Investigation into man’s death, use of force and methods of entry – Thames Valley Police, March 2024

A resident at a house of multiple occupancy called the police in the early hours of the morning to report his neighbour was creating a disturbance. He said the man was shouting, screaming and was extremely strong. The police computer system showed warning markers for violence and drug use, as well as previous police contact where the man had experienced acute behavioural disturbance.

Officers from Thames Valley Police went to the man’s home. They were concerned about the man’s mental health as he was in a distressed state and could be heard thrashing around, screaming and shouting. Officers requested support from the ambulance service.

A decision was made to try to force entry into the man’s bedroom and checks were completed to find out if any officers had method of entry equipment. No equipment was available, so officers decided to wait for a vehicle carrying this equipment to arrive. The man had become quiet, making groaning noises.

Officers forced entry into the man’s bedroom and found him unconscious on the floor. Ambulance staff began to give the man medical assistance.

The man regained consciousness and immediately became erratic, kicking his legs. The man experienced repeated episodes of relative calm followed by outbursts of resistance. Officers used varying levels of force at different times to restrain the man. They restrained him on the floor, using leg restraints and handcuffs to try to control the situation and prevent harm.

The man was taken to hospital where he subsequently died.

We received a death or serious injury referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the nature and extent of police contact before the man’s death and whether the police may have caused or contributed to it.

We examined information provided or known to officers about the man before and during contact with him, the delay in officers entering the man’s bedroom, use of force and whether it was necessary, proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances, and whether officers considered the man’s mental health.

Our investigators took statements from officers, paramedics and the neighbour who called the police and ambulance. Police officers’ body worn video footage was analysed and compared with radio and telephone transmissions and experts’ reports.

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

Officers acted appropriately in the circumstances and their actions and decisions were reasonable. We recommended that officers have a good understanding of police policy on forcing entry to premises. In this case, officers would have been justified in trying to force entry without method of entry equipment given that officers suspected the man was experiencing acute behavioural disturbance and had become quiet in his bedroom.

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 made two recommendations which can be viewed here: Recommendations - Thames Valley Police, May 2025 | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)