Are you OK with cookies?

We use small files called ‘cookies’ on Some are essential to make the site work, some help us to understand how we can improve your experience, and some are set by third parties. You can choose to turn off the non-essential cookies. Which cookies are you happy for us to use?

Relevant expert evidence

  1. Mr Collier was asked to examine the use of force on D1234 on 28 March 2017. He found that the use of force was necessary, but was critical of its execution.1

34.1 Mr Collier noted that, when the staff took D1234 to the ground while still inside his cell, the officers appeared to be pushing D1234’s head down. Mr Collier said that this was more force used than necessary, excessive, and ought to have been identified and stopped immediately by the supervising officer.2 Mr Collier also explained that the actions of the officers risked causing a musculoskeletal injury to D1234’s neck.3

34.2 D1234 was handcuffed with his hands behind his back while he was seated.4 Mr Collier explained that this technique puts undue pressure around the restrained person’s torso and can interfere with their breathing. He confirmed that this technique had previously caused the death of a restrained person.5 I discuss this further in Chapter D.7 in Volume II.

34.3 Mr Collier observed that the officers did not appear to understand how to execute the carry technique, which should only be used for the minimum amount of time necessary, and that this was poorly managed.6 Specifically, Mr Collier said that the starting position for this carry was incorrect and that the person controlling D1234’s head was in the incorrect position, meaning that D1234 was bent forwards rather than being in a straightened position.7

34.4 Mr Collier stated that Mr Murphy should not have been wearing a balaclava, as this was not within the authorised list of PPE for this type of incident.8

34.5 In his written report, Mr Collier was originally complimentary of the officers’ attempts to preserve the decency of D1234.9 When this issue was explored in his oral evidence, Mr Collier accepted that the officers had not produced clothing for D1234 to wear, attempted to persuade or to command D1234 to get dressed, or prioritised the provision of clothes for D1234. Mr Collier then stated that having clothing available for detained people ought to be “an automatic part of any removal process”.10

  1. Mr Collier summarised his views regarding this incident as follows:

“Lawful under Detention Centre Rule(s) – Rule 43(10).

Last resort – all reasonable efforts had been made to facilitate a passive removal and for compliance. Force only used when all failed.

Necessary, reasonable, proportionate – It was necessary to forcibly remove D1234 and the selection of removal techniques reasonable. Although proportionate to the circumstances to apply handcuffs and carry D1234, the execution of techniques was poor. It was not proportionate to allow staff to wear a balaclava and not within authorised PPE for local interventions.

No more than was necessary – More force than necessary resulted from poor technique, this would have been avoided if the correct procedures had been carried out.”11


  1. INQ000111_043 para 160[]
  2. INQ000111_039 para 143[]
  3. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 50/15-22[]
  4. INQ000111_038 para 141; INQ000111_042 para 151[]
  5. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 51/24-52/17[]
  6. INQ000111_039 para 142[]
  7. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 55/1-56/10[]
  8. INQ000111_042 para 153; Prison Service Order 1600: Use of Force (INQ000185), HM Prisons Service, August 2005[]
  9. INQ000111_040 para 145[]
  10. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 71/24-73/1[]
  11. INQ000111_043 paras 158-161[]