Investigation into man’s arrest after case of mistaken identity – Metropolitan Police Service, November 2022

A man called the police to report a disturbance outside his business premises, including criminal damage and violent behaviour. Two police officers were sent to the scene. 

The officers spoke briefly with the man, and a short time later, the force control room advised the officers that the man was the suspect based on CCTV monitoring. 

The officers detained and arrested the man on suspicion of criminal damage. The man was taken to the floor, and despite showing no signs of physically resisting, one of the officers struck him on the back of his head with a clenched fist. Handcuffs used to restrain the man were seemingly in the wrong position.

The arresting officers were later told another member of the public had also reported the criminal damage, given a different description and identified the suspect to another officer. This suspect was subsequently arrested.

The man mistakenly identified as the suspect was de-arrested.

The man later complained to the Metropolitan Police Service that the officer stepped on him, hit him, banged his head on the floor, handcuffed and arrested him. He also reported that the other officer did not listen to him and would not let him speak. The force later referred the complaint to us.

We decided to independently investigate the police’s interactions with the man, including the nature of the information and intelligence known to the police about the incident, if the officers’ interactions with the man were appropriate and justified, their use of force, and whether they treated the man differently because of his race. We considered whether officers acted in line with local and national policies, procedures, and legislation.

Our investigators reviewed body worn video footage and CCTV, obtained witness statements, and examined radio airwaves and police records. We also interviewed the two officers.

We concluded that one of the officers may have committed a criminal offence and had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. We referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who decided to pursue criminal proceedings.

The CPS authorised charges against the officer who struck the man for common assault. The officer was found guilty and was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison, suspended for 12 months. This means that the officer can serve his sentence in the community but would go to prison if he re-offended within 12 months. The officer was required to complete 150 hours of unpaid work and pay compensation.

The officer appealed the conviction but was unsuccessful.

We found that the officer also had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to excessive use of force and failing to show authority, respect and courtesy towards the man. 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.

An accelerated gross misconduct hearing concluded in March 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour. These amounted to a finding of gross misconduct and the officer was dismissed without notice for discreditable conduct.

We recommended that the other officer would benefit from the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process allows officers to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better.

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.