Gary Williams
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2021-0401
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 21 Jan 2022
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Police training materials do not include guidance on managing 'Ictal automatism' from temporal lobe epilepsy, risking inappropriate use of restraint and exacerbating a patient's distress.
View full coroner's concerns
Gary Williams suffered from Temporal lobe epilepsy. He was a retired police officer who was a very friendly and polite gentleman, when not unwell. He had previously had absences. However, nothing that can compare with the events in the eleven days before his death on the 28th July 2017. On the 18th July 2017 he suffered from an extreme acute behavioural disturbance, described as what appeared to be a psychotic delusional state in which affray and violence to life and property was demonstrated. This was Ictal automatism due to temporal lobe epilepsy. A neurologist explained at the inquest that he felt sorry for the police, as they did not know the patient or with what they were dealing. He explained that there was no way to rationalise with some in this state - they are like a zombie and though they do not feel pain the use of PAVA, baton strikes and restraint will be responded to by the person’s fight and flight instincts. It is important to approach such a person with calm. In a neurological ward, it can take four experience health care professional and a fifth to sedate to deal with such a presentation. There is no treatment as such for this presentation just sedation and if necessary critical care support until the person has recovered. This condition is not part of the college of policing training materials with regard to use of restraint. You may consider that it would be helpful to include it in the minimum of 12 hours future mandatory annual restraint refresher training undertaken by all officers. In this case, officers, members of the public and health care professionals were distressed and exhausted but fortunately officers, healthcare professionals and the public did not suffer permanent serious or fatal harm.
Responses
Action Taken
The NPCC states that following a previous similar case, the Self Defence Arrest and Restraint (SDAR) working group has already reviewed and updated training materials to include guidance on Acute Behavioural Disorder (ABD), and the updated package was circulated to forces in March 2021. (AI summary)
The NPCC states that following a previous similar case, the Self Defence Arrest and Restraint (SDAR) working group has already reviewed and updated training materials to include guidance on Acute Behavioural Disorder (ABD), and the updated package was circulated to forces in March 2021. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Rebello,
Regulation 28 Report – Mr Gary Williams
I write on behalf of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) in relation to paragraph 7, Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, in relation to the prevention of future deaths report sent via email to the NPCC dated 26th November 2021.
The notice sets out concerns that arose from the information received during the inquest into the death of Mr Williams which occurred in July 2017. I am very sorry to read of the circumstances of Gary’s death. My sympathies are with his family and friends, and I share your commitment to addressing the issues that contributed to his untimely loss.
The notice sets out your principal concern stating that Mr Williams’ condition (ABD) is not part of the College of Policing training materials with regard to use of restraint, and that this should be considered to include in future annual refresher restraint training.
The issue you have highlighted has been addressed recently, following a regulation 28 notice in relation to the death of Douglas Oak (also in 2017).
The Self Defence Arrest and Restraint (SDAR) working group led by DAC , works closely with the College of Policing. This group reviews the learning from coroners, the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), stakeholders and police forces.
Following the Oak inquest, the SDAR group immediately reviewed and updated the existing ABD power point and the PST Manual. This included incorporating additional training which was identified and documented within our response to the coroner overseeing the proceedings in this case.
Specialist advice was sought from experts in emergency and forensic medicine who provided expert advice to SDAR relating to the ABD PowerPoint, notes for trainers and the National Personal Safety Manual.
Subsequently the ABD Training Package for UK Police Forces was updated and circulated in March 2021 with a direction for Forces to deliver the revised ABD package with immediate effect. Additionally, The Royal College of Emergency Medicine Best practice Guidelines: Guidelines for the Management of Excited Delirium/Acute Behaviour Disturbance (ABD) May 2016, was also circulated to forces in September 2021 which contains a section on ‘restraint’ in relation to medical settings.
I will ensure that this notice along with my response is shared with the College of Policing and the SDAR group for completeness.
I hope that the information that has been provided goes some way to reassure you that the matters of concern you have raised have been addressed and will be subject to continual review.
Regulation 28 Report – Mr Gary Williams
I write on behalf of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) in relation to paragraph 7, Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, in relation to the prevention of future deaths report sent via email to the NPCC dated 26th November 2021.
The notice sets out concerns that arose from the information received during the inquest into the death of Mr Williams which occurred in July 2017. I am very sorry to read of the circumstances of Gary’s death. My sympathies are with his family and friends, and I share your commitment to addressing the issues that contributed to his untimely loss.
The notice sets out your principal concern stating that Mr Williams’ condition (ABD) is not part of the College of Policing training materials with regard to use of restraint, and that this should be considered to include in future annual refresher restraint training.
The issue you have highlighted has been addressed recently, following a regulation 28 notice in relation to the death of Douglas Oak (also in 2017).
The Self Defence Arrest and Restraint (SDAR) working group led by DAC , works closely with the College of Policing. This group reviews the learning from coroners, the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), stakeholders and police forces.
Following the Oak inquest, the SDAR group immediately reviewed and updated the existing ABD power point and the PST Manual. This included incorporating additional training which was identified and documented within our response to the coroner overseeing the proceedings in this case.
Specialist advice was sought from experts in emergency and forensic medicine who provided expert advice to SDAR relating to the ABD PowerPoint, notes for trainers and the National Personal Safety Manual.
Subsequently the ABD Training Package for UK Police Forces was updated and circulated in March 2021 with a direction for Forces to deliver the revised ABD package with immediate effect. Additionally, The Royal College of Emergency Medicine Best practice Guidelines: Guidelines for the Management of Excited Delirium/Acute Behaviour Disturbance (ABD) May 2016, was also circulated to forces in September 2021 which contains a section on ‘restraint’ in relation to medical settings.
I will ensure that this notice along with my response is shared with the College of Policing and the SDAR group for completeness.
I hope that the information that has been provided goes some way to reassure you that the matters of concern you have raised have been addressed and will be subject to continual review.
Sent To
- National Police Chiefs’ Council
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
21 Jan 2022
All responses received
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 30 August 2017 I commenced an investigation into the death of Gary WILLIAMS aged
56. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest held from 8th to the 25 November 2021. The verbatim conclusion of the Jury at the inquest from was that: “Based on the medical evidence we find that Mr Gary Williams acute behavioural disturbance in the early hours of 18th July 2017 was a result of an episode of Ictal Automatism due to temporal lobe epilepsy. Based on the evidence given, we heard that the furniture had been rearranged in the garden and a trail of blood was left. We find that Gary had been injured prior to the police arrival at Bardon Close. We find that the householder of was reasonable in calling the police to the incident happening at her front door about 3 am on the 18th of July 2017. We find that the householder was alerted to knocking on her front door at 3 am, she opened the door after applying the security chain and was confronted by her neighbour Gary Williams, She noted he was completely naked and was trying to gain entry. Gary then tried to remove the security chain, and was saying "we need to be together". Over concerned for safety she shut the door. She considered getting Gary a dressing gown given concerns of Gary's well being. After the door was closed the banging intensified which caused the householder to feel threatened of a potential assault and the welfare of her elderly mother, who was also a resident of the household. This then prompted a 999 call to request police and ambulance. Gary's behaviour continued to escalate with banging to punching then changing to pounding. This lead to a vase inside the house to fall and smash, which them prompted a second 999 call as the incident became more threatening. Police arrived on the scene around 10 minutes of the first 999 call. In consideration of the action of Police at on the 18th July 2017. We find that the police actions were as followed: Tactical communications (i.e. "its the police stop"), ("get on your knees"). These were unsuccessful. One officer then deployed pava spray which had no effect on Gary. Due to the this and Gary's aggressive behaviour towards police, the three police officers deployed the use of batons. Each of the three officers delivered several baton strikes. We understand this to be in accordance with their training and consideration of the NDM (National decision making model). However in our judgement the combined number of strikes was inappropriate. Due to continued escalation and ineffective previous actions, Gary was then then forcibaly restrained by way of a headlock. Handcuffs were applied to the front by other officers. Due to further agitated behaviour leg restraints were then applied to protect the officers and Gary. Mr Williams was then carried out of the garden to a grass verge at the front of the house, the handcuffs were then repositioned to the rear as witnessed by a neighbour. Gary was then moved from the grass verge into the bulk head area of a police carrier by several officers whilst awaiting the arrival of medical proffessionals. Whilst in the police carrier theire is evidence via body cam which shows Gary to be agitated, still restrained and trying to be calmed by officers. We therefore consider the action of the Police reasonable at this time. At approximately 03.45 hours Gary was place on a stretcher and was taken to the ambulance. We have found that the actions by the police were reasonable in the circumstances known to them at the time. From the evidence available at the time we found there was no alternative course of action. A Police officers oath is to protect people and property first before considering the reason for the given circumstances. We find the actions of the police officers both in the ambulance and at the Royal Liverpool hospital on the 18th July to 26th July 2017 were reasonable in assisting therapeutic support to Gary, and his continued restraints. However their was a lack of detailed information passed on during hand overs to the medical teams. This is evidenced by insufficient information recorded which omitted key factors, in relation to use of restraints/use of force and mechanism of injuries during Gary's arrest. We find that due to Gary's condition, He did not have the capacity to consent to treatment, therefore we find the treatment given to Gary in the circumstances was reasonable. We find the treatment administered to Gary was appropriate considering the balance of risk. This treatment included being admitted to ICU on the morning of the 18th July following sedation and a CT scan which showed up clear. Gary spent a period of 10 days in critical care, three of which were under Anaesthesia, whilst continually being assessed. During this time he received 9 doses of preventative anti-coagulant medication to help reduce any risk of blood clots forming. There was no aspect of care delivered that was not appropriate or necessary. However some communication during Gary's time at the Royal hospital between departments was lacking due to inconsistencies and omissions within reports and notes from the medical staff. In relation to the cause of death, we find this to be: 1a Pulmonary Thromboembolism (caused) 1b Deep Venous thrombosis 2 Ictal automatism due to temporal lobe epilepsy We find that the pulmonary Thromboembolism was causes at least in part, that is more than minimally, negligibly or trivially by the following: B. Injuries and bleeding sustained in a entering the back garden of . C: Restraint and baton strikes by the police in effecting his arrest and detention. D : Therapeutic support in critical care - including restraint, sedation, anaesthetic, ventilation, peripheral venous access, central venous line access ext. From the medical evidence from medical staff and experts theire is no direct link that Temporal lobe epilepsy causes the pulmonary Thromboembolism, however this was the catalyst that lead to the incident that occurred on the 18th of July 2017 and the subsequent chain of events. We find that Gary Williams was certified as having died at 18:50 on 28th July 2017 at his sisters home . given all the circumstances known at the time when intervention was possible we find that Gary Williams death was not preventable.” CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH As set out in the Narrative Conclusion above The cause of death being found as:
56. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest held from 8th to the 25 November 2021. The verbatim conclusion of the Jury at the inquest from was that: “Based on the medical evidence we find that Mr Gary Williams acute behavioural disturbance in the early hours of 18th July 2017 was a result of an episode of Ictal Automatism due to temporal lobe epilepsy. Based on the evidence given, we heard that the furniture had been rearranged in the garden and a trail of blood was left. We find that Gary had been injured prior to the police arrival at Bardon Close. We find that the householder of was reasonable in calling the police to the incident happening at her front door about 3 am on the 18th of July 2017. We find that the householder was alerted to knocking on her front door at 3 am, she opened the door after applying the security chain and was confronted by her neighbour Gary Williams, She noted he was completely naked and was trying to gain entry. Gary then tried to remove the security chain, and was saying "we need to be together". Over concerned for safety she shut the door. She considered getting Gary a dressing gown given concerns of Gary's well being. After the door was closed the banging intensified which caused the householder to feel threatened of a potential assault and the welfare of her elderly mother, who was also a resident of the household. This then prompted a 999 call to request police and ambulance. Gary's behaviour continued to escalate with banging to punching then changing to pounding. This lead to a vase inside the house to fall and smash, which them prompted a second 999 call as the incident became more threatening. Police arrived on the scene around 10 minutes of the first 999 call. In consideration of the action of Police at on the 18th July 2017. We find that the police actions were as followed: Tactical communications (i.e. "its the police stop"), ("get on your knees"). These were unsuccessful. One officer then deployed pava spray which had no effect on Gary. Due to the this and Gary's aggressive behaviour towards police, the three police officers deployed the use of batons. Each of the three officers delivered several baton strikes. We understand this to be in accordance with their training and consideration of the NDM (National decision making model). However in our judgement the combined number of strikes was inappropriate. Due to continued escalation and ineffective previous actions, Gary was then then forcibaly restrained by way of a headlock. Handcuffs were applied to the front by other officers. Due to further agitated behaviour leg restraints were then applied to protect the officers and Gary. Mr Williams was then carried out of the garden to a grass verge at the front of the house, the handcuffs were then repositioned to the rear as witnessed by a neighbour. Gary was then moved from the grass verge into the bulk head area of a police carrier by several officers whilst awaiting the arrival of medical proffessionals. Whilst in the police carrier theire is evidence via body cam which shows Gary to be agitated, still restrained and trying to be calmed by officers. We therefore consider the action of the Police reasonable at this time. At approximately 03.45 hours Gary was place on a stretcher and was taken to the ambulance. We have found that the actions by the police were reasonable in the circumstances known to them at the time. From the evidence available at the time we found there was no alternative course of action. A Police officers oath is to protect people and property first before considering the reason for the given circumstances. We find the actions of the police officers both in the ambulance and at the Royal Liverpool hospital on the 18th July to 26th July 2017 were reasonable in assisting therapeutic support to Gary, and his continued restraints. However their was a lack of detailed information passed on during hand overs to the medical teams. This is evidenced by insufficient information recorded which omitted key factors, in relation to use of restraints/use of force and mechanism of injuries during Gary's arrest. We find that due to Gary's condition, He did not have the capacity to consent to treatment, therefore we find the treatment given to Gary in the circumstances was reasonable. We find the treatment administered to Gary was appropriate considering the balance of risk. This treatment included being admitted to ICU on the morning of the 18th July following sedation and a CT scan which showed up clear. Gary spent a period of 10 days in critical care, three of which were under Anaesthesia, whilst continually being assessed. During this time he received 9 doses of preventative anti-coagulant medication to help reduce any risk of blood clots forming. There was no aspect of care delivered that was not appropriate or necessary. However some communication during Gary's time at the Royal hospital between departments was lacking due to inconsistencies and omissions within reports and notes from the medical staff. In relation to the cause of death, we find this to be: 1a Pulmonary Thromboembolism (caused) 1b Deep Venous thrombosis 2 Ictal automatism due to temporal lobe epilepsy We find that the pulmonary Thromboembolism was causes at least in part, that is more than minimally, negligibly or trivially by the following: B. Injuries and bleeding sustained in a entering the back garden of . C: Restraint and baton strikes by the police in effecting his arrest and detention. D : Therapeutic support in critical care - including restraint, sedation, anaesthetic, ventilation, peripheral venous access, central venous line access ext. From the medical evidence from medical staff and experts theire is no direct link that Temporal lobe epilepsy causes the pulmonary Thromboembolism, however this was the catalyst that lead to the incident that occurred on the 18th of July 2017 and the subsequent chain of events. We find that Gary Williams was certified as having died at 18:50 on 28th July 2017 at his sisters home . given all the circumstances known at the time when intervention was possible we find that Gary Williams death was not preventable.” CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH As set out in the Narrative Conclusion above The cause of death being found as:
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Training for IPC professionals engineers and clinicians
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
Staff training and development
IPC role specifications and staffing levels
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
Staff training and development
Balancing vulnerability with professional curiosity
Southport Inquiry
Staff training and development
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.