PC Samuel Robinson

JavaScript is not enabled

Without JavaScript enabled forms will not work.

POLICE CONDUCT HEARING

In the case of Alleged Breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour Under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as amended.

PC 193 Samuel ROBINSON

Suffolk Constabulary

Case:CM25/21

_________________________________________________________________________________

FINAL WRITTEN REPORT

_________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

1.0 This is the record of findings made by the Panel at misconduct proceedings brought under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 as amended (the Regulations) against PC 193 Samuel Robinson of Suffolk Constabulary.

1.1 The Panel consisted of Assistant Chief Officer Nicholas Davison (Former Assistant Chief Constable) (Chair) and Independent Panel Members Mrs Carter and Mr Jones.

1.2 The Panel was assisted by Mr Gowland, the Legally Qualified Person (the LQP).

1.3 The Appropriate Authority (AA) was represented by legal counsel, Mr Holdcroft.

1.4 The officer was represented by legal counsel, Ms Williamson.

1.5 It was an IOPC investigation and direction to Suffolk Constabulary to bring the allegations and hearing against PC Robinson.

1.6 The hearing was a public hearing and commenced on Monday 5^th October concluding on Thursday 8^th October 2026. It was held at Suffolk Constabulary, Landmark House, Ipswich, Suffolk.

The law in respect of factual determinations

2.0 The burden of proving the facts pleaded rests with the appropriate authority.

2.1 The standard to which the Appropriate Authority must satisfy the panel is the simple balance of probabilities. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. Within this context, there is no room for a finding by the panel that something might have happened. The panel may decide that it did or that it did not: Re B [2008] UKHL 35.

2.2 Findings of fact must be based on evidence and not on speculation. The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence.

2.3 In determining whether the Appropriate Authority has discharged the burden upon it, the Panel looks at what has been described as ‘the broad canvas’ of the evidence before it. The role of the panel is to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities accordingly. Within this context, the panel must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence: Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838.

2.4 The panel must always bear in mind that a witness may tell lies in the course of an investigation. The panel must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear or distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: R v Lucas [1982] QB 720.

2.5 The Panel also need to consider their purpose within the misconduct regime which is:

1. to maintain public confidence and the reputation of the police service
2. to uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct
3. to protect the public.

Role of the Panel

3.0 The role of the Panel has four steps, usually approached in two stages:

Stage 1

(a) first, determining the facts, based upon what is admitted by the officer or proven on the balance of probabilities.

(b) second, determining whether on the basis of those facts the officer has breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour alleged.

Stage 2

(d) deciding what the outcome should be.

3.1 The four steps should not be conflated. Each requires discrete findings with sufficient reasons.

3.2 The AA brings the allegations, and it is for the AA to prove them. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, which is to say whether they are more likely than not to be true. The balance of probabilities is a single unvarying standard.

3.3 The Panel, throughout proceedings, remained alert to the purpose of the misconduct regime which is:

- to maintain public confidence and the reputation of the police service
- to uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct
- to protect the public.

Allegations

4.0 The Panel was referred to a Regulation 30 notice in respect of the Officer containing the allegations and that his conduct amounted to gross misconduct, namely:

It is alleged that:

1. Police Constable 193 Samuel Robinson (‘the Officer’) joined the Suffolk Constabulary on 22/05/2017.

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

National Decision-Making Model

1. Officers are trained to use the National Decision Model (‘NDM’). Officers must:

(a). Consider the Code of Ethics and the principles and standards of professional behaviour, and

(b). Gather information and intelligence, and

(c). Assess the threat and risk and to develop a working strategy, and

(d). Consider powers and policy, and

(e). Identify options and contingencies, and

(f). Take action and review what happened. Officers are trained to continually re-assess an incident taking into account changes in the circumstances.

BUGEE

1. Officers are trained to create opportunities for de-escalation and to defuse situations. In part, this is done using the acronym.

BUGEE:

Be prepared to back off.

Use of effective cover

Give space and time if possible.

Early negotiation

Evacuate immediate area.

Use of this approach may enable:

1. tension to be diffused.
2. officers to have more time to assess the person's vulnerability.
3. the effects of alcohol or drugs to wear off.
4. positive communication and contact to be established.
5. the level of mental or emotional distress to decrease.

This may result in more positive and constructive communication with the subject, allowing the situation to be dealt with in a controlled manner.

Training

The Officer received training in relation to:

a. the Code of Ethics, as part of his initial police training in 2017.

b. Personal Safety Training on 06/06/2017 with annual refreshers the most recent of which was 28/04/2021.

The Officer was required to keep himself up to date with policies, procedures and law.

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

On 1 June 2022, the Officer attended an incident at the ASC Storage Facility. This is a secure storage facility with PIN code access. The other

officers, already in attendance, were dealing with the incident as a civil matter (a dispute about the ownership of a container and the items within it) and contemplating that any further action could be carried out in ‘slow time.’

Mr A was alone in the storage area. The other members of the public were outside that area and had not attempted to enter it. Mr A was not helpful,

but was not behaving in an aggressive manner.

The Officer disagreed with his colleagues and considered that Mr A should be arrested. He briefly engaged with Mr A before deciding that he would

force entry into the compound. He decided that he would use bolt cutters to effect entry.

Mr A provided the Officer with the code to enter the compound.
The Officer opened the gate. The Officer said, ‘Right come here.’ He took hold of Mr A by his jacket. Mr A resisted the application of force. The Officer shouted, ‘Tash spray him.’

Mr A was being restrained. He was bent at the waist and facing the floor.
The female officer deployed spray towards Male A.
The Officer shouted, ‘Sam let go of him! Sam let go of him!’ Sam did so.
Mr A stood back up and moved away from the officers to his left.
The Officer raised his Taser and deployed it. The Taser was fired at 08:16:36.
After the Officer had fired his Taser he shouted, ‘Taser. Taser.’
The Taser discharged but did not appear to have any effect.
Mr A’s jacket was falling down. The right sleeve was halfway down his arm at about elbow level. He walked towards the Officer with his left arm extended, his hand open and facing outwards. He did not threaten the Officer.
The Officer retreated.
Mr A groaned loudly, apparently in pain. He stopped walking turned 90 degrees to his left, facing away from the officers, and squatted down and then knelt on the ground. His left arm was extended in front of him and his right arm was folded across his stomach. The female officer took hold of him with her left hand towards his left shoulder and her right on his right biceps.

Mr A did not pose any threat to the Officer or his colleagues.
The Officer approached MR A and kicked him.
Mr A was still facing down on the ground, with his hands on the ground.
The Officer then struck Mr A three times to the back of his head in a hammer fist motion with the butt of his Taser. As the Officer was striking Mr A he shouted, ‘Get on the ******* floor you ****.’
Mr A was told, ‘Get down now.’ Despite already having his hands and knees on the floor.
The Officer called for urgent assistance. Mr A said, ‘I’m down.’ The Officer shouted, ‘Get on the floor.’
The Officer administered another hammer strike with the butt of the Taser.
Mr A started to say that he could not breathe. He complained about being kicked. He had an injury to the back of his head.

PARTICULARS OF MISCONDUCT

Police Constable Robinson, it is alleged that you have breached the Standards of Professional Behaviour and, in particular the standards relating to:

(1) Use of Force: Your behaviour as set out in the Background Facts at paragraphs 14, 22, 24, and 27 has breached this standard. In particular it was neither necessary, nor proportionate, nor reasonable to use any or all of the force identified in those paragraphs either individually or cumulatively.

(2) Authority, Respect and Courtesy: Your actions as set out at 14, 22, 24, and 27 above have breached this standard. You treated Mr A without respect and/or courtesy.

(3) Discreditable Conduct: Your actions have discredited the police service and/or undermined public confidence as is set out in (1) - (2) above.

It is alleged that these matters individually and/or collectively amount to gross misconduct, namely a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that, if proved, is so serious that your dismissal would be justified.

Officers response

5.0 PC Robinson formally accepted that the language at fact 24 breached the professional standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy stating it was commensurate with reflective practice as opposed to misconduct. He denied that the language breached the conduct standard.

5.1 Pc Robinson denied the Use of Force allegations set out in Facts 14,22,24 and 27. He therefore denied that the Standards of Use of Force, Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct were breached.

Evidence

6.0 The AA set out its evidence in its written opening note and relied upon the material set out in the case bundle [1-475], the supplementary bundle [1-5] and the digital material.

6.1 The Panel heard witness testimony from PC Robinson (summary at appendix A) and Mr Mills, a Use of Force Expert.

Good character

7.0 The Panel has considered the testimony of the officer PC Robinson and that of Mr Mills the expert witness. The Panel has reminded itself that good character arises from lack of previous findings against an officer, that it is not a defence to an allegation, but that it can be considered when assessing a witness credibility and propensity; the weight attached is entirely a matter for us as a Panel.

7.1 In respect to PC Robinson, we read his character bundle and its contents. We considered the submissions by the AA and his counsel. We considered all the evidence from him before us. In doing so we have rejected the AA’s position that he has lied. The evidence offered by the AA as an example to support this was the officers MG11 statement dated 02/06/2021. It was said by the AA that the paragraph (p122): A decision way (s) made between me, PC RAYMOND and PC SMALL that we would go into the yard and arrest [Mr A] on suspicion of affray’ was an untruth. The Panel considered the statement’s accuracy in terms of the final position that all officers took. The Panel also considered the purpose of the MG11 at that time.

7.2 Here, his statement and its primary purpose was presenting evidence to the CPS in a potential criminal case against Mr A in respect to the Affray allegation/ Assault of PC Raymond for which he was arrested and that it was a summary of events and focused on the required evidence to prove a criminal allegation and associated legal requirements in terms of the criminal jurisdiction. In short, it was not about the officers and the background that was required at that time in detail.

7.3 Further, on viewing the BWV evidence , the Panel took the MG11 statement above to be an accurate summary. The Panel noted the disagreement on how to approach the incident. It saw the discussion between officers. It also saw the point where it was agreed to enter the compound to effect the arrest with PC Small saying if we are going to do it then do it now ( words to that effect). PC Raymond also agreed that there was a need to secure the metal pole evidence if matters were to be taken forward criminally and he entered the compound with the other two officers and took hold of Mr A. The other officers may have been considering it slow time but in the end they , at the very least, accepted the approach and were part of that decision.

7.4 Turning to PC Robinson’s character bundle, the Panel has given that some weight there was strong repeated support and testimony amongst the fourteen submissions, across ranks and roles, up to and including a former Assistant Chief Constable, for PC Robinson. The Panel read support from his current manager praising his focus and professionalism and that he carries out his duties to a high standard. From his front-line supervisor at the time of the incident in 2021 who talked about his professionalism, hardworking ethic and being well natured and how he had dealt with two very pressured incidents in the months prior to the events with Mr A and how he was commended by supervisors for his calm and steadfast approach to successful conclusions. From another frontline supervisor who had always witnessed professional behaviour and had no concerns about his use of force.

7.5 Based on the evidence heard and read we found PC Robinson to be credible. (Summary of oral testimony appendix A).

Expert witness evidence

Mr Mills

7.6 We took account of Mr Mills evidence in respect to training. We cautioned ourselves in relation to relying on his opinion and that it was the Panel’s view that is paramount and our responsibility to make our own decision.

Use of force - Legal Test

8.0 With regard to the alleged breaches of the Use of Force Professional Standard, the Panel applied the test to each of the allegations involving the specific allegations surrounding the use of force in making its determination (Regulation 30 background facts 14, 22 ,24 and 27) individually.

8.1 The Panel noted and considered the officer’s submissions that context with a number of the regulation 30 allegation facts was important. The Panel read and listened carefully the officers closing written remarks. The Panel in its findings will consider context when assessing whether any proven facts amount to breaches of the standards alleged. For stage one, the Panel’s analysis of the facts as written specifically, in the notice of allegations, our analysis has been on the available evidence and information as it relates to the facts.

Finding of Facts (Stage 1, Step 1)

9.0 The Panel undertook its analysis of the available material and has found the following against the balance of probabilities (Civil Standard):

9.1 Fact 1

Police Constable 193 Samuel Robinson (‘the Officer’) joined the Suffolk Constabulary on 22/05/2017.

Proven

The officer’s regulation 30 response confirms this (bundle page 467 paragraph 5). The officer’s closing written submissions agree it.

9.2 Fact 2

National Decision-Making Model

1. Officers are trained to use the National Decision Model (‘NDM’). Officers must:

(a). Consider the Code of Ethics and the principles and standards of professional behaviour, and

(b). Gather information and intelligence, and

(c). Assess the threat and risk and to develop a working strategy, and

(d). Consider powers and policy, and

(e). Identify options and contingencies, and

(f). Take action and review what happened.

Officers are trained to continually re-assess an incident taking into account changes in the circumstances.

Proven

The officer’s closing written submissions agree it.

Further:

The National Decision model guidance overview Bundle page 328 to 329 sets out the principles in the facts a - f. Expanded explanation and break down of model and application bundle is on pages 325 to 334 of the Bundle.

In addition, the Statement of Ian Mills UOF expert dated 28/02/2023 Bundle page236 to 238 sets out NDM concept, system and application in detail states all officers receive training in the NDM (Bundle p236 and p243).

9.3 Fact 3

BUGEE

1. Officers are trained to create opportunities for de-escalation and to defuse situations. In part, this is done using the acronym BUGEE: Be prepared to back off. Use of effective cover Give space and time if possible. Early negotiation Evacuate immediate area.

Use of this approach may enable:

1. tension to be diffused.
2. officers to have more time to assess the person's vulnerability.
3. the effects of alcohol or drugs to wear off.
4. positive communication and contact to be established.
5. the level of mental or emotional distress to decrease.

This may result in more positive and constructive communication with the subject, allowing the situation to be dealt with in a controlled manner.

Proven

The officer’s closing written submissions agree it.

Further:

The statement of Daniel George 11/04/2023 PPST trainer Bundle page 164 to 165 sets out officer training inputs: initial Personal Safety training including modules on conflict management, communication, unarmed defensive skills, use of equipment and restraint. That officers receive annual refresher training including conflict management and communication. That UOF is covered in initial training and refresher training – principles of necessity, proportionality, legality and reasonable force. Officers trained on PSM module 4 medical implications of UOF and three main categories concerning target areas identifying possible physiological effects / benefits of striking an area and potential medical implications. Indicates these factors may assist assessing proportionality of tactical options available at the time.

Additionally, the Panel found that PC Robinson gave correct answers to multiple question test question number 15 ‘when dealing with people who maybe vulnerable, what actions can create opportunities for the subject and officer to defuse the situation? BUGEE’ he answered correctly in identifying the mnemonic BUGEE. The test question set also had other questions relating to de-escalation / defusing and actions concerning vulnerable persons. Taser X26 User refresher course Knowledge check 21/07/20. Score 30 out of 30 Bundle page 406.

9.4 Fact 4

Training 4.

The Officer received training in relation to:

a. the Code of Ethics, as part of his initial police training in 2017.

b. Personal Safety Training on 06/06/2017 with annual refreshers the most recent of which was 28/04/2021.

The Officer was required to keep himself up to date with policies, procedures and law.

Proven

The officer’s closing written submissions agree it.

Further:

Additionally, the Panel examined Pc Robinson’s Personal safety training Learning history search record Bundle page 381 which sets out the officer’s training record including his initial Personal Training on 06/06/2017 and the annual refreshers including the 28/04/2021.

Further the Panel analysed PC Robinson’s PO summary bundle page 383 to 387 which sets out further training record attendance and categories confirming attendance and occupational competency for personal safety training including attendance on the 04/03/2022 PST course.

Background facts

9.5 Fact 5

On 1 June 2022, the Officer attended an incident at the ASC Storage Facility. This is a secure storage facility with PIN code access. The other officers, already in attendance, were dealing with the incident as a civil matter (a dispute about the ownership of a contained and the items within it) and contemplating that any further action could be carried out in ‘slow time.’

Proven

The officer’s closing written submissions agree it.

Further:

BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 : content on viewing confirms location, code PIN access, civil discussion and slow time option.

IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 337 Pc Robinson asks, ‘what we got here mate?’. Pc Raymond replies ‘ at the moment primarily civil stuff, they want their own stuff out of their storage unit.’ Page 339 discussion between officers PC Raymond stating it’s civil. Robinson stating it’s not and ‘a civil thing is what’s escalated it, but it’s an offence so.’ Page 341 Pc Robinson to Sergeant ‘its mainly civil dispute’ ‘ideally deal slow time but they stay all night’. Mark (Sgt) ‘says ‘nick.’

STORM CAD Incident LOG SC-01062021-412 Bundle page 53 to 61: sets out location, units attending including officer.

The officers Regulation 31 response bundle page 468 incident on 1^st June 2021accepts attendance.

Evidence from PC Small and PC Raymond also proves this fact.

9.6 Fact 6

Mr A was alone in the storage area. The other members of the public were outside that area and had not attempted to enter it. Mr A was not helpful but was not behaving in an aggressive manner.

Proven

The officer’s closing written submissions agree it with the exception of him not behaving aggressively. The Panel re viewed the BWV again and watched carefully for Mr A’s behaviour. It also considered the statements and emails / first accounts of the officers, PC Robinson, Small and Raymond and their conversation and observations with Mr A about his behaviour (as seen in the BWV) alongside the statements from *************** (p197) ‘the police were talking to Mr A behind the locked gate and were asking him to gain access to the storage facility but he was refusing. Mr A was acting very aggressively, and I could hear his raised voice’ , ************** (p202) ‘police trying to calm my stepfather down’ and ************** (p207 ) ‘ I could see the Police officers trying to talk to Mr A and trying to get him to let them in, but he was refusing’.

The Panel considered the everyday meaning of ‘aggressive manner’ and ‘not helpful.’ The Panel finds that Mr A , on the balance of probabilities was challenging and belligerent in his behaviour at this point when the officers were talking to him through the metal gates but that it was not at that point aggressive. It was belligerent, it was unhelpful, he had been aggressive earlier with *********** and ************* but not at that point in the sequence of events.

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722: 8:06:16 (counter 01:53) to 8:07:51PM (counter 03:26) confirms facts in allegation.

IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 337 – 358 confirms facts in allegation.

9.7 Fact 7

The Officer disagreed with his colleagues and considered that Mr A should be arrested. He briefly engaged with Mr A before deciding that he would force entry into the compound. He decided that he would use bolt cutters to effect entry.

Proven

The officer in his oral testimony accepted he had disagreed. The Panel viewed the BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 : 8:05:10 PM (counter 00:44) to 8:16:01 (Counter time 11.36) - which confirms facts in allegation. Discussion which the Panel found to be limited, collection of bolt croppers and commencement of application of croppers before Mr A’s verbalisation of code (4321).

The IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 337 – 358: confirms facts in the allegation.

9.8 Fact 8

Mr A provided the Officer with the code to enter the compound.

Proven

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 : 8:16:01PM (counter time 11.36 ) confirms the facts in allegation. Mr A seen and heard to supply code to officer. The Panel understood the submissions made on context but against the written fact the Panel saw Mr A provide the code albeit at the last moment.

The IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 344 : confirms facts in allegation.

9.9 Fact 9

The Officer opened the gate. The Officer said, ‘Right come here.’ He took hold of Mr A by his jacket. Mr A resisted the application of force. The Officer shouted, ‘Tash spray him.’

Proven

The Panel understood the submissions made by the officer on context but against the written fact the Panel saw the facts as written from viewing the BWV.

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:20 PM to 8:16:29 PM (counter 12.03) : confirms facts in allegation.

The IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 344: confirms facts in allegation.

9.10 Fact 10

Mr A was being restrained. He was bent at the waist and facing the floor.

Proven

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:34 PM (counter 12.08) confirms facts in allegation. Although in an improvised headlock only by PC Raymond, on watching the BWV against the facts as set out, he was being restrained, he was bent at the waist and facing the floor.

9.11 Fact 11

The female officer deployed spray towards Mr A

Proven

Accepted and agreed by the officer as set out in his closing submission.

Further:

The email from PC Small to Sgt Freeman 03/06/2021 00.43hrs Bundle page 107: ‘I recall that Mr A then punched RAYMOND in the face and It was at this point that I realised that this was getting out of control and I went to get my PAVA which I deployed into Mr A’s face as I was under the impression that there was a threat of violence towards both me and my colleagues if this was not bought under control quickly’.

This is repeated in her First account Bundle page 113: same as email above and her Statement Pc Small 01/06/2021 bundle page 117: confirms she used PAVA towards Male A.

9.12 Fact 12

The Officer shouted, ‘Sam let go of him! Sam let go of him!’ Sam did so

Proven

Accepted and agreed by the officer as set out in his closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:34PM (counter 12.09) on viewing it confirms facts in allegation.

The IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 344: confirms facts in allegation.

9.13 Fact 13

Mr A stood back up and moved away from the officers to his left.

Proven

Accepted and agreed by the officer as set out in his closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:35PM (counter 12.11) confirms facts in allegation.

9.14 Fact 14

The Officer raised his Taser and deployed it. The Taser was fired at 08:16:36

Proven

Accepted and agreed by the officer as set out in his closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:34PM (counter 12:11) on viewing it confirms facts in allegation.

Additionally, PC Robinson defence statement Southwark Crown court Bundle page 192 Para 14: ‘made the decision that discharging his taser was most appropriate way to try and gain control of Mr A…’

Finally, PC Robinson’s Regulating 30 response Bundle page 469 Para 24: accepts he made the decision to discharge his taser and that he did so.

9.15 Fact 15

After the Officer had fired his Taser he shouted, ‘Taser. Taser.’

Proven

Accepted and agreed by the officer as set out in his closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:34 ( counter 12.11): on viewing it confirms facts in allegation. The Panel heard a taser discharge sound first then his announcement ‘taser, taser’ in that order. It was very close together in sequence.

The IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 344: confirms facts in allegation (page 344 12:10 timer)

Further, PC Robinson defence statement Southwark Crown court Bundle page 193 Para14: set out that ‘he gave the taser warning’.

9.16 Fact 16

The Taser discharged but did not appear to have any effect.

Proven

Accepted and agreed by the officer as set out in his closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 : on viewing it confirms facts in allegation. Mr A is not incapacitated by the taser discharge.

The officer’s regulation 31 response bundle page 469 Para 24: admits discharging taser.

9.17 Fact 17

Mr A’s jacket was falling down. The right sleeve was halfway down his arm at about elbow level. He walked towards the Officer with his left arm extended, his hand open and facing outwards. He did not threaten the Officer.

Partially Proven

The Panel watched carefully the BWV and was able to see clearly that the jacket was falling down, the right sleeve was halfway down his arm at about elbow level and that when walking towards the officer his left arm was extended and hand open facing outwards. The Panel found these aspects of fact 17 proven from viewing the BWV alone.

The Panel went on to consider and examined the available material to decide on the alleged fact that ‘he did not threaten the officer.’ The Panel revisited the officer accounts, PC Raymond :’[Mr A] started to come towards PC ROBINSON but stumbled over’ (p103) PC Small ‘[Mr A] started going towards ROBINSON and I therefore deployed my PAVA again and this was successful in gaining control of the suspect…’ (p107/113). PC Robinson’s statement, ‘[Mr A] then turned to me and raised his left arm and started marching towards me. I would describe the look on his face as angry’.’ I pressed the trigger on the Taser again, hoping it might have some effect, but it did not.’ ‘At this point I genuinely feared for the safety of myself and that of PC SMALL and PC RAYMOND …’(p122). Here PC Raymond provides no evidence regarding threat, PC Small, the Panel concluded, deployed Pava as a use of force because Mr A was going towards PC Robinson. PC Robinson described him as ‘marching and his face looked angry.’ The Panel were not able to see Mr A’s face in the BWV at this point. Pc Robinson’s crown court defence statement, ‘[Mr A] approached him in an aggressive manner and the Defendant did not have sufficient time to re-engage the taser.’ (Para15 p193) . PC Robinson’s crown court testimony, ‘I remember ever so clearly that, as I am facing PM with barbs attached to him, he is looking at me with a face I would describe as very angry, coming towards me to close the gap. Distance is such that he cannot yet strike me, but he is coming towards me either to strike me or take my taser off me.’ (p454). PC Robinson IOPC interview statement consistent with his other account (marching and face looked angry) (p364).

In respect to the immediately preceding behaviour, Mr A was resisting the officers - arms thrashing about, he had punched PC Raymond, PC Small had discharged Pava towards him, PC Robinson had discharged taser. This was all within a matter of seconds from the officer’s first entering the compound to Mr A walking towards PC Robinson with arm outstretched.

In an attempt to understand Mr A’s intention of walking towards PC Robinson in the manner he did, the Panel saw that in his statement dated 23^rd Feb2022 Bundle page 211 to 212 he stated ‘My instinct at the time was to put as much space between them and me as possible... I remember feeling confused and I wanted to get away from them’ and in the Southwark Crown Court defence notes evidence in chief (bundle page 436) he stated: ‘He tried to restrain me. Question-How? I had a taser fired at me, which I managed to keep away from. Question - Do you recall when this was in relation to the incident with the spray? It was after. Question - Taser was after spray? Yes. Question - Did you see which officer? No, I had my head down, I was trying to get away, didn’t really see where all the officers were at the time.’

Also, (bundle page 437) the notes indicate the following exchange between Counsel and Mr A ( 8:15:52: play footage. Pause 8:16:36) – Question - explain to jury what you are doing at that point? Answer - Trying to get away from the situation because I was confused. Question - Walking towards PC R with hand outstretched – what were you doing? Answer - Trying to protect myself from the taser.

Further that under cross examination the notes indicate (bundle page 439): Question - We watched the point in the footage where you are not moving away but walking towards the second male officer who has the taser. You have said that you wanted to run away, but we see you are moving towards him. When you were asked why, you said, you were trying to protect yourself from the taser? Answer Yes. Question - So how were you going to protect yourself from the taser? Answer - I had my hand up. Question - So were you going to try and grab the taser? Answer - No. Question - What were you going to do? Answer- Try to stop it hitting me, firing the pins at me, the taser cables. Question - At that point we see PC Robinson is moving backwards away from you and you are advancing toward him? Answer - Yes. Question - Why not still trying to run away at that point? Answer - I was trying to understand the situation what was going on. Question - And how did going towards PC Robinson help you understand the situation? Answer - I was trying to protect myself and try and realise what was going on and what officers were there for. Question - You talked about fight or flight. At this point you are not in flight are you? Answer - No. Question - Would you agree you are being aggressive and going towards him? Answer - No not at all. Question - You were in fight mode? Answer - No, I was scared. Question - He was backing away from you when you were going towards him? Answer - Yes.

Taking all this together and considering it in the round the Panel found on the balance of probabilities that the AA has not proven he did not threaten the officer.

Moving towards the officer as he did could clearly be interpreted by the officer as threatening.

9.18 Fact 18

The Officer retreated.

Proven

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:42 PM (counter 12.16): on viewing it confirms facts in allegation. Officer walking backwards and can be seen to start to change cartridge on taser.

The Officer’s reg 31 response bundle page 469 Para 25: confirms moving backwards trying to create distance between himself and Mr A. His other accounts confirm this.

His testimony in the Crown Court from the notes :

Training on gap between you and member of public? Yes. “CUT” technique – create distance, utilise cover, take action. My intention was to move backwards to create that distance, would allow me time to remove fired cartridge from taser, discard, and manually reload next cartridge. (p454)

9.19 Fact 19

Mr A groaned loudly, apparently in pain. He stopped walking turned 90 degrees to his left, facing away from the officers, and squatted down and then knelt on the ground. His left arm was extended in front of him and his right arm was folded across his stomach.

Proven

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:44 PM (counter time 12.17 ): on viewing confirms the facts in allegation.

9.20 Fact 20

The female officer took hold of him with her left hand towards his left shoulder and her right on his right biceps.

Partially Proven

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:43 PM: (counter 12.18) on viewing at quarter speed the Panel saw PC Small take hold of him with her left hand towards his left shoulder. She appeared to have hold of his jacket material. In respect to the right hand, it appeared to be more located, again holding the jacket material, in the area of his triceps rather than biceps.

Supporting this is PC Small statement dated 01/06/2021 bundle page 117/118: where she describes taking hold of him in order to try and apply handcuffs. Further analysis in Pc Raymond first account Bundle page 95 reveals his account that ‘PC Small grabbed him, he was resisting’.

Overall, the Panel found that it was technically only partially proved as it was set out but, the meaning was made out and it does not materially affect the specific allegations directly, as a background fact.

9.21 Fact 21

Mr A did not pose any threat to the Officer or his colleagues.

The Panel found this fact not proven by the AA.

There was clear evidence concerning Mr A’s behaviour and attitude as being verbally belligerent to officers and non-compliant (testimony Small, Raymond, Robinson). He then goes on to resist PC Robinson and PC Raymond as they try to take hold of him having gone through the gate. He is then thrashing his arms about and he has assaulted a police officer by punching him in the face. This was also set out in the statements and use of force submissions made by the officers at the time. Additionally, **************** statement sets out that he saw, ‘The other Police officers when (went) to hold on to him and my stepfather managed to turn out of it and as he turned out of it my stepfather punched the other Police officer in the face’ (p202/203).Further, ************* states, ‘At one-point Mr A reached over one of the police officers arms and punched him on the lower left jaw’ (p197/198).

The Panel watched carefully the BWV and observed his behaviour. At one stage three police officers were trying to restrain him in order to gain control. Indeed, Mr A himself, after he was detained and in handcuffs provided insight into his thought process ‘…you came for me I got to defend myself… I was just defending myself’ BWV 8:18PM.

Further to the above, the statement from the witness ************ (Bundle page 196 -198) set out that she heard verbal aggression from Mr A and that he had grabbed a metal pole and was waving it about aggressively in a threatening manner towards family members. The use of the metal pole and threats is also observed by the two other family member witnesses (bundle page 202 and 207 refers) including the person being threatened. This was known to the officer in advance of engaging Mr A.

The Panel also considered the evidence from Mr A in his statement dated 23 March 2022 ‘ they weren’t just coming for a chat… they wanted to arrest me…’ (bundle page 211), considering all of the above in the round the Panel concluded that there was a threat to the officer and his colleagues.

9.22 Fact 22

The Officer approached MR A and kicked him.

Proven

The officer accepts this fact in written closing submission.

Further:

BWV PC Robinson recording NJP/001/180722 8.16pm & 43 seconds (12.17) – on viewing PC Robinson appears to deliver a kick to the side of Mr A. Additionally, the officer’s Reg 30 response bundle page 470 para 30: ‘The officer executes one kick to Mr A’s torso. He had been trained to issue kicks as a distraction strike to try and help gain control of a suspect.’ Further analysis by the Panel saw substantial other material supporting this fact including PC Robinson’s statement (p123), his IOPC interview (p363) and the Southwark Crown Court defence notes (p455), his Crown Court defence statement (p193,Para18) and the PC Robinson Use of Force form drop down free text entry (p475).

9.23 Fact 23

Mr A was still facing down on the ground, with his hands on the ground.

Partially Proven

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16.43PM ( counter 12.17): on viewing the BWV at a quarter speed the Panel can see Mr A still facing the ground and can see his right hand on the ground but not the left hand. That is not visible in the BWV. The Panel noted no other available evidence. The fact states ‘hands’ plural. As such partially proven. The Panel concluded however than whilst not seen his left hand must have been there or thereabouts given Mr A’s position and as such in the context of the allegation, at this point in the events, it appeared to have minimal impact.

9.24 Fact 24

The Officer then struck Mr A three times to the back of his head in a hammer fist motion with the butt of his Taser. As the Officer was striking Mr A he shouted, ‘Get on the ******* floor you ****.’

Proven

The officer accepts this fact in written closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16.43PM (counter 12.19) on viewing confirms facts in allegation.

The Officer’s reg 31 response Bundle page 470 para 32 states ‘The officer delivered three hammer fist strikes to the back of Mr A’s head’.

Further, Bundle page 466 the officers Reg 31 response Para 2 and 43: the officer accepts language used as described.

Further analysis by the Panel saw substantial other material supporting this fact including the Southwark Crown Court defence statement (p193 para 20), Email from PC Raymond to Sgt Freeman (p90), PC Raymond’s statements (p98 ,P103), PC Small email (p107), PC Small first account (p113).

9.25 Fact 25

Mr A was told, ‘Get down now.’ Despite already having his hands and knees on the floor.

Proven

Accepted by the officer in his written closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16.48 PM (counter 12.25): on viewing it confirms the facts in allegation.

9.26 Fact 26

The Officer called for urgent assistance. Mr A said, ‘I’m down.’ The Officer shouted, ‘Get on the floor.’

Proven

The officer accepts this fact in written closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 :8:16:52PM (counter 12.27) on viewing it confirms facts in allegation ‘I’m down’, ‘get on the floor’ x2 from officer.

Further the IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 345: confirms the facts in allegation as does the airwave radio transmission recording SC-01062021-412 Radio 48 Transmission (counter 12 seconds) request for urgent assistance.

9.27 Fact 27

The Officer administered another hammer strike with the butt of the Taser.

Proven

The officer accepts this fact in written closing submission.

Further:

The BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:16:58PM (counter 12.32): see the officer strike with the taser towards male and the Panel heard a sound as though it connected but did not actually see connection.

Further the Officer’s reg 31 response Bundle page 470 para36 accepts the fourth hammer strike was undertaken but clarifies that it is not possible to see if it connects in BWV.

On the basis of the facts connection with MR A is not part of the facts alleged.

9.28 Fact 28

Mr A started to say that he could not breathe. He complained about being kicked. He had an injury to the back of his head.

Proven

The officer accepts this fact in written closing submission.

Further:

BWV PC Robinson NJP/001/180722 8:17:03PM (counter 12.38) : on viewing it confirms the facts in allegation.

The IOPC transcription of BWV NJP/001/180722 report date 17/12/2024 Bundle page 345 to 349: on reading confirms the facts in allegation.

Further the Statement from Mr A dated 22nd March 2022 (Bundle page 212) sets out he was finding it hard to breathe, that he could feel blood was pouring down the back of his head and that he believed he was kicked.

Breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour (Step 2)

10.0 The Panel is clear it assessed this against the definitions of the alleged standards engaged from the definitions as set out in the police conduct regulations at schedule 2. To assist it in this task the Panel has drawn from the code of ethics in force at the time and that was there to guide and assist officers, in considering the definitions set out at schedule 2.

Use of Force

10.1 Impact factors are part of the process of assessing risk as to what the appropriate response is.

10.2 Distraction strikes are used to distract a subject during arrest and can be anything from a punch, a slap, a kick for example. Anything that distracts to give an officer an advantage. It is usually only temporary.

10.3 The target areas for strikes depend on what an officer is trying to achieve. Consideration needs to be given to training in respect to primary areas and non-primary areas. Certain parts of the body are more vulnerable than others eg head / neck and needs to be justified if a target area.

10.4 Police are taught to use elbows, open hand, punches, palm strikes and the knee and the foot. The police are taught to improvise.

10.5 Hammer strikes are trained, usually with nothing in the hand but they are also trained to deliver hammer blows whilst holding a baton or a PAVA cannister.

10.6 Hammer strikes are not risk free. An officer needs to take advantage of the target area that presents itself and is most appropriate. There is a risk to the subject from a hammer strike to the head.

10.7 There is almost no such thing as a safe use of force. An officer has to use a dynamic risk assessment.

10.8 The Panel took account of the impact factors that were in evidence and what we observed from the interaction with Mr A.

10.9 Fact 14 Use of Force – Use of Taser

Fact 14 – The Panel found this fact proven.

Impact Factors

10.10 Before the first use of force the Panel found that PC Robinson had the following impact factors to consider.

He had been called to the incident and had been briefed via the airwaves radio CCR dispatch operator that Mr A had threated family members with a metal pole including his ex-partner. He was alerted to possible mental health issues (Airwave Radio Transmission 25).
Account from the family members at the scene confirming the threat with the metal pole.
The officer interaction with Mr A from behind the closed gate and Mr A’s behaviour at that point.
The fact that family members stated it was their compound and they would not leave the scene. The potential for escalation if officers left.
It was categorised as a domestic abuse incident and fell under the Suffolk Constabulary positive action policy.
His seeking guidance from his supervisor regarding the situation and the response.
The nature of the compound and material inside it including the then discarded metal pole.
PC Robinson tried to take hold of Mr A and he resisted.
PC Raymond joined in trying to get hold of Mr A and Mr A continued to resist thrashing his arms around and then punching PC Raymond in the face.
That he observed that PC Raymond had Mr A in a non-approved hold ( headlock) and it was not gaining control and risked injury to a vulnerable part of Mr As body ( head / neck).
That Mr A was larger and stronger than the officers present.
The experience level of his colleagues at the scene ( PC Small and PC Raymond).
That he called for Pava to be deployed which PC Small did to no physical observed effect.

The Panel then applied the relevant test as follows:

(i) First, did the officer honestly believe that force was necessary. This is a subjective question based on what was in the officer’s mind at the time. However, if the officer forms a mistaken view about the need to use force, that view should be objectively assessed to understand if it was reasonably held.

10.11 The Panel had in mind the evidence it had seen, heard, read and viewed and when taking into account the impact factors the Panel found that the officer honestly believed the force was necessary.

10.12 The Panel considered that the view that the use of force was necessary was reasonably held.

(ii) Second, the reasonableness and proportionality of the level of force used should be objectively assessed by reference to the information subjectively known to the officer at the time. However, again, if the officer forms a mistaken view, that view should be objectively assessed to understand if it was reasonably held.

10.13 The use of taser by PC Robinson was to gain control. Based upon what the officer was faced with and his knowledge at the time, this was reasonable and proportionate when looked at objectively.

10.14 In addition, this view was reasonably held by the officer given the evidence the Panel have considered.

10.15 We therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that the officer has not breached the standard of professional behaviour in respect of this (Taser) use of force.

10.16 Fact 22 Use of Force – Kick

Fact 22 – The Panel found this fact proven.

Impact Factors

10.17 In addition to the factors listed above concerning allegation 14 at the point in time that PC Robinson administered the ‘kick’ there were also the following impact factors:

Taser not effective
Mr A approaches the officer with left open hand outstretched and PC Robinson’s belief he was displaying an angry face.
A second pava spray.
MR A dropping to the floor and attempting to get back up.
Concern about PC Small who was behind getting knocked over.
The movement of Mr A’s hand to his waistband and PC Robinsons concern regarding a potential weapon in the waistband / jacket area.
Mr A still not under full control.

The Panel then applied the relevant test as follows:

10.18 The Panel had in mind the evidence it had seen, heard, read and viewed and when taking into account the impact factors the Panel found that the officer honestly believed the force was necessary.

10.19 The Panel considered that the view that the use of force was necessary was reasonably held.

10.20 The use of the Kick, as a distraction technique, by PC Robinson was to gain control. Based upon what the officer was faced with and his knowledge at the time, this was reasonable and proportionate when looked at objectively.

10.21 In addition, this view was reasonably held by the officer given the evidence the Panel have considered.

10.22 We therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that the officer has not breached the standard of professional behaviour in respect of this (Kick) use of force.

10.23 Fact 24 Use of Force – Hammer strikes with butt of Taser x 3.

Fact 24 – The Panel found this fact proven.

Impact Factors

10.24 In addition to the factors listed above concerning allegation 14 and 22 at the point in time that PC Robinson administered the ‘three hammer strikes’ there were also the following impact factors:

Kick had no effect.
Mr A still not under full control.
Feeling him continue to tense.

The Panel then applied the relevant test as follows:

10.25 The Panel had in mind the evidence it had seen, heard, read and viewed and when taking into account the impact factors the Panel found that the officer honestly believed the force was necessary.

10.26 The Panel considered that the view that the use of force was necessary was reasonably held.

10.27 The use of the Hammer strike x3 with the Taser Butt, as a distraction technique, by PC Robinson was to gain control. Based upon what the officer was faced with and his knowledge at the time, this was not reasonable and proportionate when looked at objectively. This is because there were other more reasonable and proportionate options available to the officer in relation to the use of force given the position of Mr A, the number of officers engaged in gaining control over him, the fact that he had already been Pava’d twice which from the BWV evidence was having some effect. The actual level of resistance Mr A was offering which apart from the single punch was resistance only .

10.28 In addition, his view that using the hammer strikes with the taser was reasonable and proportionate was not reasonably held by the officer given the evidence the Panel have considered.

10.29 We therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that the officer has breached the standard of professional behaviour in respect of this (hammer strike with taser butt x 3) use of force.

10.30 Fact 27 Use of Force – another hammer strike with the butt of the Taser

Fact 27 – The Panel found this fact proven.

Impact Factors

10.31 In addition to the factors listed above concerning allegation 14, 22 and 24 at the point in time that Pc Robinson administered the ‘the single (fourth) hammer strike’ there were also the following impact factors:

PC Robinson’s view on events such that he activated the radio emergency call button for urgent assistance.
Mr A had taken hold of his fingers.

The Panel then applied the relevant test as follows:

10.32 The Panel had in mind the evidence it had seen, heard, read and viewed and when taking into account the impact factors the Panel found that the officer honestly believed the force was necessary.

10.33 The Panel considered that the view that the use of force was necessary was reasonably held.

10.34 The use of the fourth hammer strike, as a distraction technique, by PC Robinson was to gain control and loosen the grip Mr A had on his fingers. Based upon what the officer was faced with and his knowledge at the time, this was reasonable and proportionate when looked at objectively.

10.35 In addition, this view was reasonably held by the officer given the evidence the Panel have considered.

10.36 We therefore find, on the balance of probabilities, that the officer has not breached the standard of professional behaviour in respect of this (fourth hammer strike) use of force.

Authority, Respect and Courtesy (ARC)

10.37 The Panel went on to consider the allegations as set out concerning the use of force and applied its findings above. The Panel having found no breach of the standard of professional behaviour (use of force) concerning the taser, kick and fourth hammer strike did not find any breaches of ARC in respect to these allegations.

10.38 In respect to the found breach of the use of force, concerning the three hammer strikes with the taser butt to the back of Mr A’s head, we considered the definition and found that the officer had not acted with self-control towards Mr A.

10.39 The Panel therefore found proven in respect to this a breach of the standard of professional behaviour relating to ARC.

10.40 The Panel also finds a breach in respect to the allegation concerning the use of language at fact 24 in the regulation 30 notice and accept the officers admission on it.

Discreditable Conduct

10.41 In respect to the use of force that we did not find proven, the Panel did not find any breach of this standard.

10.42 In respect to the use of force, we did find to be a breach, we found that this behaviour could discredit the police service and undermine public confidence in policing.

10.43 Discreditable conduct was therefore found in respect to the three hammer strikes with the taser butt to the head.

10.44 Turning to the language we found to have breached Authority, Respect and Courtesy the Panel considered the definition of discreditable conduct against the evidence and facts in this case. The Panel found that the language used, whilst poor and potentially offensive, was said in the context of incident and the Panel took the view that any ordinary member of the public armed with the same facts and or witnessing the incident for themselves would not see it as discrediting the service or undermining public confidence in it.

10.45 Discreditable conduct was therefore not found to be breached in respect to the language used.

Do the found facts and found breaches of the standards amount to gross misconduct , misconduct or neither (Step 3).

11.0 The Panel in considering this has reminded itself of the definitions as set out in police regulations of gross misconduct and misconduct and it is those definitions that we have made our findings against. To assist us and provide a framework to our decision we have drawn upon the college of policing guidance on outcomes and used a seriousness assessment to assist. For the avoidance of doubt however it is the definitions as set out in regulations that form the basis of our decision namely:

Gross misconduct:- a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify dismissal.

Misconduct:- a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action.

11.1 The Panel has taken the approach as set out in the Home Office guidance at para 11.132:

Where more than one allegation of misconduct against the officer concerned has been found proven, it is for the panel / chair to decide whether, taken together, the misconduct may amount to gross misconduct.

11.2 In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, we have considered:

a. The officer’s culpability.

11.3 In this matter, the Panel found the officers’ actions to be intentional and deliberate (CoP 4.10). He used the language . He used the force. The evidence in the bundle was he intended to hammer strike him with the taser still in his hand towards his head.

11.4 Although, it was fast moving, and the Panel accepts the harm was unintentional (in respect to the actual injuries caused to Mr A), the Panel reminded itself that PC Robinson, in the available evidence, stated his intention was to hammer strike him on the side of his head knowing the taser was still in his hand. The Panel in considering the papers concerning the officer’s training (Personal safety) understood that whilst not prohibited it is not classified as a primary area to administer such a technique and that it has an increased risk of harm / vulnerability to a subject and requires extra justification. The Panel found the officer would have known this from his training and the evidence presented in the case.

11.5 The Culpability therefore falls at the high level of seriousness.

b. The harm caused (and the risk of harm).

11.6 The Panel found that Mr A had sustained a physical injury characterised in the hospital medical evidence as a 2 cm laceration to the head (CoP Para 4.64).

11.7 The Panel recognised psychological distress, Mr A stating after the event that in respect to police sirens/ see officers caused him to feel minor anxiety and panic. Mr A statement (p215).

11.8 The Panel finds that public confidence in policing is undermined (CoP Para 4.66) and that there is real and significant national concern about excessive use of force by the police and police officers use when providing a policing service to the public(CoP 4.70).

11.9 The harm and risk of harm in this matter therefore falls at the level of medium to high seriousness.

c. The aggravating factors.

11.10 There are multiple proven allegations and breaches of the standards.

d. Mitigating factors.

11.11 The Panel observed the following:

The incident was isolated, short in duration.
There was provocation in respect to Mr A as to his behaviour and resistance.
The officer’s actions were pursuant to a legitimate policing purpose ( arrest for affray / criminal investigation).
Admission to the majority of the facts alleged and the language used that amounted to a breach of ARC.
The officer was the first to examine Mr A’s injury and direct the administration of first aid.

11.12 In conclusion, the Panel do find that culpability is at the high level and the harm and risk of harm is at the medium high level.

11.13 Together with the aggravating and mitigating factors, the seriousness overall is at the medium high level of seriousness.

11.14 In turning our attention to the definitions under regulations, the Panel finds that the breaches of the standards of professional behaviour it has found are so serious as to justify dismissal and therefore the Panel finds Gross misconduct.

11.15 This finding does fulfil the purpose of the misconduct regime which we reminded ourselves of when making this determination.

Assessment of Seriousness and Outcome (Stage 2,Step 4)

12.0 The Panel have considered all the submissions, the evidence, the record of service and his good character. We also considered the college of policing guidance on outcomes. There is no evidence of any matters of similar misconduct by the Officer during his service. It is fair to note that there is evidence of good work by the former officer during his career within the information supplied and the panel reminded itself of the advice regarding good character and the character references. However, the Panel recognises that personal mitigation has limited weight at this stage given our findings and legal authorities on such matters. But we did consider it.

12.1 We have also considered again our purpose within the misconduct regime which is:

to maintain public confidence and the reputation of the police service
to uphold high standards in policing and deter misconduct
to protect the public.

12.2 In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, we have already considered:

culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating matters as set out above and do not repeat those findings here.

12.3 We turned our minds to this aspect once more having heard submissions.

12.4 We did not consider that any further aggravating or mitigating matters needed to be added or removed from our previous assessment.

12.5 In relation to deliberate targeted and planned, as raised by the officer’s counsel, we already considered this within our culpability assessment and dismissed it was targeted and planned in that assessment.

12.6 In respect to serious harm caused, as raised by the AA – the actual physical injury was a 2cm laceration that was glued with no long-term effect. On potential to cause serious harm the Panel understands the issue with vulnerability of a head as a target area and also understood the officer’s training on target areas. Vulnerable areas are not off limits.

12.7 Our seriousness assessment remains the same.

12.8 The appropriate authority says that a finding that the officer is dismissed is the only appropriate finding.

12.9 The officer’s counsel says that a Final Written Warning is appropriate.

12.10 In assessing the appropriate outcome, the Panel approached this by considering the least severe outcome first until we reached the appropriate outcome commensurate with the seriousness of our findings that would fulfil the purposes of the misconduct regime.

12.11 Having considered all the above matters and the available outcomes, the Panel firstly considered whether a final written warning was appropriate.

12.12 Having considered the matter very carefully; we found the following features of this case which we considered to be relevant in the assessment of outcome:

The officer had a genuine policing purpose.
There was a reason to arrest for the Affray.
It was a fast-moving stressful situation.
The incident was such that the officer, for the first time in his service pressed the emergency button calling for support.
The officer felt responsible for his colleagues, as the senior officer (in service) present.
Despite reported anxiety, Mr A did not feel a loss of confidence in the police.
The found breaches of the standards relate to one UOF and language out of a sequence of events that included three reasonable and proportionate uses of force.
The Panel noted the officers behaviour after Mr A was under control to be calm, professional and showing concern to Mr A.

Outcome

12.13 The only two outcomes here are dismissal or final written warning.

Final written warning

12.14 Based on the factors set out above the Panel determined a final written warning was the appropriate outcome.

12.15 We then turned our mind to the length of the final written warning as per paragraph 3.16 of the guidance on outcomes.

12.16 We first considered a final written warning of standard duration. But given the seriousness of what we had found we did not consider this sufficient, nor was an extended Final written warning of duration less than five years.

12.17 Given the factors at paragraph 3.16, which we considered, the Panel found that a Final Written Warning should be for a period of five years.

Outcome: Final Written Warning Five years duration.

12.18 The Panel considered that a member of the public knowing the full facts of this case would see this decision as fulfilling the purpose of the misconduct regime a more severe sanction was not required to fulfil the purpose of the regime.

Publication

13.0 The AA is directed to publish the final written report and for the officer to be named. I direct that the public witnesses are anonymised.

Appeal

14.0 All officers have a right of appeal to a Police Appeals Tribunal against any disciplinary finding and/or disciplinary outcome imposed at a misconduct hearing or a finding of gross misconduct and/or any disciplinary outcome imposed. The grounds of appeal are:

That the finding or disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable,
That there is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the misconduct hearing which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action or,
That there was a breach of procedures set out in the Conduct regulations or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action. Where an officer wishes to appeal, they will need to give notice in writing to their local policing body. The notice must be given within ten working days, beginning with the first working day after the police officer is first supplied with a written copy of the decision they are appealing against.

The Panel

ACO Davison

Mrs Carter

Mr Jones

10/10/2026

Appendix A

Summary of PC Robinson live testimony

The Panel heard oral testimony from PC Robinson, as part of his evidence in chief. The Panel heard that he had been a police cadet and a special constable before joining as a full-time paid officer in May 2017 and that he had held a Taser qualification and been authorised to carry Taser since 2019. In response to being asked about how often he had found himself using force he told the Panel that it was difficult to be definitive. Some days he would attend 2 – 3 jobs a day, other days 10 jobs and that ‘use of force’ was a broad spectrum from low level handcuffing to use of taser and in between. He told the Panel he, himself, had discharged taser on two previous occasions and that on both they were successful and he had gained control. On one or two other occasions he had drawn taser, reassessed and holstered it. He confirmed to the Panel that he would also have in his PPE Pava and a baton and that he had used Pava before to varying degrees of success and a baton only once but that it was not successful in what he was seeking to achieve.

He went on to describe the PPST training and how it had changed over time from a drills approach to a scenario-based input on typical officer experiences and how it was a far more effective and beneficial way of training. He told the Panel about the National Decision Model and how it was used. The Panel heard his clear and detailed explanation of how to apply the NDM and the Panel formed the view that he had an effective working knowledge of the NDM and how it operated .He told the Panel that the PPST training included training around escalation and de-escalation. PC Robinson went on to describe that he thought he was on routine patrol when the control room called up for officers to attend the incident in question via the airwave radio system and that it was graded as a Grade A domestic type incident. He told the Panel that he attended because of the information received hat it was a domestic abuse incident and that it involved a male threatening a former partner with a pole and that in his mind the other officers who called up to attend were relatively inexperienced and neither were rained in use of taser. He told the Panel that he deemed it necessary to help them as a taser officer, to support them and that there was nothing lost by him attending.

PC Robinson explained that at the incident he and the other two officers disagreed on the course of action to take. He told the Panel that PC Raymond seemed more concerned about it being a civil matter where he was focused on the allegation of the threat of violence with the metal pole. He told the Panel his risk assessment was less about the ownership and disturbance but that he was concerned that if the police stepped away and did nothing that they could be called back later as it may have escalated to physical violence. He drew this conclusion because the family had said they were not going to leave and his worry was no one would leave so that if they did not take l positive action there would be violence. The officer went on to describe the constabulary policy regarding domestic abuse and the concept of positive action and that the policy drives officers to take action which could take different forms including arrest.

He told the Panel that the policy also highlighted that any decision not to arrest should be ratified by a supervisor first and that he was seeking to deal with Mr A for an affray.

In respect to gaining access to the compound where Mr A was, the Panel heard the officer state that when the gate first opened, he went to take hold of Mr A’s right arm and that he did take hold of it but that Mr A immediately pulled away. He went on to describe how he and PC Raymond attempted to get hold again with a firmer grip and how Mr A began to thrash around and effectively began to throw punches. He went on to tell the Panel that he saw that one of Mr A’s punches made contact with PC Raymonds face. PC Robinson went on to explain to the Panel how his risk assessment had escalated because now the risk had evolved from, what if we did nothing, to what was occurring with Mr A, PC Raymond and him. He stated Mr A was thrashing about, he had lost his grip on him, PC Raymond had been punched in the face, which had led to PC Raymond having Mr A in an improvised headlock. That he had called for PC Small to use her Pava spray as it was his hope that would get a better level of compliance on Mr A. He went on to tell the Panel that Mr A was effectively using both hands to thrash around and throw a lot of punches, and he was unable to get hold of him. He described how Mr A was not under control and that the control he was aiming for was for it to be effective Mr A would be in handcuffs and on the floor if need be. PC Robinson told the Panel that he was taught that when applying rigid handcuffs, the level of control goes up greatly. He told the Panel that his assessment was that PC Raymonds use of the headlock was not gaining control / safe control and that the use if the headlock was dangerous running a risk if injury. His assessment, he told the Panel, was that he felt it was a better situation to tell PC Raymond to let go and use a different force as the force being used so far was not working. PC Robinson went on to describe the options and told the Panel that he could have joined PC Raymond with conventional hand to hand use of force, use PAVA but that his assessment was that given Mr As size (larger and stronger) and that, given Pava had already deployed the next logical use of force was taser. He went on to describe that he did not consider baton, although a tool in the toolbox, as a viable alternative as it would only provide minor pain compliance. He also described doing nothing as an option but that this was not viable and that as an officer he was expected to take and manage risk, that an allegation had been made (affray) and that Mr A was non-compliant having just struck another officer.

He confirmed to the Panel that he had discharged his taser and shouted “taser, taser”, He went on to tell the Panel that he had fired it first and then shouted the warning and that the time between the two actions was a split second or so. He told the Panel that he recognised that ideally the warning should be before the discharge but that it depended on the situation and that the warning was not only for the subject but to advise the public and other officers that a taser was about to be used. He told the Panel his intention was to aim for the chest area and just below the belt line. That it was fast moving but that it had not been effective as he was still walking , talking and till moving his arms. He described seeing successful taser deployments and achieving NMI where a person would go rigid and if standing may fall over.

He went on the tell the Panel that Mr A then moved towards him closing the gap, that he started a manual reload of the taser. That he tried to create distance by stepping backwards to be able to get the optimum distance for taser to be effective. Then he described Mr A stopping and dropping to his knees as a result of a second Parav deployment from PC Raymond. He described how Mr A was positioned with his hands tucked under him and on his knees facing away from him. PC Robinson told the Panel that initially he thought it was a reaction to the Pava but also that he was concerned Mr A might be trying to grab something from his waist band. He considered the risk assessment to still be high there was the allegation about the metal pole could that be in his waistband or jacket was in his mind. He described then how he ran towards Mr A and delivered a front kick to his right side just below the shoulder. He told the Panel that he was trying to push Mr A on his side and get better control of him. He remembered pushing the emergency button on his radio. He told the Panel that despite Mr A being on the floor he was not fully under control as not in hand cuffs, that he was still tensing and flexing. He thought Mr A was trying to get up onto his feet by pushing up with his hand. He told the Panel that he was concerned that PC Small was behind Mr A and that Mr A getting up would push into PC Small and see her going on the floor. He told the Panel that the kick had not worked.

PC Robinson then went on to tell the Panel that he went to deliver hammer blows as he was trained to do so intending to strike the side of Mr A’s head. He told the Panel that his thinking was to distract, draw his attention away from what he was doing, in this case , trying to get up off the floor ad move his attention to the hammer strikes. The officer went on to tell the Panel that he was trained to apply them with a closed fist, or pava canister in his hand or with a baton in his hand. He told the Panel that the location of such a strike is such that nothing is off limits but to have in mind the injury of striking in certain places. He described to the Panel his thinking that he had already delivered a front leg kick ( more powerful with a kick) and that had not worked so the logical place in his opinion was to deliver the distraction would be to the side of his head.

The Panel heard that he accepted that there was no training to use a taser within a hammer strike but told the Panel he was taught and trained to improvise. He went on to set out why he used three strikes in quick succession as he considered it an ideal distraction and that he felt Mr A losing his tension in his upper body as he did although he still felt him pushing up with his hand trying to get up. He was hoping that one of the other officers would take the opportunity to apply handcuffs. He told the Panel that he continued to be concerned that Mr A would push himself up and that would force PC Small to the floor(potentially).

The taser stun cycling was discussed and PC Robinson stated that it was inadvertent both activating the cycle by depressing the trigger and when he moved the taser to Mr A’s side.

In respect to the fourth hammer strike Pc Robinson told the Panel he had reached in with his left hand to take hold of Mr As right arm in an attempt to gain control, so that if not him, the other officers could apply hand cuffs and that in doing so Mr A grabbed hold of his fingers. He applied the fourth strike due to Mr A taking hold of his fingers. He told the Panel his intention was again for it to be a distraction so Mr A would let go of his fingers. He stated that he did loosen his grip but did not fully let go of his hand. He told the Panel that at this point he considered the level of control on Mr A was greater but not still under full control as he was not in handcuffs.

He stated in summary that Mr A had been showing active aggression and that various attempts with different use of force applications by the officers had not been successful. In his mind he used the red emergency button on the radio as he felt he just needed other officers to come and help them. PC Robinson also told the Panel that he does not ultimately go out at work to hurt anyone and that he did not want anything bad to happen to Mr A.

Cross examination

Under cross examination PC Robinson told the Panel that he had only watched the BWV 5 or 6 times in past five years and that he was not retrofitting his testimony to the BWV evidence when he was challenged by Mr Holdcroft. PC Robinson provided clear evidence of his understanding of de-escalation as a concept and about his powers of entry and arrest and necessity in the replies he provided under cross examination. He agreed that when arresting an officer should tell a subject the offence, grounds and necessity and he told the Panel that in this situation with Mr A he did not have an opportunity to do so. He told the Panel that he knew he should undertake dynamic risk assessments with available information. He stated he did not get the opportunity to engage and communicate with Mr A more as Mr A was belligerent. He disagreed with the AA’s assessment that he had failed totally to communicate with Mr A as he should have done.

PC Robinson was asked about the NDM and the risk assessment across the incident. In respect to the NDM assessment he agreed with the AA that the risk was plateauing when he arrived but stated if he left then they would be called back again. He agreed with the AA that in this specific situation the risk was less and was going down upon arrival. When challenged about not seeking to de-escalate he told the Panel that Mr A was not interested and was walking away. PC Robinson told the Panel that in respect to his decision to enter the yard and arrest Mr A for the allegation he had checked his decision with a supervisor. He accepted after challenge that he did not explore alternatives to arrest.

He disagreed he had failed to apply the NDM and continually re assess with available information. He told the Panel he was trained to create opportunities to de-escalate and that he understood the BUGEE principals and application. He told the Panel under cross examination that he was not prepared to back off. He agreed with the AA that within a minute if attending he had decided Mr A would be arrested.

When challenged by the AA about the lack of communication with Mr A the officer accepted that he had not explained to Mr A what he was going to do when he opened the gate. He accepted he had not told Mr A he was going to be arrested. He told the Panel that regardless that he considered it a little surprising someone would pull away from a police officer like that. He agreed that Mr A did not have to let the officer touch him. PC Robinson told the Panel that he considered Mr As active resistance was such that he did not give him the opportunity to state he was under arrest. He maintained his position that he did not have the opportunity to communicate with Mr A as Mr A’s actions stopped that.

PC Robinson, on questioning gave an account that showed he understood the purpose of giving a taser warning and when to do so but he maintained the situation was such that he was unable to do so and accepted that he deployed taser without giving the warning. He accepted that he was too close to use taser effectively.

He told the Panel that Mr A was marching towards him with his hand raised up towards him and that his palm was out and open and there were no verbal threats. He accepted that Mr A fell to the floor and groaned going down on his hands and knees. He accepted that he had kicked Mr A and that he did not allow any time for assessment as to the effect of the kick or Mr A falling to the floor and that within seconds of the kick, he commenced the hammer strikes. He told the Panel that he was placed up against Mr A and could feel him tensing. He was challenged by the AA that, in the Crown Court testimony (p457), he had said that he was not pressed up against Mr A. He told the Panel that is what he said then but that he is saying now - he was next to him.

PC Robinson told the Panel that he struck Mr A three separate times with a hammer strike to his head and that it was a conscious decision by him to do so (did not dispute that).

When challenged about red mist he denied he was seeing red mist. On the language he used and that was in the allegation, he told the Panel that he did not see it as a personal insult. That he admitted a breach of ARC, and he argue that profanity can be helpful in certain situations. After challenge by the AA he accepted and told the Panel that he agreed it is a personal insult but that it did not warrant misconduct. He denied he used the expression and sentence because he was angry and that he had insulted Mr A.

When challenged by the AA over the necessity , proportionality and reasonableness or otherwise of his actions and his use of force set out in the allegations rejected the AA’s assertion that his actions failed those tests and maintained it was in all cases of his use of force necessary, proportionate and reasonable.

Re examination

On re-examination concerning the CAD and his application of the NDM based on available information and intelligence he stated it was not practical as the AA had suggested to read the CAD in advance and that he had considered risk and factors. He maintained it was not appropriate to tell Mr A his intentions when the other side of the gate. He maintained it was his view that Mr A was not fully under control and he was concerned about the lack of control in line with his training.

The Panel had no questions of clarification.

Cookies

PC Samuel Robinson