PC Thomas Colgan

POLICE CONDUCT HEARING

In the case of Alleged Breaches of the Standards of Professional Behaviour Under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020

PC 1166 Thomas Colgan

Norfolk Constabulary

Case: CM 20/24

FINAL WRITTEN REPORT

1. Summary of Allegation

The allegations arise out of the arrest by PC Colgan of Mr A, an 18-year-old male, at his mother’s address in Kings Lynn, on 5^th September 2023.

The principal allegation is that the PC Colgan used force that was not necessary, proportionate, and reasonable when conducting the arrest.

The words necessary, proportionate, and reasonable come from the statutory definition of the Use of Force standard (i.e. the relevant Standard of Professional Behaviour)[1].

If police officers use more force than is necessary, proportionate, and reasonable, they breach the standard. Whether they have breached the standard is a matter entirely for the Panel to determine, having reviewed the available evidence,

The AA maintains that there has been a breach of the following Standards of Professional Behaviour by PC Colgan. The following is set out by the AA in the Reg 30 Notice dated 16 September 2026, from which we quote: -

1. 1. Use of Force
   2. Authority, Respect & Courtesy;
   3. Discreditable Conduct;
   4. Equality & Diversity; and
   5. Duties & Responsibilities.

The AA maintains that individually or cumulatively, PC Colgan’s conduct is so serious as to amount to gross misconduct.

2. Regulation 41 (5): Officer’s Acceptance of Conduct Amounting to Misconduct/ Gross Misconduct.

At the commencement of this hearing, the Panel asked the officer pursuant to Regulation 41 (5) of the Police Conduct Regulations 2020 whether he accepted that his conduct amounted to misconduct or gross misconduct.

PC Colgan denies using unreasonable force, but he admits to showing Mr A a lack of respect and courtesy during the arrest and admits that his conduct was discreditable. He admits to misconduct[2] but not gross misconduct.

The admissions that PC Colgan has made appear to be in respect of allegations of disrespectful language (allegations (c) (f) & (n (i), (ii), Reg 30 notice), and one allegation of overtly aggressive behaviour (allegation (o), Reg 30 notice).

3. This Hearing

This hearing took place from Weds 20^th May 2026 until 27^th May 2026 at Norfolk Constabulary HQ, Falcolner’s Close Wymondham, NR18 OWW. The Panel retired to deliberate on 26 May 2026, 12.43 to make its decision and then read out this decision in open tribunal on the evening of 27 May 2026.

The following are the issues for the Panel to determine, as agreed by the parties: -

Has the AA proved that, on a balance of probability, the following Standards of Behaviour have been breached: -

1. 1. Use of Force;
   2. Authority, Respect & Courtesy;
   3. Discreditable Conduct;
   4. Equality & Diversity; and;
   5. Duties & Responsibilities.

4. On use of force, it was agreed by the Parties that the Panel is required to considered three questions: -

1. 1. Was there a legal power to use force (s.3 CLA / common law (self-defence) / s.117 PACE);
   2. Was the use of force necessary, i.e. was there a need for any force at all; and
   3. Was the force used reasonable in all the circumstances?

5. Dealing now with each of these question in turn: -

(a)  Was there a legal power to use force (s.3 CLA / common law (self-defence) / s.117 PACE)?

Legal power to use force. 

6. An officer may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:
   • Making an arrest;
   • Prevention of crime;
   • Self-defence;
   • Defence of another;
   • Defence of property. 

7. Section 3, Criminal Law Act 1967 provides as follows: -

Use of force in making arrest etc.

(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.

8. S117 PACE provides as follows: -

117 Power of a constable to use reasonable force.

Where any provision of this Act: -

1. 1. confers a power on a constable; and
   2. does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the consent of some person, other than a police officer, the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power. 

9.  

(b) Was the use of force necessary, i.e. was there a need for any force at all; and

(c) Was the force used reasonable in all the circumstances? 

9. Facts as Officer honestly believed them to be Common Law 

Common Law (as set down in R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276) recognises that there may be circumstances in which one person may inflict violence on another, without committing a crime. It recognises as one of these circumstances, the right of a person to protect himself / herself from attack and to act in defence of others and if necessary to inflict violence on another in doing so. If no more force is used than is reasonable to repel the attack, such force is not unlawful.

R. (on the application of Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct[2023] UKSC 24 (‘W80’) determined that the objective civil law test should apply to police misconduct proceedings concerned with the use of force. The civil law test was summarised in Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008] 1 AC 962, as follows:

‘The necessity to take action in response to an attack or imminent attack must be judged on the facts as the defendant honestly believed them to be whether or not he was mistaken, but, if he made a mistake of fact, he can rely on that fact only if the mistake was a reasonable one for him to have made.’

10. It is accepted by the AA that because PC Colgan was making a lawful arrest (i.e. a power conferred on a constable under PACE), he could rely on s.117 PACE as providing a lawful basis to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.

11. The AA also agrees that PC Colgan could rely on s.3 CLA as providing an alternative lawful basis to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.

12. The power to use force at common law is not connected to exercising a power of arrest. It is available to defend oneself (or others) where necessary in response to an attack or imminent attack. The force used to respond to the attack or imminent attack still has to be reasonable. The Panel must determine whether the officer had an honest belief that there had been an attack (or that one was imminent).

13. The Panel still must determine whether the officer’s subsequent use of force was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all the circumstances. Such is the statutory test set out in Schedule 2 of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020.

14. In establishing whether it was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable for the officer to use the force that he did, the Panel needs to consider the following, applying the common law test: -

(1) Honest Belief: The Panel must first determine the facts as the defendant honestly believed them to be. Establishing the officer’s honest belief as to the prevailing facts is a matter exclusively for the Panel to determine (not the expert, or counsel, or anyone else).

(2) Discount Mistakes Objectively Unreasonable: Once the officer’s honest belief in the prevailing facts has been established, the Panel must go on to discount any mistake of fact that it considers objectively unreasonable – W80). An officer cannot rely upon the mistake which is unreasonable to justify use of force. A mistaken fact can, however, be relied upon if the mistake was a reasonable one to have made. Establishing whether a mistake of fact is objectively unreasonable is exclusively for the Panel to determine (not the expert, or counsel, or anyone else).

(3) Necessary, proportionate and Reasonable in all the circumstances

Once the Panel has established the officers honestly held belief as to the facts, and discounted mistaken facts that are objectively unreasonable, it can finally consider whether the force used by the officer was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all the circumstances. This is the test set out in Schedule 2, 2020 Regulations, which provides as follows: -

Use of Force: Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

With regard to the alleged breaches of the Use of Force Professional Standard, the Panel applied the three-prong test to each of the allegations in making its determination.

15. Documents Reviewed

The Panel were presented with three bundles of documents the first, the hearing bundle comprising 389 pages, an addendum bundle comprising 61 pages and a character reference bundle comprising 32 pages. There were also audio and video recordings, provided by the AA. In this decision, where relevant, the Panel refers to the relevant pages of the bundle of documents. In addition, during the course of the hearing, a number of other documents and recordings were produced with agreement of parties and admitted by the Chair under Police (Conduct) Regulation 41(11).

16. Burden of Proof

Under Regulation 41 (16(a)), 2020 Regulations, the burden of proof falls on the AA to prove the allegations to the requisite standard. In determining issues of fact, the Panel is required to apply the civil standard of proof namely, that of the balance of probabilities. This test requires the Panel to consider whether it is more likely than not that the breach occurred. If the Panel determines that it is, then the AA will have discharged its burden of proof.

17. Law, Guidance and Code

The Panel considered and applied all areas of relevant law including the following: -

17.1 The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (“PCR”) – the Standards of Professional Behaviour are set out in the Schedule 2.

17.2 The Statutory Guidance on Professional Standards, Performance and Integrity in Policing Issued by the Home Office (“the 2020 HOG”) – particularly Sections 1 to 3 which detail the Standards, and the procedures expected to be followed.

17.3 The Code of Ethics 2014.

17.4 The Guidance on Outcomes in Police Misconduct Proceedings 2023;

17.5 Panel took account of Dutta v GMC 2020, referred to by Mr Barnham; the key principles regarding witness credibility emphasized by Mr. Justice Warby include the following: -

• • Credibility Assessment: The Tribunal's approach to assessing witness credibility should not start with uncorroborated evidence but should consider contemporaneous documents first.
  • Demeanour: While demeanor is important, it should not be the sole factor in determining credibility. The Tribunal's reliance on a witness's demeanour was criticised as a common error.
  • Memory and Reliability: Recent authorities suggest that memories are fluid and can be unreliable, particularly when considering events from a decade earlier. The Tribunal's focus on a witness's demeanor without sufficient consideration of documentary evidence was deemed procedurally unfair.
  • Burden of Proof: The Tribunal's approach to testing witness evidence against documents involved a mistaken application of the burden of proof and the standard of proof. These principles reflect a shift in how tribunals evaluate witness credibility, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers both the witness's demeanor and the reliability of documentary evidence.

The Panel considered this case and concluded that all witnesses were credible. The Panel’s focus was on documentary evidence, the oral evidence provided by the witnesses and the Body Worn Video (BWV).

18. Preliminary Issues

Preliminary Issue Relating to PC Hunt as an expert witness: The Panel considered and it was agreed that PC Hunt was not an expert. As a professional Panel, the Panel excluded all of PC Hunt’s opinions.

19. Accepted Matters

What is accepted by all parties and undisputed are the following are: -

1. 1. On 5th September 2023, PC Colgan was double crewed with PC Emily Beck.
   2. At around 01.40hrs both encountered Mr A, a member of the public, after attending a street location known as (address), Kings Lynn, Norfolk, following reports of shouting and / or fighting.
   3. PC Colgan found Mr A asleep on the pavement, intoxicated, but compliant, and escorted him back to his home address at XX (address) (‘the Property’).
   4. At around 02.17hrs, PC Officers Colgan and Beck re-attended the Property in response to a 999 call. The 999 call was made by Mrs B, Mr A’s mother, who alleged that Mr A had assaulted her 11-year-old other son.
   5. PC Beck and PC Colgan were let into the address and spoke to Mrs B and her 11-year-old son in the downstairs living room. They were told by the 11-year-old boy that he had been strangled by his brother, Mr A.
   6. PC Colgan and PC Beck went upstairs to arrest Mr A in his bedroom. Mr A was sitting on his bed. Amongst other things, PC Colgan was double crewed and had sufficient PPE.
   7. In relation to paragraph 6, Regulation 30 and specifically whether PC Colgan had sufficient training, PC Colgan, in his Regulation 31 response (page 380), indicated that the sufficiency or otherwise of the training will be a matter for the Panel. In considering this, the Panel have drawn upon the factual evidence of PC Hunt. PC Hunt told the Panel what the officers in Norfolk are trained to deal with in terms of Public & Personal Safety Training (“PPST).” The Panel noted the contents of the National Manual on PPST. This is used by forces to develop their own in-house annual refresher. It was PC Colgan’s evidence that he received scenario-based training in Norfolk and that included all the issues that PC Hunt said the training included. The Panel, therefore, found that PC Colgan had sufficient training.

20. Disputed Matter: Not proven by the AA on a balance of probabilities

That Mr A presented as a low risk to PC Colgan (as set out in para 6, Reg 31, page 380). The Panel found that this was not proven as low risk. The Panel's finding is based upon the following: -

i. The testimony of Mr Mills regarding his evidence of the National Decision Model (“NDM”), threat assessments and the evidence he provided to the Panel;

ii. The fact the officer had been provided with information from the control room;

iii. PC Colgan had heard from the 11-year-old brother that he had been subjected to an attack from Mr A including strangulation;

iv. PC Colgan saw the injuries. In his oral evidence, PC Colgan stated that it was redder than the photo showed;

v. Mr A was intoxicated;

vi. The Panel noted that risk assessments have a subjective element to them and that each officer can make different assessments based on their own specific perspective.

Adding all the above together, the Panel found that PC Colgan’s assessment was correct; the AA has not provided evidence to support its position that Mr A was low risk. PC Colgan’ s assessment that Mr A was medium risk is reasonable. The Panel found that the risk was not low risk.

21. Findings of Fact based on the allegations

The Panel made its findings of fact in the following manner: -

(1)   It considered whether the facts were proven;

(2)   It then went on to consider the issue of the use of force by a consideration of the following:

• 1. Whether there had been a legal power to use force;
  2. In deciding whether any force was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable, it considered the following: -

i. Whether the facts as PC Colgan had found were honestly believed by him;

ii. Whether any facts were mistakenly and objectively unreasonable. If there were such mistaken and unreasonable facts, then the Panel discounted these when considering whether PC Colgan could rely on these to demonstrate its use of force was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all the circumstances; and

iii. Once the Panel has established PC Colgan’s honestly held belief as to the facts, and discounted mistaken facts that are objectively unreasonable, it finally considered whether the force used by PC Colgan was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all the circumstances.

(3) The Panel also took note of the AAs closing submissions at paragraph 19 relating to Allegation (a) , paragraph  32 relating to ,Allegation (b), ,paragraph 48 relating to Allegation (d) ,paragraph 65  relating to Allegation ( e) and (g), paragraph 83 relating to Allegation ( h) , paragraph 98  relating to Allegation (j), where it submitted that if the use of force was not necessary, proportionate and reasonable, then PC Colgan also lacked respect and courtesy and this amounted to discreditable conduct. On this basis, the Panel found that the converse is true; where the Panel found that the use of force was necessary, proportionate and reasonable, then there is also respect, courtesy and there is no discreditable conduct. The Panel noted that Mr Hobbs did not make this point for all the allegations (e.g. Allegations (k), (l) (n) (ii) and (iii)) but the Panel found that the same points are applicable to these allegations too.)

22. The Panel noted that in cross examination and his IOPC interview [027][99], PC Colgan stated that he intended, before entering Mr A’s house, to arrest him and that given it was for a violent incident, his normal habit would be to handcuff in such circumstances to prevent immediate unlawful violence. The Panel therefore found that all the actions taken by PC Colgan as set out in the allegations were with this in mind.

23. The Panel heard the AA's submissions in relation to PC Colgan being "engulfed in red mist". The Panel found that in relation to all the allegations, although PC Colgan was angry and frustrated, he was not engulfed in red mist. This can be evidenced by PC Colgan remaining calm during periods of the BWV and specifically, after closing the cage door. The Panel observed that he engaged normally with colleagues.

24. The Panel now summarises below the following facts to be proven and its findings of fact in relation to each of the allegations.

25. Legal Power to use force

Before the Panel, considered whether the facts were proven and specifically in relation to the use of force, whether this was necessary, proportionate  and reasonable in all the circumstances, the Panel found that for all the allegations listed in the Regulation 30 notice, PC Colgan was making a lawful arrest, exercising its powers under Section 117 PACE. Therefore, for all the allegations there was a legal power to use force. Indeed, the AA accepted this position (Agreed List of Issues, paragraph 6).

Allegations

26. The Panel assessed each of the allegations applying the points raised in paragraph 21 above. The allegations are set out paragraph 7 of the Regulation 30 notice.

27. Allegation (a): Having verbally arrested Mr A for assault on a child, and without attempting any other tactical communication, you took hold of Mr A and pulled him to his feet, by his right arm.

(a) 1: Facts Proven

The facts of this have, the Panel found, been proven. The Panel saw this in the BWV. The Panel found that there were no other tactical communications, other than arresting him.

(a) 2: PC Colgan’s Honest Belief and whether that was Objectively Unreasonable?

Honest Belief: The Panel found that PC Colgan honestly believed that Mr. A went for his computer mouse to do a live stream of the incident. PC Colgan honestly believed that therefore there was no time to use other tactical communication as a result and this is why he did not use tactical communication.

Objectively Unreasonable? The Panel found that in relation to this honest belief, this was objectively reasonable. Therefore, this was a matter which needed to be considered by the Panel in relation to whether PC Colgan's use of force was necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

(a) 3: Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances?

The Panel found that in relation to PC Colgan not attempting to use other tactical communication and taking hold of Mr. A and pulling him to his feet by his right arm, this was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all the circumstances because taking into account the degree of force used, which the Panel found to be minimal and bearing in mind that PC Colgan was effecting a lawful arrest and Mr. A was trying to do a live stream, the Panel found that in all the circumstances this was necessary, proportionate and reasonable.

(a) 4: Has the Professional Standard of Use of Force Breached?

Based on the Panel's findings of fact, it found that this professional standard had not been breached (in relation to the use of force):

(a) 5: Breach of Professional Standard of Authority, Respect, Courtesy, and Discreditable Conduct?

Based on the Panel's findings of fact, it found that these further two Professional Standards had not been breached because the Panel found that the Professional Standard of use of force has not been breached. The AA has not discharged the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities.

28. Allegation (b): Mr A, then standing, presented as intoxicated but compliant. He had no weapons and was dressed only in his underpants. There was no change to the threat and risk posed to you by Mr A. Nonetheless, you produced your PAVA spray, and said, “Do not fight or I’ll empty this into your face.”

(b) 1: Facts Proven:

The Panel found that, based upon the BWV evidence and the statements of PC Colgan and PC Beck, Mr A was intoxicated. In the arrest statement of PC Colgan, he described that, “He was asleep on the pavement and had been eating pizza. We arrived on scene by 0145hrs and found A asleep on the pavement as described, near the junction to (ADDRESS). A was roused and presented as being intoxicated. This was apparent to me from A’s unsteadiness on his feet, slurred speech, glazed eyes and smell of intoxicating liquor on his breath.” The Panel also noted the evidence of PC Beck in her original statement, which talked about Mr A being intoxicated. “He was lying on the floor, smelling strongly of intoxicating liquor, slurring his words and swaying.”

From the BWV and PC Colgan’s testimony, the Panel found it proven that he produced his PAVA and said the words as described.

The Panel found that there was no obvious weapon, but the Panel found that body parts can be used as weapons e.g. fists, feet, teeth, headbutting.

The Panel found Mr A to be dressed as described.

Facts Not Proven

In relation to compliance, the Panel found that Mr A was not compliant based upon the following; the Panel considered the evidence of PC Beck, who in her testimony stated that she could feel Mr. A's resistance and tension and that Mr A stood up where he began pulling away, tensing his arms, and leaning away’ and that “PC 1166 COLGAN said something to the extent of “STOP TENSING” to which Mr A continued to pull away”. [72]. PC Colgan also indicated this in his statement stating Mr. A immediately started tensing and pulled back “as I was trying to restrain him” and that …. ‘A continued to resist and try to pull away from us’. [68]

Furthermore, the Panel heard the officers talking to Mr A in the BWV, PC Beck saying ‘Oi don’t make this awkward’ ‘ stop resisting.’

The Panel also considered the evidence of Mr Mills, the expert witness, who said he could see evidence of resistance in the body-worn video footage, referring to the way in which Mr A held himself, including tension that he could see in his arms. Based upon all of this, the Panel found that Mr A was not compliant.

In relation to no change in the threat and risk , the Panel found that this was a medium risk as stated by PC Colgan and not as described by the AA as low risk (at paragraph 6 in the Regulation 30 notice [005]); the Panel note, however, that the assessment of threat and risk is subjective and can vary from officer to officer. This is supported by the expert witness testimony of Mr Mills.

Bases on the above the Panel found this allegation (b) partially proved.

(b) 2: PC Colgan’s Honest Belief and whether that was Objectively Unreasonable?

Honest Belief: In relation to Mr. A’s honest belief in resistance, the Panel found that PC Colgan had an honest belief that Mr A started to tense and pull away and thus, this being the reason PC Colgan produced the PAVA spray. The Panel found that PC Colgan had an honest belief that Mr. A was tensing and trying to pull back.

The Panel found this to be an honest belief because both PC Colgan and PC Beck found Mr. A to be resisting. They both felt him resisting. Whilst not discernible to the Panel from the BWV, the testimony of Mr Mills further supported the evidence provided by the officers.

Objectively unreasonable: The Panel found PC Colgan's honest belief in relation to Mr A starting to tense and be resistant to be objectively reasonable because of the statements presented to the Panel from PC Colgan, PC Beck and Mr Mills together with their oral evidence and from what the Panel heard on the BWV. 

PC Beck in her statement made at the time, stated: ‘Mr A stood up where he began pulling away, tensing his arms, and leaning away’ and that ‘PC 1166 COLGAN said something to the extent of “STOP TENSING” to which Mr A continued to pull away’. [72] PC Colgan set out in his statement made at the time ‘A immediately started tensing and pulled back as I was trying to restrain him’ and that …. ‘A continued to resist and try to pull away from us’ [68]. This was further reflected in the Use of Force forms submitted at the time and the information contained within both concerning offender behaviour, reasons for, type of force used and rationale for force used. [148-155]

(b) 3: Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances:

The Panel found that, on a balance of probabilities, the use of force (in producing the PAVA spray) and PC Colgan stating "Do not fight or I'll empty this in your face" was necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all the circumstances. This is because A was being lawfully arrested for the assault on his younger 11-year-old brother. Mr. A had been told he was under arrest and was resisting the officer’s actions. The risk assessment made by PC Colgan took into consideration the following: -

• • Mr A’s intoxication and what that can mean in terms of unpredictability of behaviour.
  • He had within a short period of time already been violent.
  • Whilst PC Colgan was with another officer, that officer was very junior in experience.
  • There were also the impact factors concerning the size and hazards within the bedroom and the ability to operate and achieve the arrest within it.
  • Mr A’s build.
  • Being mindful of the safety of himself, his colleague and the resident family.

Taking into account all these factors with his training and the expert witnesses testimony to the Panel , where evidence was before the Panel to the effect that PAVA is used as a primary control technique as set out in the PPST guidance, the Panel found the use of force in this case to be necessary, proportionate and reasonable.

(b) 4: Breach of Use of Force:

The Panel found, therefore, that this professional standard of the use of force has not been breached.

(b) 5: Breach of other Professional Standards: 

In addition to the Panel’s generic point made above at paragraph 21, the Panel found that in relation to the professional standards of Authority, Respect, and Courtesy and Discreditable conduct, these have not been breached on the basis that the language used by PC Colgan was used to ensure that Mr. A understood him; he used language to ensure PC Colgan was being understood. Further the aim of PC Colgan was to arrest Mr. A; this is the reason such language was used and the PAVA spray was produced. 

29. Allegation (c): In response to Mr A asking you to speak to his dad, you said “I don’t give a shit. You’re going into custody.”

(c) 1: Facts Proven:

The Panel found that this is a proven fact based upon the BWV and that PC Colgan admitted this.

Based on PC Colgan's admission, the Panel found that the Professional Standards of Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct have been breached.

30. Allegation (d): Although the threat and risk posed by Mr A did not change, you then deployed PAVA spray, at close range (i.e. less than the minimum recommended distance of one metre), into Mr A’s face causing him to sit back down on the bed.

(d) 1: Facts Proven:

The Panel found, based upon the BWV, on a balance of probability, the following facts were proven.

The PAVA spray was deployed at close range into Mr A’s face causing him to sit back down on the bed.

Facts Not Proven

The threat posed did not change. The Panel found earlier that the threat and risk was medium; the Panel does not accept the AA’s assertion that it was low risk.

This allegation was therefore partially proven.

(d) 2: PC Colgan’s Honest Belief and whether that was Objectively Unreasonable?

Honest Belief: In relation to PC Colgan’s belief that Mr A continued to resist and pull away, not wanting to be handcuffed, the Panel found that PC Colgan had an honest belief that Mr. A continued to resist and pull away and thus, not enable PC Corgan to handcuff him.

Objectively unreasonable: The Panel found this honest belief to be objectively reasonable because of PC Colgan attempting to arrest Mr. A and him resisting. Further the Panel found that Mr. A was intoxicated. Further the Panel found that, based on the expert evidence, the use of PAVA is, in terms of severity, a relatively low option for an officer to use and is designed to incapacitate. The Panel found it to be reasonable to deploy the PAVA to incapacitate him to enable him to be handcuffed.

(d) 3: Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances:

The Panel found this to be necessary, proportionate and reasonable because, based upon the evidence given by PC Colgan during cross-examination, PC Colgan stated that he acted in self-defence and feared being attacked and also feared any attack on PC Beck. The reasons set out in (b) 3 above apply equally here.

(d) 4: Breach of use of Force Standard:

The Panel found that in relation to the Professional Standard of the Use of Force, this Professional Standard was not breached for the reasons set out above under Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances (d (3)).

(d) 5: Breach of other Professional Standards:

In relation to the Professional Standards of Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct, the Panel found these not to be engaged on the generic understanding made above at paragraph 21.3.

31. Allegation (e): You then pushed Mr A onto his back, on the bed.

(e) 1: Facts Proven:

In relation to this allegation the Panel found that this was not, on a balance of probabilities, proven; the Panel reviewed again the BWV, which provided the best contemporaneous evidence of whether or not Mr A had been pushed. The Panel found that having been PAVAed, the Panel observed that both officers guided Mr A downwards and he thereafter ended up on his back on the bed.

Because the Panel have found that it was not proven that PC Colgan pushed Mr A onto the bed on his back, the Panel do not think it necessary to consider the further W80 tests relating to honest belief, objectively reasonable and whether this was necessary, proportionate and reasonable.

The Panel reviewed carefully again the BWC doing deliberations. It found that it was difficult to ascertain whether PC Colgan and/or PC Beck had in effect guided Mr. A onto the bed. What it did find however, was that Mr. A was not pushed by either officer. The Panel found this, bearing in mind the everyday meaning of the word "pushed".

Therefore, on the basis that the Panel have found that PC Colgan did not push Mr A onto the bed, the AA has not discharged its duty of demonstrating this to be the case on a balance of probabilities.

(e) 4: Breach of use of Force:

The Panel therefore found no breach of the use of force standard.

(e) 5: Breach of other Professional Standards:

As a result of the Professional Standard of Use of Force not being breached, the additional standards of Authority, Respect, and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct have, likewise, not been breached. 

32. (f): When Mr A complained of the PAVA hurting his eyes you responded, sarcastically “Did it? Shame

(f) 1: Facts Proven: PC Colgan admitted to this. In addition, the Panel observed the facts on the BWV footage from PC Colgan and PC Beck. Given the admission, the Panel found, on a balance of probabilities that this fact is proven.

The Panel also noted PC Colgan’s acceptance of the breach of the professional standards of Authority Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct, both admitted as misconduct only. Therefore, the Panel found, that both these Professional Standards have been breached. 

33. Allegation (g): Whilst on the bed you deployed PAVA spray into Mr A’s face, at close range, a second time.

(g) 1: Facts Proven:

This allegation was accepted by PC Colgan. The Panel also saw this behaviour from viewing the BWV available from the officers at the scene. As a consequence, the Panel found that this allegation, in respect to the facts, to be proven on the balance of probabilities.

(g) 2 Honest Belief:

The Panel found that PC Colgan had an honest belief that the PAVA was not effective the first time used. Therefore, PC Colgan honestly believed that a second PAVA spray was necessary in order for PC Corgan to arrest Mr A.

(g) 2 Objectively unreasonable:

The Panel found that this honest belief was objectively reasonable on the basis that PC Colgan honestly believed that his use of PAVA, a minimum form of use of force, was necessary in order to be able to arrest Mr A. PC Colgan had, the Panel found, in mind his training and the options available to him to effect an arrest.

In relation to the NPCC National Personal Safety manual, which states that "irritants... are designed to incapacitate violent and aggressive individuals who could not otherwise be restrained without risk to the officer" [306], the Panel noted this. Having considered this guidance the Panel noted that this was just that, guidance. The Panel noted that the guidance cannot be prescriptive for all situations. Further the Panel already found that PC Colgan had assessed the risk to be medium. Therefore, the Panel found that it was objectively reasonable for the PAVA to be deployed a second time round, even though Mr A may or may not have fitted into the definition of a "violent and aggressive individual".

Further the Panel found that even though Mr. A may not have been violent and aggressive "at that particular time when the second PAVA spray was deployed", he had been violent and aggressive to his younger brother. Therefore, the Panel found that PC Colgan's honest belief was reasonable in these circumstances.

It was PC Colgan's assessment that Mr A posed a medium threat.

The Panel rely also on its reasons set out in paragraph (b)3 above in relation to this honest belief being objectively reasonable.

The Panel considered the deployment of the second spray at less than one metre. The Panel considered the guidance (307). The Panel noted that the guide also states that there may be circumstances where it will be necessary and proportionate to use the PAVA at distances of less than one metre. The Panel found that this was one such circumstance where the use of the PAVA at less than one metre was necessary and proportionate.

(g) 3: Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances:

The Panel rely upon the reasons set out in (b) 2 above and found that for those reasons the use of force in deploying the PAVA for the second time was, in the circumstances, necessary, proportionate and reasonable.

(g) 4: Breach of use of Force:

The Panel therefore found no breach of the use of force standard.

(g) 5: Breach of other Professional Standards:

Because the Panel has found that there is no breach of the Professional Standard of Use of Force, it likewise found that there is no breach of the standards of Authority, Respect, and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct. (Refer to paragraph 21.3 on this point).

34. Allegation: (h) You then applied handcuffs in the front stack position whilst he lay, on his back, on the bed.

Allegation (h) 1: Facts Proven:

This allegation was accepted by PC Colgan.

The Panel noted the officer's Regulation 31 response that he and PC Beck had worked together to apply the handcuffs. In conjunction with that response and the Panel viewing the BWV of both officers, it saw the officers working together to apply the handcuffs. The Panel watched PC Beck handcuff Mr A.

(h) 2: Honest held belief:

Therefore, on a balance of probabilities the Panel found this allegation to be proven. The Panel found that PC Colgan had an honest belief in believing that handcuffing was necessary to prevent further violence and for the safety of PC Beck and himself. This honest belief was based on the previous violence by Mr. A inflicted on his brother.

The Panel considered the evidence provided by PC Colgan that it was his habit of hand cuffing previously violent offenders. The Panel found that this did not mean that PC Colgan had not carried out the NDM.

(h) 2: Objectively unreasonable:

The Panel found that this honest belief was objectively reasonable considering the previous violence, his resistance to being arrested, the necessity to consider the safety of PC Beck and himself, and all the other circumstances surrounding the threat assessment at that time. The Panel again relies upon the reasons given in paragraph b 3 above.

(h) 3: Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances:

For the reasons given above, the Panel found that it was necessary, proportionate and reasonable to handcuff Mr A.

(h)  4: Breach of use of Force:

Based on the Panel's findings therefore, the Panel found that there was no breach of the Professional Standard of Use of Force.

(h) 5: Breach of other Professional Standards:

The Panel also found that it follows that there is no breach of the other Professional Standards relating to Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct on the basis that it has found that there was no breach of the Professional Standard of Use of Force.

 

35. Allegation (i): Whilst the subject was laid on his back, on the bed, Mr A spat, to eject PAVA spray from his mouth.

(i) (1) Facts Proven:

The Panel found that, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. A ejected spit from his mouth, which hit PC Colgan. The Panel reviewed the BWV again. The Panel found that, on a balance of probabilities, the ejection of spit was done to eject the PAVA from his mouth and it was not done as a deliberate assault on PC Colgan.

Therefore, on a balance of probability, having viewed the BWV, the Panel found this allegation to be proven.

36. Allegation (j): Having PAVA’d the subject, secured him in handcuffs, and positioned him on his back on the bed, you then deployed PAVA spray to Mr A’s face, at close range, for a third time. You then arrested him for assaulting a police officer.

(j) 1: Facts Proven:

This was factually accepted by PC Colgan and found to be the case by the Panel on a balance of probabilities having viewed the BWV.

(j) 2: Honest Belief:

In relation to whether PC Colgan had an honest belief that the spit was a deliberate assault, the Panel found that PC Colgan honestly believed that Mr A deliberately spat at him.

Further, the Panel considered whether PC Colgan had an honest belief in there being a necessity for deploying the PAVA for a third time.

The Panel found that the third PAVA was deployed not because PC Colgan had an honest belief in this being necessary for his safety or that of PC Beck. The Panel found that the PAVA can was in his hand; when Mr A spat, PC Colgan's instinctive reaction was to deploy the PAVA for a third time. This was not because he had an honest belief in this being necessary for his or PC Beck’s safety, but this was an instinctive action based on the PAVA can being in his hand.

In making this finding, the Panel took account of Mr Mills's evidence where he stated that humans have a ‘convulsive grip’ on the objects in their hand when they are stressed and in a conflict situation; Mr Mills said that people go to that which is in their hand. He further stated that people in a stressful situation have a limited time to react and are most likely to use the object in their hands.

The Panel found that it is for this reason and not for fear of his security or that of PC Beck that the PAVA was deployed for a third time at close range. The Panel reviewed the BWV video again and noted how PC Colgan's hand moved immediately to Mr A's face once the spitting had taken place. At the same time as deploying the third PAVA, PC Colgan shouted "Don't spit at me," as an instinctive reaction.

The Panel also took into account Mr Mills's evidence in response to a question from the Chair as to whether or not any mistakes had been made; Mr Mills stated that the third PAVA could have been a mistake but a reasonable one.

(j) (2): Objectively unreasonable:

The Panel found that in relation to PC Colgan's honest belief that he had been spat at, this was a reasonable one given the proximity between PC Colgan and Mr. A. Further the spit took place without warning and was done in the direction of PC Colgan and indeed, landed on PC Colgan. For these reasons, the Panel found that PC Colgan's belief that he was being spat at was a reasonable one.

In relation to PC Colgan's belief that it was necessary to deploy the PAVA for his safety, the Panel found that this was not an honest belief. If the Panel are wrong on this and such a belief is honest, then the Panel found that such belief was not objectively reasonable. If the Panel are wrong in determining that it was not PC Colgan's honest belief that the third PAVA was necessary, then the Panel would find that deploying the PAVA for the third time was unreasonable. PC Colgan had been given training on PAVA and the effects of PAVA and therefore would have known that one of the effects of PAVA was spitting. Therefore, it was not objectively reasonable for him to believe that the third PAVA was necessary.

(j) 3: Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances:

The Panel found that, in relation to the third PAVA spray, this was not necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances. The Panel found that because the PAVA can was in PC Colgan's hand he instinctively used it. Had it been in his holster it would not have been used, and the most likely consequence of the spraying would have been for PC Colgan to have moved Mr A's head away or put his hand in front of him. The third PAVA was not done to reduce a threat and therefore was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable.

(j) 4: Breach of Use of Force:

The Panel found that this Professional Standard has been breached.

(j) 5: Breach of other Professional Standards:

The Panel found that the Professional Standards of Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct have been breached. Specifically in relation to Authority, Respect and Courtesy, the Panel found that PC Colgan became angry and therefore lost self-control and tolerance.

 

37. Allegation (k): You then lifted Mr A roughly to his feet, by his handcuffs, before pushing him so that he came into contact with the door and/or doorframe and fell onto his knees on the floor.

(k) 1:  Facts Proven:

The Panel found, on a balance of probabilities, that PC Colgan was by this stage frustrated and had lifted Mr. A roughly.

Facts Not Proven: The Panel found that PC Colgan did not deliberately push Mr. A into the door.

The collision with the door occurred, on a balance of probabilities, because of the confined space of the room, his intoxication, and because he had just been PAVAed.

On a balance of probabilities, however, such lifting was not by the handcuffs.

Therefore, on this basis this allegation was partially found.

(k) 2: Honest Belief:

In relation to whether PC Colgan had an honest belief that the pulling and pushing was due to the resistance of Mr A, the Panel found that this was an honest belief. This was situational policing in a confined space where Mr A had already fallen. The Panel found that the movements were not intentionally done with aggression.

The Panel noted how in cross-examination, PC Colgan accepted that after being spat at, he was angry and very annoyed. He went on to say that regardless of that, he was still maintaining physical control over himself.

(k) 2: Objectively unreasonable:

The Panel found that such belief that Mr A was resisting was objectively reasonable. In any event, Mr A was suffering the effects of PAVA and alcohol.

(k) 3: Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances:

The Panel found that the movements were necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all the circumstances of Mr. A's intoxication and being PAVAed.

(k) 4: Breach of use of Force:

The Panel found that the Professional Standard of use of force has not been breached.

(k) 5: Breach of other Professional Standards:

It follows therefore that the standards of authority, respect, courtesy and discreditable conduct have likewise not been breached. 

38. Allegation (l): Thereafter you pulled Mr A back onto his feet and dragged him out of the bedroom using violent, ‘jerking’ type movements that was disproportionate to the level of threat and risk faced by you at this point.

(l) 1: Facts Proven:

The Panel found, on a balance of probabilities, that although Mr. A was pulled up by PC Colgan, he was not dragged using violent jerking-type movements and further, this was not disproportionate to the level of threat faced by PC Colgan; all the movements were due to the state of Mr. A himself (namely, his intoxication and having been PAVAed).

(l) 2: Honest Belief:

In relation to whether  PC Colgan had an honest belief that the pulling and dragging  was necessary due to the level of threat faced by PC Colgan for himself and PC Beck, the Panel found that PC Colgan had an honest belief that the movements described in the allegation were necessary given the situation.

(l) 2: Objectively unreasonable:

The Panel found this to be objectively reasonable given the situation of Mr. A being intoxicated, having been PAVAed, and the very small space in the room.

(l) 3: Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances:

The Panel found that such movements were necessary, proportionate, and reasonable in all the circumstances.

(l) 4: Breach of use of Force:

The Panel found that the professional standard of use of force has not been breached.

(l) 5: Breach of other Professional Standards:

Therefore, it follows that the standard of Authority, Respect, and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct have likewise not been breached. 

39. Allegation (m): You exited the property at around 02.20hrs and walked Mr A along the street to the police van wearing only his underpants.

(m)1: Facts Proven: These facts were agreed.

(m) 2: Was there a breach of the Professional Standards of Authority, Respect, and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct?

The Panel considered these standards of professional behaviour and found that neither of the standards was engaged or breached. The Panel made this determination having listened to all of the information and viewed the BWV, examined the statements of both officers concerned and reviewed their oral testimony. The Panel concluded that despite the appropriate authorities' assertion that PC Colgan could have simply just paused and placed him in jogging bottoms, this is not how the Panel found the situation to be when presented with all of the information.

The Panel observed that, having removed him from the bedroom, and commenced taking him down the stairs and out of the house, the Panel had already found that the use of force in those circumstances was not engaged, and the Use of Force standard had not been breached. PC Colgan’s actions were therefore acceptable.

We reminded ourselves that PC Colgan had assessed the threat and risk assessment as medium and this level of risk was ongoing. The Panel reminded itself that it had seen evidence throughout the hearing supporting the position of Mr A saying one thing and then doing another thing. For example, the Panel heard the 999 call where he could be heard saying "I don't need help" or words similar to that. The Panel saw the evidence from the officers in respect to them arresting him and saying that he would not resist and, although you could not see this on the BWV, it was the officers’ evidence that they felt he was resisting. Mr Mills said he could observe it from an expert witness point of view; again, the Panel found this all acceptable.

The Panel then took account of the evidence of PC Rawlings, who said in his statement that Mr A was resisting once outside.

It was PC Colgan’s evidence that there was not a realistic opportunity to pause because Mr A was not a compliant individual. Therefore, the best thing to do was to get him into the van cage as soon as possible. It is unfortunate that the police van was not directly outside Mr A’s address. It was not known by PC Colgan at the time that he exited the address that the van was not parked immediately outside.

The Panel took account of PC Colgan's evidence given in examination in chief that Mr A was still actively resisting at that point in time. PC Colgan said that in this situation, he felt that it was not safe to stop and dress him; the main priority was to get him into the van and into the cell. Based on these findings the Panel found that the Professional Standards of Authority, Respect, Courtesy, and Discreditable Conduct had not, in this situation, been breached. 

40. Allegation (n): Whilst Mr A was placed in the back of the police van, you: -

Allegation (n) (i) ignored his protestations of suffering from Tourette’s syndrome (shouting “I don’t care”) and/or.

(n) (i): Facts proven: The Panel found this to be proven

In relation to the Professional Standards of Authority, Respect and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct, PC Colgan admitted that these standards had been breached. In relation to the Professional Standard of equality and diversity being breached, this is not accepted by PC Colgan.

The Panel found that this Professional Standard of Equality and Diversity has not been breached. This is because the Panel found that by saying these words, he did not act with unfairness and lack of impartiality and discrimination. He would have treated someone without a disability in the same way. PC Colgan’s behaviour was due to his anger and frustration.

Allegation (n) (ii): placed your hand on his neck (shouting “Shut up”);

(n) (ii) Facts proven: The Panel found this not to be proven but found that on a balance of probabilities, there was some contact in this area, and it was most likely to be around Mr. A's chin area.

In relation to the Professional Standards of Authority, Respect, and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct, PC Colgan has admitted that these have been breached and amount to misconduct.

In relation to a breach of the standard of use of force, the Panel makes the following findings:

• 1. Honest Belief: the Panel found that in relation to PC Colgan's honest belief that he placed his hands on his chin to avert further spitting, he had an honest belief that further spitting may take place. In examination-in-chief PC Colgan said that he honestly believed there would be further spitting based upon the direction in which Mr. A's head was positioned.
  2. Objectively unreasonable: The Panel found that, in relation to whether this honest belief was objectively reasonable, based upon the previous spitting, such belief was reasonable.
  3. Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances: The Panel found that by PC Colgan placing his hand on his chin, this was necessary, proportionate and reasonable because of PC Colgan's honest belief that there may be further spitting.
  4. Breach of professional standard of use of force: Based on the Panel's findings, it determined that there had been no breach of this professional standard.
  5. In respect to breaches of Authority, Respect, and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct the Panel found that these standards have not been breached because the Professional Standard of Use of Force has not been breached.
  6. Breach of professional standard of equality and diversity: The Panel found there was no breach for the reasons set out above and in Allegation (8) below.

Allegation (n) (iii) pushed his leg into the cage (and slammed the door).

(n) (iii): Facts proven: The Panel found this to be proven.

(a) Use of Force

(i) Honest belief: In relation to Mr A’s honest belief that his leg was placed in the van   so that the door would not hurt him, the Panel found this was an honest belief. The Panel found that this was not evidence of further anger by PC Colgan. The way he placed the leg showed the Panel that he did have control.

(ii) Objectively Unreasonable: The Panel found that it was objectively reasonable for PC Colgan to honestly believe that his leg needed to be moved in order to avoid hurting him because it was necessary for PC Colgan to close the van door to enable the van to move to escort him to the police station.

(iii) Necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances: The Panel found this to be necessary, proportionate and reasonable because it was necessary to close the door. The Panel recognised that PC Colgan was angry at this time. The Panel found that the AA has not proved, however, on a balance of probabilities that the slamming of the door was done because PC Colgan was angry. The Panel accepted PC Colgan’s evidence given in cross examination, that a degree of force is needed for old vans when the door is being closed.

(iv) Breach of Professional Standard of Use of Force. The Panel found that this standard has not been breached.

Breach of professional standards of authority, respect and courtesy, discreditable conduct and equality and diversity: The Panel found that these standards have not been breached because in relation to Authority, Respect, and Courtesy and Discreditable Conduct, this has not been breached because the Professional Standard of Use of Force has not been breached.

In relation to the Professional Standard of Equality and Diversity, this has not been breached for the same reasons the Panel gave in relation to Allegation 8 and above. In short, the Panel found that PC Colgan would have acted in the same way had Mr. A not had Tourette's. The Panel could not find how the pushing of Mr. A's leg into the van demonstrates that PC Colgan acted with unfairness and lack of impartiality and discrimination. 

41. Allegation (o): In response to an indistinguishable, but presumably rude comment made by Mr A, you re-opened the cage door as if to violently confront Mr A (causing your colleague to take hold of your belt in order to hold you back).
42. (o): Facts proven:

On a balance of probabilities the Panel found that, based on the BWV which they reviewed again, PC Colgan reopened the cage door in response to Mr A’s rude comment as if to angrily (but not necessarily violently) confront Mr A. The Panel found that PC Rawlings ‘hand was on the belt and based upon PC Rawlings ‘evidence, he took hold of PC Colgan’s belt to hold him back.

(o) Use of Force:

(i) The AA state that the reopening of the cage door had no police purpose other than to remonstrate with Mr. A in anger following a rude comment made to PC Colgan by Mr. A. Further, the AA stated that the reason for opening the cage door was "to get into Mr. A's face", which was a use of force with no policing purpose and was not necessary, proportionate or reasonable. PC Colgan stated in cross-examination that the reason for opening the van door, was in effect to continue the argument he was having with Mr. A. The Panel accepted the AA's position and determined that the AA has discharged the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, that there was no policing purpose for opening the door.

(ii) “Honest belief” and “objectively unreasonable”: The Panel found that PC Colgan had no honest belief in opening the van door to continue the argument. In any event, by doing so, this was not objectively reasonable.

 By doing so, this was not necessary, proportionate, or reasonable. Therefore, the Panel found that this Professional Standard has been breached.

Breach of Equality and Diversity: The Panel found that this standard has not been breached. The Panel could not understand how this incident of opening and closing the cage door could breach the Professional Standard of Equality and Diversity in that PC Colgan was not acting fairly or impartially and in a discriminatory fashion. The Panel found that PC Colgan would have acted in the same way had Mr. A not had Tourette's. PC Colgan’s behaviour was due to his anger and frustration.

43. Allegation 8: Further or alternatively, in respect of allegations 7(n) & (o), you failed to act with fairness and impartiality and/or discriminated unlawfully or unfairly against Mr A after he informed you that he suffered from Tourette’s syndrome.

(8): Facts Proven: The Panel found, in relation to the facts (actions and words) as set out above at paragraphs 40 & 42, in respect to allegations 7(n) & (o).

However, in respect of the AA’s allegation that his behaviour amounted to a breach of s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 (see closing submissions paragraph 151),  the Panel found that he acted impartially and did not discriminate because of his Tourette’s; on a balance of probabilities, he would have acted in the same way if presented with a detained person, who did not have Tourette’s. There was no evidence presented that saw the Panel conclude that any discrimination was present arising from disability. PC Colgan’s behaviour was due to his anger and frustration.

In relation to whether the Professional Standard of Equality and Diversity had been breached, the Panel found that this standard had not been breached for the same reasons given by the Panel in relation to Allegations (n) and (o) where it found that this Professional Standard has not been breached as it was not here. 

44. Allegation 9: Further or alternatively, you failed in your duties and responsibilities by not providing Mr A with any suitable care following the deployment of PAVA spray. In particular, you failed to follow the College of Policing Personal Safety Manual guidance on the provision of aftercare following the use of an irritant spray (which includes informing the person that they have been sprayed, that they will be helped, reassuring them the effects are temporary, removing them to an uncontaminated area where the subject can be exposed to fresh air, and advising them not to rub their eyes or face).

(9) Facts Proven: The Panel found that PC Colgan had received training from the College of Police Personal Safety manual guidance in relation to the aftercare having administered PAVA. The Panel was not presented with any evidence to show that PC Colgan had been diligent in exercising his duty and responsibilities in relation to such aftercare. Nor was evidence presented that he asked or reasonably expected any other officer present to carry out those duties. Therefore, the Panel found that, on a balance of probabilities, no such diligence had been shown in relation to such duty relating to aftercare having deployed the PAVA spray.

In relation to the Professional Standard of duties and responsibilities being breached the Panel found that this duty has been breached on the basis that no evidence was presented to the Panel to show that any aftercare following the deployment of PAVA had been provided by PC Colgan. PC Colgan allowed his anger to override his duty. PC Colgan did not act diligently in the exercise of his duties and responsibilities. He allowed his anger to take precedence over his duties.

45. In relation to paragraph 10 of the Regulation 30 notice, which lists the Standards of Professional Behaviour which are alleged to have been breached, the Panel, in its assessment of each allegation, has identified the manner and the extent to which each of these professional standards has been breached set against the definitions of misconduct and gross misconduct.

46. Therefore, based on the findings of fact, the Panel found that the AA has discharged the burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, in proving the following allegations: -

Allegation 7(c): Authority, respect and courtesy and discreditable conduct: both admitted and therefore breached. The Panel found that this constitutes misconduct.

Allegation 7(f): Authority, respect, and courtesy and discreditable conduct: admitted and therefore breached. The Panel found that this constitutes misconduct.

Allegation 7(j): The Professional Standards of use of force, authority, respect, courtesy, and discreditable conduct: all breached: Taking into account the breach of all three standards, the panel found that this is gross misconduct.

Allegation 7(n) (i): Authority, respect and courtesy and discreditable conduct admitted. The Panel found that this is misconduct.

Allegation 7(n) (ii): Authority, respect and courtesy and discreditable conduct admitted. The Panel found that this was misconduct.

Allegation 7(o): Authority, respect, and courtesy and discreditable conduct admitted. Use of force breached: Misconduct.

Allegation 9: Duties and responsibilities breached. Misconduct.

47. The Panel determined that fifteen of the professional standards had been breached. All but one was found to be misconduct. In relation to allegation j, this was deemed by the Panel to be gross misconduct.

48. Considering the Home Office guide, the panel considered these breaches in the aggregate. The Panel further considered the vulnerability of Mr. A and how there were multiple breaches emanating from one incident. Therefore, the Panel found that overall, the breaches constituted gross misconduct.

Outcome

49. Having made a finding, the Panel considered the appropriate outcome. In doing so the Panel received submissions from both parties with the AA indicating that it did not consider, given the facts of the case, the finding of the Panel and the evidence heard that it was necessary to make submissions for dismissal in order to satisfy the regime’s purpose.

50. The Panel read and had regard to the officer record of police service.

51. The Panel turned to the College of Policing Guidance on Outcomes in policing proceedings and used it to make their decision. The Panel reminded itself that the guidance does not override the discretion of the panel, whose function is to determine the appropriate outcome and that each case will depend on its particular facts and circumstances. The Panel noted that the guidance cannot and should not prescribe the outcome suitable for every case.

52. The Panel further noted that the guidance outlines a general framework for assessing the seriousness of conduct, including factors that may be taken into account; and that these factors are non-exhaustive and do not exclude any other factor(s) that the panel may consider relevant.

53. The Panel reminded itself of the threefold purpose of the police misconduct regime:

1. to maintain public confidence in, and the reputation of, the police service

2. to uphold high standards in policing and to deter misconduct

3. to protect the public

Assessing seriousness

54. The Panel has followed the required stages as set out by Mr Justice Popplewell, namely:

• assess the seriousness of the misconduct.
• keep in mind the purpose of imposing sanctions.
• choose the sanction that most appropriately fulfils that purpose for the seriousness of the conduct in question.

55. Assess the seriousness of the proven conduct, by reference to:

• the officer’s culpability for the misconduct.
• the harm caused by the misconduct.
• the existence of any aggravating factors.
• the existence of any mitigating factors.

Culpability

56. Culpability denotes the officer’s blameworthiness or responsibility for their actions. The more culpable or blameworthy the behaviour in question, the more serious the misconduct and the more severe the likely outcome.

57. The Panel found present in this case the following:

58. In respect to the second opening of the van door and the officer’s actions, as well as the language used during the incident that was found to have breached the standards of professional behaviour, the conduct was intentional (CoP Para 4.10).

59. In respect to the use of force that was found proven concerning the third PAVA spray and the officer’s actions on the second opening of the van door these were criminal in nature (CoP Para 4.23)

60. By its nature, the proven conduct amounts to violence albeit at the low end of the scale (CoP Para 4.40).

61. The Panel received no evidence surrounding Tourette’s syndrome and therefore was not in a position to assess vulnerability in respect to that information. The Panel did consider Mr A’s self-intoxication, that he had been subject to PAVA and was placed in handcuffs made him situationally vulnerable and the officer should have recognised this (CoP Para 4.53).

Harm

62. The harm caused by an officer’s actions can be considered in various ways. It may affect particular individuals, in which case the harm caused may depend on the victim’s personal characteristics and circumstances.

63. The Panel found present in this case the following:

64. Temporary psychological distress and physical discomfort from the third PAVA discharge (CoP Para 4.64). There was no evidence before the Panel beyond this.

65. The undermining of public confidence in policing (CoP Para 4.66).

66. General national concern regarding police use of force (CoP Para 4.70).

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

67. The Panel was careful not to double count.

Aggravating Factors

68. Aggravating factors are those tending to worsen the circumstances of the case, in relation to either the officer’s culpability or the harm caused.

69. The Panel found present in this case the following:

70. Multiple proven allegations albeit a number flowed logically from the found Use of Force allegations (x2) rather than separate standalone further behaviours from different matters.

Mitigating Factors

71. Mitigating factors are those tending to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. Some factors may indicate that an officer’s culpability is lower, or that the harm caused by the misconduct is less serious than it might otherwise have been.

72. The Panel considered whether the formal mitigation tendered needed to have less weight placed on such circumstances and concluded it did not.

73. The Panel found present in this case the following:

74. Misconduct confined to a single episode or brief duration. In totality, this was a short incident with the majority of it uncontested or unproven.

75. The officer perceived threat and resistance and was aware of the assault on the 11-year-old brother a short time before. The spitting to clear the PAVA from his mouth created a disturbance affecting the officer’s judgment. The Panel accepted and saw on the BWV the officer looking to holster his Pava after the second discharge. The ‘spit’ occurred whilst the canister was still in his hand and the expert witness testimony including that concerning ‘convulsive grip in stressful and conflict situations where human beings, who have a limited time to react are most likely to use an object in their hand’ led to the Panel’s earlier determination concerning an instinctive action. In the circumstances the proven use of force occurred in the heat of the moment and was instinctive in nature.

76. The Panel determined that the officer was acting pursuant to a legitimate policing purpose but got things wrong. In addition to the Panel’s findings and consideration on the third PAVA discharge. The Panel accepted the officer’s position that he was frustrated and became angry, arguing with Mr A given the events that evening coupled with stress in his personal life and his own experiences with others he had known who lived with Tourette’s syndrome. The Panel was not convinced by the AA advancing ‘red mist’ as the reason for his behaviour as previously set out above at paragraph 23.

77. [Paragraph redacted].

78. Partial open admissions were made at an early stage in respect to the language used.

79. Early action was taken by the officer immediately following the incident where he engaged his sergeant and the matter was debriefed by the sergeant.

80. The Panel saw and heard evidence of genuine remorse and insight from the officer.

81. Considering the severity assessment and the impact of aggravating and mitigating factors on culpability and harm the Panel, overall, found culpability to be high and harm to be medium.

82. The Panel found this to be gross misconduct with high culpability and medium harm.

Personal mitigation

83. The Panel having made the assessment of seriousness then turned to personal mitigation. The Panel noted however, that due to the nature and purpose of disciplinary proceedings, the weight of personal mitigation will necessarily be limited. Nonetheless, personal mitigation is always relevant and should always be taken into account as the Panel has.

84. Here the Panel considered the character bundle submitted on behalf of the officer. We noted the good work recognition award from April 2025 where the officer assisted in saving the life of a suicidal person found hanging; whereby he supported the man’s weight and removed the ligature, saving his life. Of his professionalism and work in July 2021 when attending a sudden death involving a body in an advanced state of decay. A sergeant reflecting on the officer’s attendance at a rape investigation, and through his caring approach he was able to successfully able to get the victim to support a formal prosecution that saw a conviction. A colleague who spoke of the officer’s work dealing with a local drug dealer who had been abusing his partner and her family to the extent that she was terrified of him and how the officer invested an extraordinary amount of time and care to ensure that the victim felt safe, supported, and confident enough to proceed with police action. This resulted in the perpetrator being placed before the court, significantly reducing risk to the victim. Another supervisor who remarked on his character and that he had shown great resilience during his time under investigation as he has continued to come into work and has conducted himself well, remaining positive and displaying a good attitude towards his work. The Panel received observations from an Inspector, in order to provide assistance to the panel, by offering an informed assessment of the officer’s character and conduct from a supervisory perspective. Here, the Inspector described an officer who typically approaches his duties in a calm and professional manner, even when operating under pressure. Citing two challenging incidents in Thetford, his assessment of the officer is that he has an ability to remain composed during demanding and dynamic situations and to exercise appropriate judgement. [Remainder paragraph redacted]

Outcome

85. Turning to outcome the Panel noted the options available to it and consider less severe outcomes before more severe outcomes as required.

86. As the Panel had found Gross Misconduct the least severe outcome to consider first was a final written warning of standard duration (two years).

87. The Panel noted the submission made by the AA on outcome as well as those made by the officer.

88. The Panel reminded itself of the threefold purpose for imposing outcomes in police misconduct proceedings.

89. The Panel determined that given the circumstances of the case that it was able to protect the public, deter misconduct and maintain public confidence and the reputation of the service by issuing a final written warning to last for a period of two years.

90. In making this decision in addition to the severity assessment considerations above, in particular surrounding the third PAVA discharge, the Panel took account of the fact that the officer had been engaged in front line duties, for the past thirty-three months, whilst under investigation, without any further incident or concern. Whilst of limited weight the Panel applied some weight to the personal mitigation and the evidence submitted by the officers’ supervisors and colleagues set out, in part, above. On the specific facts of this case the Panel did not believe that any additional duration of a final written warning was necessary or warranted and that the purpose of the proceedings would be discharged with it.

91. The officer was issued with a Final Written Warning of standard two-year duration.

Publication

92. The AA is directed to publish the final written report. The officer is to be identified but any named member of the public or addresses are to be redacted.

Right of Appeal.

93. All officers have a right of appeal to a Police Appeals Tribunal against any disciplinary finding and/or disciplinary outcome imposed at a misconduct hearing or a finding of gross misconduct and/or any disciplinary outcome imposed. The grounds of appeal for matters dealt with under the Conduct regulations are:

    1. That the finding or disciplinary action imposed was unreasonable,

    2. That there is evidence that could not reasonably have been considered at the misconduct hearing which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action or,

    3. That there was a breach of procedures set out in the Conduct regulations or other unfairness which could have materially affected the finding or decision on disciplinary action. Where an officer wishes to appeal, they will need to give notice in writing to their local policing body. The notice must be given within ten working days, beginning with the first working day after the police officer is first supplied with a written copy of the decision they are appealing against.

The Panel

ACO Nicholas Davison

Rebecca Stephens

John Jones

03/06/2026

 

[1] Schedule 2 of the Police Conduct Regulations 2020

[2] A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that is so serious as to justify disciplinary action.