CASE STUDY 2: Detainee injured in a fall whilst being transported to custody
This case was locally investigated by the force. The IOPC reviewed the investigation to decide whether the outcome of the investigation was reasonable and proportionate.
The police received a call that a man was making threats to their neighbours with a knife. The police received a further call from the neighbour to say that the man was trying to get into his property.
Five police officers, PCs A, B, D, E and PS C, were dispatched to the incident.
The police investigation noted that before officers arrived, the man had been locked out of his property by his partner. He was described as carrying a ‘big kitchen knife’ and seen hiding behind a parked car. The man was also seen shouting that he was going to stab somebody in the leg.
Upon arrival, PS C updated the control room and stated the man had left in a car with his mother.
PCs A and B were with the neighbour who described that the man had arrived at his property with a knife and was waving it around. PC B said they found a kitchen knife where the man had been hiding.
PS C, PCs D and E visited the man’s last known address. While there, the man arrived in a car.
PC D approached the car and explained why they were there. The man was then detained by PC D and placed in handcuffs. He was arrested on suspicion of being in possession of an offensive weapon.
PCs A and B heard the man had been arrested and made their way to support their colleagues.
The man used racist language towards PC A and was further arrested by PC D for racially aggravated public order.
PC F arrived and noted the man’s behaviour was ‘volatile’, and PS C stated the man was “acting aggressive” when he was arrested. The man then refused to get into the cell area of the van.
The police investigation noted that due to the man’s behaviour, the hot weather, and that the custody suite was some distance away, PS C did not want the man to be in the police van for a prolonged period. They requested the van drive to custody under emergency conditions.
PC F drove the police van as he was the only officer who was trained to drive it under emergency conditions. PCs B and PC F were joined by two other officers on the journey to custody.
While travelling to custody, PC B noted the man appeared to be very hot in the back of the police van, despite the air conditioning in the cell area being on. The man also said he was feeling faint due to an undisclosed medical condition and asked for some water.
The police investigation noted that while enroute to custody the man became agitated, stood up and refused to sit down. The IOPC review stated that body-worn video footage only showed the man standing up twice during the journey.
College of Policing Detention and Custody Authorised Professional Practice: Moving and transporting detainees
Every detainee must be properly supervised and monitored at all times during transport. Officers and staff should take particular care with individuals who have been subject to force upon arrest, particularly where they are restrained with handcuffs or leg restraints, as this can increase the risk of injury.
The following principles should be followed when transporting detainees.
- An officer must observe and monitor the detainee and react to any situation that may arise…
- Detainees who have struggled violently should not be placed in a vehicle unrestrained or unsupervised – to ensure appropriate control during a journey, the detainee should be seated upright where possible.
More information:
www.college.police.uk/app/detention-and-custody/moving-and-transporting-detainees
While in transit, the man fell in the caged area and injured his shoulder. The IOPC review noted the police van was not being driven in an erratic manner.
PC F stopped the van at a nearby service station, where the man was given some water.
PC B tried to give first aid to the man, but he threatened to spit at officers and refused any treatment.
The man was taken directly to hospital where he received stitches for his shoulder injury. After treatment, the man was transported to custody.
The police investigation noted that, had the man remained seated while being taken to custody it was unlikely that he would have received a shoulder injury
The man was charged with possession of a knife, racial harassment and two other offences.
Key questions for managers, policy makers and trainers:
- What guidance does your force have on transporting detainees in a cell area of a van, while driving under emergency conditions?
- What training is given to officers on how to safely regain control of a detainee should they refuse to remain seated while in transit?
- How do you support officers/staff who are subject to racial abuse while carrying out their duties?
Key questions for police officers and staff:
- Would you have driven under emergency conditions in this case? What are the risks with choosing to do so?
- What would you have done differently in this case?
- What safeguarding measures are available to you, should you be subject to racial abuse while carrying out your duties?
Learning recommendations and action taken:
- The IOPC issued one learning recommendation to the force. It asked them to take steps to ensure that if a detainee becomes violent and/or stands up during the journey to custody then officers should, where practicable, stop the vehicle and regain control before continuing with their journey.
- The force accepted the learning recommendation and issued guidance. The guidance will be reinforced during vehicle refresher training and safety training, to ensure officers understand their responsibilities when transporting a detainee in a police van. The guidance will also be shared on the force’s intranet and a senior officer will monitor compliance with the guidance.
Outcomes for the officers and staff involved:
There was no indication that any person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
The impact of using body-worn video
Mateusz Dabrowski, Dominic Strange, Simon Payne, and Patrick Cragg discuss a fatal police pursuit, the subsequent IOPC investigation, and how body-worn video (BWV) provided crucial evidence.
PC’s Mateusz Dabrowski and Dominic Strange had stopped a suspicious car. They instructed the driver to get out so that they could perform a search, but he drove off at speed. Mateusz and Dom pursued the vehicle.
When did you activate your BWV?
Mateusz: My BWV was on as I initially approached the driver and talked to him. After speaking with Dom, we believed we had grounds to search the vehicle. Our decision making and rationale were captured on BWV, showing what was going through our heads.
Dom: I activated my BWV when I got back in our car and the pursuit began, but the 30 seconds before I activated my BWV were captured when we spoke to the driver. [BWV cameras have a buffer feature which captures footage of the last 30 seconds when the user is unable to immediately activate their camera].
National Police Chiefs’ Council: Body-worn video guidance 2024
…users should activate their cameras to record when making a decision to stop a
vehicle utilising police powers. Best practice will be for users to verbalise their decision-
making on BWV. If a vehicle fails to stop, BWV would then have captured the context leading up to that request, and evidence for that offence.
More information
Mateusz and Dom pursued the vehicle. Within a minute it had crashed and was on fire, with the driver still inside and unresponsive. Despite resuscitation efforts, the driver sadly died. A Post-Incident Procedure (PIP) was held, and an IOPC investigation was commenced. Simon Payne attended the PIP as the officer’s federation representative.
How was the footage used during the PIP?
Simon: At the initial PIP meeting we were able to quickly establish, with the IOPC, that Mateusz and Dom should be treated as Key Police Witnesses (KPW). [KPWs are police officers or staff who can give direct evidence of the death or serious injury or the circumstances leading to it and are not treated as subjects within an investigation].
We had three camera angles: the police dashcam and the officers’ BWV. You could see Mateusz attempt to extinguish the fire and both officers getting into the car to recover the driver. You had the complete picture.
Dom: I didn’t have much anxiety once I knew we were being treated as KPWs. I knew we’d done everything we could. When we watched our BWV footage back to write our detailed (stage 4) statements, it reinforced for us that we had done a good job.
The IOPC Lead Investigator, Patrick Cragg, facilitated the bereaved family’s viewing of the BWV footage. The family then asked to meet with the officers and thanked them.
How did viewing the footage impact the family?
Patrick: The BWV helped the family understand the incident. Prior to watching the BWV, they thought the two officers had just pursued the driver without providing an opportunity for them to pull over and comply. The family watched the BWV and realised what had happened, the officers had been polite and respectful. The family realised that the driver had driven off at speed by choice, and unfortunately a fatal collision occurred.
Mateusz: We explained to the man’s family that we tried to save his life. When they wanted to meet us I took this as a positive – they knew what we’d done.
What difference do you feel BWV made in this case?
Simon: If we hadn’t had the BWV footage, the officers’ status in the IOPC investigation would have remained uncertain. There wouldn’t have been closure for the bereaved family or the officers. BWV is there to protect officers and demonstrates how difficult the job can be.
Mateusz: It’s a job saver! If you do everything correctly, follow policies and procedures, and use BWV, it backs you up. It builds a bigger picture, rather than you just providing a statement.
Do you have any advice or reflections as a result of this case?
Dom: From the start of my training, I was told that having your BWV on standby is important. You can capture the 30 second buffer beforehand and potentially capture what someone has said or done.
You never know when a job is going to go wrong or escalate – BWV gives context. A suspect may have said something, or displayed certain body language that you haven’t noticed – then you watch the footage back and notice it.
It's better to have BWV running and capturing very little, than to have it off and miss something key.
Mateusz: I’ve reminded my colleagues how important BWV is based on this IOPC investigation – if I hadn’t had the BWV and the dashcam footage, I may not have been treated as a KPW.
Simon: I’ve previously represented officers who’ve turned their BWV off partway through an incident – there may be a valid reason for this, but it makes it more difficult to justify what happened. What Dom and Mateusz did was perfect in terms of showing their actions.
I want to instil in officers that when they have done something according to their training, they have nothing to fear from the IOPC.
Mateusz Dabrowski and Dominic Strange are Police Constables with Warwickshire Police.
Simon Payne is Chair of Warwickshire Police Federation (pictured).
Patrick Cragg is a Lead Investigator at the IOPC.