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. When Mr Jonathan Collier, the Inquiry’s Use of Force expert, prepared his first report to the Inquiry, he did not have access to the body worn camera footage of this incident. He therefore based his opinion about the appropriateness of the use of force on the written reports of the officers involved. In summary, he found that:

“the descriptions would indicate that the force used was reasonable and proportionate. Attempts at de-escalation were used.” 1

  1. By the time Mr Collier provided the Inquiry with a second, supplementary report, he had seen the body worn camera footage of the incident and his opinion had changed. He said:

“I question why the DCM insisted for the head support to be applied for moving down the stairs when D2416 was compliant, although he was verbally challenging but not offering a threat or risk at the time.”2

Mr Collier also noted that there were inaccuracies in the Use of Force reports, which indicated that a head support was only applied on D2416 because he had attempted to disrupt his removal by inserting his feet into the staircase railings.3 However, as explained above, the audio from the body worn camera footage indicated that D2416 resisted the restraint only once the head support had been applied. In his oral evidence, Mr Collier confirmed that the application of the head support was disproportionate.4

  1. Mr Collier considered that it appeared from the footage as though D2416 was left naked in the presence of at least seven staff while a sheet was being found to cover him. If correct, Mr Collier said that this was “unacceptable and degrading”. He stated:

“There was ample opportunity to arrange for clothing to be made available beforehand and for only the necessary staff to be present whilst D2416 was undressed.”5

  1. In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Collier was critical of the length of time between the officers entering the cell and using force. He stated that the officers should have allowed D2416 an opportunity to wake up and process what was happening. They should then have attempted to engage him in conversation and explain what was happening and what he was being required to do.6


  1. INQ000111_103 para 423[]
  2. INQ000177_009 para 35[]
  3. INQ000177_009 para 35[]
  4. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 66/8-23[]
  5. INQ000177_009 para 36[]
  6. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 67/16-68/1[]