Deaths in police custody figures 'understated'

February 3, 2012

By Angus Stickler, BBC News

Official figures understate the number of people who die in custody after being restrained by police, a BBC investigation has found.

It discovered that anyone who dies following restraint without being formally arrested is excluded from death in custody figures.

Campaigners want an inquiry into how the the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) collates its figures.

The IPCC says its tight definitions allow it to track trends.

The findings were revealed in a joint investigation by BBC Radio 4's File on 4 and The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which used Freedom of Information requests to ask the IPCC to reveal the names of individual cases detailed in its statistics.

The names relate to 86 people who died in police custody between 1998-9 and 2008-9 following the use of restraint.

Of these, 16 deaths were categorised by the IPCC as being directly "restraint-related".

'Skewing the results'


Families of those who have died have expressed disbelief that their loved ones have been excluded from death in custody figures.

What we will have to do is have a proper thorough inquiry into this matter”

Keith Vaz MP Home Affairs Select Committee

Rebekah Skews, whose former partner Simon Bosworth died after being restrained by police, said the figures "mean nothing".

"The figures that they are making available to the public aren't true figures, because to actually omit a case like Simon's, which so clearly involved restraint - they are skewing the results," she said.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, said the findings were concerning.
"This is a highly sensitive area which deals with one of those parts of public policy that needs to be looked at very carefully," Mr Vaz told the BBC.

"What we will have to do is have a proper, thorough inquiry into this matter."

Mr Vaz said the IPCC had a crucial public role.

"It is the organisation that the police and the public turn to in order

to get a definitive account of what happened in respect of some of the most serious cases that there are."
Mr Bosworth, a property valuer from Peterborough, died after being restrained by the police in July 2008.
An inquest jury returned a narrative verdict.

Mr Bosworth suffered a fatal heart attack brought on by a combination of being restrained and his cocaine use and epilepsy.

Despite the fact the IPCC conducted its own investigation into Mr Bosworth's death, which cited restraint and struggling as part of the cause of death, his name is not included in its custody death figures.

Strict definition


Tom Bucke, head of analytical services at the IPCC, conceded that it was an important case.

But he defended the commission's position not to include the case in the figures because Mr Bosworth had not been formally arrested or detained.

Listen to the full report on File on 4 on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday, 31 January at 20:00 GMT and Sunday 4 February at 17:00 GMT

• Listen via the Radio 4 website
• Download the File on 4 podcast
• Got a story? Contact the File on 4 team

Under the IPCC's strict definition, he was not officially in custody.

According to the IPCC, between 1998 and 2009 there were only 16 restraint-related deaths in custody.

The watchdog disclosed it has another list of deaths following police contact - those who had not been arrested or detained.

However the IPCC does not know how many of those were restraint-related deaths and is considering a new study of these cases.

The investigation carried out by Radio 4's File on 4 and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism into the official figures involved months spent cross-referencing the names on the IPCC list and other cases in the public domain.

The IPCC's definitive list of 16 deaths in police custody excludes one of this country's most high profile cases.
Roger Sylvester died in 1999 after being restrained by eight police officers in hospital.

He had been found naked and behaving strangely outside his home in Tottenham, north London.
An inquest ruled in 2003 that he was unlawfully killed, but this was quashed a year later by a High Court judge. No officers were charged.

But following the case, the Metropolitan Police reviewed and reorganised its restraint training.

'Led by evidence'

Deborah Coles, chief executive of Inquest, a charity which advises on contentious deaths and their investigation, said it was "absolutely astonishing" that Mr Sylvester's death was not on the list of 16.

Continue reading the main story

I know these cases, we've worked on these cases, and restraint was absolutely fundamental during the course of that inquest” - Deborah Coles Inquest

"I can't believe they haven't even got Roger Sylvester,"' she said.

"These are cases that Inquest have worked on and yet within this list, they don't seem to recognise these are restraint-related deaths.

"I find that absolutely astonishing because I know these cases, we've worked on these cases, and restraint was absolutely fundamental.

"I would question the IPCC as to how these figures were collated, and what care has gone into ensuring that they're properly representative of... the investigations, some of which they have been directly involved in."

The IPCC said Roger Sylvester's name had been excluded from the list again due to its tight definition of restraint-related death.

Tom Bucke of the IPCC said was restraint was a "key factor" in the case.

"However, we are led by the evidence and the medical evidence was disputed by a pathologist at the inquest and the final inquest verdict was an open verdict on Roger Sylvester's death, so under cause of death we reflect the open verdict and the dispute between the pathologist about that," he said.

"The reason we have such a tight definition for our different categories is to allow us to look at trends over time.

"If we had very loose categories and included lots of things in there which may or not fit in there or may fit in other categories, then we would lose the ability to say whether deaths were going up or down.

"It's obviously very important for everybody concerned to know whether deaths in custody are going up or not."

ENGLAND: IPCC finds police officers were right to use Taser on man having epilpetic fit

May 4, 2011
Manchester Evening News

A police watchdog has found that officers who used a Taser gun TWICE on a man who was having an epilpetic fit were right to do so.

But officials at the Independent Police Complaints Commission have now asked for a review of GMP's policy for dealing with people experiencing medical episodes after Howard Swarray was zapped at a Whalley Range gym.

Mr Swarray, 41, was working out at the Powerleague gym on Wilbraham Road when he suffered a seizure and collapsed.

Witnesses said that as he came round he began to struggle with staff and paramedics and police were called.

One officer was recorded en route as saying: "If he is getting aggressive I am sure 50,000 volts will stand him up."

When police arrived they unsuccessfully tried to handcuff Mr Swarray, who remembers nothing of the incident.

One officer then hit him on the arms and legs before his Taser-trained colleague, who had made the earlier comment, authorised himself to use the weapon, which is allowed under GMP policy.

He discharged it once and when it appeared to have no effect fired it again, this time in 'drive stun' mode.

Mr Swarray was then handcuffed but officers said he continued to act aggressively so they used 'various methods' to restrain him further, including bending his
toes back. Another officer stood on his legs.

Mr Swarray was then sedated with the horse tranquilliser ketamine and spent more than two weeks in hospital which included eight days in a drug-induced coma.

Eventually he was diagnosed with kidney failure.

A health expert told the IPCC that although a Taser could cause muscle damage it was most likely that Mr Swarray's condition was caused by physical exertion or resisting physical restraint.

Three ambulance staff were treated in hospital for bruises after the episode, which happened on 23 November 2009.

Mr Swarray submitted a complaint via his solicitor claiming the use of the Taser on him was innappropriate and that officers used excessive force.

But the IPCC investigation found that while some of the tactics used were 'questionable', 'no officers breached policies or procedures or comitted misconduct'.

Despite those findings the watchdog has asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to carry out a review into the tactics used for dealing with people experiencing serious medical episodes.

They have cited 'sufficient public concern' around incidents such as Mr Swarray's for doing so.

IPCC Commissioner Ms Naseem Malik said: "It is evident from our investigation that the officers involved were responding to an incident in which a man appeared to be violently resisting attempts to deliver medical treatment.

"Subsequent medical evidence shows Mr Swarray had been in the recovery stage of an epileptic seizure and not in control of his actions. However, although the initial report had suggested Mr Swarray was having a seizure, at the point the officers arrived to provide assistance it is evident the exact cause of Mr Swarray's behaviour had not been fully established.

"The fact is all of the actions taken by the officers were within their training and did not breach force policies. There is nothing within either ACPO or GMP policies that prevents the use of Taser against a person who has suffered an epileptic seizure.

"With hindsight actions such as giving commands and attempting compliance through pain to a person who was already known to be unresponsive were questionable. However the officers were considering options within their training and the officer who discharged the Taser believed he had no other option.

"The language used by the officer en route to the incident was inappropriate and suggested a certain mindset. However it is evident he then considered tactical options before deciding to use the Taser.

"However, while our investigation has found individual officers have acted correctly, the overriding concern remains that a medical condition exists that can prompt an individual to be in a totally disorientated state which can result in them being incredibly violent, yet the only option open to police officers in dealing with such an individual at present appears to be to deliver controlled violence.

"While I recognise that police need to protect the public and themselves against violent individuals, my concern is whether there is an alternative to the use of a Taser to deal with people whose violence arises from a medical condition such as epilepsy. For this reason the IPCC is writing to ACPO to suggest that, in conjunction with relevant charities or healthcare providers, they consider whether other, potentially less violent tactics could be used in these types of situations to ensure people suffering medical emergencies receive the right care and that frontline police officers have the relevant knowledge to assist them.”

British police shot man with Taser after he suffered epileptic fit in gym

Hostile behavior is not unusual when someone is recovering from a seizure, according to an Epilepsy Foundation report entitled Inappropriate Response to Seizures. "Accordingly, restraint of persons soon after a seizure may exacerbate or precipitate combativeness the opposite of the intended result," according to the report.

See also an ABC News report from November 23, 2006: Arrested for Epilepsy. "The Epilepsy Foundation said that the best thing police or bystanders can do when they see someone undergoing a seizure is to not restrain the person. Rather, they should simply let the seizure pass, watch to make sure the seizure sufferer is not in harm's way, and comfort the person when it ends. Call 911 if the episode lasts more than 5 to 7 minutes, the group advises."

April 13, 2010
Daily Mail

Police watchdogs have launched an investigation after a Taser was used on a man suffering an epileptic fit.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has launched an investigation after Greater Manchester Police officers allegedly shot the man with a 50,000-volt stun gun after he collapsed in November.

Paramedics were called to the Powerleague gym in Whalley Range, Manchester, after the 40-year-old man suffered from a seizure.

They then asked for police back up after he started biting and punching the ambulance crew.

During the incident one officer discharged a Taser at least once into the man, who was also restrained.

The man, who spent more than two weeks in hospital after the incident, made a complaint via his solicitors, alleging the officers were negligent and had used excessive and unnecessary force.

The matter was then referred by Greater Manchester Police to the IPCC.

The IPCC will carry out an independent investigation into the allegations.

IPCC Commissioner Ms Naseem Malik said: 'This man suffered an epileptic seizure and it is clear paramedics were struggling to treat him due to the violence of that seizure.

'Our investigation will be thorough and examine the appropriateness of the actions taken by the police officers who attended to assist the paramedics.

Superintendent Mike Freeman, of Greater Manchester Police's Professional Standards Branch, said: 'This matter was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission by GMP in line with the IPCC's policy that complaints arising from the discharge of tasers are referred to them.

'The role of the IPCC is to determine the method of investigation and in this case it will be independently managed.

'Officers were called to this incident because the 40-year-old man in question was suffering a seizure and posing an immediate threat to the safety of himself and others and had assaulted a number of paramedics.

'As an IPPC investigation is underway it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.'