Officers’ actions and decisions examined after vulnerable patient searched and force used – Cumbria Constabulary, December 2023

Hospital staff on a mental health ward contacted the police for help with a patient they believed had taken an overdose of paracetamol. The patient needed to go to hospital but was refusing to go. The patient was being held on the ward under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

Three officers went to the ward. Hospital staff told them they believed the patient had concealed razor blades in their underwear. Officers were also told that the patient had hidden paracetamol in their trousers and, when asked to hand them over, had refused.

The officers tried to handcuff the patient, eventually using an incapacitant spray to gain compliance. The officers and nursing staff discussed what powers the police had to search the patient, with the nursing staff stating the police had the power to search the patient’s underwear.

The officers searched the patient, including their underwear, and found numerous blister packs of paracetamol, a lighter, cigarette papers and filters.

A member of staff who was the central point for police related matters and safeguarding submitted a complaint to the force on behalf of the patient. They complained about the legitimacy of the police search, the subsequent use of force, the amount of time it took officers to get the patient outside after the use of incapacitant spray, and how the officers spoke to the patient.

We received a complaint referral in March 2024 and decided to independently investigate the decisions and actions of the officers, the nature and extent of the force used and whether it was necessary, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, the officers’ use of language, and the nature and extent of police contact with the patient.

Our investigators reviewed body worn video footage from the incident, call logs, use of force forms completed by the officers, and the training records for each officer. We took statements from nursing staff and interviewed the patient. We also considered NHS policies and reviews, as well as considering whether the officers’ actions were in line with relevant legislation, policies and procedures.

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

We found that officers acted in good faith, on the understanding that there were grounds to search the patient for their own safety. Officers were misinformed by nursing staff about their authority to carry out a search yet believed they were acting in the patient’s best interests to prevent them from harming themselves further. The actions and decision making of the officers was directly impacted by this confusion, and by advice given to them by medical professionals.

We found the decision to use handcuffs to prevent the patient from accessing the items they had hidden was an appropriate way to reduce the risk they posed to themselves and was the lowest level of force they could have used to achieve this. We also found the use of incapacitant spray was justified and proportionate in the circumstances.

We did recommend 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 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.