Complaints regarding arrest, alleged excessive use of force and discrimination - Avon and Somerset Constabulary, July 2018

On 21 July 2018 in Castle Park, Bristol, an officer from Avon and Somerset Constabulary arrested a man of Somali ethnicity for refusing to provide his details to a police constable after behaving in an anti-social manner, and verbally objecting to the arrest of another person. He was subsequently acquitted of this offence on appeal.

During the arrest, officers took the man to the ground on two occasions and also deployed incapacitant spray against him twice.

At the time of the arrest, police officers in the area had been authorised to use their legal powers to disperse individuals from Castle Park for up to 48 hours. These powers apply where officers have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of an individual has contributed, or is likely to contribute, to members of the public feeling harassed, alarmed or distressed, or to the occurrence of crime or disorder. A police inspector authorised the use of the powers following a report of affray the previous day, which involved individuals who were of Somali ethnicity.

The man complained to Avon and Somerset Constabulary that only people of Somali ethnicity had been dispersed in this manner, that he had been unlawfully arrested and that officers had used excessive force against him due to his ethnicity. The force referred this matter to us in August 2018.

Our investigators issued an appeal for witnesses (which received no response) and reviewed CCTV, police body-worn camera and mobile phone footage of the incident. They obtained accounts from the man and from all police officers visible in the video footage of the arrest, and interviewed the officers who used force against the man under criminal caution. Investigators also obtained expert opinion on the use of force.

Evidence indicated that the decision to authorise the use of dispersal powers was reasonable and not based on ethnicity. The evidence did not indicate that officers discriminated against the man who was arrested, or anyone else in Castle Park, due to their ethnicity.

Although the magistrates’ court subsequently found that the arrest of the man was unlawful as the officer did not give the grounds for arrest as soon as reasonably practicable, the officers believed at the point of arrest that the arrest was lawful, and acted in line with their common-law right to self-defence.

Regarding the use of force, the investigation found that the use of handcuffs, the initial decision to take the man to the floor and the first use of incapacitant spray were reasonable and proportionate. It was not possible to tell whether the man was resisting against officers before being taken to the ground for the second time. Evidence showed that the officer who discharged incapacitant spray on the second occasion did so at less than the minimum recommended distance of one metre from the man – national guidance indicates this can be justified in some circumstances. Evidence also showed that the man did not receive appropriate aftercare in the initial period after being subject to the use of incapacitant spray; he was given only cursory verbal reassurance and was shut inside the police vehicle for a short period before being exposed to fresh air. He suffered no lasting effects as a result.

The investigation also found that, when the man was detained in the police vehicle, the officer who used the incapacitant spray on the second occasion, and who alleged that the man had assaulted him in the initial moments after the arrest, made comments to the man that were inappropriate and unnecessary in the circumstances.

Based on the evidence available we found no indication that any person serving with the police may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, or had committed a criminal offence.

However, we suggested to the force that the arresting officer should receive a debrief regarding the danger of applying pressure to the back of a subject in the prone position, and that the officer who discharged incapacitant spray on the second occasion should be debriefed regarding doing so at less than the minimum recommended distance, and regarding their use of language. We also suggested that both of the officers who discharged the spray should be debriefed regarding the provision of aftercare after using it.

We completed our investigation in March 2019.

After reviewing our report Avon and Somerset Constabulary agreed to implement the suggested actions. The force also advised it would be improving record-keeping relating to the use of dispersal powers.