Deaths After Police Contact

Posted on by MentalHealthCop

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) has today published its 2024 report on deaths in custody or following police contact. This has been an annual report for as long as the IOPC (and previously the Independent Police Complaints Commission, or IPCC) has existed and you’ll find links to all previous reports at the bottom of this post.

When these things are published, the IOPC breaks down the various kinds of death after custody or contact by various themes in police activity.  For example, they examine how many deaths involved the police use of firearms and how many were related to the driving of police vehicles, etc. We also find the normal breakdowns you would expect for demographics as well as analysis by various kinds of factor that may cut across the categories, including whether restraint was used and we always see a mental health section. The IPCC identified this as a major theme in their work when it was first established almost twenty years ago and of strategic importance to public confidence in the police. This time ’round they repeat the point that mental health issues feature heavily in these statistics, every one of which is a human life and someone with family and friends, we should expect.

Pages 5/6 of this latest report covers the categories analysed and the definitions which apply to them because the IOPC reports on a number of things which might appear to overlap or where you may reasonably wonder the difference so I know I benefitted from reminding myself what they mean by certain phrases –

  • Deaths in or following custody* – this means somebody was under arrest (including detention under s136 MHA) or they had been under arrest period to their release and then their death but the figure does not include suicide following police custody.
  • Suicide following police custody* – this is counted separately, specifically because of the particular questions which arise around safeguarding of vulnerable suspects and the pre-release considerations which should occur.
  • Deaths following contact – this means no arrest / detention, as per the last, but a death which followed contact with the police and in this ‘contact’ could means the person met a police officer or that they were subject of a call to the police where no response occurred or it wasn’t handled properly, for example.
  • Other categories – these two are much easier to understand: police use of firearms (there were two fatal shootings, for example), road collisions (involving or associated with a police vehicle)

* It is worth noting use of the word ‘custody’ : it does not necessarily mean detention in a police cell block.  The person may have been arrested and died at the scene, or taken to hospital and died there, for example. It also includes those detained under the MHA.

THE HEADLINES

For 2023/24, we learn –

  • 24 deaths in or following custody –
  • 19 were individuals known to have mental health problems
  • 21 were known to have substance use issues, either chronically or at the particular time of arrest and detention leading to their death.
  • 14 were restrained during arrest (this does not mean handcuffing, unless other restraint was used in addition to handcuffing).
  • There was one detention under s136 MHA.
  • 68 suicides following police custody
  • There were two suicides following detention under s136 MHA, presumably after the person was discharged home from the Place of Safety by the AMHP / DR who assessed them there.
  • 46% of those who died after release had been arrested after allegations of sexual offences, which has always been a high-risk factor for suicide after custody.
  • Suicide after custody has risen in number, to 68 from 54 the year before but the report is at pains to point out, the IOPC do not always learn of suicides which might be relevant to their work so changes can result from fluctuation in identification and reporting of cases.
  • There is no mention of how many of the 68 were known to have mental health problems.
  • 60 deaths after contact –
  • Just under half (29) were known to be affected by drugs or alcohol at the time of the contact incident and 27 were known to have mental health problems at the time.
  • Most deaths were after a concern for welfare was raised: 51 deaths in total.
  • Fifteen of those deaths were concerns because of someone’s mental health or risk of self-harm / suicide.

Finally, it is worth noting this final category includes only those cases which were independently investigated by the IOPC themselves so it will certainly be an under-estimate of the total figure, which is not known.

DETENTION UNDER SECTION 136

The IOPC’s summary of the s136 detention incident is interesting and bears mention.

“The police were called to a property following reports that a man was threatening to harm himself. An ambulance attended before they arrived at the property. On arrival, the police were not able to get any response and forced entry to the property. The police officers and paramedics attempted to engage with the man. He allegedly became aggressive and informed the paramedics that he had taken a large quantity of tablets.

The man was physically restrained by officers and a paramedic. Soon after, he was placed in handcuffs and taken to hospital in an ambulance. During the journey to hospital the man was placed in leg restraints. The handcuffs and leg restraints were removed shortly after arriving at hospital. Owing to the man’s behaviour, and further threats to harm himself, he was restrained and detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 by officers.

A short time later, officers reported that the man appeared to be having a seizure. He received medical attention. After receiving medical treatment officers reapplied the leg restraints on several occasions. The man’s condition deteriorated and later that evening he died in hospital. His cause of death is awaited.”

Interesting one to contemplate: use of s136 on a person who was forcibly removed from a location where s136 can’t be lawfully used. As it’s not made clear, I would assume the removal was justified by the Mental Capacity Act because of the large quantities of tablets supposedly taken and if so, I’m relaxed about use of s136 later where the grounds are met.  I flag it as interesting in case anyone was wondering about it!

THEMATIC REVIEW

There’s a lot going on in here we can’t understand from the report itself. As well as the headlines, I tend to scan for the mental health related aspects first, for fairly obvious reasons. I deliberately search for terms within the reports such as “mental health” and “mental” just as I previously looked for “street triage” (and didn’t find it). This time I’ve looked for, “Right Care, Right Person” and, again, didn’t find it – it’s literally unmentioned. It strikes me that if one purpose of these annual reports is a level of analysis of where there should be reflection for potential learning, we should see new initiatives being at least mentioned and considered, if not reviewed in this kind of way.

Street triage was never fully evaluated – yes, I do realise there were published reports by academics but I’ve explained elsewhere how they were low-quality, before-and-after snapshots as a consequence police forces asking academics to evaluate very late in the day. Several academics themselves flagged caveats to their reports owing to the lack of data gathered for analysis, a lack of controls, etc. We know there have been several dozen deaths after contact with street triage, something which isn’t mentioned once by the IOPC in the history of their reports.

WHY CAN’T WE TALK ABOUT THIS?

It seems we are now at risk of this for RCRP: the scheme isn’t mentioned once by name or acronym in this latest publication and we know the reporting period 2023/24 has seen a force who had formally introduced the scheme for welfare checks, declining to attend an incident where a man was found deceased many hours later. We also know several coroners have issued Preventing Future Death reports mentioning RCRP and concerns, so one might hope to see mention of this in the report but no: nothing.

The new Director-General of the IOPC made comments for their accompanying press release which does mention it –

“We welcome the roll out of the Right Care Right Person initiative across police forces, which aims to ensure that vulnerable people receive the most appropriate service from the best suited agency. We will continue to monitor the scheme’s development as local arrangements between police forces and health partners bed in. “

We need better critical analysis of this, I’m afraid – it’s not quite good enough, especially as there are plenty of reasons to wonder whether RCRP does aim to ensure the right care by the right person. The DG-IOPC welcoming something after a report which leaves it entirely unmentioned when there are known, emerging reasons to wonder about its impact is something not lost on me, for what my view may be worth …

The latest report is published on their website and here are hyperlinks to all their previous reports should you have an evening free –

Winner of the President’s Medal, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award

 

All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation.
(c) Michael Brown, 2024.
I am not a police officer.

I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current.  Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.

Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk

Unknown's avatar

Published by MentalHealthCop

Any views expressed here are entirely personal and do not represent those of any organisation.