Karl Brunner
Investigation into the death of Karl Brunner on 11 May 2016 following police restraint
Please note, this investigation was completed and submitted to the decision maker before 8 January 2018, while we were still the IPCC. Therefore, the report will contain the investigator’s opinion, which may differ from the final outcome. The report refers to the IPCC and the Commission throughout, and does not reflect the new structure of the IOPC.
Independent investigation report Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 1
Investigation information
Investigation name: Karl Brunner
IPCC reference: 2016/065973
Investigation type: Conduct
IPCC office: London
Lead investigator: Dave Heslop
Case supervisor: Sarah-Louise Austin
Commission delegate: Mary Cunneen
Status of report: Final
Date finalised: 14 November 2017
Contents
Introduction ...... 4 The investigation ...... 5 Subjects of the investigation ...... 6 Policies, procedures and legislation considered ...... 6 Summary of the evidence ...... 14 Medical evidence ...... 27 Conclusions ...... 31 Appendix 1: The role of the IPCC...... 43 Appendix 2: Viewing log taken from PC Garfitt’s body-worn video ...... 45 Appendix 3: Viewing Log taken from PC Gorman’s body-worn video ...... 51
Introduction
The purpose of this report
1. I was appointed by the IPCC to carry out an independent investigation into the death following police restraint of Mr Karl Brunner. This came to the attention of the IPCC on 11 May 2016 as a death or serious injury (DSI) referral. This case subsequently became a conduct investigation.
2. This is my report for the Commission. It summarises and evaluates the evidence, and refers to relevant documents. In my conclusions I will: a) set out the facts that have been established, the sequence of events and their consequences b) give my opinion about whether the subjects of the investigation have a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, or no case to answer c) draw attention to any evidence which may be the basis for a decision by the Commission delegate that performance of any subject of the investigation may have fallen below the standard expected of them d) draw attention to any lessons which may need to be learned by any organisation related to the investigation about which the Commission delegate may wish to make a recommendation e) provide the Commission with sufficient information and, if appropriate express a view about whether it should refer any subject of the investigation to the CPS
3. It is intended that, for the purposes of this report, the powers and obligations of the Commission will be exercised by the Commission delegate. 4. I will also send this report to Bedfordshire Police, which must then advise the Commission delegate what action it will take in response to it. If the Commission delegate does not agree with Bedfordshire Police, it may make recommendations and ultimately directions about what action to take. The Commission delegate will also decide whether to make a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
5. This investigation is also intended to assist in fulfilling the state’s investigative obligation arising under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by ensuring as far as possible that the investigation is independent, effective, open and prompt, and that the full facts are brought to light and any lessons are learned. 6. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) imposes an obligation on the state to protect human life. This involves both a prohibition on the state taking life and, in certain circumstances, a positive duty to protect life. 7. It has been determined that the circumstances of Mr Brunner‘s death potentially engages Article 2 because he died following a restraint by police officers.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 4
The investigation
8. On Wednesday 11 May 2016, four police officers wearing plain clothes were on duty near Midland Road and Battison Street in Bedford. At approximately 12.34pm, Mr Brunner was seen by police officers walking along Battison Street with another man. Police officers approached Mr Brunner from behind and detained him.
9. Two police officers restrained Mr Brunner to the ground placing him on his stomach. A third police officer assisted with the restraint and application of handcuffs. Mr Brunner became unresponsive.
10. Police officers requested the attendance of an ambulance to the scene at approximately 12.36pm and 12.37pm. The handcuffs were removed and Mr Brunner was placed onto his back by the officers, at which point they began cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The police officers continued CPR until the arrival of the ambulance at 12.43pm. Mr Brunner was pronounced deceased at hospital at 1.17pm.
Terms of reference
11. The terms of reference for this investigation were approved by Mary Cunneen on 22 May 2016. The terms of reference specific to this investigation are:
To investigate a) the decision of police officers to detain Mr Brunner in Battison Street b) the actions, decisions and treatment of Mr Brunner by the police officers who were involved in his restraint including c) the use of any force or restraint d) the assessment of Mr Brunner’s physical and mental wellbeing throughout e) the ongoing risk assessments carried out by officers; f) the medical assistance provided to Mr Brunner on Battison Street g) determine if the police officers acted in accordance with Bedfordshire Police and national policies, training and legislation
To assist in fulfilling the state’s investigative obligation arising under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by ensuring as far as possible that the investigation is independent, effective, open and prompt, and that the full facts are brought to light and any lessons are learned. To identify whether any subject of the investigation may have committed a criminal offence and, if appropriate, make early contact with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). On receipt of the final report, the Commission shall determine whether the report should be sent to the DPP. To consider and report on whether there is organisational learning, including:
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 5
a) whether any change in policy or practice would help to prevent a recurrence of the event, incident or conduct investigated b) whether the incident highlights any good practice that should be shared
Subjects of the investigation
12. During this investigation, upon analysing the evidence, the lead investigator decided there was an indication that police officers and police staff may have: (a) committed a criminal offence, or (b) behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings
13. Any police officer/police staff/relevant contractor whose conduct is under investigation is categorised as a subject of the investigation. A notice of investigation must be served on all subjects, informing them of the allegations against them. 14. They must also be informed of the severity of the allegations. In other words whether if proven they would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct. 15. The following person/people have been categorised as subjects of this investigation:
Name Role Initial severity Revised severity further to pathological evidence
Steve Gorman Police Constable Gross Misconduct Misconduct
Matt Garfitt Police Constable Gross Misconduct Misconduct
Jamie Williams Police Constable Gross Misconduct Misconduct
Policies, procedures and legislation considered
16. A number of national and local policies were examined in relation to this incident, in order to ascertain whether the policies were complied with, and whether the existing policies were sufficient in these circumstances.
17. It will be shown in this report that Mr Brunner was restrained by police officers in a public place following his detention under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Criminal Law Act, Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Common Law all provide officers with powers to use force in certain circumstances, and these are set out below.
Common law
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 6
18. Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive action.
19. The common law is created and refined by judges.
20. Common law – use of force The common law recognises that there are many circumstances in which one person may use force upon another without committing a crime.
This covers saving life, self-defence and defence of others, defence of one’s property and prevention of a Breach of the Peace.
21. The force used to preserve life or prevent serious harm must be reasonable.
Criminal Law Act 1967 – Section 3
22. (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.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 – Section 23 Powers to search and obtain evidence
23. (2) If a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that any person is in possession of a controlled drug in contravention of this Act or of any regulations made thereunder, the constable may— (a) search that person, and detain him for the purpose of searching him; (b) search any vehicle or vessel in which the constable suspects that the drug may be found, and for that purpose require the person in control of the vehicle or vessel to stop it; (c) seize and detain, for the purposes of proceedings under this Act, anything found in the course of the search which appears to the constable to be evidence of an offence under this Act.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – Section 32 Search upon arrest
24. (1) A constable may search an arrested person, in any case where the person to be searched has been arrested at a place other than a police station, if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person may present a danger to himself or others.
25. (2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5) below, a constable shall also have power in any such case—
(a) to search the arrested person for anything— (i) which he might use to assist him to escape from lawful custody; or
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 7
(ii) which might be evidence relating to an offence…
20. (3) The power to search conferred by subsection (2) above is only a power to search to the extent that is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering any such thing or any such evidence.
21. (4) The powers conferred by this section to search a person are not to be construed as authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves…
22. (5) A constable may not search a person in the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (2) (a) above unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be searched may have concealed on him anything for which a search is permitted under that paragraph.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 – Section 117 Power of constable to use reasonable force
23. Where any provision of this Act – (a) Confers a power on a constable; and (b) 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.
Common law – Misconduct in public office
24. This offence is committed when: a) A public officer acting as such; b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself; c) To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder; d) Without reasonable excuse or justification.
Health and Safety Act section 7 – General duties of employees at work
25. It shall be the duty of every employee while at work— (a) to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and (b) as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.
Offences Against the Person Act section 47 – Assault occasioning bodily harm
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 8
26. Whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude.
Authorised Professional Practice (APP) – Detention and Custody
27. The APP guidance states that, when an officer makes an arrest, they are personally responsible for the risk assessment and welfare of the detained person.
28. If a detainee exhibits any of the following symptoms or behaviours the officer responsible for the care of the detainee should consider immediate transfer of the detainee to hospital. As a minimum, the detainee should be examined by an HCP.
29. These include: unconsciousness or lack of full consciousness (e.g. problems keeping their eyes open)
30. The APP guidance states that a detainee must be transported directly to hospital if they have swallowed or packed drugs.
Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Personal Safety Manual – Takedown
31. It will be shown in this report that police officers took Mr Brunner to the ground during the restraint.
32. It is written in the manual that the principle of a takedown assists the police officer to limit the person’s resistance by taking them to the ground in a safe manner, and it also restricts the person’s movements. It also notes that the takedown techniques may have to be used in conjunction with other techniques, such as ground pinning techniques.
33. The principle advises the police officer to use communication throughout, telling the person what they want the person to do.
34. The manual shows a straight arm takedown with forward momentum. This takedown technique advises the police officer to take the arm of the person and rotate the person’s palm upwards and uses his other hand to press down on the forearm at the base of the person’s triceps.
35. The principle advises the police officer to extend the arm applying downward and forward pressure. It also goes on to advise that the police officer drops their inside knee towards the ground, maintaining the person’s wrist by holding it higher than the elbow, which will be higher than the shoulder.
36. The manual shows that there are certain circumstances during a takedown where it may be necessary to hold the head of a person who is in a prone position. There is a technique which advises the police officer to use both hands and hold the head of a prone person to avoid any injury.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 9
37. The manual also showed another takedown technique which included guidance for police officers to hold the head of a prone person, again in an attempt to avoid injury.
ACPO Personal Safety Manual – Ground pinning
38. It will be shown in this report that the police officers used ground pin techniques while they restrained Mr Brunner on Battison Street. The ACPO Personal Safety Manual sets out the techniques for carrying out the action.
39. It is written in the manual that the principle of applying a ground pin is to apply body weight to the wrist, arm and/or the shoulder while the person is on the ground. The manual confirmed that, while the person is on the ground, pressure should be applied to the elbow if the arm is straightened and downward pressure applied to the wrist and shoulder.
40. The manual shows principles that can be applied to aspects of ground restraint, handcuffing and ground pins. One principle shows the process for placing a subject in a position of disadvantage for preparation to ensure the police officers can take further control of a person.
41. This principle advises the police officer to instruct the person to lay on the floor with their legs crossed, with their arms out to the side and head away from the police officer. The second stage of this principle advises the police officer to take hold of the person’s right arm, gripping the wrist and upper arm. The third stage advises the police officer to place the person in a ground pin position and it shows a police officer holding the wrist and pointing the hand towards the person’s head.
42. The principle of a conventional ground pin advises the police officer to place their inside shin in the crease of the shoulder joint with the knee pointing down the subject’s body. The principle advises the police officer to position the wrist of the person higher than the elbow, which will be higher than the shoulder. The principle advises the police officers to place their hands side by side on the back of the hand, however, if this is not possible one hand should maintain the wrist lock and the other hand should secure the arm.
43. The manual shows a principle for carrying out a forward-facing ground pin. It is noted that this principle may be utilised as an alternative ground pinning control technique. The manual shows a police officer holding the left arm of the person.
44. The principle advises the police officer to raise the person’s arm, keeping the person’s wrist held higher than the elbow, which will be higher than the shoulder. The principle advises the police officer to use their inside leg to secure the person’s arm and shows the police officer resting their shin on the side of the person.
ACPO Personal Safety Manual – Medical implications
45. It will be shown in this report that the police officers stated that they considered the risk factors relating to positional asphyxia. The pathological evidence will show that positional asphyxia was not relevant in this incident.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 10
46. The manual provides police officers with guidance regarding the avoidance of positional asphyxia. It details positional asphyxia is likely to occur when a person is in a prone position but a person being in a prone position is a risk factor for causing positional asphyxia.
47. The manual states police officers should pay close attention to the person and if an active ‘prisoner’ becomes passive or quiet they should be considered a medical emergency in light of any positional asphyxia risks.
ACPO Personal Safety Manual – Unarmed skills: pressure points
48. It will be shown in this report that the police officers used a pressure point technique on Mr Brunner when making attempts to ensure Mr Brunner did not swallow the package.
49. The manual noted the aim of the pressure point control technique is to either temporarily immobilize the person, produce involuntary movements or distract them. There are a number of pressure point techniques that an officer may use. In this report it will be shown that the mandibular angle pressure point was used.
50. The manual advises the police officer that the pressure point control should be applied using light to substantial pressure.
51. The manual confirmed the mandibular angle pressure point is located behind the base of the ear lobe at the small hollow between the bony part that can be felt behind the ear and the mandible, which is the jawline. It advises the pressure should be directed inwards and towards the person’s nose at a 45 degree angle.
52. The manual advises the police officer to approach the person safely, use clear verbal commands and stabilise the head securely. The second stage of advice recommends the police officer uses a thumb tip, knuckle or supported finger applying pressure at a 45 degree angle inward towards the subject’s nose. The manual advises the police officer to release pressure on compliance or to hold the pressure for no longer than three seconds.
ACPO Personal Safety Manual – Searching: searching the mouth by force
53. It will be shown in this report that police officers attempted to search the mouth of Mr Brunner.
54. The manual states, “techniques applied to a person’s mouth, nose or throat could impinge on their respiratory system and may pose significant medical implications. There are also potential risks associated with officers placing their fingers inside a person’s mouth. There will be occasions where officers have to act swiftly in order to preserve life and/or evidence and this may include searching a person’s mouth. Every effort should be made to encourage the subject to empty their mouth voluntarily without the need for force. Should this request be unsuccessful an officer may feel it appropriate and necessary to use force to conduct such a search. Once the person is adequately restrained, pressure point control
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 11
techniques may be used in conjunction with clear verbal commands and other tactical options to encourage the person to empty their mouth.”
Authorised Professional Practice (APP) – Swallowed or packed drugs packages
55. The APP states, “concealing illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis in the body has become increasingly prevalent among drug couriers, known as mules or body-packers. Drug packages may also be hidden in this way around the time of arrest or during transport. Wrapped packages of drugs are either swallowed or concealed in body orifices. It is common practice for persons to swallow drugs to avoid detection by the police.”
56. “If officers know or suspect that a detainee has swallowed or packed drugs, either for the purpose of trafficking or to avoid imminent arrest or detention by the police, they must treat the person as being in need of urgent medical attention and transfer them straight to hospital. Leakage from a package can prove fatal.”
The college of emergency medicine – Faculty of forensic and legal medicine: management of choking in police care and custody recommendations for police personnel
57. The document states that police personnel may come across individuals who attempt to swallow substances or objects which may already be concealed in their mouths or hidden somewhere else before been placed in their mouths. The document also states there is a risk that attempts to swallow the object could result in choking.
58. It is stated in the document that attempts to prevent someone from swallowing an object could increase the risk to the person of choking. It clearly states that it is not ever appropriate to prevent the swallowing of an object by using pressure or force to the neck or facial areas.
59. The document states that, if someone has swallowed an object, a request can be made to ask them to ‘spit it out’ and it is essential to ask the person repeatedly whether or not they are choking.
60. The document outlines the signs of a severe airway obstruction. This includes the person not being able to speak and maybe responding by nodding along, with other signs such as the person being unable to breathe, breathing which sounds ‘wheezy’, attempts at coughing being silent or the person being unconscious.
61. The document shows a process for dealing with an unconscious person with a severe airway obstruction. It shows that CPR should be commenced in this situation.
62. It is noted that this guidance conflicts with current ACPO guidance in that it states it is never appropriate to use pressure or force to prevent swallowing.
63. During the investigation, Bedfordshire Police confirmed that this guidance “does indeed form part of their annual first aid training. This particular input has been
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 12
delivered from April [2017] and by October [2017], all officers should have had it.” However, this guidance was introduced to Bedfordshire Police training after this particular incident, therefore the officers subject to the investigation had not received this guidance.
64. At the Coroner’s Inquest Bedfordshire Police confirmed that the above information, detailed in paragraph 63, which had been provided to the investigation, had been miscommunicated by a Hertfordshire Constabulary personal safety trainer from the collaborative Beds/Herts/Cambs Police training department. A Bedfordshire Police personal safety trainer confirmed the FFLM guidance does not form part of Bedfordshire Police training, however, since Spring 2017, the hypoglossal pressure point technique and the labial sulcus pressure point technique, are techniques which officers have been told not to use where someone has swallowed drugs or are choking in order to search mouths, or as a way to encourage a person to spit out an item from their mouths.
Bedfordshire Police first aid training 2013–2015
65. The Bedfordshire training slides show that police officers should assess the situation following the DRSABC pneumonic: D – Danger; R – Response; S – Shout for help; A – Airways; B – Breathing; C – CPR. The slides confirm the police officers are trained in rate, depths and correct hand/body position while performing CPR.
66. The training slides show CPR techniques and pictures showing what is the recovery position and what is not an appropriate recovery position.
67. The training slides show a diagram of a choking casualty and how abdominal thrusts should be carried out.
68. The training slides also show police officers how to deal with shock, wounds, burns, heart attacks, bone/muscle/joint injuries, spinal injuries, bleeds, abrasions, punctures, gunshots, amputation, chest wounds, fainting, stroke, seizures, asthma, diabetes, head injuries including fractures and concussion, and eye injuries. All of these ailments were not relevant in this incident.
69. The training slides advise that CPR is not discontinued until the police officers identify that the victim is showing signs of regaining consciousness such as coughing, opening their eyes, speaking or moving purposefully and start to breathe normally.
70. If the police officers cannot provide the victim with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, they have to ensure that effective compressions are carried out.
71. The training slides shows that the police officers in training are advised to ask the victim if they are choking and try to encourage them to cough. Back slaps and abdominal thrusts are demonstrated during training. The training also includes checking blockages between each slap or thrust. The training discusses the importance of the police officers being ready to start CPR if the victim’s condition deteriorates.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 13
72. PC Gorman, PC Williams and PC Garfitt have been trained in Emergency first aid and completed their refresher training between 2013 and 2015.
73. PC Gorman is also trained as a public order medic. This training includes managing a first-aid scene, managing an unconscious casualty – including checking airways and breathing – and managing a choking casualty – including identifying choking casualties and performing backslaps/abdominal thrusts – placing a casualty in recovery position – including monitoring the casualty. The training also includes enhanced skills such as managing breathing complications using various apparatus.
Summary of the evidence
74. During this investigation a volume of evidence was gathered. After thorough analysis of all the evidence, I have selected the evidence I think is relevant and answers the terms of reference for my investigation. As such, not all the evidence gathered in the investigation is referred to in this report. 75. However, the methodology of the investigation, including key decisions that were made, strategies that were set, and details of people referred to in this report are included in the attached appendices.
76. In order to reach my findings it was necessary for me to analyse and evaluate the evidence.
77. I am required to form an opinion about whether there is a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct for each subject. In doing so I will not reach findings of fact that would be conclusive of misconduct or gross misconduct – these findings should be left for any subsequent misconduct hearing or meeting.
Circumstances prior to Mr Brunner’s restraint
78. Detective Inspector (DI) Daniele Bailey was responsible as the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation XXXXXXXXXXX. Operation XXXXXXXXXXX was a Bedfordshire Police operation put in place to deal with drug dealing issues within Bedford. XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX.
79. DI Bailey explained Mr Brunner was the first subject encountered by police officers on 12 April 2016.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX. At this stage, it was a known risk to Bedfordshire Police that Mr Brunner swallowed drugs when encountered by police officers.
80. DI Bailey confirmed a planned “stop check” of Mr Brunner, while suspected to be in possession of class A drugs, was due to take place “over the weekend of 22 – 24 April 2016”, however, Mr Brunner did not attend the location where the “stop check” was due to occur.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 14
81. DI Justin Dipper, who was overseeing the selected tasking officers who were deployed for the planned stop, explained that Mr Brunner was due to be detained on Tuesday 26 April 2016. DI Dipper explained he had discussed with those officers a plan of how best to approach Mr Brunner due to his previous attempts to swallow “items suspected to be drugs.” Mr Brunner was not detained because he was in hospital with pneumonia and therefore the plan was not possible.
82. DI Bailey confirmed in her statement that on 11 May 2016 a decision was made to conduct a “proactive stop check” on Mr Brunner as part of Bedfordshire Police’s “day of action” and “with a view to him being arrested for ‘PWITS’”, which is possession with intent to supply (drugs). She said the day of action referred to a variety of activities including warrant execution, high-visibility policing, community reassurance and engagement. DI Bailey explained Mr Brunner was a risk to the public and a risk to himself because of the amount of drugs he was thought to be using.
83. DI Bailey assigned the “CTT” Central Tasking Team to carry out the arrest and briefed PC Garfitt on 11 May 2016. The briefing consisted of the aims and objectives of the arrest, which included information that Mr Brunner swallowed drugs when encountered by police, carried drugs in his right hand, and his movements. DI Bailey confirmed she relayed the same message to Detective Sergeant (DS) Philippa Hemingway, who tasked four police officers, including PC Garfitt, to carry out the arrest.
84. DI Dipper confirmed that he was not aware or involved in the plan to stop and search or arrest Mr Brunner on 11 May 2016.
85. DS Hemingway explained in her statement that she was the supervisor for the “Tasking Team Officers” on Operation XXXXXXXXXXX. DS Hemingway was the point of contact for Operation XXXXXXXXXXX in providing “Tasking Team Officers” as back up.
86. DS Hemingway explained that on May 11 2016 PC Garfitt and PC Gorman were the two “Tasking Team Officers” deployed on Operation XXXXXXXXXXX. DS Hemingway said PC Garfitt received a call from a police officer working on Operation XXXXXXXXXXX, who stated Mr Brunner was suspected of carrying drugs and needed to be stopped and checked.
87. DS Hemingway confirmed she contacted DI Bailey to request information about Mr Brunner so she could assess how many police officers would be required to stop Mr Brunner. She said DI Bailey told her of the likely area Mr Brunner would be in, information regarding Mr Brunner being in possession of class A drugs, and his previous concealing of drugs including swallowing.
88. DS Hemingway explained that she then decided to deploy a further two police officers, PC Williams and PC Griffiths. DS Hemingway telephoned “either PC Williams or PC Griffiths” and relayed information to them regarding the stop and check of Mr Brunner before requesting their attendance at the police station.
89. DS Hemingway said she then spoke with PC Garfitt and PC Gorman about tactics to stop Mr Brunner and “possible places that the officers could deploy from which would afford an element of surprise and possible ways to secure his hands swiftly
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 15
in order to stop him from potentially swallowing drugs.” DS Hemingway confirmed she had no concerns about the officer’s abilities to make dynamic decisions.
90. DS Hemingway explained that, while they were at the police station, one of the officers looked through the window and saw Mr Brunner with another man near the bus station. DS Hemingway said she heard PC Garfitt speaking with an Operation XXXXXXXXXXX officer about the sighting. All four police officers then left the police station in a hurry.
91. PC Griffiths explained in his statement that, while at the police station, he looked out of the window and saw Mr Brunner with another man crossing a pedestrian crossing. He said PC Garfitt was on the telephone with another police officer who had said Mr Brunner was believed to be in possession of class A drugs. PC Griffiths confirmed the police officers left the station in a police van with PC Garfitt, PC Williams and PC Gorman.
92. Body-worn video (BWV) and CCTV footage showed police officers alighted from the police van. They continued on foot, ran towards Mr Brunner and eventually approached Mr Brunner and the man he was with from behind on Midland Road. The BWV viewing logs1 are attached to this report in Appendix 2 and 3 and can be read in conjunction with the below summary of evidence taken from the police officers, paramedics and witnesses.
The initial restraint of Mr Brunner
93. PC Garfitt was interviewed by the IPCC, providing a prepared statement and declining to answer questions. PC Garfitt explained in his statement that he and PC Griffiths took hold of the man who had been with Mr Brunner. He said the man looked like he was going to run away but Mr Brunner did not attempt to run. He said he saw PC Gorman take hold of Mr Brunner, who was quickly supported by PC Williams. The BWV footage confirmed this.
94. PC Griffiths confirmed he saw Mr Brunner and the man he was with ahead of them on Midland Road. PC Griffiths explained he was of the opinion that the police officers needed to detain both men to prevent a disposal of any evidence. He said he ran towards the man Mr Brunner was with and took hold of him. PC Griffiths explained he “took him to the ground by moving his arm behind his back and placing him on the floor.” PC Griffiths explained the man struggled to pull away from him. He said he was assisted by PC Garfitt and the man was handcuffed to the rear while he was on the floor. The BWV footage confirmed this.
95. PC Gorman was interviewed by the IPCC, providing a prepared statement and declining to answer questions. PC Gorman explained in his statement that, as he approached Mr Brunner from behind, Mr Brunner turned around and looked surprised, however, PC Gorman believed Mr Brunner recognised him as a police officer. PC Gorman said he “tackled” Mr Brunner and Mr Brunner turned towards him “in an attempt to brace the impact.” The BWV footage confirmed this.
1 At the Coroner’s Inquest the jury determined that on the BWV Mr Brunner could be faintly heard to say “I can’t breathe” but because of a number of factors he could not be heard by human ear. Factors included bad weather, frenetic nature of incident, interruption of bystanders, relative position of officers and cameras.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 16
96. PC Gorman explained he ran into Mr Brunner and put his arms around Mr Brunner’s elbows but did not take him off his feet. He said he held Mr Brunner tightly so Mr Brunner could not take anything from his pockets.
97. PC Williams was interviewed by the IPCC, providing a prepared statement and declining to answer questions. PC Williams said in his statement that he saw PC Gorman standing behind Mr Brunner with his arms wrapped around Mr Brunner’s body. PC Williams said Mr Brunner was resisting and this caused PC Gorman to struggle to restrain Mr Brunner’s arms.
98. PC Gorman confirmed he detained Mr Brunner under section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. PC Gorman said a “certain amount of force was necessary because Mr Brunner was attempting to avoid apprehension” and believed his level of force was not “excessive.” PC Gorman said Mr Brunner was leaning forward to try to break his grip.
99. PC Gorman explained in his statement that he shouted to PC Williams “left hand left hand. He’s doing something with his left hand”. PC Gorman said he shouted this because he thought Mr Brunner might have had a weapon in his pocket. PC Gorman confirmed PC Williams took hold of Mr Brunner’s left arm. PC Gorman said he had a “partial grip” of Mr Brunner’s right hand.
100. PC Williams explained he approached Mr Brunner to assist PC Gorman and PC Gorman shouted “left hand, left hand”. PC Williams confirmed Mr Brunner was trying to break free by bending forward. PC Williams said he took hold of Mr Brunner’s “left arm around the forearm area but could not see his left hand” because Mr Brunner was “putting it behind his back”. PC Williams said PC Gorman then released his arms from around Mr Brunner and restrained Mr Brunner’s right arm. PC Garfitt confirmed in his statement that PC Williams restrained Mr Brunner’s left arm and PC Gorman took Mr Brunner’s right arm.
101. PC Griffiths explained he heard PC Gorman “shout to PC Williams ‘his arm, grab his arm’ or similar to that effect.” PC Griffiths confirmed PC Williams was trying to secure Mr Brunner’s arms but Mr Brunner continued to struggle. He said he heard the police officers telling Mr Brunner to relax and put his arms behind his back.
102. PC Williams explained he then saw Mr Brunner’s left hand was clenched in a fist so he tried to take hold of Mr Brunner’s fist. PC Williams believed Mr Brunner was holding a “quantity of class A drugs” and began to pull his left arm in a forceful manner, which resulted in Mr Brunner pulling his left fist “out to the side of his body”. PC Williams confirmed he could not control Mr Brunner’s left hand.
103. PC Garfitt explained that Mr Brunner looked as though he was bending over before he appeared to put his left hand in his inside coat pocket and remove something which was not in his hand initially. PC Garfitt described the object as “white in colour and the size of a golf ball, substantial enough in size” for him to see it from “10 feet away.” He explained he recalled “shouting words” to the effect of “he’s reaching into his jacket”. PC Garfitt explained he saw Mr Brunner force his head towards his left hand and put the object in his mouth. PC Garfitt said that based on his own experience he believed the object contained “controlled drugs”.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 17
104. PC Williams explained in his statement that Mr Brunner leaned forward and “placed his left fist to his mouth and opened it up flat” which he believed meant he had put class A drugs in his mouth. PC Williams heard PC Garfitt shout, “he’s just swallowed them!” PC Garfitt confirmed in his statement that he said, “he’s put it in his mouth”. This can be heard on BWV footage.
105. PC Gorman confirmed he heard PC Garfitt shout, “He’s just put something in his mouth. Something large and white”. PC Gorman said he was on Mr Brunner’s right side and with his left hand he placed, his “index finger, middle finger and thumb on either side of the fleshy part of [Mr Brunner’s] mouth cheeks.” He said he was trying to squeeze Mr Brunner’s cheeks in an attempt to “get the substance out of his mouth.” He confirmed he and PC Williams were telling Mr Brunner to spit out what he had put into his mouth. PC Gorman said he did this action for about 2–3 seconds but it did not work.
106. PC Williams said he used one of his hands and applied pressure to Mr Brunner’s “jawline pushing his forefinger into the side of his neck to apply pressure into his Mandibular Angle pressure point”. PC Williams said that, as he did this, he told Mr Brunner to spit out what he had put into his mouth. PC Williams confirmed he was using police powers under section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 while applying the pressure. The mandibular angle is a nerve situated from behind the jaw under each ear down to the side of the neck. When pressure is applied, the person receiving will feel pain. PC Williams confirmed this was a technique he was taught to use in his police training when someone had been unco-operative.
107. PC Williams explained that he had to use an alternative technique to apply pressure to Mr Brunner’s mandibular angle in this case because he only had one hand free. He said he could only apply the pressure from under Mr Brunner’s chin into the area of the mandibular angle, and not “a pushing action into his windpipe as my hand was cupped around the neck area avoiding pushing onto his neck as my intention was to apply pressure to the bottom of the jaw line under the ear area not to prevent him from breathing in any way.”
108. PC Williams said he now had his other hand free and was attempting to open Mr Brunner’s mouth but Mr Brunner continued to resist. He said he kept telling Mr Brunner to “fucking spit it out”. PC Williams confirmed that after applying the pressure to the mandibular angle he released the grip because Mr Brunner continued to fight the pain.
109. PC Gorman explained Mr Brunner continued to resist their efforts to restrain him by struggling. PC Gorman said he told Mr Brunner to relax and stop resisting. PC Gorman believed that, as a result of the area they were in, it could turn into a hostile environment, which had done so in the past. PC Gorman said it had been raining and the ground was slippery. The BWV footage confirmed this.
110. A number of members of the public witnessed the initial restraint in Bedford. Witness A explained he saw police officers grab and pull Mr Brunner from the road onto the pavement.
111. Mr David Bullen confirmed he saw two police officers take hold of Mr Brunner and that Mr Brunner did not try to run away or resist arrest. Mr Bullen said he saw the
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 18
police officers take Mr Brunner to the ground while they had hold of him. He did not see Mr Brunner put anything into his mouth.
112. Witness B, explained that he saw the police officers approaching Mr Brunner and police officers had hold of Mr Brunner who was “putting up a bit of a fight.” He said he saw two police officers on each of Mr Brunner’s arms. Witness B said he thought one of the police officers had his hand around Mr Brunner’s throat telling him to “spit it out, spit it out”.
Key CCTV evidence
113. The following is shown on PC Garfitt’s BWV and recorded on the viewing log: 12.35.08 You can hear one of the police officers [it appears this may be PC Garfitt] said ‘he’s trying to get it, no, he’s put it in, he’s put it in’.
12.35.09 The officer [it appears to be PC Garfitt] said ‘yeah, he’s put it in guys’.
The ground restraint of Mr Brunner
114. PC Williams explained he did not know how they all ended up on the ground face down but he continued to tell Mr Brunner to spit out what was in his mouth. PC Williams said he placed his hand under Mr Brunner’s chin and applied pressure to Mr Brunner’s mandibular angle again to try to force Mr Brunner to “spit out the drugs”. PC Williams said Mr Brunner continued to resist and would not open his mouth so he released his grip because it was not working. PC Williams explained he tried to turn Mr Brunner’s head to the left so he could see his face and so that Mr Brunner was not lying face down on the ground. He said Mr Brunner was moving his head around so PC Williams took control of the head and pushed it down “in a controlled manner onto the pavement” and due to Mr Brunner’s actions he did this two or three times. The BWV footage confirmed this.
115. PC Garfitt explained that he left the other man with PC Griffiths and went to assist PC Williams and PC Gorman who were with Mr Brunner, who was now on the ground, face down and struggling using his arms. PC Garfitt said PC Gorman was on Mr Brunner’s right side and PC Williams was on Mr Brunner’s left side. The BWV footage confirmed this.
116. PC Griffiths said that he saw Mr Brunner had been taken to the ground so he could be placed in a ground pin but Mr Brunner continued to struggle. PC Griffiths confirmed he heard PC Garfitt shout “it’s in his mouth, he’s put it in his mouth”. He confirmed PC Garfitt left him with the man Mr Brunner had been with to assist the other police officers. PC Griffiths said he asked the man what Mr Brunner had swallowed but the man said he did not know what it was.
117. PC Williams confirmed PC Garfitt began to assist them and at that time PC Williams placed his knee into Mr Brunner’s left shoulder blade but kept the majority of his weight “going through” his right knee to his right foot. PC Williams explained this was called a ground pin and it is a technique that is taught in police training and used on persons resisting until they can be handcuffed.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 19
118. PC Garfitt said he took hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm from PC Gorman because he believed he was in a better position than both PC Williams and PC Gorman to engage Mr Brunner in a ground pin. PC Garfitt explained Mr Brunner’s head was on the pavement. PC Garfitt explained a ground pin is a technique that police officers are taught in police training when a person is in a prone position and police officers need to control the person in order to place them in handcuffs. PC Garfitt confirmed that PC Gorman and PC Williams repeatedly told Mr Brunner to “spit it out” while he placed Mr Brunner in the ground pin.
119. PC Garfitt described his action, in that he held onto Mr Brunner with both of his hands and placed his right knee into “the fleshy area of his shoulder to secure him.” He stated he did not apply any pressure using his knee to Mr Brunner’s back or neck. PC Garfitt said he used the ground pin because he is a police unarmed defensive tactics instructor and he has taught his colleagues to use this technique. He said he secured Mr Brunner and told PC Gorman to “get a cuff on him”. The BWV footage confirmed this.
120. PC Garfitt confirmed he saw Mr Brunner put the “controlled drugs” in his mouth so he had grounds to arrest Mr Brunner for possession of controlled drug with intent to supply due to the size of the “package”. However, he did not tell Mr Brunner because it was not practicable to do so while they were struggling. PC Garfitt confirmed he used his police powers under section 32 PACE. He also said he used his common law power to prevent Mr Brunner causing himself any harm. PC Garfitt explained that at this time he did not know whether Mr Brunner had swallowed the object or not.
121. PC Williams said Mr Brunner opened his mouth and he could see that he had “swallowed whatever was in his mouth.” He said he told PC Gorman and PC Garfitt “he’s swallowed it! Let’s get him handcuffed and back to the station!” PC Williams explained he could then not see what was in Mr Brunner’s mouth and he had “assumed” Mr Brunner had ingested the drugs. PC Williams explained that he felt Mr Brunner was not showing signs of distress; this was due to PC Williams’s experience of dealing with people who have swallowed drugs. He said in a case such as this it was normal procedure to take the detainee back to custody and then the detainee would be taken to hospital. Although, this did not occur in this incident this course of action is not in line with APP guidance. The IPCC made an early learning recommendation to Bedfordshire Police for them to ensure APP guidance is followed when dealing with persons who have swallowed or packed drugs.
122. PC Williams confirmed PC Gorman and PC Garfitt had attempted to restrain Mr Brunner’s right arm and PC Williams held Mr Brunner’s left arm, which was still resisting and pulling away.
123. PC Gorman confirmed that while on the ground they were joined by PC Garfitt who placed Mr Brunner’s right arm in a ground pin. PC Gorman confirmed he placed one of his handcuffs around Mr Brunner’s right wrist while he was leaning over Mr Brunner.
124. PC Gorman explained in his statement that he told Mr Brunner to put his left hand “in the small of his back” tapping the areas so Mr Brunner could understand what he was being asked of him. PC Gorman said Mr Brunner calmed down and placed his left hand into the small of his back. PC Gorman said he believed that at this
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 20
stage Mr Brunner had swallowed the object. The BWV footage confirmed PC Gorman’s actions.
125. PC Williams explained PC Gorman handcuffed Mr Brunner’s right wrist and then Mr Brunner stopped resisting and pulled his left arm back so the handcuff could be secured on his left wrist. PC Williams confirmed he then stood up and Mr Brunner, having stopped resisting and handcuffed, was rolled off his front. PC Williams said this was to avoid putting Mr Brunner’s health at risk by causing positional asphyxia. This can occur when a person is placed on their front for longer than necessary.
126. PC Garfitt said in his statement that once Mr Brunner was placed in handcuffs they rolled him onto his right side. PC Grafitt described in his statement the dangers of positional asphyxia if a person remained in a prone position “for a significant period.” PC Garfitt said Mr Brunner was in the prone position for “about 10 seconds”.
127. PC Gorman explained in his statement that he was knelt behind Mr Brunner and after “thirty seconds or so, after catching my breath and thinking of what was happening next” he tried to sit Mr Brunner up. He said he noticed there was small amount of blood on the right side of Mr Brunner’s face and after bringing Mr Brunner into a sitting position he became aware that Mr Brunner may be unconscious, although his “initial thoughts were that he may have been faking, which is also not unusual.”
128. Members of the public witnessed the ground restraint of Mr Brunner. Witness A said he saw Mr Brunner on the floor, lying on his side with one of the police officers pressing down on Mr Brunner’s neck. He said Mr Brunner was “purple from his neck up.” Witness A explained he saw blood coming out of Mr Brunner’s mouth.
129. Mr Bullen explained he could see Mr Brunner’s head sticking out and three police officers positioned over him. He said it looked like Mr Brunner was “fading in and out of consciousness” and he did not hear Mr Brunner say anything while he was on the ground. The BWV footage confirmed this.
130. Mr Bullen said he saw one of the police officers with his knee on Mr Brunner’s back, while a second police officer had hold of one of Mr Brunner’s arms and a third police officer keeping Mr Brunner’s head to the ground. He said one of the police officers “forced” Mr Brunner’s head back to the ground as Mr Brunner tried to lift his head up. Mr Bullen confirmed the police officers kept asking Mr Brunner to “spit it out.”
131. Mr Bullen explained he saw the police officers handcuff and search the pockets of Mr Brunner. He said he noticed blood coming from Mr Brunner’s mouth at this point. The BWV footage confirmed this.
132. Witness B said he heard a “crack” but did not see Mr Brunner hit his head on the ground. He said there was two police officers holding an arm each and a third police officer had his knee on Mr Brunner’s back using all of his weight. He said Mr Brunner had gone limp.
Key CCTV evidence
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 21
133. The following is shown on PC Garfitt’s BWV and recorded on the viewing log: 12.36.28 The handcuffs are locked together. PC Garfitt moves back and taps Mr Brunner on the left shoulder. Mr Brunner does not appear to react. Mr Brunner is now on his right side.
12.36.30 PC Gorman appears to pull Mr Brunner towards him, bringing him more onto his side and one of the officers asks ‘why did you do that for, Karl’. Mr Brunner does not respond.
12.36.32 PC Garfitt stands up and steps back. PC Williams is now standing up above Mr Brunner and PC Gorman is still leaning over Mr Brunner with his left hand on Mr Brunner’s left side and his right hand on Mr Brunner’s back.
12.36.35 PC Garfitt moves forward, appears to lean forward and said ‘Karl’. PC Williams takes one step back.
12.36.42 Mr Brunner remains on his right side. PC Gorman is still leaning over Mr Brunner, left hand holding Mr Brunner’s left arm and his right hand on Mr Brunner’s back.
12.36.47 PC Garfitt asks members of public to give them some space. PC Gorman remains leaning over Mr Brunner looking at Mr Brunner’s face. Mr Brunner is not responsive. PC Williams has stepped back onto the road away from Mr Brunner; he is on his police radio.
12.36.50 PC Griffiths is back in view with Mr Brunner’s friend. It appears PC Griffiths is doing something with the handcuffs. PC Williams is still on the police radio, requesting an ambulance.
134. The following is shown on PC Gorman’s BWV and recorded on the viewing log: 12.36.59 PC Williams is standing over Mr Brunner talking into his radio ‘appears to be breathing, bleeding from his mouth, in and out of consciousness, about forty years of age’. PC Garfitt continues to stand over Mr Brunner. A witness can be heard to say ‘Karl, it’s Xxxxx’.
135. The following is shown on PC Garfitt’s BWV and recorded on the viewing log: 12.37.34 PC Williams and PC Garfitt are keeping people away from Mr Brunner. PC Garfitt is still on his knees and radios into control room to follow up PC Williams’ call and asks for ‘an ambulance on the hurry up’.
The assistance provided to Mr Brunner after the restraint by police officers
136. PC Griffiths explained in his statement that he heard one of his colleagues say “take the cuffs off, let’s get him in the recovery position.” He said he realised that Mr Brunner was struggling to breathe. He said he asked the man what Mr Brunner
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 22
had swallowed and he said “gear” and “whatever it is, it’s dodgy”. He asked the man whether it was heroin or cocaine and the man nodded.
137. PC Gorman confirmed Mr Brunner was not responding to him. PC Gorman said he lay Mr Brunner on his side and he asked for the handcuffs to be removed. He continued to state that Mr Brunner’s ears started to turn blue and after watching Mr Brunner’s chest, he realised that Mr Brunner was not breathing. PC Gorman appeared to check Mr Brunner’s wrist for a pulse. Once the handcuffs were removed, PC Gorman confirmed he rolled Mr Brunner onto his back so he could begin CPR. He said he could see blood on Mr Brunner’s teeth and at the side of his mouth. PC Griffiths confirmed he saw PC Gorman performing chest compressions. The BWV footage confirmed this.
138. PC Gorman confirmed he asked Mr Brunner’s friend what Mr Brunner had taken and the reply was that “it may have been heroin.” PC Gorman said he began CPR and only stopped when either PC Garfitt or PC Williams took over. PC Gorman noticed that Mr Brunner’s chest did not “recoil and that the chest remained inverted before recoiling again.”
139. PC Gorman said that when it was not his turn to perform chest compressions he obtained witness details and then contacted his supervisor, DS Hemingway, to brief her on the circumstances. PC Gorman explained he returned to perform CPR on Mr Brunner until the ambulance arrived.
140. PC Williams said he went back to the police van and, when he returned to Mr Brunner and his colleagues, Mr Brunner “looked pale and his eyes were rolling but appeared to be breathing but it was shallow.” PC Williams said he had said that Mr Brunner “looked ill” so he immediately informed the police control room to request an ambulance. PC Griffiths confirmed he heard PC Williams updating the police control room. The BWV footage confirmed this.
141. PC Williams explained his concerns were not now related to any offences that may have been committed but for Mr Brunner’s welfare. PC Williams said that, after requesting the ambulance, he walked back towards Mr Brunner and he noticed Mr Brunner’s ear and lips were starting to go blue. PC Williams confirmed the handcuffs were removed. This is shown on BWV footage. PC Williams appeared to check the neck of Mr Brunner for a pulse.
142. PC Williams explained that “seconds” after the officers had established Mr Brunner was no longer breathing he was placed on his back and the officers began to conduct chest compressions. PC Williams confirmed Mr Brunner had blood on his lips and “did not appear to be breathing.”
143. PC Williams said he used his police radio to request the ambulance urgently and observed PC Gorman performing chest compressions. He said that at one point Mr Brunner’s chest “stayed down and took a few seconds to rise again.” PC Williams confirmed that along with PC Gorman and PC Garfitt they continued to perform chest compressions. PC Williams said other police officers turned up and began to cordon off the road and take hold of the man who had also been detained. PC Williams continued to say that PC Griffiths was then able to assist in performing chest compressions. PC Griffiths confirmed he assisted with carrying out chest compressions.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 23
144. PC Garfitt said he noticed Mr Brunner had become unresponsive, that Mr Brunner’s face had changed colour and his left ear and nose has turned blue. He confirmed Mr Brunner was not responding and he was motionless. PC Garfitt stated that PC Gorman recognised the issue with Mr Brunner at the same time as him and they both had treated Mr Brunner as a medical emergency.
145. PC Garfitt confirmed Mr Brunner’s handcuffs were removed and he was placed in the recovery position. He said himself and PC Gorman recognised that Mr Brunner was not breathing so they “immediately” placed him on his back and he noticed blood coming out of Mr Brunner’s mouth. PC Garfitt explained he pushed down on Mr Brunner’s chin to open his mouth to check his airway but all he could see was a “bloody tongue.”
146. PC Garfitt explained that PC Gorman began to perform chest compressions and he then took over. He said that at that point PC Gorman asked a member of the public to get a defibrillator in addition to the defibrillator that had been requested over the police radio. PC Garfitt explained the police officers continued to rotate the chest compressions until the ambulance arrived. The BWV footage confirmed this.
147. Members of the public provided statements to the IPCC outlining what they saw of the medical assistance provided by the police officers. Witness A explained he saw police officers provide chest compressions but did not see them attempt to breathe into Mr Brunner’s mouth. Witness A said it appeared Mr Bruner had “gone” by that stage.
148. Mr Bullen explained in his statement that the handcuffs had been taken off Mr Brunner and the police officers were no longer “manhandling” him. He said, “it appeared as if the officers were not sure what to do.” Mr Bullen confirmed he saw the police officers give Mr Brunner a “heart massage” and one of them asked another police officer who had arrived for a “mouth piece, so they could administer oxygen”. He confirmed the police officer did not have a mouthpiece with him. He confirmed the police officers did not give Mr Brunner any oxygen.
149. Witness B confirmed he saw the police officers turn Mr Brunner from his front onto his back and some blood appeared to be coming from one of Mr Brunner’s ears and mouth. Witness B explained he saw Mr Brunner was limp and that his ears and face were turning blue. He said the police officers behaviour changed and they were telling Mr Brunner to ‘come round’. He said the police officers touched Mr Brunner’s cheek before they began to perform chest compressions. Witness B said he asked the police officers where their defibrillator was. Witness B said he went to look for a defibrillator and mouthpiece.
150. Witness C explained in his statement that he saw Mr Brunner on the ground and he told one of the police officers that he thought Mr Brunner was unconscious. He said the police officer replied “are you a doctor? Go away”. Witness C said two police officers were by Mr Brunner’s chest and another by his head. He said the police officers took turns to perform chest compressions but the two police officers by Mr Brunner’s chest “looked panicked” and one of them shouted for a defibrillator. Witness C confirmed Mr Brunner was not responding.
Key CCTV evidence
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 24
151. The following is shown on PC Gorman’s BWV and recorded on the viewing log: 12.38.12 PC Williams appears to say ‘he’s not breathing, sit him up’. PC Gorman pulls Mr Brunner up to a sitting position. One of the officers said ‘get the cuff off’.
12.38.18 PC Williams and PC Garfitt assist in sitting Mr Brunner up. Mr Brunner is unresponsive and his eyes appear closed.
12.38.24 PC Gorman said ‘Karl, listen up mate’.
12.38.46 All three officers place Mr Brunner on his side. The man in the wheelchair can be heard talking quietly in the background. One of the officers replied ‘we know that’. PC Gorman leans over Mr Brunner’s head, appears to attempt to look in Mr Brunner’s mouth.
12.38.51 PC Garfitt looks towards Mr Brunner’s friend and said ‘whatever he had, he’s swallowed it, what has he taken’. PC Gorman reiterates this.
12.39.05 PC Gorman and PC Garfitt continue to lean over Mr Brunner’s head. The man who was in the wheelchair asks Mr Brunner to ‘just tell them (the officers) what he’s taken’
12.39.13 Mr Brunner is rolled onto his back by PC Gorman and PC Garfitt. PC Gorman call out Mr Brunner’s name.
12.39.16 PC Gorman begins first aid.
152. The following is shown on PC Garfitt’s BWV and recorded on the viewing log: 12.38.03 PC Garfitt said the PC Williams and PC Gorman ‘it was a fucking massive ball, like that’ holding out his open hand. PC Garfitt searches the pocket of Mr Brunner.
12.38.13 The officer’s say Mr Brunner’s name again and one of them said ‘he’s not breathing.’ One of the officer’s said ‘let’s sit him up’. PC Gorman begins to sit Mr Brunner up.
12.38.17 PC Gorman sits up Mr Brunner and one of the officers said ‘let’s get those cuffs off.’ PC Garfitt assists.
12.38.23 Mr Brunner is leant back against PC Gorman and the officers are saying ‘listen up Karl.’ Mr Brunner is un-responsive.
12.38.32 The officers continuously ask Mr Brunner to ‘listen up’. One of the officers said ‘let’s sit him up.’ PC Williams and PC Garfitt pats Mr Brunner on the chest. One of the officers tells the other officer’s to put Mr Brunner in a recovery position.
12.38.36 PC Gorman and PC Garfitt put Mr Brunner in a recovery position and one of the officer’s asks for Mr Brunner’s mouth to be opened.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 25
12.38.39 Mr Brunner is in the recovery position and PC Garfitt appears to pull Mr Brunner’s chin down. A member of the public can be heard to say ‘he’s the wrong colour boys, you know that don’t ya.’ Mr Brunner is un-responsive and his face is turning a different colour.
12.38.48 PC Gorman touches the sides of Mr Brunner’s mouth and pulls down his chin. One of the officers is asking a member of the public what he has taken.
12.38.59 The officers are leaning over Mr Brunner saying his name and continue to ask others what he has taken.
12.39.08 Mr Brunner is on his side unresponsive. One of the officers said ‘I don’t think he’s breathing mate’ and his colleague replies ‘I don’t think so either’.
12.39.10 Mr Brunner is rolled onto his back. There is blood from his mouth on his face and on the ground. PC Gorman is leaning over Mr Brunner.
12.39.14 PC Gorman begins chest compressions. PC Gorman asks if anyone has ‘a face shield on them.’
12.39.36 PC Gorman attempts to open Mr Brunner’s mouth using both of his hands.
12.39.39 PC Gorman re-starts chest compressions. The officers try to communicate with Mr Brunner throughout. Mr Brunner does not respond.
12.40.04 PC Gorman continues chest compressions. Asks again for a face shield but no one has one, PC Garfitt tells him to continue chest compressions.
12.40.24 PC Gorman asks for a defibrillator and continues chest compressions.
153. It is shown on the BWV footage that the police officers continue first aid and the following is also shown on PC Garfitt’s BWV and recorded on the viewing log: 12.43.43 PC Gorman and PC Garfitt ask other attending officers if they have a mouth shield but they do not. The control room update PC Garfitt that ambulance is en route with defibrillator.
Ambulance assistance provided to Mr Brunner
154. PC Gorman confirmed the ambulance staff arrived and asked him to continue CPR while they set up their equipment.
155. PC Williams confirmed the paramedics arrived on scene and the police officers continued to assist with chest compressions until they had enough personnel in attendance.
156. PC Garfitt confirmed that when the ambulance arrived he explained to them what had happened. He said he told them that he had seen Mr Brunner put a large
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 26
object into his mouth which he’d suspected to have been an “illegal substance”. PC Garfitt explained a defibrillator had arrived from other police officers but the ambulance were already on scene with their own.
157. An East of England Ambulance Service Paramedic confirmed he attended at 12.46pm. He said that, when he arrived, a number of police officers were involved in performing “effective” basic life support and CPR. He stated he “commenced ventilations with a Bag/Valve/Mask (BVM) unit with oxygen”.
158. A second East of England Ambulance Service Paramedic provided a statement in which he stated that, when he arrived, there was already an ambulance crew in attendance, however, he was the senior clinician. He said the police had said, “the patient may have orally consumed drugs prior to his collapse.” He said his manager arrived and he asked him to attempt to secure the airway as he tried to gain intra venous (IV) access.
159. The second paramedic explained he could not gain IV access so successfully attempted intra osseous (IO) access, which enabled “advanced life support (ALS) to be commenced.” He confirmed initial difficulties in securing Mr Brunner’s airway as Mr Brunner had vomited but he eventually was able to do so, which enabled him to use a Lucas chest compression machine. He confirmed this in his statement.
160. The second paramedic confirmed that it was decided to take Mr Brunner to Bedford General Hospital for critical care. He confirmed they left the scene at 1.10pm and arrived at the hospital at 1.13pm, where Mr Brunner was handed over to hospital staff. He confirmed this in his statement. Mr Brunner had been provided with adrenaline and naloxone hydrochloride, a medication used to block the effects of opioids, especially in overdose.
161. PC Gorman said he observed the ambulance staff attempt to “suck items out” of Mr Brunner’s throat. He said he saw some white items being removed and was told that they were Mr Brunner’s teeth. He confirmed the ambulance staff were struggling to get an airway into Mr Brunner using a variety of equipment. PC Gorman confirmed he was a police medic, which required a higher level of training.
162. PC Williams commented in his statement that he observed the paramedics attempting to revive Mr Brunner using a CPR machine, oxygen mask and several large tubes which they were trying to put them down Mr Brunner’s throat using a lot of force.
163. PC Garfitt explained ambulance staff conducted checks on Mr Brunner and attached an ECG machine. He said they inserted tubes down Mr Brunner’s throat and used a mouthpiece and bag to give Mr Brunner breaths. He stated that, after five minutes, the ambulance staff connected a machine, which performed chest compressions automatically which meant the police officers took a step back and the ambulance crew took control of the situation. PC Garfitt confirmed that the CPR continued on the street “for approximately 20 minutes”.
Medical evidence
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 27
First-aid expert opinion report
164. Professor Andy Newton, former Immediate Past Chair of the College of Paramedics and paramedic, provided the IPCC with an expert opinion report regarding the first aid provided by the police officers. Professor Newton confirmed that Mr Brunner was “under very direct observation at all times.” He explained Mr Brunner was not left unattended at any time. Professor Newton stated risk assessments had appeared to have been conducted continuously, different techniques were used based on the circumstances and that the police officers acted together to conclude the arrest process.
165. Professor Newton said likelihood of the respiratory obstruction because of the swallowed object did not appear to have been considered. He went onto say “however, when it became apparent that Mr Brunner’s condition had deteriorated a further assessment was made and resuscitation was commenced.”
166. Professor Newton explained that early identification of this type of emergency requires a rapid identification that a patient is deteriorating, making a correct assessment and applying necessary first-aid principles. He commented, “it is not always an easy determination to make, as there are many potential causes of rapid collapse”.
167. Professor Newton confirmed guidance from the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine is a useful reference which actually discourages physical attempts to prevent a person swallowing an object. The guidance provides a suggestion for police officers to issue instructions for the person to ‘spit it out’. He noted, “limited attempts were made by one officer” but were quickly abandoned. Professor Newton explained Mr Brunner became unconscious rapidly and the police officers followed guidance, commenced CPR, and requested an ambulance.
168. Although positional asphyxia was not an issue in this incident, Professor Newton commented that the police officers appeared to have been mindful of the risks associated with positional asphyxia. He did go on to say that police officers provided resuscitative efforts, but that it was not clear that the police officers appreciated there was a blockage to Mr Brunner’s airway, which meant it was likely that they did not fully appreciate the situation. Professor Newton confirmed that, without an understanding of the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine guidance, the use of abdominal thrusts and back blows would be less likely to be implemented.
169. Professor Newton confirmed that the paramedics also had great difficulty providing effective airway management and did not identify a physical obstruction, despite having had more training and experience in managing medical emergencies than police officers.
170. Professor Newton concluded that the police officers switched from law enforcement behaviours to commencing first aid and resuscitation when confronted by Mr Brunner’s rapidly deteriorating condition. He said the police officers were not sighted on the airway obstruction, instead believing the package had been ingested from their previous policing experience.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 28
171. Professor Newton further concluded that airway management was technically difficult due to the presence of the “package, vomit and other factors.” He said, “the combined resuscitation efforts of police officers, paramedics and other ambulance staff did result in Mr Brunner being ventilated with 100% oxygen”. Unfortunately, resuscitation was unsuccessful.
172. The IPCC asked Professor Newton to clarify whether or not he opined that the police officers did everything that would be expected of them in relation to providing first aid.
173. Professor Newton explained in his response that ,“in my report I have tried to be quite balanced about that point and have taken the view about what one might reasonably expected from them, rather than what could have been done in an ideal world. As alluded to, had they been more skilled in the recognition and management of choking they could have taken earlier corrective action, hence my recommendations suggesting that a risk assessment of the dangers involved in apprehending suspects thought to be selling street drugs, one of major risk does appear to be foreign body airway obstruction. And of course, more focused first aid refresher training would help too.”
Bedford General Hospital
174. Dr Stuart Lloyd, Emergency Medicine Consultant at Bedford General Hospital, explained in his statement that Mr Brunner’s airway was maintained using a device used to provide breaths to the patient.
175. Dr Lloyd confirmed that Mr Brunner’s “cardiac rhythm was asystole which is a non- shockable rhythm and consistent with death.” Dr Lloyd confirmed Mr Brunner deceased at 1.18pm.
Forensic toxicology analysis
176. Dr Paul Darkins, Senior Toxicologist, provided a report to the IPCC and in it, he confirmed the results and conclusions of the analysis of Mr Brunner’s preserved postmortem blood, urine and vitreous humour samples. There were a number of substances found within the samples.
177. Dr Darkins concluded: The results of testing indicated recent use of heroin and diazepam. The results also showed use of alcohol, cocaine, methadone, paracetamol and potentially aspirin. No other drugs were detected. Dr Darkins stated that Mr Brunner was not likely to have been affected by alcohol, methadone, cocaine, paracetamol or aspirin at the time of his death. The heroin levels were elevated and in combination with the effects of diazepam could have “contributing factors in the death of Mr Brunner.”
Examination of Karl Brunner’s brain
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 29
178. Dr Safa Al-Sarraj, Consultant Neuropathologist, provided the IPCC with a statement outlining his conclusions because of his examination of Mr Brunner’s brain.
179. Dr Al-Sarraj explained the examination showed recent ischemia in keeping with the final stages of unresponsiveness, CPR and death. Dr Al-Saaraj confirmed there was “no evidence of traumatic brain injury or other natural cause which could have caused or contributed to death.”
Post Mortem Report – Dr Olaf Biedrzycki
180. Dr Olaf Biedrzycki, Consultant Forensic Pathologist, conducted a post mortem examination of Mr Brunner’s body and provided the IPCC with a final post mortem report.
181. Dr Biedrzycki concluded: It was a case of an attempted restraint where Mr Brunner put a package in his mouth. Mr Brunner was pronounced dead 43 minutes after the initial contact with the police. No natural disease that caused or contributed to Mr Brunner’s death. It was not reasonable to suggest any cardiac event, which may have played a major part in Mr Bruner’s death. From a pathological perspective, there is no evidence to support a suggestion of excessive restraint that resulted in a significant musculoskeletal injury. Dr Biedrzycki stated appropriate restraint techniques is not his area of expertise. During the post-mortem, it was identified that a cling film wrap containing smaller drug wraps was located at the entrance to the trachea adjacent to the epiglottis. Location and size of the object would have caused complete obstruction to the airway from the mouth to the lungs. Dr Biedrzycki stated that, in his opinion, the principal cause of death was a result of a foreign body airway obstruction. From a pathological perspective, there were no signs in the face of positional asphyxia and very minor bruising to the left-hand side of the neck. The hyoid bone was fractured with a small amount of associated bruising. It could be quite possible that the attempts of the police officers to have Mr Brunner cough up the package resulted in the damage to the hyoid bone. Given the circumstances, the pathologist did not think that he could infer or extrapolate that the fracture was as a result of excessive or unnecessary force having been used. Dr Biedrzycki stated that the major issue in this case was there not being a meaningful airway in place at all for a period of time well in excess of three to four minutes at the beginning of the resuscitation. Toxicology findings are that Mr Brunner had heroin and diazepam in his blood at the time of death. Given the circumstances of the arrest, any intoxication of these substances having a contributory factor in Mr Brunner’s death are relatively small. No injuries to suggest Mr Brunner suffered any blunt force trauma injuries from a third party. Rib fractures were identified and all potentially explained by resuscitation.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 30
It seems very unlikely that Mr Brunner would have died at that time he did and manner he did had the arrest not occurred at that particular time.
182. Dr Biedrzycki provided the cause of death as “foreign body airway obstruction (choking) with close temporal relationship to an attempted police arrest whilst under the influence of heroin and diazepam”.
Conclusions
183. Below, I have set out my conclusions for the appropriate authority and Commission to consider. 184. If there are to be court or disciplinary proceedings, it will be for the relevant panel in those proceedings to make final determinations. For example, where I conclude that a person subject to the investigation has a case to answer for gross misconduct, this does not amount to a legal determination that there has been gross misconduct. If a charge is then brought by the appropriate authority, a misconduct hearing will hear the evidence, and make its own findings about whether the charge is proved or not. 185. After reviewing my report and considering my recommendations, the Commission will decide whether any organisational learning has been identified that should be shared with the organisation in question. They may also recommend or direct, unsatisfactory performance procedures.
The decision to detain Mr Brunner in Battison Street on 11 May 2016
186. Mr Brunner was a subject to the Bedfordshire Police Operation XXXXXXXXXXX, which related to drug dealing in Bedford. Mr Brunner was encountered on a number of occasions during the operation. He was known to police to have swallowed drugs in order to conceal them when encountered by police officers.
187. Mr Brunner was due to be arrested for possession with intent to supply drugs over the weekend of 22–24 April 2016. However, he did not attend the location where the planned arrest was due to take place.
188. A decision was made by DI Bailey to arrest Mr Brunner on 11 May 2016 for possession with intent to supply drugs. DI Bailey believed Mr Brunner was a risk to the public and to himself because of the amount of drugs he was allegedly using at that time.
189. Information was received from a police officer, working on Operation XXXXXXXXXXX, that Mr Brunner was suspected of being in possession of drugs in Bedford. The police officers detailed above in this report were tasked with carrying out the arrest of Mr Brunner. While the police officers were being briefed at the police station prior to an arrest, Mr Brunner was sighted on the street by one of the police officers looking out of the police station window. The police officers then deployed to carry out the arrest.
190. Based on the evidence obtained, it is the opinion of the lead investigator that, considering the information Bedfordshire police had gathered regarding Mr Brunner as part of an ongoing operation, it was reasonable, justified and necessary to carry
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 31
out the arrest on 11 May 2016. The lawfulness of an arrest or detention is ultimately a matter for a court, having heard all the evidence, including potentially cross-examination of witnesses.
PC Gorman
191. PC Gorman was a police officer deployed to Operation XXXXXXXXXXX as part of a tasking team. It appears DS Hemingway spoke to PC Gorman in relation to possible ways to secure Mr Brunner’s hands. The operation had gathered information, which appeared to suggest Mr Brunner usually carried drugs in his right hand. PC Gorman deployed in the police van with the other police officers in an attempt to detain Mr Brunner. PC Gorman made aware of information relating to Mr Brunner’s drug usage and previous swallowing of drugs. The evidence suggests this was a pre-planned operation relating to a stop under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
192. PC Gorman was the first police officer to take hold of Mr Brunner. He approached Mr Brunner from behind and grabbed hold of Mr Brunner as he had turned around to face PC Gorman. PC Gorman believed Mr Brunner had recognised him as a police officer. PC Gorman had confirmed he tackled Mr Brunner as Mr Brunner had turned to brace any impact.
193. PC Gorman put his arms around Mr Brunner in an attempt to prevent Mr Brunner using his arms to take anything from his own pockets. PC Gorman struggled to restrain Mr Brunner. PC Gorman said he used force to prevent Mr Brunner from avoiding apprehension. PC Gorman felt Mr Brunner was trying to break the grip he had over Mr Brunner.
194. PC Gorman identified Mr Brunner was doing something with his left hand and told PC Williams of this. PC Gorman released his grip on Mr Brunner and took hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm as PC Williams had hold of Mr Brunner’s left arm. PC Gorman was communicating with Mr Brunner throughout, asking him to relax.
195. PC Gorman confirmed he had detained Mr Brunner under section 23 of the misuse of drugs act 1971. This section of the act states that, if the police officer has reasonable grounds to suspect a person is in possession of a controlled substance, they can detain the person, search the person and seize any evidence of a controlled substance. Based on the evidence obtained, it appears PC Gorman was justified in detaining Mr Brunner for the purpose of the act.
196. PC Gorman heard PC Garfitt alert him and PC Williams that Mr Brunner had put something in his mouth. While maintaining a hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm with his left arm, PC Gorman placed his index finger, middle finger and thumb on either side of Mr Brunner’s cheeks in an attempt to get Mr Brunner to spit out the object in his mouth. PC Gorman continued to communicate with Mr Brunner, telling him to spit out the object. PC Gorman’s actions were unsuccessful and, although they do not appear to be in line with the personal safety manual, it appears this technique was used in an attempt to prevent Mr Brunner from swallowing the package; the evidence suggests this action did not cause any injury to Mr Brunner. However, the college of emergency medicine recommends that force should not be used, and the person should be encouraged to empty their own mouths. PC Gorman did
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 32
continually ask Mr Brunner to spit out what he had placed in his mouth. PC Gorman continued to struggle with Mr Brunner.
197. As a result of the struggle, the police officers ended up on the ground with Mr Brunner so Mr Brunner could be placed in a ground pin. Mr Brunner was in a prone position. PC Gorman relinquished hold of Mr Brunner’s right side and PC Garfitt took over. PC Gorman continued to communicate with Mr Brunner by telling him to spit out what he had placed in his mouth.
198. PC Gorman placed one of his handcuffs around the right wrist of Mr Brunner while he was in a ground pin. PC Gorman said he told Mr Brunner to put his hand in the small of his back and made further attempts by tapping the area where he wanted Mr Brunner to place his arm. PC Gorman confirmed Mr Brunner had stopped resisting and placed his arm where PC Gorman had asked him to and the handcuffs were secured; this was confirmed on the video footage. However, PC Gorman said he thought Mr Brunner had swallowed the object by this point. The Authorised Professional Practice guidance states that, where the police officers believe a person has swallowed a controlled substance, they should be taken to hospital immediately. The evidence suggests PC Gorman was involved in the restraint from the outset and not in a position to radio for an ambulance until Mr Brunner was under control. An ambulance was requested once the officers realised Mr Brunner had become unresponsive. The BWV footage showed PC Williams and PC Garfitt subsequently called for an ambulance. The BWV footage suggests the ambulance was called 19 seconds after Mr Brunner appears to stop reacting.
199. The first-aid training does not provide any guidance on timings when following the DRSABC pneumonic: D – Danger; R – Response; S – Shout for help; A – Airways; B – Breathing; C – CPR. It appears it is for the police officers to assess each stage based on the circumstances presented to them.
200. PC Gorman was kneeling behind Mr Brunner and said he gave himself 30 seconds to catch his breath and consider what to do next. PC Gorman attempted to place Mr Brunner in a sitting position from the prone position he had been in. PC Gorman then became aware that Mr Brunner may be unconscious, but he said he was not sure if Mr Brunner was pretending to be unconscious. Mr Brunner was not responding. PC Gorman is an advanced police medic, which means he has a higher level of training than the other police officers involved, which consists of managing the casualty and using specific apparatus. The evidence suggests that there was no available apparatus available that he could use and he appeared to be taking the lead on first aid.
201. PC Gorman placed Mr Brunner on his side in a recovery position and asked for the handcuffs to be removed. Mr Brunner had blood on the side of his mouth and on his teeth. PC Gorman said he realised Mr Brunner’s ears had started to turn blue and he had stopped breathing. PC Gorman rolled Mr Brunner onto his back and started chest compressions. It appears from the evidence that it was approximately two minutes 24 seconds between an ambulance being requested and PC Gorman beginning CPR. It appears from the evidence that it was approximately one minute and 7 seconds between PC Williams stating that Mr Brunner was not breathing and PC Gorman beginning chest compressions. The guidance suggests PC Gorman should have commenced CPR when it became apparent that Mr Brunner was not
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 33
breathing, rather than continue to assess the situation as it appeared. He continued carrying out chest compressions throughout in conjunction with PC Williams and PC Garfitt until the ambulance arrived. PC Gorman asked Mr Brunner’s friend what he had taken and his friend said it might have been heroin. Chest compressions continued until the East of England Ambulance Service took over the provision of medical care. The evidence suggested PC Gorman asked a member of the public for a defibrillator; however, the East of England Ambulance Service shortly arrived with their own.
202. Professor Newton stated the police officers were not sighted on the airway obstruction, instead believing the package had been ingested, from their previous policing experience. He also concluded that the resuscitation efforts of the police officers, in conjunction with medical professionals, did result in Mr Brunner being ventilated with 100 per cent oxygen. It is also stated that the experienced paramedics were not able to see a package in Mr Brunner’s mouth when they looked.
203. The pathologist stated that the major issue in this case was there not being a meaningful airway in place at all for a period of time well in excess of three to four minutes at the beginning of the resuscitation. The pathologist also stated there were no signs of positional asphyxia and no pathological evidence of an excessive restraint. There was very minor bruising to the left side of the neck, however, the hyoid bone, situated at the back of the throat was fractured. The pathologist could not infer or extrapolate that this was because of an excessive restraint. The evidence suggests the restraint was in line with the personal safety manual and was not excessive.
204. The evidence suggests PC Gorman was justified in detaining Mr Brunner under the misuse of drugs act in light of the information they had received before their deployment. It appears PC Gorman used techniques that were not specifically in line with the guidance when restraining Mr Brunner, but that his actions did not result in any serious injury to Mr Brunner, which was confirmed in the pathological evidence. At approximately 12.35.36pm it appeared that PC Williams said that Mr Brunner had swallowed the package. It also appears that, at that stage, PC Gorman did not contact the control room to request medical assistance, although APP guidance does state that a person known to have swallowed drugs should be treated as a medical emergency. Evidence also suggests PC Gorman delayed in providing Mr Brunner with appropriate first-aid assistance, taking his time to assess the situation, however, at this time Mr Brunner was unresponsive. PC Gorman is an advanced police medic and trained to a high level of first aid to deal with these situations. However, it appeared on video footage that an assumption may have been made that Mr Brunner had swallowed the object rather than the object blocking Mr Brunner’s airway. It appears that PC Gorman chose to continue to assess Mr Brunner, continuing communications with him before checking his mouth and subsequently carrying out chest compressions. It is noted that there does appear to be a delay in providing CPR. The evidence suggests none of the police officers could identify the object which was stuck at the back of Mr Brunner’s throat. At this time there was no meaningful airway in place,. However, neither PC Gorman nor his colleagues had a mouthpiece or any apparatus that could have assisted them in this regard. The object could not be removed until the post- mortem. An ambulance had been requested and the police officers monitored Mr Brunner throughout. The evidence showed PC Gorman carried out chest
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 34
compressions once he had realised the full seriousness of the circumstances. The evidence also suggests PC Gorman felt Mr Brunner may have been pretending to be unconscious. However, this should not have been a determining factor where a person appears unresponsive or in line with training.
205. Taking all of the above information into account, in my opinion, there is insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find misconduct in relation to PC Gorman.
PC Garfitt
206. PC Garfitt was a police officer deployed to Operation XXXXXXXXXXX as part of a tasking team. PC Garfitt was briefed by DI Bailly, who said the briefing consisted of the aims and objectives of the arrest of Mr Brunner, information relating to Mr Brunner swallowing drugs when encountered by police and that he usually carried the drugs in his right hand. It also appears DS Hemingway spoke to PC Garfitt in relation to possible ways to secure Mr Brunner’s hands. It appears PC Garfitt received a phone call from another police officer who stated Mr Brunner was suspected of carrying drugs at that time and he needed to be detained. PC Garfitt deployed in the police van with the other police officers in an attempt to detain Mr Brunner. PC Garfitt was aware of information relating to Mr Brunner’s drug usage and previous swallowing of drugs. The evidence suggests this was a pre-planned operation relating to a stop under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
207. PC Garfitt initially assisted PC Griffiths and took hold of Mr Brunner’s friend. He said the friend looked like he was going to run away but Mr Brunner did not. PC Garfitt assisted in restraining and handcuffing Mr Brunner’s friend.
208. PC Garfitt witnessed Mr Brunner bend over, as he was being restrained, and removed an object using his left hand from his left jacket pocket. PC Garfitt said the object was white and the size of a golf ball. He said he shouted to PC Gorman and PC Williams that Mr Brunner was reaching into his jacket and then Mr Brunner bent forward towards the object and put it into his mouth. PC Garfitt believed it was a controlled substance. PC Garfitt told the other police officers that he had seen Mr Brunner put the object in his mouth to swallow it. The evidence suggests PC Garfitt then assisted PC Williams and PC Gorman in the restraint due to Mr Brunner struggling, and was not in a position to radio for an ambulance until Mr Brunner was under control.
209. PC Garfitt left Mr Brunner’s friend with PC Griffiths and went to assist PC Williams and PC Gorman, who had Mr Brunner on the ground face down struggling with his arms.
210. PC Garfitt took hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm from PC Gorman because he believed he was in a better position to hold the right arm in a ground pin technique. Mr Brunner was face down in a prone position with his head on the pavement at this stage. PC Garfitt placed his right knee into Mr Brunner’s shoulder, away from the neck or spine, with his knee pointing towards Mr Brunner’s feet while holding the right arm of Mr Brunner with both of his hands. Mr Brunner was handcuffed.
211. PC Garfitt told the IPCC that he had grounds for the arrest of Mr Brunner because he believed he was in possession of a controlled substance with intent to supply
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 35
due to the size of the object. He said it was not practicable at that stage to tell Mr Brunner that he was under arrest for such an offence. PC Garfitt said he used his common law powers to prevent Mr Brunner from harming himself. Common law states the law covers saving life, self-defence, defence of others, defence of property and preventing a breach of peace. However, it also states that any force used must be reasonable. PC Garfitt used his police powers under PACE. The pathological evidence suggests that the force used did not result in a serious injury to Mr Brunner or cause positional asphyxia.
212. PC Garfitt confirmed Mr Brunner was rolled onto his right side due to potential positional asphyxia issues.
213. PC Garfitt identified Mr Brunner’s face had changed colour and that his left ear and nose had turned blue. He said this occurred about one minute after Mr Brunner had become unresponsive. However, the BWV footage showed PC Williams and PC Garfitt subsequently called for an ambulance. The BWV footage suggests the ambulance was called 19 seconds after Mr Brunner appears to stop reacting.
214. The first aid training does not provide any guidance on timings when following the DRSABC pneumonic: D – Danger; R – Response; S – Shout for help; A – Airways; B – Breathing; C – CPR. It appears it is for the police officers to assess each stage based on the circumstances presented to them. PC Garfitt is trained in providing first aid.
215. Mr Brunner was not responding and the handcuffs were removed while placing Mr Brunner in the recovery position. Mr Brunner was then placed on his back. PC Garfitt pushed down on Mr Brunner’s chin to open his mouth but could only see a bloody tongue, which appears to be in line with the personal safety manual, although it could be argued that this action could have happened sooner. However, the college of emergency medicine recommends that force should not be used and the person should be encouraged to empty their own mouths. PC Garfitt did continually ask Mr Brunner to spit out the object.
216. It appears from the evidence that it was approximately two minutes 24 seconds between an ambulance being requested and PC Gorman beginning CPR. It appears from the evidence that it was approximately one minute and 7 seconds between PC Williams stating that Mr Brunner was not breathing and PC Gorman beginning chest compressions. It appeared from the evidence that PC Gorman was taking the lead in carrying out chest compressions. It appears throughout this time PC Garfitt had also requested an ambulance and continued to observe Mr Brunner, but did not carry out any chest compressions.
217. PC Garfitt subsequently assisted with chest compressions, initially taking over from PC Gorman, until East of England Ambulance Service arrived.
218. Professor Newton stated the police officers were not sighted on the airway obstruction, instead believing the package had been ingested, from their previous policing experience. He also concluded that the resuscitation efforts of the police officers, in conjunction with medical professionals, did result in Mr Brunner being ventilated with 100 per cent oxygen. It is also stated that the experienced paramedics were not able to see a package in Mr Brunner’s mouth when they looked.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 36
219. The pathologist stated that the major issue in this case was there not being a meaningful airway in place at all for a period of time well in excess of three to four minutes at the beginning of the resuscitation. The pathologist also stated there were no signs of positional asphyxia and no pathological evidence of an excessive restraint. There was very minor bruising to the left side of the neck, however, the hyoid bone, situated at the back of the throat was fractured. The pathologist could not infer or extrapolate that this was because of an excessive restraint. The evidence suggests the restraint was in line with the personal safety manual and was not excessive.
220. The evidence suggests PC Garfitt was justified in detaining Mr Brunner under the misuse of drugs act in light of the information that they had received before their deployment. It appears PC Garfitt used an appropriate ground pin technique when restraining Mr Brunner and his actions did not result in any serious injury to Mr Brunner. At approximately 12.35.36pm it appeared that PC Williams said that Mr Brunner had swallowed the package. It also appears that, at that stage, PC Garfitt did not contact the control room to request medical assistance, although APP guidance does state that a person known to have swallowed drugs should be treated as a medical emergency. Evidence also suggests PC Garfitt delayed in providing Mr Brunner with appropriate first-aid assistance, taking his time to assess the situation. However, at this time Mr Brunner was unresponsive. PC Garfitt is first-aid trained to deal with these situations, however, it appeared on video footage an assumption might have been made that Mr Brunner had swallowed the object rather than the object blocking Mr Brunner’s airway. PC Garfitt did eventually attempt to look in Mr Brunner’s mouth but could only see blood, not an object. It appears that PC Garfitt chose to continue to assess Mr Brunner, continuing communications with him before checking his mouth and subsequently carrying out chest compressions after PC Gorman had started them. At this time there was no meaningful airway in place. However, neither PC Garfitt nor his colleagues had a mouthpiece or any apparatus that could have assisted them in this regard. It is noted that there did appear to be a delay in providing CPR. The evidence suggests none of the police officers could identify the object which was stuck at the back of Mr Brunner’s throat. The object could not be removed until the post-mortem. An ambulance had been requested and the police officers monitored Mr Brunner throughout. The evidence showed PC Garfitt carried out chest compressions once the full seriousness of the circumstances had been realised.
221. Taking all of the above information into account, in my opinion, there is insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find misconduct in relation to PC Garfitt.
PC Williams
222. PC Williams was a police officer deployed to Operation XXXXXXXXXXX as part of a tasking team. It appears DS Hemingway deployed PC Williams along with PC Griffiths to assist PC Gorman and PC Garfitt. The operation had gathered information, which appeared to suggest Mr Brunner usually carried drugs in his right hand. PC Williams deployed in the police van with the other police officers in an attempt to detain Mr Brunner. PC Williams was aware of information relating to Mr Brunner’s drug usage and previous swallowing of drugs. The evidence
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 37
suggests this was a pre-planned operation relating to a stop under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
223. PC Williams initially supported PC Gorman in the detention of Mr Brunner. PC Williams initially saw PC Gorman wrap his arms around Mr Brunner, who began to struggle. PC Williams grabbed Mr Brunner’s left arm because PC Gorman believed Mr Brunner was trying to use his left hand to do something. PC Williams took hold of Mr Brunner’s left arm but he said he could not see Mr Brunner’s left hand because Mr Brunner had placed his arm behind his back. PC Williams tried to take hold of Mr Brunner’s left hand because he said Mr Brunner had clenched his fist. PC Williams could not control Mr Brunner’s left hand.
224. PC Williams saw Mr Brunner lean forward and place his open left hand towards his mouth. The evidence suggests Mr Brunner had swallowed an object at this stage. PC Williams communicated with Mr Brunner asking him to spit out the object.
225. PC Williams used a mandibular angle pressure point technique. This is a technique police officers are trained to use in certain circumstances. The personal safety manual states the aim of the pressure point control technique is to either temporarily immobilize the person, produce involuntary movements or to distract them. The manual advises the police officer to approach the person safely, use clear verbal commands and stabilise the head securely. The manual recommends the police officer use a thumb tip, knuckle or supported finger applying pressure at a 45-degree angle inward towards the subject’s nose. The manual advises the police officer to release pressure on compliance or to hold the pressure for no longer than three seconds.
226. PC Williams said he could only apply the pressure from under Mr Brunner’s chin into the area of the mandibular angle. He said it was not a pushing action going into his windpipe as his hand was cupped around the neck area avoiding pushing onto his neck, as his intention was to apply pressure to the bottom of the jawline under the ear area, not to prevent Mr Brunner from breathing in any way.
227. PC Williams then released his other hand and used it to attempt to make Mr Brunner open his mouth. However, Mr Brunner resisted this manoeuvre and the pressure point technique did not have the desired effect either. Mr Brunner continued to struggle. PC Williams’ actions appears to be in line with the personal safety manual, although due to the circumstance presented to him, PC Williams used an improvised technique, which did not have an effect or cause injury. However, the college of emergency medicine recommends that force should not be used and the person should be encouraged to empty their own mouths. This guidance has only been introduced to Bedfordshire Police training in 2017, after this incident. PC Williams did continually ask Mr Brunner to spit out the object, which PC Williams believed to be a controlled substance.
228. PC Williams is trained in the personal safety manual and techniques relating to the mandibular pressure point. PC Williams is also trained in providing first aid. The first-aid training does not provide any guidance on timings when following the DRSABC pneumonic: D – Danger; R – Response; S – Shout for help; A – Airways; B – Breathing; C – CPR. It appears it is for the police officers to assess each stage based on the circumstances presented to them when identifying the need for medical provision and carrying out CPR.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 38
229. PC Williams ended up on the ground with Mr Brunner face down, but he said he did not know how they ended up on the floor. PC Williams made further attempts to use the mandibular angle pressure point technique in order for Mr Brunner to spit out the object. As previously, the technique did not work. PC Williams turned Mr Brunner’s head to the left so he could see Mr Brunner’s mouth and to prevent Mr Brunner from being face down on the ground. PC Williams pushed Mr Brunner’s head down onto the ground. The personal safety manual states techniques can be used to hold down a prone person’s head to the ground to avoid any injury. PC Williams did this in the circumstances he was presented with, although he could only use one hand, and did not cause a serious injury to Mr Brunner or cause positional asphyxia.
230. PC Williams placed his knee into Mr Brunner’s left shoulder blade, which is a ground pin technique used by police officers. The personal safety manual states the police officer should raise the person’s arm, keeping the person’s wrist held higher than the elbow, which will be higher than the shoulder. The manual also advises the police officer to use their inside leg to secure the person’s arm and shows the police officer resting their shin on the side of the person. The video footage confirmed PC Williams followed the manual when carrying out the ground pin technique. PC Williams carried out this manoeuvre until Mr Brunner was handcuffed. PC Williams communicated with Mr Brunner telling him to spit out the object on a number of occasions.
231. PC Williams had managed to open Mr Brunner’s mouth but he could not see the object he had placed in his mouth. He said he had assumed Mr Brunner had swallowed the object. PC Williams said he had dealt with a person swallowing drugs previously and he did not think Mr Brunner was showing any signs of distress. PC Williams said in those cases it was normal for the detainee to be taken back to custody before being transported to hospital. The APP guidance states that a person known to have swallowed drugs should be transported to hospital straight away.
232. PC Williams returned to the police van at approximately 12.36.50pm and, when he came back, at approximately 12.37pm, he said Mr Brunner looked pale, his eyes were rolling around and his breathing appeared to be shallow. PC Williams had contacted the police control room to request an ambulance using his police radio. PC Williams had called for an ambulance at approximately 12.36.47pm before he told PC Gorman that he believed that Mr Brunner had stopped breathing at approximately 12.38.12pm. The guidance suggests the ambulance should have been called once Mr Brunner had swallowed the package. It has not been possible to determine at what stage the package was actually swallowed, however, once Mr Brunner was restrained, PC Williams had called for an ambulance. PC Williams said that he then became more concerned for Mr Brunner’s welfare rather than any offences he might have committed. PC Williams said he witnessed Mr Brunner’s ear and lips were turning blue. The handcuffs were removed and Mr Brunner was placed on his back. Mr Brunner was unresponsive.
233. PC Williams did check Mr Brunner’s mouth while chest compressions were being provided, which appears to be in line with the personal safety manual, although it could be argued that this action could have happened sooner, before chest compressions had begun.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 39
234. It appears from the evidence that it was approximately two minutes 24 seconds between an ambulance being requested by PC Williams, and PC Gorman beginning CPR. It appears from the evidence that it was approximately one minute and 7 seconds between PC Williams stating that Mr Brunner was not breathing and PC Gorman beginning chest compressions. It appears from the evidence that PC Gorman was taking the lead in carrying out chest compressions. It appears throughout this time PC Williams continued to observe Mr Brunner but did not carry out any chest compressions until after PC Gorman had commenced them.
235. PC Williams assisted with the chest compressions until the East of England Ambulance Service attended. PC Williams said that at one point Mr Brunner’s chest stayed down and did not rise again for a few seconds.
236. Professor Newton stated the police officers were not sighted on the airway obstruction, instead believing the package had been ingested, from their previous policing experience. He also concluded that the resuscitation efforts of the police officers, in conjunction with medical professionals, did result in Mr Brunner being ventilated with 100 per cent oxygen. It is also stated that the experienced paramedics were not able to see a package in Mr Brunner’s mouth when they looked.
237. The pathologist stated that the major issue in this case was there not being a meaningful airway in place at all for a period of time well in excess of three to four minutes at the beginning of the resuscitation. The pathologist also stated there were no signs of positional asphyxia and no pathological evidence of an excessive restraint. There was very minor bruising to the left side of the neck, however, the hyoid bone, situated at the back of the throat was fractured. The pathologist could not infer or extrapolate that this was because of an excessive restraint. The evidence suggests the restraint was in line with the personal safety manual and was not excessive.
238. The evidence suggests PC Williams was justified in detaining Mr Brunner under the misuse of drugs act in light of the information that had been provided to him. It appears PC Williams used an appropriate ground pin technique when restraining Mr Brunner and his actions did not result in any serious injury to Mr Brunner. It also appears that PC Williams used an approved pressure point technique, although, he had to improvise due to the circumstances that were presented. This technique does not appear to have caused Mr Brunner any serious injuries. At approximately 12.35.36pm it appeared that PC Williams said that Mr Brunner had swallowed the package. It also appears that at that stage PC Gorman did not contact the control room to request medical assistance, although APP guidance does state that a person known to have swallowed drugs should be treated as a medical emergency. Evidence also suggests PC Williams delayed in providing Mr Brunner with appropriate first-aid assistance, taking his time to assess the situation. However, at this time Mr Brunner was unresponsive. PC Williams is first-aid trained to deal with these situations and he did request an ambulance once he realised the seriousness of the circumstances. It also appears that an assumption might have been made that Mr Brunner had swallowed the object rather than the object blocking Mr Brunner’s airway. However, PC Williams did eventually attempt to look in Mr Brunner’s mouth but could not see an object. At this time there was no meaningful airway in place, however, neither PC Williams nor his colleagues had a
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 40
mouthpiece or any apparatus that could have assisted them in this regard. The object could not be removed until the post mortem. It is noted that there does appear to be a delay in providing CPR. The evidence suggests none of the police officers could identify the object which was stuck at the back of Mr Brunner’s throat. An ambulance had been requested by PC Williams once Mr Brunner was restrained and the police officers monitored Mr Brunner throughout. The evidence showed PC Williams carried out chest compressions once the full seriousness of the circumstances had been realised.
239. Taking all of the above information into account, in my opinion, there is insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find misconduct in relation to PC Williams.
Misconduct
240. For each person under investigation, I must determine whether there is a case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct. In other words, whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable panel, properly directed, could find that the conduct of the person under investigation fell below the standard of behaviour expected of them. 241. Misconduct is defined as a breach of the standards of professional behaviour. 242. Gross misconduct is a breach of the standards of professional behaviour so serious that, if proven, dismissal would be justified.
243. Based on the evidence presented above, it is my opinion that there is insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find misconduct in respect of PC Williams, PC Gorman and PC Garfitt.
Performance
244. The Commission delegate and appropriate authority may wish to consider whether, on the basis of the evidence presented above, the actions of PC Gorman, PC Garfitt and PC Williams, although not amounting to a case to answer for misconduct, fell below the standard expected, and that their performance was unsatisfactory in relation to not identifying that Mr Brunner was choking on the package rather than having a belief that he had swallowed the package.
245. The Commission delegate and appropriate authority may also wish to consider whether, on the basis of the evidence presented above, the actions of PC Williams, although not amounting to a case to answer for misconduct, fell below the standard expected and that his performance was unsatisfactory in relation to not using pressure point techniques in line with guidance.
246. The Commission delegate and appropriate authority may also wish to consider whether, on the basis of the evidence presented above, the actions of PC Gorman, PC Garfitt and PC Williams, although not amounting to a case to answer for misconduct, fell below the standard expected, and that their performance was unsatisfactory in relation to not following APP guidance and delaying in contacting the control room to request medical assistance.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 41
Karl Brunner
Investigation into the death of Karl Brunner on 11 May 2016 following police restraint
Please note, this investigation was completed and submitted to the decision maker before 8 January 2018, while we were still the IPCC. Therefore, the report will contain the investigator’s opinion, which may differ from the final outcome. The report refers to the IPCC and the Commission throughout, and does not reflect the new structure of the IOPC.
Appendices
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 42
Appendix 1: The role of the IPCC
The IPCC carries out its own independent investigations into complaints and incidents involving the police, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the National Crime Agency (NCA) and Home Office immigration and enforcement staff when the seriousness or the public interest require it.
We are completely independent of the police and the government. IPCC commissioners by law may never have worked for the police.
All cases are overseen by a Commission delegate, providing strategic direction and scrutinising the investigation. The investigation At the outset of an investigation a lead investigator will be appointed who will be responsible for the day to day running of the investigation on behalf of the Commission. This may involve taking witness statements, interviewing subjects to the investigation, analysing CCTV footage, reviewing documents, obtaining forensic and other expert evidence, as well as liaison with the coroner, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and other agencies.
They are supported by a team including other investigators, lawyers, press officers and other specialist staff.
Meaningful updates are provided to families and other stakeholders both inside and outside the IPCC at regular intervals.
Throughout the investigation, a series of reviews and quality checks will take place.
The IPCC investigator often makes early contact with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and are sometimes provided with investigative advice during the course of the investigation however we are usually asked by the CPS to keep any such advice confidential. Investigation reports Once the investigator has gathered the evidence they must prepare a report. The report must summarise the evidence and refer to or attach any relevant documents. As notices of investigation have been served in the course of the investigation, the report must also give the investigator’s opinion about whether any police officer or member of staff has a case to answer for misconduct.
The report must then be given to the Commission delegate who will decide if a criminal offence may have been committed by any of the subjects of the investigation and whether it is appropriate to refer the case to the CPS for a charging decision.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 43
The Commission delegate will then decide whether to make individual or wider learning recommendations for the police. They also consider whether the actions of anyone serving with the police were unsatisfactory. If so, they will be dealt with through the police force’s unsatisfactory performance procedure (UPP). UPP is handled by the person’s line manager and is intended to improve the performance of both the individual and police force. Misconduct proceedings The report must be given to the appropriate authority (normally the police force) responsible for the subjects of the investigation. They must then inform the Commission what action they propose to take, in particular whether they will bring misconduct charges in relation to any of the police officers or staff who were subjects of the investigation. If the Commission delegate is unhappy with the appropriate authority’s response, the Commission has powers to recommend or ultimately direct it to bring disciplinary or UPP. Criminal proceedings If there is an indication that a criminal offence may have been committed by any subject of our investigation the IPCC may refer a subject to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS will then decide whether to bring a prosecution against any person. If they decide to prosecute, and there is a not guilty plea, there may be a trial. Relevant witnesses identified during our investigation may be asked to attend the court. The court will then establish whether the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Inquests Following investigations into deaths, the IPCC’s investigation report and supporting documents are usually provided to the coroner. The coroner may then hold an inquest, either alone or with a jury. This hearing is unlike a trial or tribunal. It is a fact finding forum and will not determine criminal or civil liability. A coroner might ask a selection of witnesses to give evidence at the inquest. At the end of the inquest the coroner and/or jury will decide how they think the death occurred on the basis of the evidence they have heard and seen. Publishing the report After all criminal proceedings relating to the investigation have concluded, and at a time when the IPCC is satisfied that any other misconduct or inquest proceedings will not be prejudiced by publication, the IPCC may publish its investigation report.
Redactions might be made to the report at this stage to ensure that individuals’ personal data is sufficiently protected and occasionally for other reasons.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 44
Appendix 2: Viewing log taken from PC Garfitt’s body-worn video
This viewing log relates to the body-worn video footage used in the Karl Brunner case by PC Garfitt. I have summarised the visual and audio taken from the footage. PC Williams – Blue top PC Garfitt – Beige top PC Gorman – Pink top
12.34.05 Footage shows PC Garfitt exiting police van.
PC Gorman and PC Griffiths have alighted police van and walk down Western street followed by PC Garfitt.
12.34.23 PC Williams, PC Griffiths and PC Garfitt begin to jog towards end of Western street.
12.34.34 PC Williams, PC Griffiths and PC Garfitt walk past two pedestrians, one in a wheelchair, and turn right onto Midland Road.
12.34.38 A man can be heard to shout ‘RUN’. PC Williams, PC Griffiths and PC Garfitt jogging down Midland Road.
12.34.43 A man can be heard shouting in background. PC Gorman runs towards Mr Brunner, PC Griffiths runs in the direction of Mr Brunner’s friend. PC Garfitt following behind. Both Mr Brunner and his friend have turned around to the direction of the officers.
12.35.46 PC Griffiths grabs hold of Mr Brunner’s friend by the left shoulder and says ‘stay there’.
12.34.48 PC Garfitt changes direction towards PC Gorman and Mr Brunner. PC Gorman has hold of Mr Brunner’s arm. PC Garfitt said ‘take his fucking hand’.
12.34.50 Footage shows PC Gorman with his arms around Mr Brunner. PC Garfitt briefly holds Mr Brunner’s right arm before releasing and turning towards PC Griffiths and Mr Brunner’s friend. PC Gorman says ‘give me your hands’.
12.34.52 PC Griffiths takes Mr Brunner’s friend to the ground. PC Garfitt takes hold of the right arm of Mr Brunner’s friend.
12.34.54 PC Griffiths is leaning over the back of Mr Brunner’s friend. PC Garfitt has taken hold of his right arm and raised the right hand above the wrist, which is above the elbow.
12.34.58 PC Griffiths takes Mr Brunner’s friends left arm and brings it round to the bottom of his back. PC Garfitt moves the man’s left arm round to the bottom of his back.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 45
12.35.02 PC Griffiths detains the man and pulls out his handcuffs. Camera pans round to road, only shows PC Garfitt’s left arm and knee.
12.35.08 You can hear one of the police officers saying ‘he’s trying to get it, no, he’s put it in, he’s put it in’.
12.35.09 The officer says ‘yeah, he’s put it in guys’.
12.35.14 PC Griffiths and PC Garfitt attach the handcuffs to the man, who appears to be in pain. One of the officer’s tells him to ‘keep still, keep still.’
12.35.17 PC Garfitt pans around the camera and it shows Mr Brunner on the ground, on his left side. PC Williams is leaning over Mr Brunner and has his left arm around Mr Brunner’s head. PC Gorman is to the left of Mr Brunner with his right hand on Mr Brunner’s left shoulder.
12.35.18 PC Garfitt moves closer to Mr Brunner. Mr Brunner is turning his head round to the right, with his head pointing to the sky. PC Williams is still over Mr Brunner telling him to ‘spit it out Karl.’
12.35.20 PC Williams is kneeling to the right side of Mr Brunner with his left hand pushing Mr Brunner’s away from him and his right hand around Mr Brunner’s neck. PC Gorman is still leaning over Mr Brunner with his right hand over PC William’s right hand. Mr Brunner is struggling and appears to be attempting to push away the arms of the officers.
12.35.21 The officers are telling Mr Brunner to spit out the object. ‘Spit it out mate, spit it out Karl.’ Mr Brunner’s face is now facing away from PC Williams. PC Williams has his right hand on Mr Brunner’s head and still has his right hand on Mr Brunner’s throat. PC Gorman is still leaning over Mr Brunner.
12.35.35 The officers continue to tell Mr Brunner to ‘spit it out.’ PC Williams loses control of Mr Brunner’s hand and Mr Brunner turns his head to the left to face the ground. PC Williams left forearm is on Mr Brunner’s head. PC Gorman’s right hand is on Mr Brunner’s right arm which, along with his hand, is flat against the ground.
12.35.28 The officers tell Mr Brunner to relax. PC Gorman is still holding Mr Brunner’s right arm with his right hand. PC Garfitt takes hold of Mr Brunner’s right hand.
12.35.30 One of the officers said ‘we know he’s swallowed it.’ PC Gorman and PC Garfitt take hold of Mr Brunner’s right wrist and hand and begin to pull his arm up.
12.35.34 PC Gorman is still leaning over Mr Brunner and has his right knee positioned in between Mr Brunner’s shoulder and right arm. PC Garfitt has his left hand on Mr Brunner’s right triceps. The officers continue to tell him to spit out the object.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 46
12.35.38 The officers tell Mr Brunner to relax and put his hands behind his back. The officers are attempting to bring Mr Brunner’s arm behind his back.
12.35.45 PC Williams right shin is resting on Mr Brunner’s left side of the shoulder. PC Williams has hold of Mr Brunner’s left arm, which appears to be raised at the elbow. PC Garfitt has hold of Mr Brunner’s right wrist, which is raised above his elbow. PC Gorman has his hand rested on Mr Brunner’s back.
12.35.51 Mr Brunner’s struggle appears to be slowing. His right hand is moving and still above his wrist and elbow. PC Williams maintains his hold of Mr Brunner. PC Gorman appears to be reaching for his handcuffs. PC Garfitt appears to ask ‘someone get a cuff on him please.’ The officers tell Mr Brunner to relax and put his hands behind his back.
12.35.56 PC Gorman puts on handcuff around Mr Brunner’s right hand. PC Garfitt tells Mr Brunner to relax. PC Garfitt and PC Gorman move Mr Brunner’s hand towards the bottom of his back.
12.36.00 The officers ask Mr Brunner if he is listening to them. The right arm is moved closer to the bottom of his back.
12.36.06 PC Gorman tells Mr Brunner to relax as he is going to bring his left arm to the base of his back.
12.36.17 The officers tell Mr Brunner to go ‘nice and slowly Karl.’ PC Williams can be heard to say ‘Karl, you know me don’t ya’. The officers instruct Mr Brunner to put his arm to the base of his back. PC Gorman appears to bring Mr Brunner’s left arm towards the base of his back. PC Garfitt maintains his hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm.
12.36.21 PC Garfitt brings Mr Brunner’s right arm into the bottom of his back and it appears the handcuffs are locked. PC Garfitt’s knee is on the top of Mr Brunner’s right shoulder. One of the officers tells Mr Brunner to bring his right arm into the bottom of his back.
12.36.28 The handcuffs are locked together. PC Garfitt moves back and taps Mr Brunner on the left shoulder. Mr Brunner does not appear to react. Mr Brunner is now on his right side.
12.36.30 PC Gorman appears to pull Mr Brunner towards him, bringing him more onto his side and one of the officers asks ‘why did you do that for Karl’. Mr Brunner does not respond.
12.36.32 PC Garfitt stands up and steps back. PC Williams is now standing up above Mr Brunner and PC Gorman is still leaning over Mr Brunner with his left hand on Mr Brunner’s left side and his right hand on Mr Brunner’s back.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 47
12.36.35 PC Garfitt moves forward, appears to lean forward and says ‘Karl’. PC Williams takes one step back.
12.36.42 Mr Brunner remains on his right side. PC Gorman is still leaning over Mr Brunner, left hand holding Mr Brunner’s left arm and his right hand on Mr Brunner’s back.
12.36.47 PC Garfitt asks members of public to give them some space. PC Gorman remains leaning over Mr Brunner looking at Mr Brunner’s face. Mr Brunner is not responsive. PC Williams has stepped back onto the road away from Mr Brunner; he is on his police radio.
12.36.50 PC Griffiths is back in view with Mr Brunner’s friend. It appears PC Griffiths is doing something with the handcuffs. PC Williams is still on the police radio, requesting an ambulance.
12.37.00 PC Williams approaches Mr Brunner, still on his police radio. PC Gorman holds Mr Brunner’s arms and puts his hand into Mr Brunner’s pocket using his right hand.
12.37.06 PC Gorman leans further over Mr Brunner looking into Mr Brunner’s face. Mr Brunner is not responsive. A man can be heard to say ‘Karl, it’s Xxxxx.’
12.37.14 PC Garfitt moves closer to Mr Brunner, PC Williams is standing over Mr Brunner and PC Gorman lifts the top of Mr Brunner’s jacket. The officer’s call Mr Brunner’s name. Mr Brunner is not responsive.
12.37.14 The officers continue to say Mr Brunner’s name. One of the officers asks another what their call sign is.
12.37.32 PC Garfitt also contacts the police control room and asks for ‘an ambulance on the hurry up please’. PC Gorman remains over Mr Brunner holding onto his arms. Mr Brunner appears unresponsive.
12.37.40 PC Garfitt continues to tell members of the public to ‘give him some space.’ PC Gorman repeats this too, adding ‘just back up.’ PC Williams walks towards the police van.
12.37.46 PC Gorman leans back over Mr Brunner and asks Mr Brunner if he is ok. PC Garfitt tells a member of the public to ‘get back in your wheelchair.’
12.38.00 PC Gorman searches Mr Brunner’s pockets again. PC Williams returns from the police van.
12.38.03 PC Garfitt said the PC Williams and PC Gorman ‘it was a fucking massive ball, like that’ holding out his open hand. PC Garfitt searches the pocket of Mr Brunner.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 48
12.38.13 The officers say Mr Brunner’s name again and one of them says ‘he’s not breathing.’ One of the officer’s says ‘let’s sit him up’. PC Gorman begins to sit Mr Brunner up.
12.38.17 PC Gorman sits up Mr Brunner and one of the officers says ‘let’s get those cuffs off.’ PC Garfitt assists.
12.38.23 Mr Brunner is leant back against PC Gorman and the officers are saying ‘listen up Karl.’ Mr Brunner is unresponsive.
12.38.32 The officers continuously ask Mr Brunner to ‘listen up’. One of the officers says ‘let’s sit him up.’ PC Williams and PC Garfitt pat Mr Brunner on the chest. One of the officers tells the other officers to put Mr Brunner in a recovery position.
12.38.36 PC Gorman and PC Garfitt put Mr Brunner in a recovery position and one of the officers asks for Mr Brunner’s mouth to be opened.
12.38.39 Mr Brunner is in the recovery position and PC Garfitt appears to pull Mr Brunner’s chin down. A member of the public can be heard to say ‘he’s the wrong colour boys, you know that don’t ya.’ Mr Brunner is unresponsive and his face is turning a different colour.
12.38.48 PC Gorman touches the sides of Mr Brunner’s mouth and pulls down his chin. One of the officers is asking a member of the public what he has taken.
12.38.59 The officers are leaning over Mr Brunner saying his name and continue to ask others what he has taken.
12.39.08 Mr Brunner is on his side, unresponsive. One of the officers says ‘I don’t think he’s breathing mate’ and his colleague replies ‘I don’t think so either’.
12.39.10 Mr Brunner is rolled onto his back. There is blood from his mouth on his face and on the ground. PC Gorman is leaning over Mr Brunner.
12.39.14 PC Gorman begins chest compressions. PC Gorman asks if anyone has ‘a face shield on them.’
12.39.36 PC Gorman attempts to open Mr Brunner’s mouth using both of his hands.
12.39.39 PC Gorman restarts chest compressions. The officers try to communicate with Mr Brunner throughout. Mr Brunner does not respond.
12.40.04 PC Gorman continues chest compressions. Asks again for a face shield but no-one has one, PC Garfitt tells him to continue chest compressions.
12.40.24 PC Gorman asks for a defibrillator and continues chest compressions.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 49
12.40.41 PC Garfitt takes over chest compressions. PC Gorman secures Mr Brunner’s head.
12.40.53 PC Gorman takes over chest compressions.
12.41.08 PC Garfitt takes over chest compressions. PC Gorman attempts to find a pulse.
12.41.40 PC Williams takes over chest compressions.
12.42.07 PC Gorman takes over chest compressions. PC Garfitt updates police control room. PC Williams opens Mr Brunner’s mouth to look in and pats Mr Brunner on the cheek.
12.42.21 PC Garfitt takes over chest compressions. PC Williams pats Mr Brunner’s cheeks.
12.42.52 PC Williams takes over chest compressions.
12.43.11 PC Gorman takes over chest compressions.
12.43.29 PC Williams takes over chest compressions.
12.43.43 PC Gorman and PC Garfitt ask other attending officers if they have a mouth shield but they do not. The control room update PC Garfitt that ambulance is en route with defibrillator.
12.43.52 Ambulance arrives
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 50
Appendix 3: Viewing Log taken from PC Gorman’s body-worn video
This report relates to the body-worn video footage used in the Karl Brunner case by PC Gorman. I have summarised the visual and audio taken from the footage. PC Williams – Blue top PC Garfitt – Beige top PC Gorman – Pink top
12.34.07 Footage shows PC Gorman and PC Griffiths exiting the police van.
PC Gorman and PC Griffiths walk down Western street.
12.34.23 PC Williams, PC Griffiths and PC Garfitt begin to jog towards end of Western street.
12.34.28 PC Gorman walk past two pedestrians, one in a wheelchair, and turn right onto Midland Road.
12.34.40 A man can be heard to shout ‘RUN’. PC Gorman begins to jog down Midland Road.
12.34.45 A man can be heard shouting in background. PC Gorman runs towards Mr Brunner and Mr Brunner’s friend. Both Mr Brunner and his friend have turned around to the direction of PC Gorman.
12.34.46 PC Gorman says ‘Karl, stay where you are mate’. PC Gorman runs to Mr Brunner and Mr Brunner turns his back.
12.34.52 PC Gorman says ‘give me your hands’. PC Gorman grabs Mr Brunner. PC Williams can be seen attempting to take hold of one of Mr Brunner’s arms.
12.34.56 PC Gorman still has hold of Mr Brunner. PC Williams walks away then re-appears and is attempting to grab Mr Brunner’s right hand. Mr Brunner says ‘let go of me’.
12.34.59 PC Gorman says ‘grab his hand mate’. PC Williams takes hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm.
12.35.03 PC Gorman shouts ‘other hand Karl’. Mr Brunner says ‘alright, alright. PC Williams has hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm. The screen goes dark – this seems to be as a result of the BWV being pressed up against Mr Brunner’s dark jacket.
12.35.09 Mr Brunner continues to say ‘alright, alright’ as the officers say ‘other hand Karl’. PC Williams is holding onto Mr Brunner’s right arm. An officer can be heard to say ‘no, he’s put it in’ in the background.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 51
12.35.15 The BWV shakes – this appears to be as a result of the officers taking Mr Brunner to the floor. The BWV then shows the pavement. The officers can be heard to say ‘spit it out’.
12.35.18 PC Gorman and PC Williams can both be heard to say ‘spit it out’ on more than one occasion.
12.35.21 The officers continue to tell Mr Brunner to spit it out. The BWV continues to show the pavement.
12.35.31 The officers continue to say ‘spit it out Karl, spit it out’. You can hear one officer say ‘he’s swallowed it’. The BWV continues to show the pavement.
12.35.36 PC Williams appears to say ‘we know he’s swallowed it’. PC Gorman adjusts the BWV to show Mr Brunner on the ground on his front. PC Williams has his right hand on the back of Mr Brunner’s head and left hand on the left side of Mr Brunner.
12.35.39 PC Gorman and PC Williams are leaning over Mr Brunner. PC Gorman appears to have his hand on Mr Brunner’s back. PC Gorman says ‘you have to relax Karl, put your hand behind his back’.
12.35.45 The BWV shows PC Gorman and PC Williams over Mr Brunner. PC Gorman says ‘Karl, you have to put your hands behind your back mate.’
12.35.48 PC Gorman then puts the BWV down on the pavement pointing it up towards the officers. The footage shows PC Gorman to the right of Mr Brunner, PC Williams is to the left of Mr Brunner and appears to have hold of Mr Brunner’s left arm, PC Garfitt is now shown and has hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm pointing it towards the sky.
12.35.53 The officers tell Mr Brunner to relax. The BWV points to PC Garfitt who has hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm then the BWV goes dark. An officer says ‘get a cuff on’.
12.35.59 The officers continue to tell Mr Brunner to relax. The screen briefly shows Mr Brunner’s hand before going dark again.
12.36.06 PC Gorman says ‘Karl, are you listening mate, Karl’. The BWV footage then shows PC Gorman’s face as the BWV points upwards.
12.36.11 PC Gorman asks Mr Brunner to bring his arm into the base of his back. PC Garfitt can be seen in the background standing above Mr Brunner to the right side.
12.36.14 PC Gorman says ‘nice and slowly Karl’. PC Williams can be heard to say ‘Karl, you know me don’t ya’. The BWV continues to point upwards to show PC Gorman’s face.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 52
12.36.19 The BWV footage shows PC Garfitt holding on to Mr Brunner’s right arm, pointing it towards the sky. The BWV has panned around to show members of the public in the street.
12.36.22 PC Gorman says ‘there you go, and the other one’. PC Garfitt still has hold of Mr Brunner’s right arm. The BWV is then placed back on the ground and shows the pavement.
12.36.31 The BWV footage then pans around to show Mr Brunner’s arms in handcuffs. PC Williams is still to the left of Mr Brunner now set back a bit further from him on one knee.
12.36.33 PC Williams stands up looking down on Mr Brunner’s face. Mr Brunner appears to be on his side. PC Gorman says ‘what did ya do that for Karl?’
12.36.38 The BWV briefly shows the back of Mr Brunner’s head, who is now on his side’. The BWV then points up towards the sky. PC Gorman is leaning over Mr Brunner.
12.36.55 PC Garfitt is standing up to the left of Mr Brunner. PC Gorman continues to lean over Mr Brunner calling out his name.
12.36.59 PC Williams is standing over Mr Brunner talking into his radio ‘appears to be breathing, bleeding from his mouth, in and out of consciousness, about forty years of age’. PC Garfitt continues to stand over Mr Brunner. A witness can be heard to say ‘Karl, it’s Xxxxx’.
12.37.12 PC Williams turns away to talk to the witness in the wheelchair, PC Garfitt kneels down towards Mr Brunner.
12.37.22 PC Williams walks away, PC Gorman calls out Mr Brunner’s name.
12.37.34 PC Williams and PC Garfitt are keeping people away from Mr Brunner. PC Garfitt is still on his knees and radios into control room to follow up PC Williams’ call and asks for ‘an ambulance on the hurry up’.
12.37.36 PC Gorman pans the BWV round to show his face then to show Mr Brunner on his side in a rear stack position. PC Williams stands above Mr Brunner.
12.37.40 PC Gorman says ‘stay with us Karl’ then PC Gorman and PC Williams ask members of the public to give them some space. Mr Brunner remains on his side.
12.37.50 PC Gorman leans over Mr Brunner’s head and says ‘listen up Karl, that it’.
12.37.58 PC Gorman searches Mr Brunner’s pockets
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 53
12.38.05 PC Garfitt says ‘it was a fucking massive ball, it was like that’ makes open handed gesture with left hand.
12.38.09 PC Garfitt searches Mr Brunner’s pockets.
12.38.12 PC Williams appears to say ‘he’s not breathing, sit him up’. PC Gorman pulls Mr Brunner up to a sitting position. One of the officers says ‘get the cuff off’.
12.38.18 PC Williams and PC Garfitt assist in sitting Mr Brunner up. Mr Brunner is unresponsive and his eyes appear closed.
12.38.24 PC Gorman said ‘Karl, listen up mate’.
12.38.46 All three officers place Mr Brunner on his side. The man in the wheelchair can be heard talking quietly in the background. One of the officers reply ‘we know that’. PC Gorman leans over Mr Brunner’s head, appears to attempt to look in Mr Brunner’s mouth.
12.38.51 PC Garfitt looks towards Mr Brunner’s friend and says ‘whatever he had, he’s swallowed it, what has he taken?’. PC Gorman reiterates this.
12.39.05 PC Gorman and PC Garfitt continue to lean over Mr Brunner’s head. The man who was in the wheelchair asks Mr Brunner to ‘just tell them (the officers) what he’s taken’.
12.39.13 Mr Brunner is rolled onto his back by PC Gorman and PC Garfitt. PC Gorman calls out Mr Brunner’s name.
12.39.16 PC Gorman begins first aid.
The officers give first aid and confirm the further chronology record in the viewing log of TAS/2.
Karl Brunner – Final report for publication 54