Outcomes - Selected Case Summaries
Categories
Excessive Use of Force during arrest
Investigation | 15 June 2023
Royal Cayman Islands Police Service (RCIPS)
In April 2022, the Office of the Ombudsman (“the OMB”) received a complaint from a member of the public (the complainant) concerning the alleged unsatisfactory conduct of a police officer, namely excessive use of force, resulting in injury to the complainant and a failure by the police to obtain evidence to support their allegation.
The incident occurred in May 2021 which means the complaint was not made within six months of the alleged incident as required under s. 4 (4) of the Act; however, this section also provides the OMB with discretion to accept a complaint outside this timeframe. The OMB accepted the complaint out of time due to the alleged serious harm and the gravity of the allegations.
The element of “serious harm” required the OMB to give notice to HE the Governor and the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), pursuant to s. 6 (4) of the Act.
The OMB had to decide, based on a balance of probabilities, whether:
- the police officer used reasonable force in accordance with the law and the RCIPS Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Behaviour.
- the police officers ‘Conduct’ was in keeping with the RCIPS Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Our investigation included analysis of CCTV, use of an independent CCTV expert, and interviewing witnesses and the police officer. We also reviewed applicable RCIPS policies and Law.
During the investigation we learned that the complainant had escaped lawful custody and was wanted by the police. The complainant was later located and detained but again tried to escape and resist arrest by punching and throwing objects at the officer causing them injuries. The complainant did not deny this; however, when the officer drew their baton, the complainant sat on the ground and presented no further threat. It was alleged by the complainant the officer then struck him over the head with the baton causing a serious injury to the head.
The complainant was arrested and taken to hospital and received several stitches.
During the complainant’s police interview they complained about the use of force and requested the CCTV from the location. The CCTV was never collected by the police during their investigation and the complainant was charged with assaulting the officer. The CCTV was later presented by the complainant at court, and they were released, and the charges dropped.
During an interview with us the officer denied striking the complainant over the head and said that their baton struck a box and not the complainant. The CCTV was sent to an independent expert who analysed the footage, and they deduced that the final strike of the baton is more likely to have made contact with the subject who is on the floor, than the boxes.
We also identified an independent witness that was at the scene, and they too corroborated the complainant’s account.
When weighing up the accounts of both parties, the independent witness, the CCTV supporting the complainant’s allegation, and the conclusions of the CCTV expert. The OMB found the complainants account to be the most credible and that the use of force while the complaint was at on the ground and posing no further threat to the officer was unnecessary and excessive.
The OMB upheld the complaint and recommended that the Commissioner of Police consider discipline.
Pursuant to s. 7(1)(d) of the Act, the OMB had reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence may have been committed by the officer and submitted a copy of this final investigation report to the ODPP.
Other considerations
The OMB invited the Commissioner of Police to investigate why the CCTV was not seized since it would have been significant in the decision to charge the complainant.