Police head strikes examined after vulnerable man’s arrest – Cleveland Police, July 2025

Cleveland Police received an anonymous call reporting that four people in a car were taking drugs. The caller said that one of the men in the car had recently left prison and should not be out on the streets. Police computer records showed that this man was wanted for breaching their court bail.

Officers arrived and one of the officers arrested the man for breaching bail. He was taken to custody and handcuffed. While at the police custody suite, the man reported an historic brain injury and surgery, and that he had banged his head during his arrest. He was taken to hospital to be assessed. One of the officers who took the man to hospital was also the arresting officer.

Hospital CCTV footage showed that the man voluntarily and repeatedly hit his head against a waiting room wall. The man became aggressive, trying to bite officers and being verbally abusive. He was restrained by officers, and the arresting officer used the heel of his left fist to strike the man’s head area four consecutive times. Leg restraints were used to control the man’s behaviour for a short period, and a spit hood was considered, although not used.

The man later complained to the Northeast Ambulance Service about being assaulted by a police officer and reported a second head wound.

We received a mandatory complaint referral and decided to independently investigate the force used by the arresting officer during the man’s restraint in the hospital and whether this was necessary, reasonable and proportionate. We also examined whether this officer acted in accordance with local and national policies and procedures, guidance and training.

Our investigators examined incident and use of force reports, CCTV footage from the hospital, and custody records. We took statements from witnesses, including other officers, and reviewed officer body worn video footage. We interviewed the arresting officer who used force, who answered all our questions. The man who was arrested did not engage with us and sadly died before we finalised our investigation.

We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that the arresting officer used force to prevent harm to the man, themselves, other officers, and members of the public, and that this was necessary in the circumstances. The incident was fast-paced, and we found it necessary to try to bring the man under control. The officer used the national decision-making model when considering the options available to them, and their use of force was reasonable and proportionate, using the heel of their fist to avoid causing serious injury. The officer was mindful of the man’s vulnerabilities, including his previous head injuries.

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.