Police contact investigated after family complain about use of force and discrimination – West Yorkshire Police, October 2023

Two West Yorkshire Police officers arrived at a flat to arrest a woman in relation to a report of threats to kill. 

The woman’s partner invited the officers into the property. One of the officers spoke to the woman in a room where a sleeping baby was laid on the bed. The officer told the woman she was under arrest and she would need to accompany them to the police station to be interviewed. 

The woman refused to go with the officers and a struggle ensued while the woman was laid on the bed with her baby asleep at her side. During the struggle, the woman bit one of the officers and was subsequently arrested for assault on an emergency worker. The arresting officer threatened to spray the woman with an irritant spray if she did not follow their instructions. 

The woman’s partner tried to intervene during her arrest and a struggle ensued between the man and the second officer. The woman continued to struggle, at which point the arresting officer sprayed her in the face with irritant spray. 

During the incident, the woman accused the arresting officer of stabbing/stamping on her stomach and stamping on her baby. Her partner accused the second officer of punching him in the stomach. 

The arresting officer placed the woman in handcuffs and pulled her by the handcuffs to the hallway outside the flat, where she complained she was bleeding and dropped to the floor. The arresting officer dragged the woman by the central bar of the handcuffs along the corridor floor to the outside of the building. 

While the arresting officer was removing the woman from the flat, the second officer used force to prevent the man from following. The woman was subsequently taken to a custody suite. 

The arresting officer’s body worn video footage showed that while at the custody suite, although not in the woman’s presence, they referred to her using inappropriate language. The woman’s partner later reported taking their baby to hospital with breathing difficulties due to the spray. The baby was assessed and later discharged. 

The couple both subsequently complained to the force about the officers’ use of force, and the woman’s partner complained that he considered the incident to be racially motivated. The force referred both complaints to us, as well as a conduct referral about the language used by officers while the woman was in police custody.

We decided to independently investigate the arresting officer’s interaction with the woman and the man, including their decisions and actions during the arrest and their use of force, specifically the use of irritant spray. We also investigated the arresting officer’s decisions and actions when physically removing the woman from the flat and their use of inappropriate language.

We also examined the second officer’s decisions and actions when using force, whether the force used was in line with local and national policies, procedures and guidance, and whether there was any evidence to indicate both officers may have treated the woman and the man differently because of their race and the woman’s maternity status. 

We examined the officers’ body worn video footage, their training records, the medical notes of the man, woman and their baby, and CCTV from the custody suite. We obtained accounts from both police officers, as well as statements from the man and the woman. An expert witness trained in public order tactics reviewed the incident.

We considered the officers’ decisions and actions against their training, as well as local and national policies and procedures that outline how the police should detain people and how they should justify their use of force to do so. 

Our evidence showed that the arresting officer did not effectively communicate with the woman during her arrest, which directly affected the officer’s decision making and allowed the situation to escalate in the way it did. However, we found the woman’s arrest itself to be justified, necessary and proportionate. 

The arresting officer’s use of an irritant spray was borne out of the struggle to gain control of an escalating situation. As described, the officer’s lack of communication allowed the situation to gain pace but cannot detract from the need to make quick decisions about how to bring the struggle to a safe conclusion. We found no case to answer with regards to the use of the irritant spray. 

We found the application of handcuffs in line with the officer’s training. However, dragging the woman using her full weight along the floor by the handcuffs was not. This use of force was unreasonable due to the increased chance of injury to the woman – while the long-term effects of irritant spray are minimal, there is the potential for much higher levels of injury associated with being dragged in this manner. This method falls outside of trained tactics and expectations in such a scenario and was not in line with the officer’s safety training. 

We found the arresting officer’s use of language when describing the woman to be unacceptable. While the officer was understandably upset after being bitten, their use of language had the potential to undermine confidence in policing. 

We examined the officers’ body worn video footage, which did not show either of the officers assaulting the woman, her baby or her partner in the way described by the woman and the man (namely, stabbing or stamping on the woman and her baby, and punching the man in the stomach). 

We found no evidence that the arresting officer treated the woman or her family differently because of their race. No overt comments were made, and there was no indication that the officer’s decisions were influenced by race. We found that it would have been appropriate for the officer to have considered the woman’s maternity status as a new mother, although their lack of communication did not amount to misconduct. 

We concluded that the arresting officer may have committed a criminal offence and had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. 

We referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to consider charges of assault. They decided not to pursue criminal proceedings as there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. 

We found that the arresting officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct with regards to their conduct and use of force, and a case to answer for misconduct for breaching the police standards of professional behaviour for authority, respect and courtesy. We found no case to answer for allegations of discrimination. We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officer and that they should take the form of a misconduct hearing. 

The misconduct hearing concluded in July 2026. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour in relation to conduct, authority, respect and courtesy, and use of force. The equality and diversity standard was partially breached in relation to the woman’s maternity status, and not the report of race discrimination. These amounted to a finding of misconduct and the officer was given a written warning lasting 18 months. 

We found no indication that the second officer had committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. 

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 identified potential areas for improvement in relation to how officers should record their use of force. We also found that the requirement to provide a decontamination advice form where an irritant spray has been used should be more prominent in the current policy.