Operational guidelines to prevent officers from violating Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.033913

I note you seek access to the following information:

I have received reports today alleging that officers of the Metropolitan Police used "Pain compliance" techniques against protestors today.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture and the Cambridge English dictionary defines torture as: "The act of causing great physical or mental pain in order to persuade someone to do something."

If police officers are authorised to inflict pain in order to persuade people to comply, then there must be clear protocols to ensure that Article 3 is not violated.

What are those protocols, and what disciplinary action is applicable to officers who breach those protocols and violate Article 3?

Decision

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Please find below information pursuant to your request above.

Police officers are not authorised to inflict plain to persuade people to comply. Police Officers are authorised to use force in order to achieve a lawful objective, and must only use the minimum amount of force necessary to achieve that objective. If the lawful objective was to arrest a person, the legal framework could include the use of force of both S3 CLA 1967, and S117 PACE. Justification for an individual use of force does sit with the officer concerned. Any use of force against an individual must be recorded on MPS systems through a dedicated form, which is monitored by a number of oversight groups including local supervisors and the department of Professional Standards. Officers will always have to make notes covering and justifying any use of force and explain how it was both proportionate and necessary at the time to achieve the lawful objective.

Criminal Law Act 1967 - Government Legislation

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 - Government Legalisation