Circumstances around misidentification and arrest of child investigated – Avon and Somerset Constabulary, July 2024
In July 2024 an annual street carnival festival was being celebrated and a policing operation to manage the event was underway. The carnival holds an important symbolic role within the Black and ethnic minority communities.
While monitoring live CCTV, a team of police personnel including a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) Supervisor incorrectly identified a child as a man who was subject to a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) preventing him from being in the area.
The PCSO Supervisor transmitted via police radio that they had seen the man, and he was in breach of his CBO. They gave a description of the child, the colour of their bicycle and their direction of travel to officers who responded.
A police officer on patrol found the child and ran towards them. The officer tried to take hold of the child, who was on a bicycle, but failed. The officer did not speak to the child and tried to grab their arm but again was unsuccessful.
The officer handcuffed and arrested the child. The child told the officers present their name, age, home address and school, and a crowd of people told the officers that they had the wrong person.
The arresting officer queried via police radio transmission whether the PCSO Supervisor was certain of their identification. In reply, the PCSO Supervisor stated via police radio transmission they were sure the child was the man and continued to assert this belief.
The arresting officer then asked for a photograph of the man to be sent to their mobile device. The officer compared the photograph of the man with the child, and it was confirmed that the child was not the man. The child was de-arrested immediately.
We received a complaint referral from the force in July 2024 and decided to independently investigate the circumstances of the child’s arrest, including the force used by officers, whether officers treated the child differently because of their age or race, and the circumstances around the misidentification of the child.
The child’s mother gave a statement to us in September 2024 where she raised concerns about how her child was treated by officers, including why they were identified as an adult on CCTV, the force that was used during their arrest, and why a PCSO who knew the child did not intervene. She questioned whether the officers’ actions reflected adultification and potential racial bias. Adultification is a form of bias where children are treated by adults and institutions as more mature, knowledgeable, or responsible than their actual developmental stage.
Our investigators reviewed and examined CCTV from the carnival celebrations, police radio airwave transmissions, pocket notebook entries, and the body worn video footage from several officers. We also took witness statements from police officers.
We interviewed the PCSO Supervisor who monitored the live CCTV and incorrectly identified the child, and we obtained a written response from the arresting officer. Our investigators also interviewed the child using Achieving Best Evidence protocols. This is used to gather evidence from vulnerable witnesses, including children.
We reviewed the operational policing briefing pack for the carnival and consulted relevant legislation, policies and procedures.
We concluded there was no indication that the arresting officer had committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.
We concluded there was no indication that the PCSO Supervisor had committed a criminal offence but had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.
Our evidence found that the arresting officer was directed by the CCTV control room and rightly believed that the staff and officers in the control room would have accessed intelligence and identified the man using these resources.
The force used by the officer was on the lower end of the scale. We found it to be reasonable as the officer had genuine reason to believe the child was the man in breach of their CBO. The officer released the child within 12 minutes of detaining them, which we found to be reasonable. We found the officer’s actions to be based on receiving incorrect information from the control room, rather than any discriminatory reasons.
We found that the PCSO Supervisor had a case to answer for misconduct with regards to showing a lack of diligence as a member of police staff, including inaccurately identifying the child as a man, providing a poor description, and using definitive language when communicating with officers about the identification of the child.
We found the PCSO Supervisor also had a case to answer for misconduct for failing to use the intelligence resources at their disposal to check the original identification and displaying actions that were discriminatory based on race and age.
We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the PCSO Supervisor and that they should take the form of a misconduct meeting.
The misconduct meeting concluded in February 2026. The PCSO Supervisor was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for duties and responsibilities. These amounted to a finding of misconduct and they were required to engage in the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process allows officers and staff to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better.
During the misconduct meeting, the allegation about misidentification was partially upheld. It was not clear which staff member made the initial identification, but the PCSO Supervisor was found to have failed in their duties and responsibilities in respect of communicating this over the police radio and being categoric that it was the man when it was not.
Allegations about discrimination by reason of race and age were not proven.
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 recommended that the force manage events such as the carnival with officers and staff with current experience of working within those communities. Officers and staff in CCTV rooms should carefully consider using definitive language and communicating absolute certainty when identifying people suspected of committing a criminal offence, and the force should train more of its neighbourhood policing teams in the use of CCTV camera systems.
We also recommended the force update its race matters training plans to include a section on adultification and circulate this to all officers and staff.
We are in the process of taking this learning forward.