Man becomes unresponsive while being restrained in custody and care of the man while in custody - Merseyside Police, July 2017

On 31 July 2017 Merseyside Police officers attended reports of a man who was drunk and smashing up a property in Liverpool. When they arrived, officers attempted to speak to the man, who spoke little English.

The man was reported to have lunged at the officers, which led to them restraining him. They also used incapacitant spray on him before handcuffing and arresting him and taking him to custody.

At custody, the man was given aftercare for the incapacitant spray, including water to wash his eyes. An officer attempted to wipe the man’s face and it was reported that he became aggressive again and was restrained on his side on the floor for 16 minutes, before becoming unresponsive. Police called for an ambulance and the man was taken to hospital, before later being returned to custody.

Our investigators reviewed CCTV footage taken from the custody suite, and analysed and compared it with statements taken from the officers involved in the man’s restraint. The man did not engage with our investigation.

Evidence indicated the man displayed aggression and violence towards officers during the course of his detention and arrest, and while waiting to be booked in at the custody suite. Evidence also showed that officers took care to ensure the man was placed in a position which enabled him to breathe while he was restrained on the floor. Once he appeared to become unresponsive, medical assistance was sought immediately.

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. We completed our investigation in September 2018.

During the course of the above investigation, we identified issues regarding the man’s care when he was returned to custody after being discharged from hospital on 1 August 2017. The issues specifically referred to the quality of the cell checks carried out while the man was on rousing checks, including 23 checks that were deemed to not be carried out correctly.

We examined those cell checks, whether they were carried out in accordance with relevant legislation and policies, whether they were recorded correctly, and the role that supervisors had in the man’s care.

Our investigators analysed custody CCTV, along with the custody record and other relevant documentation. They took accounts from the detention officers and custody sergeants involved in the man’s care. We also examined relevant legislation and policies, and considered them alongside the training police officers and staff had received in respect of their roles.

We found that, before the incident, police staff and officers had not been trained in line with The College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) on Detention and Custody, Detainee Care. The training provided instead had resulted in confusion among staff in terms of when rousing checks were/were not required. Merseyside Police indicated during the course of our investigation that they had now adopted the APP in full and that the majority of existing custody staff had received training at that point.

Based on the evidence available and the findings of our investigation, we were of the opinion that five detention officers and two police sergeants would benefit from management action to ensure that they fully understand their roles and responsibilities in safeguarding detainees under their care. No further action was to be taken against another custody detention officer and another police officer as both had left the force. We completed our investigation in June 2019.

After reviewing our report, Merseyside Police agreed that all seven would receive management action.