‘Vulnerable’ man was sprayed twice by police in Caernarfon

Now-retired sergeant Melvin Robert Dawson’s decision to spray the man was labelled “wholly unreasonable” by a judge following a three-day Caernarfon County Court hearing.

The incident in question had followed AB being detained after attempting to take his life.

He was conveyed to custody in Caernarfon after causing criminal damage to a door at the Hergest mental health unit in Bangor.

It was while he was self-harming in custody that Mr Dawson deployed PAVA spray on AB, which AB alleged was an unlawful use of force.

AB denied threatening Mr Dawson, and said the first shot of captor spray went into his eyes, and the second into his mouth.

He was then taken to an exercise yard, and said the effect of the spray was heightened there because it was raining.

CCTV footage showed AB scream because of the PAVA spray being deployed on him.

Mr Dawson said he had been booking in another detainee that day, and had to stop this process to deal with AB because of self-harming concerns.

He said the use of the spray was a “successful intervention,” because nobody was harmed in the process and because AB then stopped self-harming.

While he said AB did not threaten him, he said he felt AB’s arm “tense up” when he put his hand on it.

Judge Wendy Owen found Mr Dawson’s decision to use the spray to be "objectively unreasonable,” adding that he “did not communicate properly” with AB.

She added that Mr Dawson faced a “difficult” but not “immediately urgent” situation, and that AB was “crying out in considerable distress” after being sprayed.

Judge Owen wrote: “Even if Sergeant Dawson had time to deal with the claimant, he should have tried communicating with the claimant in the first instance. He did not.

“This was a vulnerable and sick man. The claimant was not engaging. He was in his own little world. He did not react when Sergeant Dawson spoke to him. The priority had to be trying to get through to the claimant.

“Sergeant Dawson did not stand at the door of the cell, for instance, and try to engage with the claimant. He did not approach him slowly and touch him gently to try to attract his attention.

“He simply walked with purpose into the cell, apparently telling the claimant to stop, turned to face him, and sprayed him twice at close range in the face with PAVA spray.

“The use of PAVA spray was wholly unreasonable in all the circumstances. Lesser measures could and should have been used.

“The claimant was a particularly vulnerable individual and the CCTV footage shows that he was taken completely by surprise by the deployment of the PAVA spray.”