PCSO’s conduct investigated after members of the public complain about assault they witnessed – South Yorkshire Police, February 2025

In February 2025, a man was knelt forward on his hands and knees on the pavement outside a shopping centre. A Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) from South Yorkshire Police (SYP) in full uniform approached the man from behind. They had decided to move the man on. 

The PCSO aimed a kick between the man’s legs towards his genital area. The man slumped to the ground after the kick. 

A member of the public witnessed the incident and confronted the PCSO. They later contacted SYP to complain. They reported that the PCSO used excessive and unreasonable force and that their interactions with them were unprofessional. 

A second member of the public also complained to us about what they considered to be an unprovoked act of violence. They reported that the PCSO also directly insulted them and dismissed their concerns before walking away and laughing about the incident.

In March 2025, we received a complaint referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the contact between the man, PCSO and members of the public. 

We investigated the nature and extent of the force used on the man by the PCSO, and whether it was necessary, appropriate, reasonable and proportionate. We also examined any conversations between the PCSO and the man, and the subsequent conversations between the PCSO and members of the public. We considered whether the PCSO acted in accordance with local and national policies, procedures, guidance and training. 

Our investigators obtained and analysed CCTV footage from the area and took accounts from witnesses. We interviewed the PCSO under criminal caution. The man did not engage with our investigation, so we were unable to obtain their account about what happened. 

We concluded there was an indication that the PCSO had committed a criminal offence and had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. 

We found that the PCSO’s training would have allowed for the use of force in self-defence or assisting other officers. The evidence we gathered showed that the man was not presenting any threat to the PCSO or anyone else in the area at the time. We found no lawful reason for the force used. We found that the PCSO abused their position and lacked integrity when they decided to use force without justification.

We also found no indication that the PCSO tried to speak to the man or employ any other tactic before the kick. Police staff are expected to act with self-control, treat members of the public with respect and courtesy and not to abuse their powers. The PCSO’s actions could reflect negatively on police colleagues, as well as impacting on the professional relationships they have with the communities they serve.

We referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) who decided to pursue criminal proceedings. 

The CPS authorised charges against the PCSO for assault. The PCSO pleaded guilty to one count of assault by beating in February 2026. They first pleaded not guilty at an earlier court hearing in October 2025.

The PCSO was given an eight-week curfew and ordered to remain in their home between the hours of 7pm and 7am. They were also ordered to pay court costs of £400 with a surcharge of £114.

We found that the PCSO also had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regard to assaulting the man and displaying unprofessional behaviour when interacting with members of the public. We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the PCSO and that they should take the form of a gross misconduct hearing. 

The misconduct hearing concluded in June 2026. The PCSO was found to have breached the police staff standards of professional behaviour for honesty and integrity, discreditable conduct, and authority, respect and courtesy. These amounted to a finding of gross misconduct. 

The PCSO had already resigned from SYP before the gross misconduct hearing but would have been dismissed without notice had they still been a serving staff member. They have been placed on the barred list preventing them from working in policing again. 

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.