Police use of force on a detainee – Cumbria Constabulary, February 2024

A man was arrested for allegedly spitting at door staff at a club. He was handcuffed and taken in the back of a police van to custody. 

The man behaved aggressively during the journey, banging his head against the cage in the van and threatening to spit at officers. The officers told the custody sergeant about the man’s behaviour on arrival. 

The custody sergeant opened the rear door of the van and spoke to the man through the closed cage door. The man began kicking the cage. The custody sergeant immediately opened the cage door and used PAVA on the man. PAVA is an incapacitant spray. 

The custody sergeant pulled the man out of the van. The man banged his head on the door, and it appeared he may have lost consciousness. He was placed in a cell and a custody nurse conducted a medical assessment. The nurse decided that an ambulance should be called. 

Paramedics treated the man, assessing him as fit to remain in police custody. The man later complained about how he was treated while in custody.

We received a conduct referral from the force and decided to investigate whether the use of force and PAVA spray was necessary, proportionate and justified, the care and treatment the man received, and if the custody sergeant provided a truthful and accurate account of their use of force. We also considered whether the man was treated differently because of his nationality. 

Our investigators reviewed CCTV and body worn video footage and obtained a complaint statement from the man. Witness statements were taken from the arresting officers and custody staff.  We also considered legislation, national guidance and force policies, as well as the actions of the officers involved. 

We found that the custody sergeant had a case to answer for misconduct with regards to the use of force. We shared our report with Cumbria Constabulary, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the custody sergeant and that they should take the form of a misconduct meeting. 

We found there was no case to answer as to whether the custody sergeant provided a truthful and accurate account of their use of force, or whether they treated the man differently because of his nationality.

The misconduct meeting concluded in December 2024. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for authority, respect and courtesy, and use of force. These amounted to a finding of misconduct and the officer was given a written warning. 

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.