Case 5 | Bulletin 23 –Response to those believed to be drunk
and incapable
Published 26 March 2015
For archived bulletins, learning reports and related background
documents please visit www.ipcc.gov.uk/learning-the-lessons
Email | learning@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
This document is classified as OFFICIAL in accordance with the IPCC’s protective marking scheme
Response to those believed to be drunk and incapable
Care of a man in custody suspected to be drunk and incapable, raising issues about:








accepting drunk and incapable people into custody
performing constant observations
making sure that detainees are seen promptly by healthcare professionals
rousing detainees
access to mouth masks and vent aids for use in CPR
awareness of contents of detainee prompt cards
restricting personal use of the internet during shifts
training for officers working in custody
Overview of incident
Around midday Police Constable A and Police Constable B, shortly followed by Police
Constable C and Police Constable D, went to an incident involving Mr M following a call from his
mother that reported that her son was drunk and violent and was attacking her husband.
When the officers arrived, Mr M’s mother told a female officer believed to be Police Constable A
that her son was acting strangely.
Police Constable A said that when she arrived Mr M was asleep in the front passenger seat and
when she touched his shoulder he woke up. She felt he had been drinking and said that Mr M
did not make any sense when he spoke.
Shortly after the initial officers arrived, the following officers arrived: Police Constable E, Police
Constable F, Police Sergeant G, and Police Constable H. They arrived as Mr M had been
violent to the police before.
During interview Police Constable C said that Mr M’s mother told him that Mr M was out of
control. She also reportedly told Police Constable B and Police Constable D that he had a
problem with drink and drugs and that she did not want him back in the house because he had
been violent in the past.
After speaking to Police Sergeant G, Police Constable C decided to arrest Mr M for being drunk
and incapable.
Police Constable H brought the van to approximately five metres away and, with assistance
from officers, Mr M got out of the car.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 1 of 13
Police Constable A said that she held Mr M’s hand as he moved from the car to the van while
Police Constable C held the other side of him to make sure that he did not fall over.
While the officers were outside their address, Mr M’s parents said they heard Police Sergeant G
ask whether Mr M should be taken to hospital, however another unidentified officer said no.
None of the officers, including Police Sergeant G, recall any conversation about Mr M being
taken to hospital.
Around 12pm Police Sergeant I, who was on-duty in the custody suite, took a telephone call and
was told to expect a drunk and disorderly person into custody. Police Sergeant I passed this
information to the other on-duty custody staff, Police Sergeant J and Detention Escort Officer K.
When the van arrived at custody Police Constable C opened the doors and found Mr M asleep.
Police Constable C pinched Mr M’s ear to wake him up and then helped him out of the van.
Around 12.20pm Mr M walked into the custody suite supported by Police Constable C and
Police Constable H, with Police Constable D following behind.
As they approached the custody desk the officers escorting Mr M were heard on the CCTV to
say that he would fall asleep again if they did not take him to a cell. Police Sergeant J agreed,
and he, Police Sergeant I and Detention Escort Officer K discussed which cell to put Mr M in.
They decided to place him in a cell with a mattress on a low bench that could be monitored by
CCTV from behind the custody desk.
Mr M was not spoken to by any of the custody staff when he was brought into custody or a risk
assessment.
As Mr M entered the cell his trousers fell down. They were pulled back up by the officers and he
was searched while being supported by the officers. The officers sat Mr M on the mattress and
as they left Mr M lay down on his right side.
A conversation about the previous levels of observation Mr M had been on when he had
previously been in custody happened, and Police Sergeant I said that Mr M had self harm
warning markers and that he was a high risk.
Police Sergeant I told Police Constable C that drunk and incapable people should not come into
custody, however Police Constable C challenged this by saying that he did not believe this
came into effect until a later date. Police Sergeant I responded saying: “…we’ve recently had
directions they shouldn’t come into a custody block but he’s here now so… (inaudible)”.
Police Constable A arrived in custody around this time and told Police Sergeant I that if Mr M
had been taken to hospital he would have “kicked off”. She also told Police Sergeant I that Mr M
had mental health and drinking issues and was on medication for psychotic issues.
Police Constable C provided details of the arrest to Police Sergeant I confirming that Mr M was
incapable of looking after himself, that he came out of his parents car amicably, although he had
to be helped into the van because of his incapability.
Police Sergeant I authorised Mr M’s detention and recorded on the custody record that he was
very heavily intoxicated and clearly incapable of understanding what was asked of him. He also
recorded that Mr M could not stand without assistance and was not alert or coherent. Because
of his level of intoxication he decided that Mr M was a high risk detainee, and a healthcare
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 2 of 13
professional was required. He also decided that Mr M should be constantly observed by CCTV
with 30 minute rousing visits.
Police Constable C and Police Sergeant I made a number of derogatory comments about Mr M
being drunk.
After Mr M was placed in his cell, Police Constable C remained in the custody area. However,
Mr M was left alone in his cell.
Police Constable C positioned himself in a place where he would be able to observe the CCTV
monitor. However, during this period he frequently left the custody desk area and did not
request any other officer to perform constant observations. Police Constable C, Police Sergeant
I and Detention Escort Officer K glanced at the CCTV monitor at times for a matter of seconds.
Around 12.40pm Detention Escort Officer K requested a health care professional to attend. He
told them that Mr M was very intoxicated, had previously self harmed, had mental health issues,
was high risk and was an acute alcoholic. It was recorded on the custody record they would
attend within 90 minutes.
A few minutes later Police Sergeant J questioned Police Sergeant I about whether he knew
what drugs Mr M had taken. Police Sergeant I commented that if he had drugs in his system it
could be an overdose and therefore they would need to keep a close eye on him.
Police Sergeant I then told Police Constable C they would keep visiting him every 15 minutes
until the nurse arrived. This was not recorded on the custody record.
Since Mr M had been placed in the cell he had moved very little and remained in the same
position.
Around 12.45pm Police Sergeant I and Police Constable C visited Mr M. They opened the cell
door and Mr M was seen to make a slight movement. The officers stood at the cell door for
seven seconds but did not go inside. On return to the custody desk Police Sergeant I stated that
Mr M was snoring like a pig and he recorded on the custody record ‘Visit, roused, PIC is still
drunk but otherwise in order… Police Constable C’.
Throughout the time that Police Constable C was meant to be constantly observing Mr M, he
engaged with other officers, made phone calls and viewed the internet.
Detention Escort Officer K made several other visits to Mr M alone and also with Police
Sergeant I. In one of these visits Detention Escort Officer K looked at Mr M through the spy
hole only.
In-between these visits Mr M tried to sit up on a number of occasions but was unable to and slid
onto the floor.
Around 1.30pm Inspector K telephoned Police Sergeant I to enquire about Mr M’s condition and
care plan and why a drunk and incapable person had been brought into custody.
Police Sergeant I reassured Inspector K that he had seen Mr M in that condition before and a
healthcare professional was due to attend.
Police Sergeant I told Inspector K that he knew Mr M should not be there but he had spoken to
the arresting officer and they were aware it was generally a hospital matter. When the call
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 3 of 13
ended Police Sergeant I repeated to Police Constable C that Inspector K had said that Mr M
should not be in custody.
Mr M moved slowly on the floor and tried to stand up. He put his hand out against the wall to
balance himself, went back to the floor and then got on his feet. He swayed about, slowly
moved to the cell door and pressed the cell call button.
Police Constable C went to Mr M and spoke to him through the cell door hatch. He returned to
the custody desk and explained that Mr M had asked to go to the toilet and Police Constable C
pointed it out to him in the cell. Mr M responded by saying that he could see more than one
toilet in front of him.
While monitoring the CCTV Police Constable C saw Mr M standing unsteady at the cell door.
Around 1.45pm Police Constable C left the custody desk to visit Mr M. As he did so Mr M
stumbled backwards and appeared to hit his head on the cell wall. This was not witnessed by
Police Constable C or any member of the custody staff.
When Police Constable C opened the cell door, Mr M was sat on the bench. The CCTV showed
Police Constable C stood outside the door and that he talked to him for almost three minutes.
During interview Police Constable C said that Mr M told him that he had hit his head and Police
Constable C asked him if he wanted a doctor. Police Constable C says Mr M just apologised for
his behaviour. Police Constable C returned to the custody desk and told the custody staff that
he had to point the toilet out to Mr M.
Detention Escort Officer K continued visits to Mr M by opening the cell hatch door for a few
seconds.
At 2.15pm Police Sergeant I asked when Mr M was last roused and Police Constable C told him
it was five minutes ago. Police Sergeant I then received a telephone call and was told the
healthcare professional would arrive in approximately 30 minutes.
Around 2.20pm Police Constable C visited Mr M. He opened the door for less than ten seconds
and did not enter. Mr M cannot be seen to move or respond to Police Constable C and he was
left in a state of undress lying on his stomach on the bench.
After leaving the cell Police Sergeant I asked Detention Escort Officer K to record on the
custody record that Mr M had been roused, his eyes were open and movement had been
observed, and this is what was recorded.
At 2.36pm Police Constable C visited Mr M. He opened the cell door for eight seconds but did
not enter. Mr M tried to sit up while Police Constable C was present but was unable to do so
and was not assisted by Police Constable C.
As Police Constable C shut the door Mr M lay down on his right hand side, still in a state of
undress with his trousers around his thighs.
At 2.41pm Police Sergeant L entered the custody desk area. He spoke with Detention Escort
Officer K and Police Sergeant I about a previous detainee and discussed upcoming training. He
also viewed Police Sergeant I’s computer.
From 2.44pm Mr M tried to sit up and managed to do so but then fell to the side. Police
Sergeant I and Police Constable C observed Mr M’s efforts to sit up and Police Constable C
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 4 of 13
commented on this. He also said that Mr M had made similar movements in his sleep when he
visited him earlier.
Around 2.50pm Police Sergeant L left the custody desk area and Nurse O arrived. The custody
record was updated with his arrival.
Detention Escort Officer K briefed the nurse about Mr M and another detainee who was on level
2 observations and had drug issues. Detention Escort Officer K said that Mr M had hardly
spoken since he had arrived in custody and Police Sergeant I said that he had called for a nurse
because of Mr M’s intoxication and he did not know if it was appropriate he should be in
custody.
Police Sergeant L returned to the custody desk area and spoke with Police Sergeant I for one
minute and then left. Nurse O remained at the custody desk area and completed paperwork
while discussing with Police Sergeant I unrelated matters.
Nurse O decided to see the other detainee first. In his statement he says that the custody staff
requested that he dealt with the other detainee before Mr M, however this was not evidenced by
the CCTV.
Around 3pm Police Sergeant N came on duty in the custody desk area.
Police Sergeant I explained to Police Sergeant N that the nurse was in custody with another
detainee and was going to decide if Mr M should stay in custody. He also told Police Sergeant
N that Mr M was an acute alcoholic. Police Sergeant N looked at the CCTV monitor and saw Mr
M laying on the floor.
Police Sergeant L returned to the custody desk area and asked Detention Escort Officer K if the
nurse was there. However, Detention Escort Officer K’s full response could not be heard on
CCTV. He said that the detainee would need to be seen in a cell because of the state he was in,
and this reference appears to be regarding Mr M. Police Sergeant L remained in the area.
Around the same time Detention Escort Officer K handed over to Detention Escort Officer P and
explained that Mr M was drunk and incapable when he came in but he had been roused every
half an hour, had been waking up and there were no issues with him.
Police Constable C made a comment about Mr M being unconscious in the van and having to
squeeze his ear.
Around 3.10pm Police Sergeant G arrived in custody and began talking to Police Constable C.
Soon after Nurse O returned to the custody desk and confirmed with Police Constable C that he
was there to assess Mr M’s fitness for detention.
Police Constable C continued to talk with Police Sergeant G.
Around 3.15pm Police Sergeant G left the custody area and during this time the CCTV appears
to show Mr M’s chest stop moving. Police Constable C is not viewing the monitor at this time.
Soon after, Police Sergeant L updated Mr M’s custody record confirming that he, Police
Sergeant N and Detention Escort Officer P, were on duty and they had accepted control of the
custody record and the grounds for detention still applied.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 5 of 13
Nurse O and Police Constable C left the custody desk area and visited Mr M who was laying on
his back on the cell floor.
In Nurse O’s statements he says they entered the cell and Mr M had obvious difficulty
breathing. He attempted to gain a response from him and placed him in the recovery position to
maintain a clear airway. He says Mr M coughed and was observed to be breathing, he
confirmed that a pulse was present but he was not able to gain any physical response and so
advised Police Constable C that an ambulance was required.
Police Constable C left the cell and returned to the custody desk area where he told Police
Sergeant N to telephone an ambulance and told her that Mr M was not fit to remain in custody.
Police Constable C then returned to the cell.
Police Sergeant N continued to discuss an unrelated matter with Police Sergeant L, then walked
to the cell and asked if the ambulance was wanted on blue lights to which she was told it was.
Ninety seconds after the initial request, Police Sergeant N telephoned the ambulance and while
she was on the telephone Police Constable C shouted that Mr M had “crashed”.
The nurse started CPR, however there was a delay in giving the breaths because of difficulties
finding a mouth mask.
Ambulance staff arrived around 3.20pm and gave first aid in the cell before taking Mr M to
hospital. Mr M was pronounced dead some time later.
Type of investigation
IPCC independent investigation
Findings and recommendations
Quick time learning
Finding 1 – Resuscaide/vent aid
1.
In the very early stages of the investigation it was found that resuscaide/vent aids were
not available in the first aid kit kept in the custody suite. This was flagged up by the IPCC
almost immediately following the incident and the force now make sure all officers carry a
vent aid and spare.
Local recommendations
Finding 2 – Detainee prompt cards
2.
There was a lack of awareness by operational officers about the contents of the detainee
prompt card despite bulletins on the force intranet and instructions being given to
sergeants for the cards to be handed out before the incident. It was also commented by
officers during the investigation that lots of prompt cards were given to officers which
diluted the effect and significance of the cards produced.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 6 of 13
Local recommendation 1
3.
Since the incident the detainee prompt cards have been brought to the attention of
operational officers but it is advised that a record of receipt of prompt cards is maintained
and that all new officers are given any current prompt cards produced.
4.
The number of prompt cards given to operational officers should not become so large
that the significance of the cards and their contents is reduced.
Finding 3 – Definitions of drunk and incapable
5.
During this investigation there was no ACPO definition of drunk and incapable. The
forces’ safer detention policy states that detainees should be able to walk to a cell and
say a few words. At the beginning of 2011 the NPIA was developing a protocol for the
management of detainees that are intoxicated in a public place. It suggests that
‘intoxicated and incapable’ is someone intoxicated to the point of being unable to walk or
stand, or being unaware of their own actions, or being unable to understand what is said
to them. In view of the above, the wording in the detainee prompt card which defined
someone drunk and incapable as unable to ‘walk and talk‘ should read ‘walk or talk’.
6.
Since this investigation was carried out the authorised professional practice on detention
and custody states the following:
“For the purposes of this guidance, a drunk and incapable person is someone who has
consumed alcohol to the point that:



they cannot walk or stand unaided, or
they are unaware of their own actions, or
they are unable to fully understand what is said to them.
It is suggested that if someone appears to be drunk and showing any aspect of
incapability which is perceived to result from that drunkenness, then that person should
be treated as drunk and incapable.
Drunk and incapable individuals are in need of medical assistance in hospital and an
ambulance should be called.”
Local recommendation 2
7.
That the wording in the detainee prompt card is changed to read ‘walk or talk’ as
opposed to ‘walk and talk’, and the significance of this is effectively communicated.
Finding 4 – Constant observations
8.
Performance of constant observations of a detainee via CCTV was conducted while an
officer was behind the custody charge desk. This inevitably resulted in numerous
distractions involving the normal workload involved in the context of the custody charge
desk environment. There was no procedure for an officer to be relieved from conducting
those observations to allow for breaks etc. This did not appear to be covered in any force
policy or directions provided to officers.
Local recommendation 3
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 7 of 13
9.
Constant observations of a detainee via CCTV should be conducted in as sterile an
atmosphere as possible and clear arrangements should be put in place to make sure
that there is sufficient cover for staff performing those functions to take breaks. If a
separate room is available to perform constant observations it should be documented
and included in a policy that is communicated to staff likely to perform this function.
10.
Consideration should be given to making sure that one of the male cells at the custody
suite with a low bench is able to be monitored from the room to the rear of the custody
charge desk.
Finding 5 – Internet access
11.
While performance of constant observations of a detainee via CCTV was conducted,
access to the internet was available to that officer and others working in the custody
environment.
Local recommendation 4
12.
Personal use of the internet should be restricted to defined break periods and on
terminals not within the custody charge desk environment to avoid distractions both
direct and indirect.
Finding 6 – Resuscaide/vent aid
13.
That no resuscaide/vent aid for CPR was available in the first aid kit kept in the custody
suite which delayed the treatment to Mr M.
Local recommendation 5
14.
That resuscaide/vent aids are kept in all custody suite first aid boxes to make sure CPR
can be provided when needed.
Finding 7 – Training
15.
That rousing checks were made by a police officer that had received no custody training
or suitable briefing.
Local recommendation 6
16.
There should be a presumption that rousing checks are made by suitably trained officers
such as custody sergeants or detention escort officers unless it is unavoidable, in which
case full detailed briefings should be given to officers tasked with conducting rousing.
17.
Since the incident the force has required that only custody trained staff undertake
observations.
Preventing future deaths
Matters of concern 1
1.
The lack of professionalism and leadership in the custody suite was striking. There was
no leadership by the custody sergeant and no control of the behaviour of any of the staff.
Evidence heard at the inquest indicated this sort of banter and practice was common and
continuing. Many detainees in the custody block are vulnerable, often have mental health
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 8 of 13
difficulties and other social problems, and may be in varying degrees of intoxication. The
custody staff are responsible for those detainees and should carry this responsibility out
in a professional and disciplined manner.
Matters of concern 2
2.
There was insufficient evidence at the inquest that any guidance or training had been
given for custody staff regarding what was acceptable behaviour in a custody suite
following the events in question.
Matters of concern 3
3.
There was evidence at the inquest that the CCTV footage of Mr M’s time in custody was
representative of the general approach and culture within custody suites in the force. The
force should consider how this culture might be addressed and changed.
Force response
Quick time learning
Finding 1
1.
Force policy on safer detention and handling of persons in custody was changed to order
that all custody staff must carry a resuscaide/vent aid while carrying out custody duties,
so that they are available for emergency use. The previous policy was that this was
optional.
Local recommendations
Local recommendation 1
2.
Custody awareness training included a force re-launch of the detainee prompt card to
make sure that each operational officer was issued with a card and trained in its
use/application. The force does not feel that it is practical to keep a record of all such
documents that are given to staff as part of their training. A central training record is kept
for each member of staff to make sure that they maintain all relevant qualifications for
their role.
Local recommendation 2
3.
The force has changed the wording on the detainee prompt cards to say walk or talk. The
change in wording was highlighted to staff via the force intranet system, and steps are
being taken to make sure all previous versions of the cards are withdrawn.
Local recommendation 3
4.
The force has introduced briefing sheets for all staff allocated to level three or four
observation duties (making sure that the officer fully understands the requirements of the
role), which supports the verbal briefing by the custody officer.
Local recommendation 4
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 9 of 13
5.
There is an operational need for internet access from custody charge desks in order to
provide the best possible care and service to detainees, so access to the internet has not
been restricted. The internet use policy is being reviewed to make sure it is fit for
purpose.
Local recommendation 5
6.
As stated in the quick time learning, force policy on safer detention and handling of
persons in custody was changed to order that all custody staff must carry a
resuscaide/vent aid while carrying out custody duties, so that they are available for
emergency use. The previous policy was that this was optional.
7.
In partnership with the ambulance service the force equipped every custody suite in the
force with an AED/ defibrillator device, and included necessary training to operate this
equipment within first aid training/refresher training given to all custody staff in the force.
Local recommendation 6
8.
The department in the force with responsibility for custody and the learning and
development department within the force introduced a half day custody awareness
training course. All operational constables/sergeants were expected to attend, and it was
optional for inspectors. This training included dealing with drunk and incapable
detainees, and identifying when a detainee should be transported directly to hospital on
arrest, together with the safer detention and handling of persons in custody (SDHP)
observation model and related force policy.
9.
Force refresher training days delivered to all custody staff have included learning lessons
inputs, which included material relevant to dealing with drunk and incapable detainees.
Examples included a reminder to treat such cases as a medical emergency, and the
importance of full compliance with Annex H of PACE code C.
10.
Following the death of Mr M, the department with responsibility of custody introduced an
electronic “learning the lessons” page/site onto its force intranet page. This site has since
been used to allow staff throughout the force to gain easy and convenient access to
relevant custody learning the lessons bulletins (including the learning the lessons
bulletins).
11.
Following the introduction of the nationally agreed joint agency protocol for the
management of detainees who are intoxicated and incapable in a public place, force
custody staff have been trained in relation to the content of the document.
12.
The department responsible for custody conduct performance monitoring includes a
regular search aimed at identifying any arrests for drunk and incapable. Where identified,
there is a review of the incident/custody record and CCTV (where relevant) to establish
compliance with force policy. Where relevant the incident is brought to the attention of
the learning the development department to allow the development needs of operational
staff to be addressed (as applicable).
13.
Following the reporting/identification of any near miss incident related to alcohol, a
learning the lessons review of the incident is completed and the review is then forwarded
to force professional standards department managers for their information, and any
action(s) deemed appropriate.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 10 of 13
Preventing future deaths - matters of concern 1
14.
The force has invested in making sure that there is a culture of professionalism, not only
in all of the custody facilities, but more widely across the workforce. The force launched
an internal campaign to promote a culture of high professional standards and personal
responsibility across the organisation. The local implementation of the code of ethics will
underpin the forces continued focus on professionalism amongst its staff. The principles
within the code are being incorporated into all the force training courses, including those
relating to custody. All first and second line supervisors, sergeants and inspectors, are
attending one day training courses, covering the code and its requirements. This
commitment of resources hopefully proves the force’s determination to promote a
positive culture of professionalism within the organisation.
Preventing future deaths - matters of concern 2
15.
All custody officers and staff have undertaken a specific lesson on the role of the custody
officer as part of their training for the role. This incorporates key aspects from the force
values, including acting with ‘integrity, compassion, courtesy and patience’, and explores
what is meant by ‘duty of care’ in the custody environment; emphasising the importance
of being attentive towards the needs of detainees and having due regard for their human
rights. It also covers the practical application of these principles to the custody role, such
as making sure that initial and ongoing risk assessments are made, cells are inspected
for damage and cleanliness, and that adequate meals, clean clothing and bedding is
available. In addition to this training, all custody staff receive one days continuous
professional development every 20 weeks. These one day courses refresh staff
knowledge on custody procedure and policy, make staff aware of new guidance and
legislation, provide an opportunity for operational learning to be shared, and help to
reinforce the professional standards expected of all custody staff.
Preventing future deaths - matters of concern 3
16.
The force believes that the conduct found in this case was not representative in any way
of the general conduct or culture within the current custody staff. This is because the
governance structure now in place, training and guidance provided to staff, the systems
and processes that have been implemented, and the culture of the force as a whole.
17.
The force has sought to primarily use custody trained staff to conduct observations on
detainees. The percentage of custody staff making constant observations compared to
non-custody staff is monitored on a monthly basis to make sure performance in this area
is maintained. On the rare occasions that non-custody staff make the observations,
custody sergeants are required to fully brief the officer involved, using a briefing sheet
and an entry recording that the briefing has taken place is made on the custody record.
These briefings are designed to remind staff of the importance of their role and the need
to conduct themselves in a focused and professional manner.
18.
Clear guidance has also been given to officers on the proper process to deal with
persons arrested for being drunk and incapable or who are arrested for other offences
but are so intoxicated as to be unable to walk or talk. This guidance clearly states that
the individual should be treated as a medical emergency and transported directly to
hospital and not to a custody facility. This learning has been embedded with frontline
officers, control room staff and in custody, to provide a number of checks through the
system to help ensure compliance. The force is able to analyse statistics concerning the
number of people arrested for being drunk and incapable and held in custody facilities.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 11 of 13
Outcomes for officers and staff
Police Constable C
1.
Police Constable C was the arresting officer and allocated to carry out constant
observations of Mr M while he was in custody. Mr M should not have been taken to a
police station. Police Constable C did not correctly carry out observations upon Mr M and
he made inappropriate comments. This went to a misconduct hearing and Police
Constable C was found guilty of misconduct and received management advice.
Police Sergeant I
2.
Police Sergeant I was the custody sergeant who accepted Mr M into custody and had the
greatest involvement in the care of Mr M, albeit his responsibility was shared with Police
Sergeant J. He was aware that Mr M had been arrested from being drunk and incapable
and understood that persons arrested for this offence should not be in custody. It is clear
that he failed to make sure that Police Constable C was making proper observations, and
stated in interview that it was Police Constable C’s responsibility to make sure that they
were done. He should have made arrangements for Mr M to be transferred to hospital in
any case. Police Sergeant I failed to make sure that Mr M was correctly roused and
provided advice to Detention Escort Officer K on what to put on the EDL without making
sure this information was correct. Police Sergeant I failed to challenge inappropriate
comments and made inappropriate comments himself.
3.
Police Sergeant I’s poor decision making and subsequent lack of care was considered at
a misconduct hearing. Police Sergeant I was found guilty of gross misconduct and was
given a final written warning.
Police Sergeant J
4.
Police Sergeant J had the least involvement in the care of Mr M while he was in custody,
although his responsibility remains the same as Police Sergeant I. He should have
involved himself more in the decision making and subsequent monitoring and care of Mr
M. He had more responsibility than Detention Escort Officer K for example. He was
aware that Mr M was deemed drunk and incapable, yet failed to challenge his colleague’s
decision. He was aware of a conversation relating to Mr M stumbling and hitting his head,
yet he failed to take action. He also failed to make sure that Police Constable C was
continually monitoring Mr M. This raised concerns about his performance and were
addressed with him.
Inspector K
5.
Inspector K was clearly monitoring the persons in custody and challenged the fact that Mr
M was detained for being drunk and incapable, as he was aware that they should be
dealt with as a medical emergency. He accepted the fact that Police Sergeant I had
made a risk assessment and was aware that medical care had been arranged for Mr M.
He stated that he was unaware of the fact drunk and incapable people should be taken
straight to hospital as he considered the fact that sometimes hospitals refused to treat
such conditions. Inspector K received management action to make sure he was informed
of the policy.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 12 of 13
Detention Escort Officer K
6.
Detention Escort Officer K was aware that persons who could not walk or talk should not
be in custody. He was clearly aware of Mr M’s condition, however it would be hard for
him to challenge the decision making of a sergeant. He did record an inaccurate account
of a visit to Mr M on the custody record. He also incorrectly briefed the incoming
Detention Escort Officer on Mr M condition. This was being considered at a police staff
conduct meeting and Detention Escort Officer K received a written warning and
management advice.
Police Sergeant L and Police Sergeant N
7.
Both Police Sergeant L and Police Sergeant N accepted responsibility for the detention
and care of Mr M, albeit for a short period of time. They did not challenge the decision
and neither took steps to make sure that he received prompt care. However, they were
responsible for him for less than half an hour. Police Sergeant N’s and Police Sergeant L
received management action.
If you need more information about this case, please email learning@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 13 of 13