Relevant expert evidence

29. Mr Collier considered that force was used against D2054 only after all attempts made by the officers to persuade D2054 to comply with instructions had failed.¹ However, he took the view that the continued use of force on D2054, as he was walked from his cell to Reception, could be classed as excessive. This was due to D2054 no longer presenting a risk to the officers, despite his continued shouting.²
30. Mr Collier was critical of the head restraint not being released once the officers had gained control. He also told the Inquiry that, at this stage, the officers could have removed their helmets and gloves.³ Mr Collier said that thought should have been given to removing the PPE and the head support technique to promote de-escalation and communication with D2054.⁴
31. As with other incidents, Mr Collier identified that the staff had placed a detained person in handcuffs behind his back while seated. This technique had been withdrawn from the Use of Force training syllabus at the time. This was due to the serious medical risks caused by being bent forwards for prolonged periods, including compression of the chest, interference with normal breathing and potentially death.⁵ I discuss this further in Chapter D.7 in Volume II.
32. Mr Collier was asked by Counsel to the Inquiry about the effect of restraining a detained person while they were naked. He agreed that, for those who experience mental illness and related vulnerabilities, nakedness during restraint may be an aggravating factor in feeling humiliated or degraded.⁶

1. INQ000111_079 para 317[↩]
2. INQ000158_008-009 paras 1.3-1.4; INQ000111_076 para 301[↩]
3. INQ000111_078 paras 310-311[↩]
4. INQ000111_076 para 301[↩]
5. INQ000111_075 para 300[↩]
6. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 69/8-70/7[↩]