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?

4 May: relevant expert evidence

  1. Mr Collier took the view that Mr Dix’s control of the incident while D1527 was on the netting was “very poor”. He said that staff appeared uncertain of what to do, and that allowing the detained people to remain free to roam around the wing made communication between staff very difficult. He criticised the lack of a negotiation strategy to facilitate D1527’s removal from the netting.1
  2. Mr Collier deduced from Mr Dix’s decision to take three additional staff with him to speak to D1527 that Mr Dix anticipated the conversation would be difficult. In those circumstances, and given the earlier events of the day,Mr Collier considered it unacceptable that Mr Dix did not activate his body worn camera.2
  3. Mr Collier said in his first report to the Inquiry that “the level of force used, and the necessity are all justified and there is no evidence that anything other than reasonable force was used”. However, in his second report he raised concerns that a PIT was used when D1527 was handcuffed and that no information was provided by Mr Yates.3 In his oral evidence to the Inquiry, Mr Collier said that there was no evidence to suggest that D1527 was posing such a risk to staff, or to himself, that use of the thumb flexion would have been warranted.4 Mr Collier commended Mr Dix for taking over control of D1527’s arm from Mr Yates, and considered this to be an “excellent example of removing a trigger from an already frustrated and angry young man”.5


  1. INQ000111_071 para 282[]
  2. INQ000111_069 para 270[]
  3. INQ000111_073 para 219; INQ000158_043 para 17.4[]
  4. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 133/3-136/8[]
  5. INQ000111_071 para 277[]