Response to call reporting assault - West Yorkshire Police, October 2017

A man telephoned West Yorkshire Police (WYP) at 1.12am on 28 October 2017 to report two of his friends had attacked him. WYP requested an ambulance to attend and deployed two officers to the car park of a public house in Morley. They arrived within ten minutes of the call. When the officers arrived, they found the man, who was unable to move due to an ankle injury, which he reported had been sustained in the assault. He provided the name of the man who had assaulted him and details of where he lived, which was in a flat in the immediate vicinity of the car park. Police reported to the control room that the man had a “nasty cut to the head” and an ankle injury.

An officer in the control room called the Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS) to establish the estimated time of arrival of an ambulance. The officer in the control room did not inform YAS of the head injury the officers had reported. Officers at the car park decided not to move the man due to his ankle injury and instead to wait for the ambulance; they placed coats and jackets over the man to keep him warm. During this time, the officers made contact with CID, who advised them to ask other officers to assist them in arresting the suspect. The officers did this, but no units were free to assist.

The ambulance arrived at 2.40am and paramedics examined the man. They did not see any injury that caused them concern. However, the man’s health deteriorated while in their care, which led them to believe he may have a head injury. They transported the man to Leeds General Infirmary, where he died from a head injury six days later.

Police subsequently arrested the suspect, who was later found guilty of the manslaughter of the man he assaulted.

At the start of the investigation we found indications that three officers may have behaved in a manner which would justify bringing disciplinary proceedings. All three officers prepared detailed written responses to allegations, providing a rationale for their actions and decisions.

During the investigation, investigators interviewed the paramedics who attended the scene, examined CCTV footage from the public house and a private address opposite, gathered body-worn video, and examined Airwave transmissions by the officers and the control room.

At the end of the investigation, based on the evidence available and the officers’ statements, we were of the opinion that two officers had a case to answer for failing to take action to preserve evidence, and that they would both benefit from management action to remind them of the importance of evidence preservation at the early stages of an inquiry.

We were also of the view that a third officer had a case to answer for failing to pass vital information to YAS regarding the man’s head injury, therefore preventing YAS from correctly grading the call and reducing the response time. We suggested that management action would be appropriate for the officer in order to reinforce the importance of accurately recording and disseminating information regarding the health of a victim to other agencies.

After reviewing our report, the force agreed with our views and proposed actions. In addition, they proposed to disseminate force-wide the learning from this incident around the ambulance being kept up to date with the nature of injuries reported.