Investigation into police conduct after officer reports an assault – Merseyside Police, December 2023

A man reported a crime at a police station. He decided to return to the police station later that day, following a police van as it entered the custody dock area through security shutters. This is a restricted part of the police station. The man banged on the police van, telling officers about the crime he had reported and confronting an unrelated prisoner being taken into custody.

Three police officers took hold of the man and walked him out of the area. The man ran from the officers and jumped over a wall back into the vehicle dock. He was again led out by police officers but struggled and broke free by pushing an officer causing him to fall. Another officer used their Taser on the man, but this had limited effect. Further officers attended and an officer used an incapacitant spray on the man. He was handcuffed. One of the officers reported that the man had assaulted them during his arrest.

The man was transported to a custody suite. On arrival, although handcuffed and in leg restraints, he struggled as he was carried by officers into the custody suite. He was held on the floor by officers in the holding area and officers believed he may be experiencing Acute Behavioural Disturbance (ABD). Paramedics arrived and the man was sedated and taken to hospital. He remained in hospital for a number of days and received treatment for his kidneys. 

The officer who reported the man had assaulted them gave two statements. Merseyside Police decided that no further action would be taken against the man in relation to the reported assault as the body worn video and CCTV did not support the allegations.    

We received a conduct referral from the force in May 2024. The referral concerned the evidence in two statements given by the officer that reported the man had assaulted them. In one statement, the officer said the man had kicked them in the back and hit them on the arm. In the second statement, the officer said that when officers started to handcuff the man, he broke free, punching them in the stomach and kicking them in the back. The referral stated the incident was captured on two different CCTV cameras and the officer’s body worn video camera. The footage did not show an assault.

We decided to investigate the nature and extent of police contact with the man, including the actions and decisions of the police officers who dealt with the man at the police station and whether the force they used was appropriate. We examined the care the man received once officers recognised he may be experiencing ABD and whether he should have been taken to hospital sooner.

We also considered whether the officer who reported the assault gave a truthful account of their interaction with the man and if they stated facts that they knew were false or did not believe to be true.

Our investigators reviewed CCTV and body worn video footage of the incident and took statements from the officers involved. We analysed their actions against relevant legislation and training. We also reviewed use of force forms and interviewed the officer who reported the assault.

We concluded that the officer who reported the assault may have committed a criminal offence and we referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service in December 2024. They decided not to pursue criminal proceedings for perverting the course of justice.

We also found that the officer who reported the assault had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. We found they had a case to answer for gross misconduct for wilfully and knowingly misrepresenting or falsifying evidence of an assault against them and behaving in a manner which discredited the police service and undermined public confidence in it. We also found evidence of misconduct around lacking diligence in exercising their duties and responsibilities.

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 hearing.

The misconduct hearing concluded in December 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for honesty and integrity, duties and responsibilities, and discreditable conduct. These amounted to a finding of misconduct and the officer was given a final written warning lasting three years.

The hearing found that the officer did not knowingly lie and had failed to check their genuine recollection of what had happened against the available footage. The officer had misinterpreted sensations and reconstructed events in their mind that felt real and coherent, despite the available footage showing otherwise. They had failed to act diligently by presenting their assumptions as facts.

With regards to the care the man received, we found that the medical aid the man received was prompt and potentially prevented a more serious outcome.

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.