On 24 November 2017, Thames Valley Police was called to a disturbance in Oxford where a man had allegedly assaulted two people and was in possession of a knife.
Officers spent several hours searching for him. At one point they stopped and searched the man they were looking for, however, they did not believe it was the right person at that time and let him go.
Officers later located the man again and arrested him for assault and possession of a bladed article. The man resisted arrest and officers used force to restrain him. Officers placed him in the back of a police van and took him to a police station.
En route to the station, the man became unresponsive. The officers pulled over, took the man out of the van, called an ambulance and began first aid. The ambulance arrived and took the man to hospital, where he subsequently died.
Our investigators attended post-incident procedures and seized or secured evidence from the officers involved in the incident.
During the investigation, our investigators interviewed the officers involved in the search, arrest, restraint, transport and first aid given to the man. They obtained and analysed various evidence, including video footage, witness statements, medical records, radio transmissions, expert reports and relevant policies/legislation.
Investigators found indications that five officers might have behaved in a manner which could have breached the police Standards of Professional Behaviour and may have a case to answer for misconduct. Four were interviewed regarding the allegation that they may have failed in their duty to safeguard the man’s welfare. A fifth officer provided a written response to the allegation that they failed to be diligent in their duty to appropriately supervise the officers concerned and protect the integrity of the evidence-gathering processes after the incident.
Evidence indicated that two of the officers suspected that the man may have put something in his mouth and asked him whether that was the case, and to open his mouth. We were of the opinion that, at that point, the officers should have either conducted a search of the man’s mouth or, if he was unco-operative/resistant to that, then conveyed him to hospital as soon as possible – rather than take him to a police station in a police van.
Based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that both officers may have a case to answer for misconduct. We recommended that one of them receive management action and that the other one, who had assumed a ‘lead role’ during the incident, should attend a misconduct meeting.
We were also of the opinion that the fifth officer’s decisions to allow the officers to travel together, without explicitly explaining the non -conferring rules, and to allow one of the officers to switch off their body-worn video before the post-incident procedure were inappropriate and did not follow guidance. We were of the view that the officer may be considered to have a case for misconduct, and that this could best be addressed through management action.
Based on the evidence available we found no indication that that the other two police officer may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
The medical expert who analysed the first aid provided to the man by officers identified a number of areas for improvement for Thames Valley Police, such as the early use of defibrillators, airway management and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We included these in our report to the force.
We identified some areas of learning for the force and made some recommendations (see below).
We completed our investigation in December 2018.
After reviewing our report, and a further exchange of correspondence, Thames Valley Police agreed that two officers would receive management action, and another one would attend a misconduct meeting.
At the meeting, held in June 2019, an independent panel found misconduct to be not proven. The panel chair believed that the officer had an ‘honestly held’ belief that the man didn’t have anything in his mouth, and that officer had carried out an ongoing risk assessment. No further action was taken against the officer.
At the inquest into the man’s death, held in summer 2019, the jury delivered a narrative conclusion stating that the man had died as a result of cardiorespiratory arrest caused by intoxication from alcohol, cocaine and morphine.
An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Deals with someone’s inability or failure to perform to a satisfactory level, but without breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Focuses on putting an issue right and preventing it from happening again by encouraging those involved to reflect on their actions and learn. It is not a disciplinary process or a disciplinary outcome.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
Refers to lower-level misconduct or performance-related issues, which are dealt with in a proportionate and constructive manner.
This means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IOPC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IOPC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IOPC.
The organisation that is responsible for assessing how to deal with a complaint. For example – whether it can be handled locally or reaches the criteria for referral to the IOPC. The appropriate authority may be the chief officer of the police force or the PCC for the force. If a complaint investigation finds that someone has a case to answer for misconduct, the appropriate authority is responsible for arranging any misconduct proceedings. If you make a complaint, the appropriate authority for your case will contact you.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.
Policing bodies include police and crime commissioners, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
IOPC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
A complaint or recordable conduct matter that doesn’t need to be referred to the IOPC, but where the seriousness or circumstances justifies referral.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
A person is adversely affected if he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
This is where a manager deals with the way someone has behaved. It can include: showing the police officer or member of staff how their behaviour fell short of expectations set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour; identifying expectations for future conduct; or addressing any underlying causes of misconduct.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A breach of standards of professional behaviour by police officers or staff so serious it could justify their dismissal.
A matter where no complaint has been received, but where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Quarter 1 covers 1 April - 30 June
Quarter 2 covers 1 April - 30 September
Quarter 3 covers 1 April - 31 December
Quarter 4 covers the full financial year (1 April - 31 March).
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IOPC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into matters and produces a report that sets out and analyses the evidence. There are three types of investigations: local, directed and independent.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
List of officers and staff who have been dismissed from policing, or would have been if they had not retired or resigned.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would justify at least a written warning.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
This is a format where information is written in plain English and short sentences.
The IOPC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
