R(Dalton) v Police Appeals Tribunal and Another

Hearing date: 23 April 2024

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10 am on 14 May 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

The Claimant seeks permission to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Chair of the Police Appeals Tribunal (“PAT”), dated 21 April 2023, that the Claimant's appeal against the determination of the Police Misconduct Panel (“the Panel”), on 22 November 2022, had no real prospect of success and there was no other compelling reason why the appeal should proceed, applying Rule 11(2) of the Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2012 (“the PAT Rules 2012”).

The Defendant has played no part in this claim, apart from filing an Acknowledgment of Service. His decision is defended by the Interested Party (“the IP”) who was the Appropriate Authority in the conduct proceedings.

The Panel's decision

In summary, on the night of 4 October 2019, the Claimant and other officers attended Wilmington Close, Watford, in response to a report from a local resident that three youths were attempting to break into a bike shed. A handsaw, green pliers/bolt cutters were found at the scene. Three youths were detained by police officers. One of the youths was Richard Smith (“RS”) who was subsequently the complainant in the misconduct proceedings. The Claimant arrested RS and handcuffed him. Later, the Claimant walked RS to the rear of a nearby police car, and forced his head downwards onto the vehicle, causing him lacerations of his lip and surrounding tissue, and the left side of his face, and possibly a fractured jaw. The Claimant, with the assistance of SC Sprigens, took RS to the ground where he was given first aid and then taken to hospital.

The allegations against the Claimant were set out in the notice served under regulation 21 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 as follows (with paragraph numbering added):

“PC Dalton, it is alleged that you have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour and, in particular, standards relating to:

Honesty and integrity

(1) Your behaviour as set out in the Background Facts at paragraph 24 above has breached this Standard. You knew that [RS] had sustained an injury when you had forced his head against a police vehicle. You were fully aware that he not sustained a face injury when he had been taken to the floor. You dishonestly stated that the injury had occurred when [RS] was taken to the floor.

Authority, Respect and Courtesy

(2) Your behaviour as set out in the Background Facts at paragraph 22 above has breached this Standard. You knew that [RS] had sustained an injury and yet you responded in a callous and uncaring fashion. This is aggravated by the fact that you were responsible for the injury.

Use of force

(3) Your behaviour, as set out in the Background Facts has breached this standard. The force you used was neither necessary, nor proportionate, nor reasonable. There was no lawful justification for it.

— (a) The use of handcuffs was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable.

— (b) The continued restraint was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable.

— (c) The (sic) thrusting [RS's] head into a police vehicle was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable.

There was no lawful basis for the individual, or cumulative, uses of force set out above.

Discreditable conduct

(4) Your actions have discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence as is set out in (1),(2) and (3) above.

(5) It is alleged that these matters individually and/or collectively amount to gross misconduct, namely, a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that, if proved, is so serious that your dismissal would be justified.”

The Claimant was prosecuted for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861, and was acquitted. The Panel considered transcripts of evidence from the Crown Court trial.

The Panel also considered witness statements, interviews, and oral evidence from the Claimant, RS, and officers SC Sprigens, PC Williams and PC Mitchell.

Most of the incident was captured by the Body Worn Video (“BWV”) filmed by SC Sprigens' BW camera which I viewed at the hearing. There was also some CCTV footage. The Claimant switched his BW camera on after the collision with the vehicle.

Under the sub-heading ‘Witnesses and Evidence’, the Panel stated:

“The Panel heard evidence from PC Dalton whose account in many respects was unreliable, in particular in relation to his assertion that RS did not wish to talk to him at the scene of the incident, RS did not provide his personal details and tried to pull away from him and his belief that RS presented as a suicide risk was inconsistent with actions.

The Panel also heard evidence from other officers in attendance namely, SC Sprigens, PC James Williams, PC Adam Mitchell and Richard Smith (RS) the detainee.

The Panel noted that RS's account was in many respects unreliable. RS was unable to recall whether: PC Dalton actually used his PAVA, he was given first aid at the scene and whether his injury was sustained whilst he was on the ground by PC Dalton cutting his face. RS was unable to confirm whether his injury was caused by contact with the police car.”

Under the sub-heading ‘Findings of Fact’, the Panel found as follows:

i) RS appeared compliant during the course of his dealings with the police, and did not appear to pose a physical or verbal threat to any of the officers. He did not show any signs of aggression or pose a threat to the Claimant or the other officers.

ii) During the course of his interaction with the Claimant, RS appeared lucid. He protested his innocence on several occasions and was visibly distressed.

iii) RS was handcuffed by the Claimant. However, following RS complaining about the handcuffs hurting his wrist, the Claimant removed one of them.

iv) RS was seen on the BWV to be “toing and froing” i.e. moving. On more than one occasion, the Claimant said loudly “stop moving about” and “stop pulling away from me”.

v) The Claimant was heard to say “Right” (indicative of him running out of patience with RS) and then he walked behind RS and took hold of his neck/shoulder. The Claimant walked RS towards a nearby police vehicle and forced his head downwards into the vehicle. The Claimant was shocked by the noise caused by the impact of RS's head with the vehicle.

vi) RS was taken to the ground and started to scream because of the pain from the collision of his face with the vehicle. He was bleeding. In response, the Claimant said in a sarcastic and non-empathetic tone, “Yeah, hurts doesn't it. Don't resist me”.

vii) The Claimant and other officers sought to reassure RS that he would be okay and applied first aid to his head wound. RS was taken to hospital by one of the officers for the wound to be sutured. Upon examination the Registered Medical Practitioner noted that RS had suffered a laceration of his lip that extended to the surrounding tissue, a laceration to the left side of his face, and possibly a fractured jaw.

viii) The Claimant informed the control room that RS was arrested for going equipped to steal and had suffered a facial injury as a result of him being taken to the floor, and that RS was obstructive. He omitted to mention to the control room that RS's head had collided with the police vehicle.

ix) However, the Panel concluded on balance, that the Claimant was not dishonest in the information that he provided to the control room which he intended to be a synopsis for police records. Therefore allegation (1) was not proved.

x) The Panel noted that RS did protest his innocence at various stages and could be seen to pull away from the Claimant. However, on balance, the Panel did not consider that RS obstructed or physically resisted the Claimant to the extent that he found it more difficult to carry out his duties. The Claimant appeared to take charge of the incident without any or minimal assistance from other officers present at the scene. He was responsible for the RS's arrest and restraint, the application of handcuffs and subsequent removal, the search of RS.

xi) As regards the use of force, the Claimant maintained that he had genuine welfare concerns for RS and that, if given the opportunity, he would have tried to escape and run into the main road nearby. The provenance of these welfare concerns emanated from one of two male suspects, including RS, whom he heard to say “I'm suicidal”. However in the BWV, RS was not heard to say that he was “suicidal” or “I'm going to kill myself” or words to that effect. Further, in his evidence to the Panel, RS denied that he intended to run into the main road, which he considered to be a “stupid” proposition given that he was “not a kid”. On the contrary, RS explained that he wished to speak to his friend standing on the other side of the road (one of the three suspects seen at the scene) to talk about whether he could return to his flat after his release from police custody.

xii) Notwithstanding the Claimant's stated concern for RS's well-being, the Claimant did not, in his tone or by his actions, appear to exercise any empathy towards RS. When RS said he was in a bad mood, the Claimant responded saying “I...