Child’s arrest prompts examination of police actions and decisions - Nottinghamshire Police, August 2022

Two officers on patrol one evening saw an altercation between a group of young women, including a child. The officers stopped to intervene and two of the young women left in a car. The child remained.

The officers decided to arrest the child to prevent a further breach of the peace. One of the officers used force to get the child into the police car, including putting their hands around the child’s throat in the back of the car and handcuffing them behind their back.

The child told the officers they lived in a care home. The officers spoke to the care home, who said there were no safeguarding issues if the child was taken to their mother’s home. The child was de-arrested at their mother’s home.

The child returned to the care home and complained to the care home manager about their arrest. They said that an officer had strangled them, and that they had banged their head twice against the police car door during their arrest causing bruising to their eye and cheek. They also said that the officers did not inform them of their rights or reason for arrest.

The care home manager complained to the force on behalf of the child. We received a complaint referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the actions and decisions of the officers who were involved in the child’s arrest.

We examined the decision to arrest the child and how this was communicated to them, whether the force used was reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and whether the child was treated less favourably because of their race. We also considered whether the officers acted in accordance with legislation, local and national policies, procedures and guidance.

Our investigators interviewed the officers involved, examined CCTV and body worn video footage, and obtained statements from several witnesses.

We concluded there was an indication that a person serving with the police had committed a criminal offence and officers had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that neither of the officers tried to de-escalate the situation and spoke to the child for less than 20 seconds before taking them to the police car. This escalated the situation and resulted in the use of force, which was disproportionate and unnecessary in the circumstances.

We found no evidence that either officer treated the child less favourably because of their race.

We referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who decided to pursue criminal proceedings. They authorised charges against the officer who had used force when arresting the child. The officer was found not guilty of non-fatal strangulation of a child in June 2024.

We found that the same officer also had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to their use of force, and misconduct for the way in which they arrested the child. 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 hearing concluded in May 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for use of force, conduct, duties and responsibilities, and authority and courtesy. These amounted to a finding of gross misconduct and the officer was dismissed without notice and placed on the barred list. This prevents the officer from working for the police again.

We found that the other officer also had a case to answer for misconduct for failing to challenge or intervene in their fellow officer’s actions.

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 misconduct meeting.

The misconduct meeting concluded in August 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for challenging and reporting improper behaviour, conduct, and duties and responsibilities. These amounted to a finding of misconduct and the officer was given a written warning.

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.