Gross misconduct hearing for PC Calum Powell continues

PC 1605 Calum Powell was giving evidence yesterday, Tuesday October 31, facing misconduct charges before a disciplinary panel at police headquarters in Cwmbran.

The previous day the hearing had heard he had breached the force's standards of professional behaviour in these categories: Authority, respect and courtesy; use of force; discreditable conduct.

The second day began with the panel rejecting a defence’s application that there was no case to answer.

Defence counsel Derek Parry then began by calling PC Powell as a witness.

Powell, who has been on the force seven years and recently passed training for the firearms unit, described how he and PC Marshall had received a call about a knife incident. They attended with the firearms unit who completed a stop and search, without finding anything.  

The hearing heard how the plaintiff Fathal Moshen had been arrested and placed in a caged van, with the day’s busy custody unit meaning that he was kept waiting outside to be brought into custody for an hour.

It was believed that the plaintiff’s demeanour was not consistent throughout the incident, ranging from calm to violent banging and threats, that although at first didn’t impact the officer, did become personal.

Powell explained that this meant he had been forced to an ongoing risk assessment to the threat of Moshen, who spent much of his time in the first holding cell spitting in his direction – he said this was a heightened risk to him due to some familial reasons.

The hearing heard how the suspect made numerous verbal threats towards both Powell and his colleague, resulting in them feeling that as a spitter, he was a major threat.

CCTV footage shown also revealed the suspect had drugs on him in holding and ingested these after spitting, which resulted in a toilet being denied, and the suspect then urinated on the floor.

The hearing heard how officers have to consider the level of harm to both themselves and the detainee, within which history and previous actions are considered.

Evidence was given that Moshen was moved into a second cell with a door open after Powell decided this was within his duty of care, but that he would wear a spit hood.

It was revealed that this discussion had been had between the officers but not with Moshen, however Powell said he had consistently engaged with him to get him to comply with the spit hood.

The officer described his focus on the “compassionate comfort” he provided to the suspect, by moving him into a cell with an open door after he complained of claustrophobia, while still minimising the personal risk.

The hearing heard that Powell felt Moshen still presented an ongoing major threat despite not spitting in the second cell, and that he was still resisting arrest due to “muscular tension” when the spit hood was put on, resulting in Powell’s knee strikes.

Powell said he felt his actions were justified, appropriate and necessary in the circumstances to bring the plaintiff under control, which stopped when Moshen complied.

An expert in use of force by police gave evidence based on the report he had provided. He explained how a number of force techniques, such as the arm raise and knee strikes used, are taught for such situations.  

Evidence was given that the force was necessary given the continued assessment of the threat posed, as the plaintiff didn’t relax his muscle tension despite at one point agreeing to comply.

The expert believed Powell had made the most appropriate choices given the circumstances and had taken his duty of care to Moshen seriously, including getting him to the floor to put the spit hood on, as this would have been best due to the alleged breathing issues.

The prosecution cross-examined both witnesses, focusing on Moshen’s verbal compliance and lack of spitting or physical violence once in the second cell as reasons for the actions being disproportionate.

The panel adjourned to review the facts with the outcome expected later today, Wednesday, November 1.