Police Custody in England and Wales

What is Police Custody?

Police custody is the detention of a person at a police station following arrest. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and its associated Codes of Practice (particularly Code C) provide the statutory framework for detention, setting out time limits, rights, conditions, and review procedures.

The purpose of detention is to secure and preserve evidence and to obtain evidence by questioning. Detention is only lawful if these purposes cannot be achieved without it. The police powers to detain are subject to strict limits and continuous review.

Custody suites are designated areas within police stations that are purpose-built or adapted for the detention of suspects. They typically contain individual cells, a booking-in desk (the custody desk), consultation rooms for solicitors, and medical examination rooms. Not every police station has a custody suite: forces concentrate custody facilities in larger stations where a dedicated custody officer and healthcare professionals can be present at all times.

The decision to detain is not automatic on arrest. Under section 37 of PACE 1984, the custody officer must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge. If there is, the person should be charged and either bailed or remanded. If there is not, the custody officer must decide whether detention without charge is necessary to secure, preserve, or obtain evidence by questioning. If detention is not necessary, the person must be released.

History of Police Custody

Before PACE 1984, police detention was governed by a patchwork of common law powers, local regulations, and administrative guidance. The principal framework was the Judges' Rules: a set of non-statutory guidelines first issued in 1912 and revised in 1964. The Judges' Rules set out principles for the questioning of suspects and the admissibility of confessions, but they had no force of law. Breach of the Rules did not automatically render evidence inadmissible: it was a matter for the trial judge's discretion.

The Judges' Rules required that a person be cautioned before questioning if an officer had reasonable grounds to suspect them of an offence. They also provided that a person should not be detained longer than was reasonably necessary and should be allowed to communicate with friends and legal advisers. In practice, however, these safeguards were inconsistently applied. There was no statutory time limit on pre-charge detention, no mandatory right of access to a solicitor, and no requirement for contemporaneous recording of interviews.

Concern about wrongful convictions and police malpractice led to the establishment of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in 1978, chaired by Sir Cyril Philips. The Commission reported in January 1981 (Cmnd 8092) and recommended a comprehensive statutory framework for police powers and suspects' rights. The Commission concluded that a proper balance was needed between the powers of the police to investigate crime and the rights of suspects to fair treatment. It specifically recommended statutory time limits on detention, a right of access to legal advice, contemporaneous recording of interviews, and an independent complaints system.

The Commission's report led directly to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which received Royal Assent on 31 October 1984 and came into force on 1 January 1986. PACE represented a watershed in English criminal procedure. For the first time, police powers of stop and search, arrest, detention, and investigation were placed on a comprehensive statutory footing. Equally important, the Act created a corresponding set of rights and safeguards for suspects, enforceable through the Codes of Practice and the exclusionary rules in sections 76 and 78.

PACE has been amended many times since 1984. Significant changes include the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (which replaced the old arrestable/non-arrestable offence distinction with a single power of arrest under section 24), the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which modified bail provisions), and the Policing and Crime Act 2017 (which introduced pre-charge bail time limits). The Codes of Practice (A through H) have been revised repeatedly, most recently in 2023. Despite these amendments, the fundamental architecture of PACE remains: a balance between investigative powers and individual rights, overseen by the custody officer as an independent safeguard.

The Custody Officer

The custody officer is a police officer of at least the rank of sergeant who is responsible for the welfare and treatment of all detained persons at the station. Under section 36 of PACE 1984, the custody officer must be appointed for each designated police station and must not be involved in the investigation of the offence for which the person is detained.

The custody officer's duties include: opening and maintaining a custody record for each detained person, informing the person of their rights (both orally and in writing), authorising detention (or releasing the person if there are no grounds), ensuring detention conditions comply with PACE Code C, and reviewing whether continued detention remains necessary.

The independence of the custody officer from the investigation is a critical safeguard. The officer conducting the investigation may wish to detain a suspect for as long as possible to gather evidence, but the custody officer's duty is to the welfare and rights of the detainee. If the custody officer is not satisfied that the grounds for continued detention are met, the person must be released. In practice, this creates a structural tension that is designed to prevent unjustified detention.

The custody officer must also make an initial assessment of the detainee's fitness to be detained and interviewed. This includes asking about physical and mental health conditions, medication requirements, and any other vulnerabilities. If the custody officer has any doubt about the person's fitness, a healthcare professional must be called. The custody officer is personally responsible for the safety of every person in their custody: a duty that extends to preventing self-harm, ensuring adequate supervision, and authorising medical attention without delay.

The Custody Record

The custody record is the central document of any period of police detention. It is a contemporaneous log of everything that happens from the moment a person arrives at the custody suite to the moment they leave. Under PACE Code C, the custody officer must open a custody record for every person who is detained, and it must be maintained throughout the period of detention.

The custody record contains the following information:

1. Grounds for arrest and detention: the offence(s) for which the person was arrested, the arresting officer's details, and the custody officer's reasons for authorising detention.
2. Times: the time of arrival at the station (the "relevant time" from which the detention clock runs), the time rights were communicated, the time of each review, the time of each interview, and the time of release or charge.
3. Rights and entitlements: whether the person requested a solicitor, whether a solicitor attended and at what time, whether someone was informed of the arrest, and whether an appropriate adult was called.
4. Meals and refreshments: the time and nature of all food and drink offered and consumed. Code C requires at least two light meals and one main meal in any 24-hour period.
5. Medical attention: any requests for medical assistance, the time a healthcare professional attended, any medication administered, and any fitness-to-detain or fitness-to-interview assessments.
6. Searches: details of any search conducted (ordinary, strip, or intimate), the reason for the search, the officer conducting it, and any items seized.
7. Interviews: the time each interview began and ended, the officers present, whether a solicitor and/or appropriate adult was present, and any breaks taken.
8. Use of force: any use of force or restraint, with reasons and details.
9. Cell checks: the time and result of each welfare check (typically every 30 minutes for a sleeping detainee, or more frequently if a risk assessment indicates).

The custody record is a critical piece of evidence in any subsequent criminal proceedings. Defence solicitors routinely request a copy to check whether detention was lawful, whether rights were properly communicated, whether interview procedures were followed, and whether the detainee was treated in accordance with the Codes of Practice. Under PACE Code C paragraph 2.4A, a person is entitled to a copy of their custody record on request, made within 12 months of leaving police detention. Solicitors acting on behalf of a detainee may also request a copy at any time.

Most forces now use electronic custody record systems (such as NICHE or Athena), which automatically log timestamps and prompt custody officers to complete mandatory fields. These systems have improved the completeness and accuracy of custody records, but the fundamental requirement remains the same: the record must be contemporaneous, accurate, and comprehensive.

Custody records are retained by the police for a minimum period determined by the Management of Police Information (MoPI) guidelines and local force policies. For persons who are charged and convicted, records may be retained for a period linked to the sentence. For persons who are released without charge, records are typically retained for six years, although this varies between forces.

Rights in Custody

A person detained at a police station has the following rights under PACE 1984 and Code C:

1. Right to have someone informed (s.56): You may have one person informed of your arrest and whereabouts. This may be delayed for up to 36 hours for indictable offences if authorised by a superintendent, but only where there are reasonable grounds to believe that informing the named person would lead to interference with evidence, harm to others, alerting of suspects, or hindrance of the recovery of property.
2. Right to legal advice (s.58): You may consult privately with a solicitor at any time, free of charge. The duty solicitor scheme ensures access to legal advice 24 hours a day. Delay of access is permitted only in limited circumstances for indictable offences, and only with the authorisation of a superintendent. The European Court of Human Rights in Salduz v Turkey (2008) confirmed that access to a lawyer from the first police interrogation is a fundamental requirement of Article 6 ECHR.
3. Right to consult PACE Codes of Practice: A copy must be available in the custody area. The detainee may read the relevant Code at any time during their detention.
4. Right to be told the reason for detention: The custody officer must explain why you are being held. This must be communicated in terms the person can understand.
5. Right to adequate conditions: Food, drink, access to toilet facilities, and a cell that is adequately heated, cleaned, and ventilated. Blankets and a mattress must be provided. The cell must be of adequate size.
6. Right to medical attention: If you are ill, injured, or require medication, you must receive appropriate medical attention without delay. This includes access to a healthcare professional (usually a forensic medical examiner or custody nurse) and, where necessary, transfer to hospital.
7. Right to an interpreter: If the detainee does not speak English, or speaks it insufficiently, an interpreter must be provided. The same applies to a person who is deaf or has a hearing impairment: a sign language interpreter must be arranged.
8. Right to communicate with the embassy or consulate: A foreign national has the right to communicate with their embassy or consulate, and to have the embassy informed of their detention. For nationals of certain countries, the police are required to notify the embassy automatically under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963.

These rights must be communicated in writing (the "Notice of Rights and Entitlements") and are available in multiple languages. The Notice is typically a printed card or leaflet given to the detainee at the custody desk. For the full text of PACE 1984 and the Codes of Practice, free access is available online.

A detainee who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs may not be able to understand their rights at the time they are communicated. In such cases, the custody officer must repeat the information when the person is sufficiently sober or alert to understand it. The fact that the person was not in a fit state does not excuse the failure to communicate rights: it simply means the communication must be repeated.

Detention Time Limits

The detention clock starts when the person arrives at the first police station after arrest (the "relevant time"). Under section 41 of PACE 1984, the relevant time is calculated from the moment of arrival, not from the time of arrest. If a person is arrested at 2:00 PM and arrives at the station at 2:45 PM, the detention clock starts at 2:45 PM.

Extensions beyond 24 hours require written authorisation by a superintendent who must be satisfied that detention is necessary to secure, preserve, or obtain evidence, that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, and that the offence is an indictable offence. The superintendent must make a written record of the grounds for authorisation.

Extensions beyond 36 hours require a warrant from a magistrates' court. The application must be made on oath by a constable, and the detained person must be brought before the court and given the opportunity to be legally represented. The court must be satisfied that further detention is justified, that the investigation is being conducted diligently and expeditiously, and that the offence is indictable. A warrant of further detention may authorise detention for up to 36 additional hours (72 hours total). A further application may extend this to 96 hours.

For terrorism offences, the regime is different. Under Schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the initial period of detention is 48 hours, after which a judicial authority (a District Judge designated by the Lord Chancellor) may extend detention in increments up to a maximum of 14 days. The original maximum was 28 days, reduced to 14 days by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The detained person has the right to be represented at the hearing and to make representations against the extension.

Pre-charge bail was reformed by the Policing and Crime Act 2017. Before this Act, suspects could be released on bail for months or even years without being charged. The 2017 Act introduced time limits on pre-charge bail: an initial period of 28 days, extendable by a superintendent to 3 months, and beyond that requiring a magistrates' court order. If bail expires without a charging decision, the suspect is released without bail conditions (released under investigation). These provisions were designed to address the problem of suspects being left on bail indefinitely.

Custody Reviews

Under section 40 of PACE 1984, continued detention must be reviewed at regular intervals by a review officer (an inspector or above who is not directly involved in the investigation):

First review: no later than 6 hours after detention was first authorised.
Subsequent reviews: at intervals of not more than 9 hours.
The review officer must be satisfied that detention remains necessary. If not, the person must be released.

The review officer may conduct the review in person or, where it is not practicable to do so, by telephone or video link. However, certain reviews (particularly those involving vulnerable detainees or where the person makes representations) should wherever possible be conducted in person. The review officer must give the detained person (and their solicitor, if one has been instructed) the opportunity to make representations about whether continued detention is justified.

If the review officer is not satisfied that continued detention is necessary to secure, preserve, or obtain evidence, the person must be released. The review officer must record the outcome of each review in the custody record, including the grounds for any decision to continue detention. A failure to conduct timely reviews does not automatically make the detention unlawful, but it may render evidence obtained during the unauthorised period inadmissible under section 78 of PACE.

Interviews Under Caution

The police interview is the central investigative tool during custody. An interview is defined by PACE Code C as any questioning of a person regarding their involvement or suspected involvement in a criminal offence, where the answers may be given in evidence. All such interviews must be conducted under caution.

The Caution

The wording of the caution is prescribed by PACE Code C, paragraph 10.5:

The caution has three elements. The first ("you do not have to say anything") preserves the right to silence. The second ("it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court") warns that a court may draw adverse inferences from silence under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The third ("anything you do say may be given in evidence") warns that answers will be recorded and may be used at trial.

The Right to Silence and Adverse Inferences

The right to silence is a longstanding principle of English common law. However, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPOA) significantly modified this right by permitting courts and juries to draw adverse inferences from a suspect's silence in certain circumstances:

1. Section 34: Where a person fails to mention, when questioned under caution, a fact which they later rely on in their defence, the court may draw such inferences as appear proper. This is the most commonly invoked provision. If a defendant raises an alibi at trial that they did not mention during interview, the jury may infer that the alibi was fabricated after the event.
2. Section 35: Where the accused fails to give evidence at trial, the court may draw adverse inferences. This applies at the trial stage, not during the police interview.
3. Section 36: Where a person fails to account for objects, substances, or marks found on their person or clothing, adverse inferences may be drawn.
4. Section 37: Where a person fails to account for their presence at a particular place, adverse inferences may be drawn.

The adverse inference provisions are subject to important safeguards. A conviction cannot be based solely on adverse inferences: there must be a case to answer before inferences can be drawn (R v Cowan [1996] 1 Cr App R 1). A person who has not been given the opportunity to consult a solicitor before interview cannot have adverse inferences drawn from their silence (Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29). The legal advice to remain silent is itself a factor the court must consider, although it does not automatically prevent inferences being drawn (R v Beckles [2005] 1 WLR 2829).

Recording Requirements

PACE Code E requires that interviews with suspects at police stations are audio-recorded. Code F provides for visual recording (video) of interviews, which is now standard practice in most forces. The recording must capture the entire interview, including the caution, the opening and closing of the interview, any breaks, and any representations by the solicitor. The suspect must be informed that the interview is being recorded.

A written record or summary of the interview must also be prepared. The suspect has the right to read and sign the record. If the suspect disagrees with any part of the record, they may indicate the nature of their disagreement, and this must be noted.

Interview conditions are regulated by Code C. Interviews must take place in adequately heated, lit, and ventilated rooms. Breaks for meals must be provided at recognised meal times, and short refreshment breaks must be given at approximately two-hour intervals. No interviewing officer may attempt to obtain answers or statements by the use of oppression or any other improper method. If at any point a person makes a complaint about their treatment during interview, the interviewing officer must inform the custody officer.

Identification Procedures

PACE Code D governs the identification of suspects by witnesses. Identification evidence is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence, and the Codes impose strict procedures to minimise the risk of misidentification. The landmark case of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 established guidelines for the judicial assessment of identification evidence, and PACE Code D builds on these principles with detailed procedural requirements.

Video Identification (VIPER)

The preferred identification method is video identification, commonly known as VIPER (Video Identification Parade Electronic Recording). The witness views a set of moving images: the suspect and at least eight other individuals who resemble the suspect in age, general appearance, and position in life. The images are shown one at a time, and the witness is asked whether any of the individuals is the person they saw. The witness must not be told which image is the suspect, and no officer involved in the investigation should be present during the viewing.

VIPER has largely replaced live identity parades because it is easier to arrange, less intimidating for witnesses, and can be conducted more quickly. The images are drawn from a database of volunteers, making it straightforward to find appropriate foils who match the suspect's description.

Other Methods

Identity parade (live): The suspect stands in a line with at least eight other people of similar appearance. The witness views the line and is asked to identify the person they saw. The suspect may choose their position in the line. A solicitor or appropriate adult may be present. Live parades are now rarely used but remain available under Code D.

Group identification: The witness observes the suspect in an informal group of people (for example, in a public area). The suspect must consent, and the identification officer must ensure the procedure is conducted fairly. This method may be used where the suspect refuses to cooperate with a video identification or identity parade.

Confrontation: A direct face-to-face confrontation between the witness and the suspect. This is the method of last resort and may only be used where the other methods are not practicable. Code D requires that an officer not involved in the investigation is present.

Fingerprints, Photographs, and DNA

Under section 61 of PACE 1984 (as amended), fingerprints may be taken from a detained person without consent if authorised by an inspector, or if the person has been charged with or convicted of a recordable offence. Fingerprints taken during an investigation are searched against the national database (IDENT1).

Under section 63 of PACE 1984, a non-intimate DNA sample (typically a mouth swab) may be taken from a detained person without consent if they are detained in connection with a recordable offence. Intimate samples (such as blood or urine) require written consent and authorisation by a superintendent, and must be taken by a healthcare professional.

The retention of fingerprints and DNA is governed by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. For persons convicted of a recordable offence, biometric data may be retained indefinitely. For persons arrested but not convicted, the data must generally be destroyed, although there are exceptions for serious offences (retention for up to three years with the possibility of extension by a District Judge). The regime was introduced following the European Court of Human Rights judgment in S and Marper v United Kingdom (2008), which held that the blanket retention of innocent persons' DNA violated Article 8 ECHR.

Photographs may be taken of a detained person under section 64A of PACE 1984 without consent if the person is detained at a police station, has been arrested, or has been charged. Photographs are retained in accordance with force retention policies and MoPI guidelines.

The Appropriate Adult

An appropriate adult must attend the police station to support certain categories of vulnerable detainee. Under PACE Code C, an appropriate adult is required for:

Juveniles (under 18): The appropriate adult is usually a parent, guardian, or social worker. If a parent cannot attend, a local authority social worker should be contacted. The appropriate adult must be present when rights are communicated, during interviews, during intimate or strip searches, and when the juvenile is charged. A juvenile must not be placed in a cell unless no other secure accommodation is available, and even then must not be placed in a cell with an adult detainee.

Vulnerable adults: A person who has a mental health condition, mental disorder, or learning disability may require an appropriate adult. The custody officer should assess vulnerability at booking-in using the questions set out in Code C, Annex E. If there is any doubt, an appropriate adult should be called: the threshold for requesting one is deliberately low.

The appropriate adult's role is to advise, observe, and facilitate communication. They are not a passive observer: they may intervene if the interview is conducted unfairly, if questions are confusing or oppressive, or if the detainee appears not to understand what is happening. They are not a legal representative (the detainee should also have a solicitor). The appropriate adult should be informed of their role and given an explanation of what is expected of them.

The appropriate adult may be a parent, guardian, social worker, or any responsible adult aged 18 or over who is not a police officer or employed by the police. A solicitor acting in a professional capacity for the detainee cannot act as appropriate adult. A person who has received admissions from the suspect in their capacity as appropriate adult cannot subsequently be called as a witness to those admissions in their personal capacity.

Vulnerable Suspects

The treatment of vulnerable suspects in police custody is one of the most scrutinised areas of policing practice. Vulnerability in this context covers a wide range of conditions and circumstances, and the law imposes specific duties to ensure that vulnerable individuals are treated fairly and safely.

Mental Health

A person who appears to be suffering from a mental health condition must be assessed by a healthcare professional as soon as practicable. Under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2017), a police officer may detain a person who appears to be suffering from a mental disorder in a place of safety for assessment. Since 2017, a police station may only be used as a place of safety for adults in exceptional circumstances (and never for under-18s). The preferred place of safety is a healthcare setting such as a mental health suite.

If a person already in custody appears to deteriorate mentally, the custody officer must arrange for immediate medical assessment. The healthcare professional (typically a forensic medical examiner, custody nurse, or mental health liaison practitioner) will assess whether the person is fit to be detained and fit to be interviewed. If the person is not fit to be detained, they must be transferred to hospital. If the person is not fit to be interviewed, the interview must be postponed until they are assessed as fit.

Learning Disabilities and Autism

A person with a learning disability or autism spectrum condition may have difficulty understanding their rights, the caution, or the questions put to them during interview. An appropriate adult must be present throughout the custody process. The interviewing officer should use simple, short questions and avoid leading questions, double negatives, and hypothetical scenarios. The healthcare professional should advise on the person's communication needs, and an intermediary may be arranged if the person has significant communication difficulties.

The concept of "mental vulnerability" in Code C is deliberately broad. It includes mental health conditions, learning disabilities, autism, acquired brain injury, dementia, and any other condition that might affect the person's ability to understand the proceedings or communicate effectively. The custody officer is not expected to make a clinical diagnosis: the test is whether there is any reason to suspect that the person may be vulnerable.

Communication Difficulties

Detainees who do not speak English, who have hearing or speech impairments, or who have literacy difficulties are entitled to the assistance of an interpreter. Under Code C, paragraph 13, an interpreter must be provided for any interview where the detainee does not speak sufficient English to understand questions and communicate answers. The interpreter must be independent (not a police officer or other interested party) and must be registered with an appropriate professional body.

For deaf or hearing-impaired detainees, a British Sign Language interpreter or other appropriate communication support must be arranged. The detainee's rights must be communicated through the interpreter, and the interpreter must be present during all interviews and when the charge is read.

Healthcare Professionals in Custody

All custody suites must have access to healthcare professionals, either on-site or on-call. The traditional model of the "police surgeon" (forensic medical examiner) has been supplemented in many forces by custody nurses and mental health liaison practitioners. Healthcare professionals in custody perform fitness-to-detain and fitness-to-interview assessments, administer or supervise medication, treat injuries, and advise the custody officer on medical risks.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has published guidelines on the healthcare of children and young people in police custody. Detainees who are taking prescribed medication (including methadone and other opioid substitution therapy) must have their medication provided or a suitable alternative arranged. Failure to provide necessary medication can amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR.

Liaison and Diversion Services

NHS England commissions liaison and diversion services in police custody suites across England. These services provide early identification and assessment of people with mental health conditions, learning disabilities, substance misuse problems, or other vulnerabilities. Where appropriate, they arrange diversion from the criminal justice system to health or social care services. The aim is to ensure that people whose offending behaviour is driven by untreated health conditions receive treatment rather than prosecution where this is appropriate and proportionate.

Conditions and Searches

PACE Code C sets minimum standards for custody conditions: cells must be adequately heated, cleaned, and ventilated; bedding must be provided; at least two light meals and one main meal must be offered in any 24-hour period; and the detainee must have access to toilet and washing facilities. Cells must be of adequate size: a single-occupancy cell must be at least 6.5 square metres. Detainees must be allowed a period of at least 8 continuous hours for rest in any 24-hour period, free from questioning, travel, or other interruptions.

Ordinary search: The custody officer may search a detained person under section 54 of PACE 1984 to ascertain what items the person has on them. This includes removing outer clothing (coat, jacket, gloves, shoes) but not clothing worn next to the skin.

Strip search: A strip search (removal of more than outer clothing) requires reasonable grounds to believe the person is concealing an item that could be used to cause physical injury, damage property, interfere with evidence, or assist escape. A strip search must be conducted by an officer of the same sex as the detainee, in a private area out of sight of anyone who does not need to be present, and with regard for the dignity of the person. An appropriate adult must be present if the detainee is a juvenile or vulnerable adult, although the detainee may request that the appropriate adult not be present during the search (and this request should be respected if the appropriate adult agrees).

Intimate search: An intimate search (body orifices) requires authorisation by an officer of at least the rank of inspector (under section 55 of PACE 1984, as amended by SOCPA 2005) and, in most cases, must be conducted by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse. An intimate search may only be authorised where an inspector has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has concealed an item that could cause physical injury (a Class A drug, a weapon, or an item that could be used to assist escape). If the search is for a Class A drug, it must be conducted by a healthcare professional.

Release options: Release options include: unconditional release, release on bail (police bail with or without conditions), release under investigation (RUI, no bail conditions but investigation continues), or charge (with or without bail to court). Since the Policing and Crime Act 2017, pre-charge bail is subject to time limits (initially 28 days, extendable with authorisation). Release under investigation has become more common as a result: the suspect is not on bail but remains under investigation with no conditions attached.

Deaths in Custody

A death in police custody, or a death following police contact, is one of the most serious events in policing. Every such death triggers a mandatory independent investigation, a coroner's inquest, and in many cases scrutiny under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Statistics

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) publishes annual statistics on deaths during or following police contact. In the year 2022/23, there were 15 deaths in or following police custody in England and Wales. Over the previous decade, the annual figure has ranged between 11 and 23. The most common causes of death are medical events (particularly drug or alcohol-related), self-inflicted injury, and restraint-related incidents. The IOPC's annual report, "Deaths during or following police contact," provides a detailed breakdown by cause, demographic characteristics, and police force area.

IOPC Investigation

Under the Police Reform Act 2002, every death in police custody or following police contact must be referred to the IOPC (formerly the Independent Police Complaints Commission, IPCC). The IOPC decides whether to conduct an independent investigation, a managed investigation (conducted by the force under IOPC direction), or a supervised investigation. For deaths in custody, the IOPC almost always conducts a fully independent investigation.

The IOPC investigation examines the circumstances of the death, the actions and decisions of the officers involved, and whether any officer may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner justifying disciplinary proceedings. The investigation report is provided to the coroner and may be provided to the Crown Prosecution Service if criminal charges are considered.

Article 2 ECHR: The Right to Life

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights imposes a positive obligation on the state to protect life. Where a person dies in the custody of state agents, Article 2 requires an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This obligation was established by the European Court of Human Rights in Jordan v United Kingdom (2001) and has been applied in numerous subsequent cases involving deaths in police custody.

The Article 2 investigative obligation requires that the investigation is independent (not conducted by the same force or officers involved), effective (capable of determining whether force used was justified), prompt (commenced without unreasonable delay), and subject to public scrutiny. The obligation applies whether the death was caused by the use of force, by a failure to provide medical treatment, or by a failure to prevent self-harm.

Inquests

Under section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a coroner must hold an inquest where the deceased died a violent or unnatural death, where the cause of death is unknown, or where the death occurred in state detention. All deaths in police custody fall within this obligation. The inquest must be held with a jury where the death occurred in custody (section 7 of the 2009 Act).

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R (Maughan) v Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46, the standard of proof for inquest conclusions (including unlawful killing) is the civil standard: the balance of probabilities. Previously, the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) applied to conclusions of unlawful killing. This change has made it easier for inquests to reach a conclusion of unlawful killing in appropriate cases.

The family of the deceased has the right to be represented at the inquest, to examine witnesses, and to make submissions on the conclusion. Legal aid is available for representation at Article 2 inquests through the Exceptional Case Funding scheme administered by the Legal Aid Agency, although securing funding can be difficult in practice. Organisations such as INQUEST (the charity for bereaved families) provide support and advocacy.

Restraint-Related Deaths

A particular area of concern is deaths following the use of restraint. The restraint techniques used by police officers include handcuffing, limb restraints, prone restraint (holding a person face-down), TASER, and irritant spray. The use of prone restraint has been the subject of extensive criticism because of the risk of positional asphyxia: where the position of a person's body restricts their ability to breathe. IOPC investigations have repeatedly highlighted the risks of prolonged prone restraint, particularly where the detainee is intoxicated, obese, or in a state of acute behavioural disturbance.

The College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice on the use of force requires that officers monitor the breathing and consciousness of any person who is restrained, particularly in the prone position, and that prone restraint be ended as soon as practicable. Despite these guidelines, restraint-related deaths continue to occur, and they are disproportionately associated with Black and ethnic minority detainees: a pattern highlighted by the IOPC and by independent reviews.

Custody Visiting

Independent oversight of police custody is maintained through a system of unannounced visits by trained volunteers, complemented by formal inspections from national bodies.

Independent Custody Visitors (ICVs)

Independent Custody Visitors are volunteers appointed by Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) under section 51 of the Police Reform Act 2002. They have the right to visit any custody suite in their area at any time, without prior notice. Visits typically take place in pairs, and the visitors speak to detainees (with their consent), check the custody record, inspect conditions (including cells, food, medical facilities, and exercise areas), and report their findings to the PCC.

ICVs do not investigate individual complaints. Their role is preventive: by maintaining a visible presence and reporting on conditions, they help to ensure that custody suites meet the required standards. Their reports are published by the PCC and are used to identify patterns of concern across the force area. There are approximately 2,000 ICVs operating across England and Wales.

OPCAT National Preventive Mechanism

The United Kingdom ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) in 2003. Under OPCAT, each state must designate a National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) to carry out regular visits to places of detention. The UK's NPM is not a single body but a group of 21 organisations, including His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), His Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), and the Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA). Each body inspects a different category of detention facility.

HMICFRS Inspections

HMICFRS conducts unannounced inspections of police custody suites as part of its programme of police effectiveness, efficiency, and legitimacy (PEEL) inspections. These inspections are detailed and cover: the treatment of detainees, the conditions of custody suites, the effectiveness of custody officers, access to healthcare, the treatment of vulnerable detainees, and compliance with PACE and the Codes of Practice. Inspection reports are published and graded (outstanding, good, adequate, requires improvement, inadequate).

HMICFRS has the power to make recommendations but not to enforce them. However, forces are expected to produce an action plan in response to inspection findings, and progress is monitored. Where serious concerns are identified, HMICFRS may escalate the matter to the Home Secretary or publish a special report.

In addition to HMICFRS, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspects healthcare provision in police custody in England. The CQC assesses whether healthcare services are safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led. Joint inspections (HMICFRS and CQC together) provide a comprehensive picture of custody conditions and healthcare standards.

Key Legislation

The following table sets out the principal legislation governing police custody in England and Wales: