Sprayed and restrained in hospital, then a medically-induced coma

A man already detained under the Mental Health Act was restrained by police at a north London hospital, lost consciousness and spent six weeks in hospital.

What happened

On 3 April 2023 Metropolitan Police officers responded to reports of a man behaving erratically and setting fire to his clothes on Euston Road in north London. He was in his mid-fifties. Officers detained him under the Mental Health Act and took him to a north London hospital for assessment.

At the hospital he became agitated at times. PAVA spray was later used, and a number of officers restrained him. He became unconscious. Hospital staff gave emergency first aid and he was placed in a medically-induced coma. He was released from hospital six weeks later.

The outcome

The Independent Office for Police Conduct began a criminal investigation into five constables, all attached to Central North Command, for potential common assault. Some were also investigated for inflicting grievous bodily harm and for non-fatal suffocation. The five were investigated for gross misconduct, and three further officers for potential misconduct.

In June 2024 the IOPC sent a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service, which authorised charges. The five were charged with two counts each of causing grievous bodily harm, under sections 18 and 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and were listed at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for 5 and 15 August 2025.

The force’s directorate of professional standards determined that the officers’ actions amounted to gross misconduct.

What went wrong

There is no finding yet. The criminal case had not been tried when this page was written, so nothing here says what happened inside that hospital, and nothing here says the restraint was unlawful.

What the regulator has established is narrower. A man was already detained under the Mental Health Act. He was in a hospital, not a street. PAVA was used on him in that building, officers restrained him, and he stopped being conscious.

The IOPC’s evidence covered police body-worn footage, hospital CCTV and statements from hospital staff, as well as accounts from some of the officers.

What it teaches

A hospital removes the usual defence of a chaotic scene. Clinical staff, monitoring, oxygen and a bed are metres away, and the reason to keep hands on a person shrinks accordingly. A man detained under the Mental Health Act is a patient with a legal status, not a public order problem.

PAVA belongs in that argument too. In an enclosed clinical space it adds a respiratory insult to a person already in crisis.

The training point is the handover. When police restrain someone inside a healthcare building, the clinical team needs to be in the decision, and the restraint needs to end into their care.

Questions for the room

The man was already in a place built to keep him safe. What did restraint add?
You are the officer deciding whether to spray. What else is available on a hospital corridor, and who do you ask?
Five officers are awaiting trial. What does a force owe the rest of its staff while a case is pending?

Evidence and limits

Confidence: confirmed on the events as recorded, with the case unresolved. The précis records that the regulator’s investigation and charging releases, and PA copy carried by Yahoo News UK, agree on the charges, the court dates and the hospital area.

Proceedings are active. The five officers were awaiting trial when this page was drafted. Nothing here is a finding that the force used was unlawful, and the page must not be cited outward as an established account. The officers are not named, because the case is live. The sources held give no duration for the restraint.

Our physical interventions training covers restraint in healthcare settings and the clinical handover that has to sit alongside it.

Sources

Reviewed 20 October 2026.