What happened
Lynette Wallace, then 44, was 30 weeks pregnant when she was arrested in Nottingham in July 2011 on suspicion of arson. The charges were later dropped. She was taken to Bridewell police station, where she was assessed on arrival as being at risk of self-harming.
She was handcuffed behind her back for 11 hours. She was stripped of her clothing above the waist by male officers, and says she was refused the chance to arrange childcare for her children. When she was moved to another cell and refused to be handcuffed again, she says she was repeatedly punched on the upper arm. She gave birth prematurely 48 hours after her release.
The outcome
In 2013 an inspector and two custody sergeants were found guilty of gross misconduct for their part in her treatment, and were disciplined.
In February 2016 the Chief Constable, Chris Eyre, wrote to her. It was “inexcusable the use of handcuffs was not reviewed”, he said, and the “re-application of handcuffs amounted to an assault”. He accepted she had been caused “significant distress and an affront to her dignity”, and apologised. Damages were paid in settlement of her civil claim. The sum was not disclosed.
The IPCC passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service. The sources record no charging decision.
What went wrong
The Chief Constable’s own words do the work: the handcuffs went on and were not reviewed for eleven hours. Nobody asked whether a pregnant, compliant detainee needed mechanical restraint at all, and nobody looked again as the hours passed. When she refused the cuffs a second time, the answer was force rather than a review.
She had been assessed as at risk of self-harming. On any ordinary reading that makes the strip and the long restraint harder to justify, not easier.
The misconduct findings fell on an inspector and two custody sergeants, not on the officers in the cell. That places the failure in supervision, where the review should have happened.
The force has contested her account throughout. The Police Federation said the officers deny any assault or wrongdoing, and that no medical evidence links her time in custody to the early birth.
What it teaches
Handcuffs are a decision that has to be taken again and again, not once at the door of the van. A review log with times on it is the difference between restraint and an assault nobody noticed.
Pregnancy, distress and a self-harm risk are reasons to reduce restraint, not reasons to keep it on. A detainee who is compliant and unwell is the person least in need of cuffs and most in need of being seen.
Questions for the room
- Eleven hours in cuffs behind the back. Who was supposed to review that, and at what intervals?
- You are the custody sergeant at hour four. What is your decision, and what do you write in the log?
- The findings fell on an inspector and two sergeants, not on the officers at the cell. Where did the failure sit?
Evidence and limits
Confidence: confirmed, on the vault record and the case précis. The apology, the admission that re-application of handcuffs amounted to assault, and the misconduct findings are reported by BBC News. The fact of a damages settlement comes from her solicitors, Bhatt Murphy. The figure is undisclosed and is not estimated here.
Her account of being punched is her claim, and the Police Federation contests it. Her early birth is recorded in her account; no source establishes a medical link, and none is asserted. Her daughter is not named.
Our training on vulnerable and volatile people covers how to read a detainee’s presentation and when restraint should be reduced rather than maintained.
Sources
Reviewed 20 October 2026.