WIREDGOV

An Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation into the circumstances of an injury sustained by a man while being held in custody by Northumbria Police has found that officers used reasonable and proportionate force.

The 25-year-old man was arrested on 22 June 2013 and taken to South Shields police station for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm on a woman. Northumbria Police referred the matter to the IPCC after the man, who suffered an injury to his left eye, told health workers he had been assaulted.

The investigation examined the man’s detention to determine whether the level of force used by two detention officers was proportionate, if it was reported and recorded in an appropriate manner, and whether custody staff followed appropriate policies and procedures once they noted concerns about the man’s mental health.

CCTV footage from the police station was obtained by the IPCC and checked and transcribed. It showed the man lunge at one of the detention officers before he was restrained and placed in handcuffs.

He was later seen by health professionals, including a psychiatrist, and diagnosed as suffering from mental illness. He was detained under the Mental Health Act before being transferred to hospital. It was there that he reported being assaulted by staff at the police station.

In an interview with the IPCC the man said he could recall stepping towards one of the custody officers, being pinned down and punched possibly four or five times in the face.

Both detention officers were interviewed under criminal caution by the IPCC. Both admitted using force while trying to restrain an aggressive detainee who had lunged at one of them. One said he struck the man using what he described as “distraction blows” while his colleague was being bitten on the hand by the detainee. Both detention officers maintained that the force used to restrain the man was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

The IPCC found that the use of force by the two detention officers was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances to repel and restrain the man, and appropriate policies and procedures were followed by those with responsibility for the man’s detention once concerns for his mental health were noted. They were found not to have a case to answer for misconduct.

The incident was not, however, recorded and reported in an appropriate manner. The IPCC found that a Sergeant did not have a case to answer for misconduct but had failed in their duties and should receive management advice.

The investigation report has been published on the IPCC website.