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?

3 June 2017: Conclusions

  1. The CCTV camera did not cover the IT suite in its entirety, and it is not always possible to see D1538 or Mr Instone-Brewer. The absence of audio presents a particular challenge in corroborating the accounts given by D1538 and the officers about the nature of the conversations between them. However, despite those limitations, it is my view that the CCTV footage provides enough detail for me to determine the facts of the physical altercation between D1538, Mr Fiddy and Mr Instone-Brewer. The quality of the images is high, and enabled me to review the body language of each individual involved. D1538 did not give oral evidence to the Inquiry. However, he did give a very detailed witness statement setting out his account of this incident, and his response to a summary of the CCTV footage, which I have taken into account.1
  2. Irrespective of what the conversation was about, the footage clearly shows that D1538 approached the officers repeatedly and twice got very close to Mr Fiddy. His body language was at times aggressive. The use of force was brief and appeared to be in direct response to D1538’s physical aggression. Given the manner in which D1538 was approaching Mr Fiddy, it was reasonable for Mr Fiddy to believe that he may have been under imminent threat of an assault, and his use of force was therefore justified and proportionate.
  3. Although I find Mr Fiddy’s actions to have been reasonable in the circumstances, he should have clearly documented in his Use of Force report that he had grabbed D1538’s neck during the restraint. Mr Lyden, the manager who reviewed the footage, should also have identified that this happened and ensured that the Use of Force report accurately reflected the incident. In addition, he should have arranged for D1538 to be assessed by Healthcare to ensure there were no injuries to his neck.
  4. There was a period of approximately four hours between the incident in the IT suite and D1538 being made subject to Rule 40. It appears likely to the Inquiry that D1538 was made subject to Rule 40 in response to his behaviour earlier in the day and not in order to maintain the safety and security of Brook House, given the passage of time between the incident and the authorisation of Rule 40. The paperwork suggests that Mr Lyden, not the Home Office, authorised the use of Rule 40 in this case.
  5. I do not think that there is credible evidence that the use of force against D1538 on 3 June 2017 was capable of amounting to mistreatment. It does not reach the threshold of attaining a “minimum level of severity”.2">Vilvarajah v UK (Application no. 13163/87) (1992) 14 EHRR 248 para 107; Keenan v United Kingdom (Application no. 27229/95) (2001) 33 EHRR 38 para 109)) The application of Mr Fiddy’s hand to D1538’s neck lasted for a matter of seconds and, in my opinion, was not likely to have caused intense physical or mental suffering so as to be considered inhuman treatment. Nor did it appear to cause fear, anguish or inferiority capable of humiliating or debasing, so as to be considered degrading treatment. Despite my conclusion, I have included the facts of this incident in this chapter by way of contextual background, and due to its similarity and close proximity in time to the other incidents involving D1538.


  1. DL0000231_024-028 paras 89-101[]
  2. Ireland v United Kingdom (Application no. 5310/71) (1978) 2 EHRR 25; Soering v United Kingdom(Application no. 14038/88) (1989) 11 EHRR 439 para 100; []