Police force fined £234,500 over restraint belt used on vulnerable man who later died

A police force has been fined £234,500 for health and safety breaches in relation to a belt used around the face of a man before he collapsed in custody.

Thomas Orchard, 32, died in hospital seven days after being arrested and taken to Heavitree Road police station in Exeter, Devon, in October 2012.

During his detention, the church caretaker who had mental health issues was restrained and an emergency response belt (ERB) was placed across face for five minutes and two seconds to prevent spitting or biting.

In a landmark conviction in 2018, the office of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall Police pleaded guilty to breaches under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The charge stated that the force failed to ensure non-employees, including Mr Orchard, were not exposed to risks in connection with the ERB.

Judge Julian Lambert previously ruled he could not be sure that the ERB, a tough webbing belt designed to restrain limbs, was a contributory factor in Mr Orchard’s death.

He fined the force £234,500 and ordered it to pay £20,515 in prosecution costs during a hearing at Bristol Crown Court on Friday.

The judge described the seriousness of harm risked by the force’s breaches due to the “potential restriction of breathing” by use of the ERB about the head and face.

“I appreciate that there is a significant body of evidence that no-one was, in fact, killed or very seriously injured because of the use of the belt as a spit or bite guard,” Judge Lambert said.

“It is, however, my assessment that it was only a matter of time before someone was going to be.

“The ERB didn’t automatically restrict breathing when used as a hood, but it had the capacity to do so in certain situations.”

Mr Orchard (pictured) was suffering from a mental health crisis when he was arrested in Exeter city centre for a public order offence at about 11am on October 3 2012.

The judge said that “very serious consequences” could occur if the belt restricted the breathing of a person in an “excited and possibly delirious” state.

He previously ruled it was not clear whether the ERB obstructed Mr Orchard’s breathing.

Devon and Cornwall Police approved the ERB as a limb restraint only in 2002, but within months it was being used as a spit or bite guard, the court previously heard.

In 2003, force policy was changed to allow for the ERB to be applied “loosely about the head” to prevent head-butting, spitting or biting.

Judge Lambert said this occurred without any risk assessment or research being carried out on the effects of the ERB “as a hood”.

“The prosecution properly characterises this as a fundamentally flawed process,” he said.

“This was accompanied with a lack of uniformity in training.”

In a report 11 years before Mr Orchard’s death, Dr Graham Cook said he believed using the ERB as a spit or bite guard was “extremely dangerous”.

This report was available to Devon and Cornwall Police in 2002 but it did not “properly appreciate” the concerns it raised, the judge said.

“There was an alarming inadvertence to risk,” he added.

In mitigation, Jason Beer QC said the belt had been used an estimated 500 times about the head by the force.

There were no reports of any injury during the 10-year period it was used in that way before Mr Orchard’s death.

“The use of the device did not, on the evidence, cause actual harm to any person,” he said.

He said any fine would have to be funded by a halt in recruitment – with every £100,000 resulting in the reduction of three recruits.

In a victim personal statement partly read to the court, Mr Orchard’s mother Alison Orchard said: “It has been painful to witness how an organisation which had a duty of care for Thomas was so casual, disorganised and sloppy in their approach to health and safety.”

Speaking outside court, Mr Orchard’s father Ken Orchard said the family had received “no sense of real justice”.

“Investigations over the past six-and-a-half years have highlighted some criminally appalling health and safety practices which desperately needed changing,” he said.

“We hope more than anything that the residents of Devon and Cornwall will be at least a little safer today as a result of Thomas’s death.”

Shaun Sawyer, the chief constable of the force, said it had made “critical changes from a very early stage in 2012”.

“Devon and Cornwall Police is a very different organisation six and half a years on from Thomas Orchard’s death in terms of the training delivered to staff, awareness of mental health crisis and our ability to identify and manage violent, vulnerable people coming into police contact,” he said.

FAMILY SPEAK OF TRAUMA FOLLOWING POLICE CUSTODY DEATH

Thomas Orchard was described as a “wonderful human being who was loved dearly” by his family in a statement.

His mother Alison Orchard had planned to read the two-and-a-half page document, prepared as a victim personal statement, to Judge Julian Lambert at Bristol Crown Court.

This was not permitted following an application by Jason Beer QC, representing Devon and Cornwall Police, who argued that parts of the statement were not “relevant or admissible” in the proceedings.

Mark Heywood QC, prosecuting the case, read extracts of the statement that had been agreed by prosecution and defence teams during an adjournment in the hearing on Friday.

The statement was later released in full on the website of the charity Inquest, which has been supporting the family.

It began: “Everything in our lives is measured as having taken place either before or after Thomas died, such was the trauma of his death.

“Thomas was a wonderful human being who was loved dearly by his family and we think about him with sadness every day.

“We miss his quirky sense of humour, his oftentimes deep and perceptive comments and his huge presence. We miss witnessing the fulfilment he found in everyday life and his faith; his love of runner beans and cats; crosses and candles.”

Mr Orchard had been making “real progress” and was living semi-independently at the time of his death – with his provisional driving licence arriving in the post the day after he died.

His family said they “grieve doubly” for Mr Orchard because of the hole left but also the future he does not have, such as seeing his brother get married or his nephews grow up.

“It’s been painful to witness how an organisation, which had a duty of care for Thomas, was so casual, disorganised and sloppy in their approach to health and safety,” they said.

“Perhaps the hardest thing to hear was how Thomas’ detention could have – and should have – been managed.

“In all this time we have never had a simple apology or genuine acknowledgement that something went horribly wrong that day. It feels simply inhuman.

“Our faith in the police force has also been severely tarnished because of what has happened to Thomas.”

The family said they were “not confident” that failures had been recognised and genuine changes made, adding they feared other safety issues may remain unidentified.

“From a personal perspective, we are fearful of how we would be treated if we needed to call the police,” they said.

They added that to have some good come of Mr Orchard’s death, such as accountability, changes in policy and a shift in police attitudes towards vulnerable people would “go some way towards our healing”.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2019, All Rights Reserved. Pictured (c) Family Handout / PA Wire.