The responsibilities of frontline Policing of our communities do not, of course, only encompass reports of crime and misdemeanour – they also involve the Police responding to welfare concerns, often in relation to mental health issues, that have been raised by a person’s family or friends. Sadly, on all too many occasions during my decades of practice in claims against the Police, I have come across cases in which the Police treat welfare concerns as if they were reports of a crime and default to their ‘arrest’ playbook – behaving towards the individual whom they are there to help, and whose interests should absolutely be paramount in the situation, with the same level of aggression and violence as if that person was suspected of a criminal offence.
A stark example of this was the treatment which my client Mark underwent at the hands of the Metropolitan Police in 2019.
Mark has since his childhood, suffered from a mental health condition called Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), which, amongst other things, causes him to suffer severe anxiety and distress if he perceives that his personal/home environment is contaminated. Mark also suffers from chronic back pain.
As at the Spring of 2019, Mark was living at his parent’s home address, in London.
Late one evening, Mark was home alone and was in his bed reading, prior to going to sleep. He heard a knock at the front door and the doorbell rang. Mark got up to investigate. Given the late hour, Mark was dressed only in a t-shirt, boxer shorts and fabric slippers.
To his alarm, Mark then heard the front door open. Mark assumed that someone was breaking in and saw three to four uninformed Police Officers standing in the downstairs hallway. Mark remained at the top of the staircase, in view of the officers.
The Officers informed Mark that they wanted to come in and have a ‘chat’ with him to see if he was all right. It is now known that the officers had been called by a relative of Mark, who stated that she was concerned for his health. There was absolutely no suggestion that any criminal offence had been committed, however, and when the Police arrived Mark was evidently fit and well (and simply disturbed by them in the act of going to bed).
Mark became very anxious and distressed and advised the Officers to leave. The Officers refused to do so. The Officers asked Mark to come downstairs several times. Mark refused and repeatedly requested that the Officers leave. One of the officers stated that they had entered the house under Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE 1984) because they thought that Mark was injured. Mark assured them that he was fine, and repeated his instructions for them to leave, explaining that their presence in the house was aggravating his OCD.
After about three minutes of conversation, PC Naylor, who was standing at the bottom of the stairs, unholstered his taser and asked Mark if he knew what the weapon was, and then threatened to use it against him. This caused Mark even greater distress and anxiety and he again begged the officers to leave him alone. In response to Mark’s direct question as to whether the taser was going to be used against him, the officer replied “Possibly.”
Mark now came a few steps down the stairs, and the officer aimed his taser directly at Mark.
Mark also explained that he had a spinal condition and that he feared for his life if he was tasered. He continued to ask the officers to leave and made it clear that they were causing him great anxiety by their presence and aggravating his OCD. He asked them to put the taser away.
Mark also asked if he was being “detained”; the officers were initially evasive but then told him that he was not being detained and was free to leave. In response, Mark told them that he was going to get dressed and leave the house.
Mark made it clear that he did not want or need any medical treatment. The officers questioned Mark as to whether he had a knife and he repeatedly assured them that he did not and pointed out that they could see that his hands were empty and that he was in his underwear.
Suddenly, after approximately 20 minutes of conversation, PC Naylor without any warning charged up the stairs and grabbed Mark by his left leg and attempted to pull him down the stairs. Mark grabbed hold of the banisters and begged the officers not to drag him down the stairs, explaining that they would aggravate his back condition. PC Naylor took hold of Mark’s left arm and continued to try and pull him down the stairs. As Mark gripped the banister, PC McAndrews took hold of his left arm and PC Naylor wrapped an arm around Mark’s chest. During this struggle, Mark felt what he believes was PC Naylor’s boot scraping against the side of his lower right leg, and in particular his shin.
The officers then force-marched Mark downstairs holding his arms, and into the lounge. As they did so, PC Naylor bragged that his dangerous use of force upon Mark had been “effective”.
Mark again challenged the Officers as to the reason for their entry and exercise of their powers to detain.
In the lounge, PC Naylor applied handcuffs to Mark’s wrists in the “front stack” position.
Mark’s family members then entered the house. It transpired that it was Mark’s sibling who had called the Police due to concerns for Mark’s well-being and who had facilitated the Officers’ entry.
The Officers explained to Mark that an ambulance had been called and effectively kept him as a handcuffed prisoner in his own home until it arrived.
Paramedics then attended. Mark refused to go with them in the ambulance explaining that he could self-manage his condition of OCD and did not need or want any medication. Mark asked for the handcuffs to be removed which they eventually were, after approximately 2 hours.
Subsequently, two Mental Health Nurses attended the house.
Mark made it clear that he would not go to hospital voluntarily. Mark was allowed to dress, and the Police officers then escorted him to an ambulance outside.
Mark was then taken by the paramedics and two Police Officers to Hospital.
At the hospital, both Officers and one of the paramedics remained with Mark until a cubicle was available. Mark and the Officers advised that there would be a significant waiting period before he could be assessed. The Officers asked the nurse if they could leave. The nurse asked if Mark was a threat. One Officer replied that Mark was not. On that basis, the Officers left, and Mark was advised that he would be monitored by security.
Mark visited the toilet on several occasions and given that he appeared to be free to do as he wished, left the hospital and then got a train and a bus home, physically and mentally injured by this wholly unnecessary episode.
Unlawful Detention, Unlawful Force
After I was instructed by Mark, I took steps to obtain the Police body camera footage of the incident, which I analysed and which confirmed my suspicions that this was a classic overreach of Police powers, in a scenario where the Officers responded to a ‘welfare check’ with the same aggressive demeanour and early resort to violence that they would if they were responding to a report of crime.
Whilst the Officers may have had a power to enter the house under Section 17 of PACE (in the interests of potentially “saving life or limb”) once they had done so, and had ascertained that Mark was alive and well, they should have left. Instead, they sought to assert their authority over Mark, bombarding him with questions and instructions and treating him as if he were either a criminal or an involuntary mental health patient, despite lacking any lawful authority to do so. The plain fact of the matter is that they were from that point on, unlawful intruders in Mark’s home and it is understandable how incensed he became at their total disregard for his rights.
The Police power to detain, without a Court warrant, individuals who appear to be suffering from a mental disorder did not apply here – not only because Mark was not suffering from such a disorder, but also because of the plainly obvious fact that the Police cannot exercise this power in a private residence (Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983). The officers carried on regardless of this fact, shamefully subjecting Mark to handcuffing in his own home and treating him like a prisoner to be handed over to ambulance staff. To my mind, however, the most shocking part of the whole incident was the narrowly averted tragedy I witnessed on close analysis of the video evidence – an officer grabbing Mark’s leg from below, when Mark was standing at the top of the stairs. Afterwards, the officer’s attitude was to brag about his ‘effective’ tactic, rather than to reflect on the catastrophic, if not in fact fatal, injuries he could have inflicted on Mark by potentially causing him to fall down the stairs.
The Police vigorously contested Mark’s claim, but by commencing Court proceedings against the Met Commissioner, I brought them to the negotiating table, and I am pleased to confirm that Mark’s claim has recently been settled for a significant damages award plus legal costs.
Situations like this are going to continue, however, until the Police learn that mental health concerns are not crimes, and that they do not have jurisdiction over the minds and bodies of everyone subject to such concerns, especially not in the privacy of their own homes and when the only anger the person is displaying is born out of this Police intrusion into their lives.
All names have been changed.
Iain Gould - Actions Against the Police Solicitor 
You must be logged in to post a comment.