Woman becomes unwell in custody - Northumbria Police, February 2018
On 21 February 2018, Northumbria Police arrested a woman and took her to Forth Banks custody suite, Newcastle. On arrival, she claimed to have taken 30 Valium and 30 ‘pregabs’ (believed to be pregabalin) prior to her arrest. A nurse examined the woman and concluded she was fit to be detained on level three constant observations. Detention officers conducted cell checks at 5.11pm, 5.43pm and 6.21pm. On each occasion detention officers described the woman as “difficult to rouse”. At approximately 7pm, a custody officer and detention officer from the oncoming shift found the woman unconscious and unresponsive in her cell. The woman received medical assistance at the custody suite before being taken to the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle, where she was placed on a ventilator and transferred to ICU. She was brought out of an induced coma the next day and subsequently discharged from hospital.
During the investigation, our investigators reviewed CCTV footage from the custody suite as well as the woman’s custody record. They obtained witness accounts from police officers and police staff. The investigator found an indication a nurse, a custody officer and two detention officers may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, served them with notices of investigation and subsequently interviewed the custody officer and detention officers under the misconduct caution. All four co-operated with the investigation and provided detailed rationale for their decisions and actions.
Evidence indicated that, at the time the nurse assessed the woman in the holding cell, the woman was not displaying signs of an overdose. However, the nurse considered that the woman was at a heightened level of risk, requiring constant monitoring via CCTV and rousing every 30 minutes.
We were of the opinion that the custody officer may have a case to answer for misconduct for not taking action when the detention officers advised the woman was “difficult to rouse”. We were also of the opinion that neither detention officer had complied with professional guidance on the rousing of detainees on level three constant observations. We were also of the opinion that the first detention officer would benefit from management action to remind them of the importance of complying with this guidance and that the second detention officer had a case to answer. We completed our investigation in October 2018.
After reviewing our report, Northumbria Police agreed. At a misconduct meeting, a case to answer was found against one of the detention officers, who received a verbal warning and additional training. A case to answer for misconduct was not found against the custody officer; their performance was, however, found to have been unsatisfactory. The other detention officer received management action.