A Gloucestershire sergeant who climbed over a custody desk, shoved a handcuffed detainee to the floor, and mocked him with the words ‘what a shame’ after he struck his head on the ground, has escaped dismissal and been handed only a final written warning, despite the panel finding that his behaviour amounted to gross misconduct.
The case concerned the treatment of a detainee, referred to as A, who had been arrested for assault and breach of bail. He had used unpleasant and misogynistic language towards two female officers who escorted him into custody. Even so, both officers were clear that A had calmed down on the journey, posed no violence risk, and did not require a ‘welcome party’ on arrival. As they brought him to the custody desk, the custody sergeant, PS Thomas Coombs, suddenly vaulted over the counter. Although the panel ultimately rejected the claim that he kicked out while doing so, it found he immediately shoved A in the chest with enough force to send him crashing backwards to the floor, where he struck his head. As the detainee lay dazed, Coombs remarked: ‘what a shame’.
Moments later, while helping move A into a cell, Coombs again caused him to collide with a wall and repeated the same phrase. Once inside the cell, his handling of A worsened. While the detainee was being searched on the floor, Coombs forced his arms behind his head, causing unnecessary pain. Throughout, he continued to use disrespectful and inappropriate language. The panel concluded that he had failed to treat A with even the minimum level of respect and courtesy required of an officer in a position of control.
In his defence, Coombs claimed he believed A was about to assault the other officers, saying he interpreted the detainee’s comments – including ‘get some male officers here’ and ‘I am in control’ – as signs of imminent violence. He admitted he could not recall whether A was handcuffed and conceded that he had made no attempt to clarify the risk before taking action. His explanation rested entirely on a mistaken belief that the situation required immediate intervention. The panel accepted that this belief was honestly, and in the circumstances reasonably, held. However, they did not accept that the force he used was justified or proportionate.
Video evidence played a decisive role. It showed, in the panel’s words, an ‘excessive approach’ that went far beyond what was necessary to protect the officers. It also underlined the disrespectful remarks that followed each injury. Coombs later admitted the language had been unprofessional, expressing regret for it, and accepted that he had failed to properly record the incidents in the custody log.
Despite upholding every allegation of discreditable conduct, unnecessary force, and abuse of authority, the panel divided its findings between misconduct and gross misconduct. The physical force itself was deemed misconduct, but his behaviour, attitude, and repeated disrespect towards the detainee amounted to gross misconduct. In theory, that level of finding can justify dismissal.
However, both the Appropriate Authority and Coombs’s representative argued for a final written warning. The panel agreed, determining that although the conduct was serious, it did not require removing him from the service. They cited his previously clean record, some evidence of remorse, the short duration of the incident, and the fact that his actions stemmed from a mistaken perception rather than malicious intent. The panel classified the seriousness as ‘medium’ and concluded that a reasonable member of the public, fully informed of the circumstances, would not lose confidence in the police if Coombs remained in post.
The final written warning will remain on his record for three years.
OP-ED
It is clear from the report that every police witness – except Coombs – described the detainee as non-threatening when he entered custody. Yet the moment Coombs leaps the desk and assaults him, every officer suddenly suffers from a bout of selective amnesia. They gloss over what caused Coombs to react so violently, offering vague, contradictory accounts despite giving full detail on everything before and after the incident. Coombs, however, remembers it all perfectly and claims the detainee came at him in a threatening way. None of the witnesses support this.
Reading between the lines, Coombs was clearly ‘white-knighting’ the two female PCs – something male police officers have a habit of doing in a bid to show off or display their machismo. It is obvious from the report that what prompted Coombs to launch himself into a whirling dervish of aggression was that the detainee made ‘misogynistic remarks’ about the two female officers and dared to challenge Coombs’ authority. His spiteful remarks of ‘what a shame’ make his intentions even clearer, something the misconduct panel glossed over as inconsequential.
It is clear from this suboptimal outcome that the panel chose to look the other way. Bear in mind that this is the same force that sacked a constable with 11 years’ unblemished service after he used a homophobic slur about two senior colleagues who were married to each other. And yet here, they excuse a violent assault against a member of the public with a mere written warning.
The message is clear. Extreme violence against members of the public will result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist, while officers who offend their own colleagues will be sacked on the spot.
Biased, much?
