Woman complains about excessive use of force – West Midlands Police, November 2022

In November 2022, the police received a call from the housing manager of a multi-occupancy home used to provide accommodation for vulnerable women. He said one of the residents had barricaded him within the property and she was staying at the house illegally.

Two West Midlands police officers went to the house. They spoke to the woman, but she refused to leave. The officers handcuffed her and then used the handcuffs to drag the woman through the property and out onto the drive. The officers then took the handcuffs off and left.

The woman complained to the force about the level of force used, and that they treated her unfairly.

We received a complaint referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the woman’s complaints, including the actions and decisions taken by officers, whether officers acted in accordance with local and national policies, guidance and training, and if officers discriminated against the woman because of her religion.

Our investigators interviewed the officers, examined the officers’ body worn video and obtained statements from several witnesses, including the woman.

We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence, but the officers had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

We found that the decision to use force was reasonable in the circumstances, but not the method. Officers used an untrained handcuff technique to drag the woman out of the property in a disproportionate manner. The officers had decided to use this technique from the very start and had no intention of doing anything else.

Our evidence also showed that the officers treated the woman poorly, but it was not discriminatory. They did not communicate effectively with her, lacking courtesy and respect.

We found that the officers had a case to answer for misconduct with regards to the way in which they removed the woman from the property and for poor communication. We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officers.

We found no evidence of misconduct with regards to the decision to use force, including handcuffs and limb restraints. We also found no evidence of discrimination.

One officer had a live final written warning when the incident happened. This officer attended a misconduct hearing in May 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for discreditable conduct, duties and responsibilities, and use of force. These amounted to a finding of misconduct and the officer was dismissed without notice.

The other officer attended a misconduct meeting in June 2025. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for discreditable conduct, duties and responsibilities, and use of force. These amounted to a finding of misconduct and the officer was given a written warning lasting 18 months.

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.