Investigation into police use of force and demeaning language after man experiences mental ill health – Metropolitan Police Service, June 2024

Metropolitan Police Service officers were called to a disturbance at a residential address after reports that a man was acting aggressively and displaying signs of mental health crisis. The man was taken to hospital by the ambulance service for a mental health assessment and was accompanied by the police.

The man was handcuffed while in hospital. Each hand was connected to a hospital bed on either side. One handcuff was removed to allow the man to urinate, but he resisted when officers tried to replace it.

An officer used force to restrain the man and reapply the handcuff. This included wrapping his arm around the man’s neck and applying pressure, before cross handcuffing the man with his arms underneath him face down on a bed. The officer made several comments directed at the man, including language which was threatening and foul.

One of the other police officers at the hospital reported concerns about the officer’s behaviour to their supervisor. After viewing the body worn video footage from the incident, these concerns were escalated.

We received a conduct referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the officer’s actions and decisions, including whether the force used by the officer was reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, and if the officer treated the man differently because of his disability.

Our investigators interviewed the officer. The officer did not make any comment but did provide a statement. We reviewed police officer body worn video footage, and CCTV from the hospital, reviewed the officer’s use of force form and took statements from other police officers at the hospital. We considered if the officer’s actions and decisions were in line with relevant legislation, policy and procedures.

We concluded that the officer may have committed a criminal offence and had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. We referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who decided to pursue criminal proceedings.

The CPS authorised charges against the officer for assault by beating. The officer pleaded guilty and was sentenced in February 2025 to 12 weeks in prison followed by a 12-month probation period on release. The officer appealed the length of the sentence, and this was reduced to eight weeks in prison.

We found that the officer also had a case to answer for gross misconduct for his excessive use of force, the language he used, the lack of consideration for the man’s mental health, and for not being honest in the statements he gave. 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 gross misconduct hearing.

On the basis of his plea, the gross misconduct hearing was accelerated for discreditable conduct, and the officer was dismissed from the force. He was placed on the police barred list for five years.

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.