Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
Officer concerned: PC Charanjit Ubhi
Dates of hearing: 9 to 16 October 2026
These proceedings arise from events which occurred on 3 August 2022 and concern PC Ubhi's involvement in the restraint of Person Y at Queen's Hospital, Romford.
At approximately 18:50 hours an urgent assistance request was transmitted from the hospital. PC Ubhi and PC Gondalia, who were crewed together, responded to that request and attended Queen's Hospital. Upon arrival, PC Ubhi and PC Gondalia entered a treatment room where a number of officers were already engaged in restraining Person Y. PC Ubhi became involved in that restraint shortly after entering the room.
The events which followed, and in particular the force used by PC Ubhi during his involvement in the restraint, form the subject matter of these proceedings.
The Appropriate Authority alleged that Person Y was vulnerable, that PC Ubhi failed adequately, or at all, to assess the risks presented by Person Y and that he used force, which was not necessary, reasonable or proportionate in all the circumstances.
The Panel found that the Appropriate Authority failed to prove a breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour relating to 'Use of Force'.
The allegations of misconduct and gross misconduct were not proved and were dismissed.