The Authority oversaw a Police investigation after two officers reported that their colleague struck a man in the face with a closed fist while he was restrained in handcuffs, causing minor bruising.
Police investigated and found there was insufficient evidence to charge the officer as they could not prove that the force was excessive or unreasonable in the circumstances. The officer acknowledged that he struck the man in the face; however, he said it was an open palm strike with minimal force. He said the strike was in response to the man kicking him multiple times and that he considered the force was necessary to stop the assault and secure the man’s legs in the patrol car. The officer said he believed the bruising to the man’s face resulted from a headlock hold he had used to restrain and escort the man into the patrol car.
All witnesses agreed the arrested man was resisting the arrest process and refusing to be placed in the patrol car. However, it was not possible to reconcile other elements of their accounts and determine the likely course of events.
The Authority agreed with the findings of the criminal investigation and considered the use of force could best be examined as part of an employment process. However, the Police decision maker considered that the officer’s conduct did not raise any employment concerns, and therefore Police took no further action.
Police finalised the matter before the Authority had an opportunity to review it and we raised concerns that we had not been able to properly exercise our oversight function. Police subsequently apologised and explained this was caused by an administrative error on their part. We accept their explanation.
IPCA: 25-30592