Investigation finds no indication of misconduct for officers in Taser incident

Oladeji Omishore, 41, died on June 4, 2022, after he fell into the River Thames following his interaction with the two officers.

A jury at an inquest, which concluded on Monday (March 24) at the Inner West London Coroner’s Court, returned a narrative conclusion, stating that Mr Omishore was suffering a mental health relapse, which impacted his decisions and actions and while he was seen running away from police, it cannot be concluded that the actions of the officers probably caused his death.

Mr Omishore’s cause of death was due to complications from drowning.

A 12-month investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) examined whether police actions caused or contributed to Mr Omishore’s death, as well as several allegations that were made in a complaint by Mr Omishore’s family.

These included that the officers behaved in a discriminatory manner, used unnecessary and unreasonable force, and complaints about the wording used in a statement released by the MPS on the day of the incident.

The two MPS officers were responding to the incident on Chelsea Bridge after seven 999 calls were made by members of the public with concerns about a man, who was reported to be holding a screwdriver or knife in the middle of the road on the bridge and shouting.

“We later established that Mr Omishore was actually holding a long-nosed metal and plastic lighter,” the IOPC said.

Police body-worn video captured Mr Omishore being Tasered multiple times by one of the officers for a total of eight and a half seconds.

The first time was when he was asked to drop the object he was carrying but did not and moved towards an officer, the second when he was asked to put his hands on the floor but continued to move towards the same officer and the third was when he attempted to get up from the ground, the IOPC said.

An officer discharged their Taser a fourth time when Mr Omishore ran towards the barrier on the bridge separating the road and footpath, however this appeared to have no effect, and a fifth time when he was jumping over the bridge railings, but this did not connect. Mr Omishore then jumped over the railing and fell into the water.

“The period from the officers’ arrival to when Mr Omishore entered the river was approximately 68 seconds,” the IOPC said.

“He was rescued by members of the Royal National Lifeguard Institute, assisted by Met marine officers, and taken to hospital where sadly he died later that evening.

“We found no indication that either officer may have behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings or had committed a criminal offence relating to their actions at the scene.”

It added: “During our investigation the officers both stated that they believed the incident may have been a terrorist attack, because it happened during the Queen’s Jubilee weekend and when there was a heightened terror alert.

“We found that this was not unreasonable view for the officers to have thought that or to have believed that Mr Omishore was in possession of a knife or screwdriver, given the reports from the public and the shape and size of the object he was holding. They also considered that Mr Omishore may be having a mental health crisis.”

IOPC Director Amanda Rowe said: “Firstly, I want to reiterate our sincere condolences to the Omishore family. This was a terrible tragedy and we have ensured that they have remained updated about our investigation.

“Officers are allowed to use force when they honestly believe it is necessary to defend themselves or others.

“This was a fast-paced and distressing incident for the officers and we found the evidence suggested that the officers honestly and reasonably believed Mr Omishore was in possession of a weapon.

“Police have a duty to protect the public from harm and the officers saw several members of the public fleeing the area as they arrived. Mr Omishore’s behaviour was unpredictable and we found that the evidence did not indicate that the decision of one of the officers to Taser him, in order to detain him, was unnecessary or disproportionate in the circumstances.

“It’s impossible to know whether Mr Omishore would have jumped into the Thames if the officers’ had not attempted to detain him using the Taser, although had they succeeded in detaining him, he could not have done so.”

The IOPC also considered whether there was evidence to indicate that he may have been discriminated against because of his race or mental health. It found that the officers’ assessment of the risk posed to the public and themselves appeared to be based on non-discriminatory reasons.

“We did, however, find that the Met should not have said in their initial media statement on June 4, 2022, that officers Tasered Mr Omishore to ‘safely detain him’, as the intent of the officers would form part of our independent investigation,” it said.

The IOPC also decided to “separately investigate” the two officers for failing to cooperate appropriately as witnesses after they refused to answer any questions during face-to-face witness interviews held on November 23 and 25, 2022.

It said: “The officers provided self-written statements to the IOPC on December 13, 2022, however, these did not answer all of the questions asked during the interview.

“We decided that while both officers had a case to answer for breaching the police standard of professional behaviour relating to duties and responsibilities for failing to cooperate appropriately during witness interviews, it was not serious enough to justify disciplinary proceedings.”

The IOPC said it took into account the following:

• The impact of the incident on the officers, which received significant media attention;
• The officers acting on “misguided advice” provided by their Police Federation representatives regarding the witness interviews; and
• Some level of cooperation shown as the officers provided written statements shortly after their interviews.

Ms Rowe said: “By law, police officers have a responsibility to cooperate appropriately during investigations and participate openly and professionally when identified as a witness.

“Following advice from their federation representatives, these officers simply refused to answer any questions that would assist the investigation, despite being reminded of their obligations under the police standards of professional behaviour to give appropriate cooperation as police witnesses in investigations.

“While we did not find that the officers should face disciplinary proceedings, we recommended to the Met that both officers should be subject to practice requiring improvement, via the reflective practice review process, regarding their lack of cooperation during witness interviews.”