Investigation into use of force after officers sent to reported burglary in progress – North Yorkshire Police, February 2024
In February 2024, a security company contacted North Yorkshire Police to report a burglary in progress at a factory. Two cars had entered the factory’s car park, and two men were reported to have gained entry to an onsite unit.
Two authorised firearms officers responded to the call and arrived at the factory in an unmarked armed response vehicle. One of the reported burglars tried to drive out of the car park, and one of the officers threw their police baton at the car.
The other officer drew their police gun and pointed it at the car, shouting for the man to stop. The car reversed and stopped, and the man got out of his car. The officer who had thrown their baton approached the man and took hold of him, striking him twice on his head with the baton. The man moved towards the back of the car and the same officer tasered him in the back. The man fell to the ground.
The officers detained, handcuffed and arrested the man. The man was given first aid and taken to hospital where he received treatment for a head injury.
We received a death or serious injury referral from North Yorkshire Police in February 2024. They also made a conduct referral relating to the two officers the next day.
The man complained about the amount of force the officer used against him, reporting he had held his hands up and surrendered. He complained about the way in which he was arrested, the injuries he sustained and the length of time he was tasered. North Yorkshire Police referred his complaints to us in May 2024.
We decided to independently investigate the conduct of the officer who used force, including their decisions and actions when apprehending the man, the nature and extent of the force used and whether it was necessary, reasonable and proportionate. We also examined the officers’ use of language, and the nature and extent of police contact with the man before he sustained his injuries.
Our investigators obtained statements from both officers and the man, and we reviewed the officers’ body worn video footage and CCTV from the area which recorded the incident. We also considered the man’s medical records. Everyone involved in the investigation co-operated fully.
We asked the Deputy Chief Taser Instructor at North Yorkshire Police to examine the officer’s taser download report and pulse log. The instructor produced a subject matter expert report about the use of the taser.
We concluded there was no indication that the officers had committed a criminal offence, but the officer who had used force had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.
We found that both officers perceived the man to be a threat and that he was prepared to use his vehicle as a weapon. They shouted orders to stop the vehicle, and it was only when one of the officers pointed their firearm that the man stopped his car. We found it was necessary to have used some force to arrest and detain the man.
The subject matter expert stated that the officer’s technique in using the baton and the way they were carrying it was in line with relevant policies. However, we found that the officer used more than the minimum force required by delivering two baton strikes to the man’s head – a level of force that was unreasonable and disproportionate at the time.
A taser should be used in response to an identified threat and should not be used simply to gain compliance. We found that the officer used taser to gain compliance and after using the taser, the officer told the man that, if he moved, he would be tasered again. This supported our finding that the officer used taser as a compliance tool (and a possible threat), rather than a proportionate response to a perceived danger. We found the level of force used to be unreasonable, although the duration of taser use was not.
We found that the officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to their use of force. We shared our report with North Yorkshire Police, who did not agree, and believed the officer had a case to answer for misconduct only.
We found no case to answer for how the officer interacted with the man after his arrest.
We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officer and that they should take the form of a misconduct hearing.
On 30 June 2026, new regulations came into force changing the use of force standard of police professional behaviour. These regulations are called The Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. We issued a policy statement about this.
We decided that disciplinary action against the officer was no longer justified and we withdrew our decision to hold a misconduct hearing.
At various points in the officers’ body worn video footage, the officers can be heard using profane and disrespectful language towards the man. We found the language used by the officers to be inappropriate and unprofessional, even in a stressful situation.
We recommended that the officers would benefit from the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process allows officers to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better. We recommended they reflect on how their use of language could be considered inappropriate, and the importance of remaining professional.
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.