Findings of IPCC investigation into case of Gary Reynolds

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has completed its investigation into the case of 41 year old Gary Reynolds, who became unconscious while in police custody in Brighton, Sussex.

On 2 March 2008, Gary Reynolds left The Rock public house at about 12.15am and was seen on Eastern Road, Brighton a short time later, between 12.30am and 1.50am, stopping passers by and motorists.  At one point, he approached a police car, with three occupants to whom he spoke before the car moved off.  At about 1.50am he got into a taxi outside Sussex Mansions, arriving by the same taxi in West Street, Brighton at 2.35am.  The taxi driver beckoned over a Police Officer and asked for assistance.  

Following a conversation between Gary Reynolds and the Police Officer, Gary Reynolds left the taxi and shortly after he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly.  Gary Reynolds resisted arrest and he was restrained with handcuffs and Violent Person Restraint System (VIPER), put in a police van and taken to Brighton Police Custody Centre in Hollingbury.  He was taken straight to a cell where he was sprayed with incapacitant spray and the restraints were removed.  

Shortly after 11am Gary Reynolds failed to respond to custody staff and was found to be unconscious.  An ambulance was called and he was transferred to hospital where he was found to have a serious head injury.  His immediate prognosis was poor but in the months that have followed he has made progress and is slowly recovering.  His long term prognosis is not known but he has suffered life changing injuries and is currently paralysed on his left side and is suffering from significant cognitive impairment.

Following a complaint from Gary Reynolds brother, the case was referred to the IPCC and an independent investigation began.  

The actions of fourteen officers were investigated. During the course of the investigation, IPCC investigators spoke to witnesses including members of the public who saw Gary Reynolds on the street, the taxi driver, custody staff and other detainees who were in custody at the same time as Gary Reynolds. Investigators also viewed CCTV, checked the officers training records and commissioned medical experts. They also examined Sussex Police’s policies on the use of VIPER, use of incapacitant spray, the transportation of prisoners, the use of restraint and custody processes to check whether the officers in this case had adhered to them.

It has not been possible to conclusively say how Gary Reynolds came to receive his serious head injury.  

IPCC Commissioner for the south east, Mike Franklin said: This is a tragic case which has had a massive impact on Gary’s life and that of his family. His injuries are life-changing and I recognise the determination of Gary and his brother for continuing to push for change.  

”Our investigation has concluded that the actions taken by police officers did not amount to excessive force nor did any one individual officer abuse their authority, but that the combined actions and inactions of Custody Sergeants and the Custody Assistants, who are private contractors, contributed to a systematic failure to adequately look after Gary Reynolds whilst he was in their care.

The IPCC has since its inception carried out a number of custody related investigations.  Issues relating to risk assessments, split responsibilities between Custody Sergeants and effective rousing practice have come up on several occasions. The IPCC intend to collate the findings of this report and draw out similar learning from these other custody cases.”

Findings

- The decision to handcuff, take him to the ground and subsequently apply the VIPER appears to have been made justifiably and that, given the demeanour and behaviour of Gary Reynolds, holding him on the ground prior to transportation was a safer option than allowing him to remain standing.  

- Three officers accompanied Gary Reynolds inside the cage area of the van and this is in line with Sussex Police policy on transportation of prisoners who are being restrained by VIPER.

- The decision to use incapacitant spray is a tactical one and is a decision that is down to the individual judgement of the officer at the time.  The officer concerned has provided a rational explanation for the use of the spray (that he believed Gary Reynolds was attempting to bite officers) and nothing in policy or training prevents its use if a person is at the same time being restrained by other methods.  

- The standard of care demonstrated by Reliance staff, who were private contractors working as custody assistants, and police custody officers was inadequate and their collective failure to realise something was wrong contributed to Gary Reynolds remaining in a coma longer than he should. For example:

a) A custody sergeant made the assumption that Gary Reynolds was drunk and would sleep off the effects of alcohol overnight and be dealt with in the morning.  It appears the thought that Gary Reynolds may be ill did not cross his mind.  

b) None of the Custody Sergeants completed a written risk assessment and collectively the on duty Custody Sergeants and Inspector failed to ensure that the Custody Assistants carried out accurate cell checks and completed the custody records properly.

c)  There was a collective absence of understanding of how to recognise the signs of alcohol intoxication and a collective lack of appreciation of the content and importance of following Sussex Police Policy and Safer Detention Guidance. There was a distinct lack of team working amongst all the custody staff that systematically failed to provide Gary Reynolds with an adequate level of care.

The IPCC passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service on 22 May 2009 who decided that there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution.  The IPCC also passed a file to the Health and Safety Executive due to concerns raised in the investigation about the actions of the Police Sergeants as well as the actions of private contractors, over which the IPCC does not have jurisdiction.

Two custody sergeants and the custody inspector have received formal advice.

Recommendations

On 4 April 2008 the IPCC suggested several quick time learning points to Sussex Police that had risen out of an initial review of the case. These mainly concerned ensuring accurate custody records are kept and custody staff should familiarising themselves with the risk assessment process.

Further recommendations have been made following the conclusion of the independent investigation, which include refresher training for individual custody staff officers, as well as a review of the working practices of their custody centres and producing a dedicated policy to clearly identify lines of accountability and responsibility for all staff working in custody.  

The investigation team recommend that consideration is given by the Home Office to re-drafting PACE Codes of Conduct Code C paragraph 9.3 to more explicitly defining intoxication.  The Custody Sergeant in this case considered Gary Reynolds’ behaviour as that of someone drunk or under the influence of alcohol, not intoxicated and therefore not falling into the category requiring rousing.  

Ends

Issued by Trish Kevill, IPCC press officer for London and south east on 0207 166 3130