Officer’s punch was ‘excessive’

A Thames Valley Police officer who repeatedly punched a vulnerable young man in Slough and knelt on his face has been dismissed from the force following a misconduct hearing.

On March 8, 2022, PC Oliver Downing, along with two other officers, was searching for individuals suspected of being involved in a knife fight near the Texaco in Farnham Road, Slough.

They pursued and pulled over a car with two men inside, a 19-year-old autistic teenager and his father.

They were ordered to exit the car in the mistaken belief that they were involved in the incident.

According to a police misconduct report, the son was, in Downing’s view, slow in responding to these orders.

He was taken to the floor. While there, Downing punched him in the face.

The report said officers felt he refused to be compliant and started to push up, whereupon Downing ‘pushed down on the side of his head’ with his hand.

He then knelt on the man's face, though Downing claimed it was his shoulder he knelt on. Body worn camera footage convinced the panel that Downing did kneel on his face.

Downing then punched him twice on his side.

The driver, the young man’s father, resisted being handcuffed, whereupon

Downing punched him in the lower back.

A misconduct hearing took place between 19-23 February at Thames Valley Police Headquarters to examine these events.

A report, released last week, says that in all the above instances, ‘this use of force was unnecessary, disproportionate and unreasonable in all the circumstances.’

At the hearing, Downing did not contest most of the acts – he admitted to punching both men but argued the use of force was justified as there was a ‘high risk’ of harm to officers, especially given that they believed the pair were armed.

But his suggestion of the younger man being noncompliant with orders was not accepted by the panel. They felt Downing did not give ‘a proper opportunity’ to comply.

Downing said that his punch to his face was a ‘distraction punch’. This is a recognised technique – but it must be reasonable, proportionate and necessary.

“The view of the panel was that it was not. It was excessive because it was to the face,” reads the report.

Another recognised technique is pushing the side of someone’s head down into the ground – but kneeling on their face is not.

“At that time there were three officers involved in the restraint. [The young man] was not shouting or kicking his legs; he was not violently resisting the officers,” the report said.

“We have to come to the conclusion that a rightminded member of the public would think very badly of the police service,” the report said.

Although the punch Downing gave the father could be ‘permissible’ in some circumstances, the fact that he swore at him and appeared to have lost control counted against Downing.

The panel felt that this behaviour is likely to have lowered the public’s opinion of the police.

It is accepted that the pair were innocent of any involvement in the Texaco incident. But, upon discovering this, Downing did not seem to ‘obviously demonstrate any sorrow.’

The panel heard that the son’s autism could have been a reason for his delay in responding to commands.

Downing should have removed the handcuffs and ‘look[ed] after him,’ upon learning these two facts, the panel felt.

“The panel has found gross misconduct and the behaviour of the officer has caused serious harm to the individuals and public confidence in standing and reputation of the police profession is harmed as a whole,” the report said.

“It is the inevitable conclusion of the Panel that PC Downing should be dismissed without notice.”

Thames Valley Police declined to comment further on the dismissal.