Man becomes unwell in custody - Essex Police, June 2017

On 29 June 2017 Essex Police officers arrested a young man for an offence of violence to secure entry. The man was placed in handcuffs, but he resisted and the officers placed leg restraints on him. The man was then carried to a police vehicle and taken to Chelmsford police station. On arrival the man continued to resist aggressively. He was carried directly into a cell, where his level of observation was set to 4 – close proximity. The man was strip searched without an appropriate adult present, as his age and identity had not been established at the time. He was placed into anti-harm clothing. He became aggressive again and was restrained by five officers, handcuffed in a rear stack position.

The man continued to behave aggressively and to struggle with the officers despite attempts by the officers to calm him down. The officers were instructed by another officer to leave the man alone in his cell, handcuffed to the rear, face down on a mattress on the floor. The door was closed and officers observed the man through the spyhole for fifty-five seconds and then through the cell hatch. His breathing became deep and heavy. Shortly after, the man’s legs stopped moving and his breathing could no longer be heard. Officers entered the cell, removed the handcuffs and put the man in the recovery position. They called for an ambulance. Paramedics then attended to the man. They considered that he didn’t need to go to hospital.

During the investigation, our investigators interviewed the officer who was responsible for the man’s welfare when the incident happened, examined the custody CCTV footage and obtained statements from several police witnesses. The man did not engage with the investigation and did not provide a statement.

We were of the opinion that, although the officer in charge of the man did not follow the correct procedure by leaving him in the cell in a prone position while handcuffed to the rear and then viewing him through the spyhole then hatch, this did not suggest that the officer had any disregard for the man’s welfare. The officer actively monitored the man and took immediate action when the man appeared to have difficulty breathing. We therefore suggested that management action would be the most proportionate way of dealing with the officer’s misconduct.

After reviewing our report, Essex Police determined that the officer did not have a case to answer for misconduct. The force proposed to draw wider learning opportunities from this investigation by using it as a case study to support training provided to Essex Police custody staff. The force also proposed to invite us to attend a team debrief to draw some learnings from the incident so that practice could be improved.

We agreed that their proposals were appropriate.