Skegness police officer given final written warning over ‘unnecessary’ use of spray on suspect
A Skegness police officer has been given a final written warning after a misconduct hearing found her use of PAVA spray on a suspect was “unnecessary and disproportionate.” PC Hayley Smith used the spray, an irritant similar to pepper spray, on a detained person who was ‘not cooperating’ on July 13, 2024, at less than the recommended distance from the individual’s face. Police guidance states that PAVA should not be sprayed at less than one metre from an individual because it risks causing serious harm to their eyes. A two day hearing took place at Lincolnshire Police headquarters in Nettleham, near Lincoln, on September 29 and September 30. The panel also found that PC Smith’s use of language and general conduct towards the detained person was “unwarranted”. Assistant chief constable Nicola Mayo said: “We found that there was a risk of potential harm. Using PAVA at less than one metre can cause serious harm.” But PC Smith told the hearing that she “genuinely believed” that there was a “policing purpose” to what she was doing. She said she believed her use of force was “proportionate and necessary”. ACC Mayo said: “We do find that PC Smith had used PAVA when alternative uses of force were available. We found that PC Smith did deploy PAVA in a manner which was disproportionate and unnecessary.” The panel heard that PC Smith had received training prior to the incident on use of force and what is “reasonable and appropriate.” ACC Mayo went on to say that PC Smith should have given the detained person more notice before spraying PAVA. She added: “Insufficient warnings were given by PC Smith. Additional and further warnings were appropriate. There were other alternatives available to PC Smith.” The panel acknowledged PC Smith’s previous good character and her “passion” for policing. It also found that the harm caused to the detained person was low. It said the detained individual was “clearly impaired by alcohol” but was not a vulnerable person. ACC Mayo said: “The conduct was short-lived. The misconduct was confined to a single episode for a brief duration.” The panel was shown video footage of PC Smith placing her hand on the detained person’s mouth and nose. The suspect was referred to as DB to protect their identity. ACC Mayo said PC “failed to act with self-control”. The panel concluded that PC Smith had failed to take into account the risk of spraying PAVA at less than one metre from the detained person. It said PC Smith had failed to act with authority, respect and courtesy, and her actions had the potential to undermine public confidence in the force. The panel did conclude that PC Smith had been dealing with a difficult situation, where the detained person was not cooperating with her or her colleagues. It said she had “failed to correctly calibrate” the force used at the time, but ruled this was not “deliberate”. The final written warning will remain in place for two years and PC Smith has up to 10 days to appeal the judgement.
You may also like
Leave a Reply