Investigation into man’s arrest in case of mistaken identity – British Transport Police, March 2025

In March 2025, there was a large British Transport Police (BTP) presence at a railway station following a football match. During the policing operation, officers made several arrests, verbally and physically interacting with people.

While a train was stationary at the station, a member of the public kicked a BTP officer. Another officer sprayed incapacitant spray into the train, before officers boarded it to remove the 17-year-old man who was alleged to have kicked the officer. Officers arrested the man on suspicion of assaulting an emergency worker and transported him to a Cleveland Police custody suite. He was later released from custody on bail pending further investigation.

BTP subsequently reviewed the available body worn video footage and identified that the man was not the person who had kicked the officer. They cancelled the man’s bail, and no further action was taken.

The man’s father complained to us about the treatment of his son, including the use of incapacitant spray, that he was arrested without good reason, and that he was detained in custody without an appropriate adult for several hours. He said his son was traumatised by the incident and was concerned his son’s arrest would leave a mark on his record.

We decided to independently investigate the decisions and actions of the officer who used force, specifically incapacitant spray, and whether this was in line with local and national policies, procedures, guidance and training. We also examined the officers’ decisions and actions around the man’s arrest, and communications between BTP officers and the man’s family. Cleveland Police dealt with the complaints around the man’s time in custody to the satisfaction of the man’s family.

Our investigators obtained statements from the officers involved in the man’s arrest and from the officer who used incapacitant spray. We reviewed officers’ body worn video footage, CCTV from the railway station platform, and obtained training records for the officers involved. We reviewed local and national policies, procedures and training material relevant to the arrest and related use of force.

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. All officers were treated as witnesses and cooperated fully with this investigation.

We found that it was reasonable for officers to have concluded that the young man was responsible for kicking their colleague and to arrest him, despite this later being established to be a genuine case of mistaken identity. We found that the use of incapacitant spray and the force used to arrest the man was reasonable in the circumstances.

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.