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. The Inquiry’s use of force expert, Mr Jonathan Collier, noted that staff engaged with D687 for at least 11 minutes before Mr Haughton intervened. Mr Collier wrote:

“In order for force to be lawful it has to be when there is an imminent risk of harm and that all other options have been exhausted. The engagement should have continued with an aim for D687 to remove the ligature and be escorted peacefully. It is accepted that escort staff were waiting but negotiation and persuasion must always be the prime resolution option.”1

  1. In respect of Mr Haughton, Mr Collier said:

“Using subterfuge as a means to get closer can remove all trust that a detainee has in staff and will make future incidents more difficult to resolve. Additionally as the senior person he should not have become actively involved and should have taken a supervisory role, where he could monitor the staff and detainee.”2

  1. He considered that the incident should have been managed as a “planned incident”. This would have involved a structured response including negotiation, recording of the incident on either a handheld device or a body worn camera, a member of Healthcare in attendance, and management by a DCM. Mr Collier stated that, as D687 was only threatening self-harm, there was ample time for a plan to have been made.3
  2. Despite his criticisms of the fact that force was used, Mr Collier considered that the techniques employed were proportionate, except for:
  • Mr Tulley’s restraint of D687’s legs once he was on the ground; and
  • Mr Farrell’s use of an inverted wrist hold.
  1. In relation to the leg restraint, Mr Collier wrote:

“A fourth officer to control the legs is only used when necessary and when the control is being compromised by excessive movement or resistance. It appears this was a routine application rather than for exceptional circumstances. The use of a ‘leg officer’ must only be when the situation requires additional control, for instance if staff are struggling to gain control of the upper body and the detainee is using their legs to prevent staff applying restraints. Any use beyond this is not necessary and more force than necessary. There is no evidence within the statements to suggest it was necessary on this occasion and therefore I conclude it was disproportionate to the threat at the time.”4

  1. Mr Collier said that the use of the inverted wrist hold by Mr Farrell was not justified, as this technique was only to be used in the most extreme circumstances in cases of an immediate risk of harm, and the staff had confirmed to the PSU that D687 was not difficult to restrain.5 Moreover, he commented that there was no evidence to suggest that the protocols for applying a pain-inducing technique (PIT) had been followed, or that there was any justification for inflicting pain. He noted that handcuffs can be applied with no pain being caused at all.6


  1. INQ000111_056-057 para 220[]
  2. INQ000111_057 para 221[]
  3. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 91/7-92/8[]
  4. INQ000111_057 para 223[]
  5. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 99/4-99/13[]
  6. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 100/11-22[]