Conclusions

21. I do not find Mr Murphy’s explanation that the footage is misleading credible; he was not able to offer any evidence to support this allegation. I note that there are occasional inaudible comments within the covertly recorded footage but, in my view, the overall quality of the footage is sufficiently clear to see who is speaking and to hear what they are saying. There are no inconsistencies in the time stamp on the footage to suggest that it has been edited, and derogatory statements by Mr Murphy and Mr Ring can clearly be heard. The footage itself is disturbing to watch.
22. I considered D1275’s state of mental and physical health and whether it made him more vulnerable to mistreatment. Concerns had been raised about D1275’s mental health in May 2017.¹ Mr Murphy told the Inquiry that he was not aware of this at the time of the incident because it was not routine to be given information about a detained person’s mental health unless it related to self-harming.²
23. In terms of his vulnerability during the incident, D1275 was intoxicated and incoherent on the covertly recorded footage.³ He was unable to communicate clearly with the officers or medical staff, and appeared to be unaware of what was happening around him for large portions of the incident. Indeed, neither D1275 nor his solicitor was aware that he appeared in the footage until his solicitor viewed the unpixellated footage in relation to another formerly detained person and recognised D1275 as being present.⁴ That notwithstanding, the comments made by Mr Murphy and Mr Ring were dismissive, unprofessional and callous. In particular, I found Mr Ring’s mocking of D1275’s name and the disdainful manner in which he retorted, “We’ll stick with div”, to suggest a disrespectful attitude towards D1275.
24. As discussed further in Chapter D.9 in Volume II, there is a clear power imbalance between a member of staff and a detained person. Such an imbalance of power is particularly pronounced when a detained person is in a situation of additional vulnerability, such as being highly intoxicated. Whether Mr Ring actively chose to exert his authority inappropriately or was simply unaware of the imbalance between himself and D1275, he was an experienced officer who should have appreciated the heightened sense of vulnerability felt by an individual intoxicated with spice. He could also reasonably have been expected to appreciate that D1275 was not able to communicate his feelings of fear or anguish. I consider that this makes the incident all the more concerning.
25. Mr Murphy and Mr Ring could not have known with any certainty whether D1275 could understand the disparaging comments they made about him. D1275’s physical state at the time rendered him unable to advocate for himself in any meaningful way, and it is clear from the footage that Mr Murphy and Mr Ring had little regard for his wellbeing or the impact that their words may have had.
26. In my view, D1275’s mental ill health made him profoundly vulnerable to mistreatment. During this incident, D1275 was repeatedly referred to in humiliating and debasing terms, which shows a lack of respect for his human dignity. It is unclear whether he was able to hear what was being said, although had he been able to do so this is likely to have compounded any anguish or fear he felt as a result of his intoxication. In any event, the nature of the mistreatment of D1275 on 14 June 2017 leads me to conclude that there is credible evidence that it was capable of amounting to degrading treatment.

1. CJS001120[↩]
2. Derek Murphy 2 March 2022 70/17-71/1[↩]
3. Day 8 PM 2 December 2021 00:33:00-00:49:02 (KENCOV1035 – V2017061400015) and 00:49:20-00:53:53 (V2017061400016)[↩]
4. BHM000042_032 para 110[↩]