What happened
Habib Ullah, 39, was a father of three. On 3 July 2008 he was stopped and searched by police in the Sharrow Vale area of High Wycombe, in a car park.
In the course of being forcibly restrained by several officers, in the prone position, he suffered a cardiac arrest. He was taken to hospital, where attempts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful.
The outcome
On 2 March 2015 an inquest jury returned a misadventure and narrative conclusion that was highly critical of the level of force used and of the aftercare.
The jury found that officers could have dealt with him without force at all: by speaking to him, using specific, clear and repeated commands of the kind their training set out for gaining compliance without physical intervention, and allowing him time to respond. Stand back, monitor, and consider handcuffing later. Once force was decided on, they could have used a rear take-down.
It was particularly concerned that several officers applied techniques simultaneously while he was prone.
No charges were brought. The Crown Prosecution Service announced on 8 August 2014 that none would follow against the Thames Valley officers, and a review reached the same conclusion on 3 December 2014.
What went wrong
He was dying, and the officers read him as refusing.
Several of them recognised signs associated with abnormal breathing. No practical assistance was offered, no CPR was given before the ambulance arrived, and he was not placed in the recovery position.
The jury found that valuable time was lost because officers believed he was feigning unconsciousness, and that once he was unconscious the monitoring was inadequate. It said greater consideration should have been given to positional asphyxia risk factors and to watching for the warning signs. The incident was poorly managed, and the lack of communication and clear command from a leading officer produced an uncoordinated and ineffective restraint.
What it teaches
“Believed him to be feigning unconsciousness” is the sentence to teach. It is the moment a dying man is treated as a non-compliant one.
The jury’s alternative route matters as much. This was not a case where the officers had no lawful option. It was a case where the option they had been trained in, talking and waiting, was not used before hands went on. Training that exists and is not reached for is not a defence.
Coordination is a safety measure. Several officers applying technique at once, with no lead, is how a prone restraint becomes an asphyxiation.
Questions for the room
- Several officers saw the abnormal breathing. What would each of them have had to believe to do nothing?
- You are the lead officer at a stop and search and the man will not comply. What does the training on non-physical compliance actually require you to do before hands go on?
- The inquest was delayed for years, and the first jury was discharged after statements were altered. What does that do to a family, and who is accountable for it?
Evidence and limits
Confidence: probable. Both sources are INQUEST publications: the release on this inquest conclusion, and a later release that summarises the case. Neither is independent of the other, so a second independent publisher should be added before this page is relied on externally.
The inquest that concluded was the second. An earlier one began in December 2010 and its jury was discharged after officers admitted removing key passages from their statements. The Independent Police Complaints Commission first cleared the police. A further investigation interviewed five officers under criminal caution and referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.
No officer is named, and no finding is made about any individual.
Our [physical intervention training](/training-solutions/physical-interventions) covers the point where a person who is not complying is also a person who is not breathing.
Sources
Reviewed 20 October 2026.