man’s welfare. Two officers were sent to the scene. The control room updated the officers with information about the man, including that he had warning markers for weapons and domestic incidents.

The officers arrived at the man’s house and were met by the woman who had made the call to the police. She described the man as having a mental breakdown. The officers entered the house and found the man hiding under a mattress on a bed. One of the officers handcuffed the man and pulled him out from under the mattress. The man was distressed and said he needed help.

The man stumbled as he left the house, and one of the officers pushed him against a fence before pulling him up by his handcuffs and walking him to the police vehicle. The officer put the man in the back of the caged police van and closed the cage door.

The man made a comment to the officer. The officer re-opened the cage and pulled the man out of the van and threw him to the floor. The officer placed his knee onto the man’s chest and stomach area with his hands on the man’s chest/shoulders. The man kicked out, before the officer brought his knee to the man’s face. The officer dragged the man along the floor by his handcuffs. The man was put inside the van again and taken to hospital because of his mental ill health.

The accompanying officer decided to report the officer’s conduct to the force, and we received a conduct referral from the force.  We decided to independently investigate the officer’s actions, including whether the force used by the officer was reasonable, proportionate and necessary, whether the officer’s statement about his use of force was accurate, and if the officer treated the man differently because of his mental health. We also considered whether the officer’s actions were in line with national and local legislation, policy and guidance.

We interviewed the officer under criminal and misconduct caution. Our investigators reviewed body worn video footage and took statements from witnesses and other officers at the scene.

We found that the officer’s use of force went far beyond what was reasonable, proportionate or necessary, especially as the man offered little resistance or aggression. The officer’s demeanour towards the man was inappropriate given that the man was clearly in distress, and the officer used a combative approach. He was dismissive, abrasive and did not try to calm the man, failing to consider the man’s mental ill health. We also found that the officer’s account of the incident was not an honest recollection of events.

We concluded that the officer may have committed a criminal offence and had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct. We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officer and that they should take the form of a gross misconduct hearing.

The gross misconduct hearing concluded in May 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for discreditable conduct. This amounted to a finding of gross misconduct and the officer would have been dismissed had he still been a serving police officer.

We referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who decided to pursue criminal proceedings. The CPS authorised charges against the officer for common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The officer was found guilty of assault by beating in 2024. He received an 18-week prison sentence, suspended for 18 months. This means that the officer can serve his sentence in the community but would go to prison if he re-offended within 18 months.

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 did not identify any organisational learning in this case.