A former inspector’s decision to punch and stamp on a member of public while on duty has been determined as amounting to gross misconduct.
Jonathan Mellor, who prior to his retirement in July 2022 was an inspector for Lincolnshire Police, stationed in Grantham, has been the subject of a two-day misconduct hearing held yesterday (January 7) and today (January 8) at Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln.
He was found to have breached Standards of Professional Behaviour — which are use of force, discreditable conduct and authority, respect and courtesy, and would have been dismissed had he still been employed by the force, the panel determined today.
Former Lincolnshire Police inspector Jonathan Mellor’s conduct has been found to amount to gross misconduct. Stock image
The allegations relate to an incident on May 26, 2021, where the former inspector was said to have used deliberate force, and that his conduct was disrespectful, abusive and threatening while speaking with a member of the public, Shane Price, on the A46 between Newark and Lincoln.
During the incident, which was captured on mobile phone footage by Mr Price’s wife, Mr Mellor punched Mr Price, stamped on his injured foot, and restrained him on the ground. He can also be heard swearing at Mr Price multiple times.
Mr Mellor yesterday gave evidence at the hearing, and maintained that his actions and use of force were proportional and necessary, due to needing to control the situation at the dangerous roadside location and Mr Price’s increasing anger.
Setting out its case Lincolnshire Police, however, suggested the former officer was the ‘aggressor’ in the incident.
It maintain this case as its counsel, Liz Briggs, gave a closing statement this morning, which encouraged the panel that if Mr Mellor’s use of force and language was found to be a breach of standards, it should be considered if it amounted to gross misconduct — a breach of standards significant enough to warrant dismissal of serving officers.
She acknowledged that Mr Price was ‘clearly remonstrating’ but that the force’s stance was that he was not aggressive, offered no resistance, and that “his behaviour was not such that he needed to be treated by the officer in this way”.
Ms Briggs added: “It was the decision of the officer to pull over at that particular point, it was his decision to exit the vehicle. This situation was one created by the officer.”
It was argued it could not have been Mr Mellor’s reasonably held belief that he needed to punch and stamp on Mr Price to defend himself, and suggested his demeanour should be considered along with the fact he was “in a rush and frustrated by his work day” as he had been asked to cover a larger area than normal last minute.
However, in his closing statement Mr Mellor’s counsel, Mr Hunter Gray, said Lincolnshire Police had simply not proven its case, and that Mr Mellor, as an experience police officer present at the scene, was best placed to determine the threat level of the situation — especially as the only other people present, Mr Price and his wife, had not attended the hearing for their evidence to be challenged.
Mr Gray said the former officer “unhesitatingly stands by his actions”, which he says are in line with police procedure and training, with no evidence offered to the contrary.
Addressing previous challenges made to Mr Mellor about why he decided to pull over at Mr Price’s request at all, he added: “What if Mr Mellor had chosen not to stop and it was a genuine emergency… what would the consequences have been then?
“It was a hugely unusual situation… Mr Mellor was single crewed, didn’t have protective equipment available to him… he is equally vulnerable by the side of a busy road.”
He also argued there were a number of limitations to the video evidence of the incident, as it fails to show the events leading up to the two vehicles pulling over, and much of Mr Mellor and Mr Price’s conversation cannot be heard — as well as video not being able to pick up the nuances of Mr Price’s demeanour, such as his tensing muscles which Mr Mellor indicated as a sign he was building up to throw a punch or make another move in his evidence.
He also queried if the Prices had been “looking for trouble”, asking why the decision had been made to film prior to the vehicles pulling over, an described Mr Price’s behaviour as immediately agitated, not compliant, and indicated the officer ‘didn’t know what [Mr Price] was capable of’.
Mr Mellor pressing his emergency button for the first time in his then 29-year career is indicative that his belief he was in “serious danger if the situation got out of control” was genuinely and reasonably held, Mr Gray added, and said: “[Mr Price was] physically and verbally abusive to Mr Mellor.”
Mr Mellor’s use of ‘f***ing’ was also justified as necessary to get the urgent message across to Mr Price that he was going to put him on the floor.
He stated the former officer actions were “proportional, necessary, and reasonable” in the circumstances, and asserted that it was ‘not misconduct at all’ and certainly not gross misconduct.
Mr Gray added: “Had he not done what he did, had he abandoned Mr Price by the side of the road, that would have greater undermined public trust in the police.”
The panel, consisting of chairman Jennifer Ferrario, ACC Nikki Mayo, and independent panel member Ian Crawford, retired at around 10.30am to consider the verdict and returned at around 4.50pm.
They returned with the verdict that Mr Mellor’s actions amounted to gross misconduct, and that the punch, stamp, and restraint on the ground were all ‘entirely unnecessary, unreasonable, and disproportionate’.
The stamp on the foot, an identified vulnerability, was found to be ‘particularly unpalatable’.
Ms Ferrario explained the panel found the former officer’s evidence ‘lacked credibility’.
She added: “The panel decided Mr Mellor pulled over because he wanted to engage with Mr Price… immediately on the footage his manner is confrontational.”
The panel found Mr Price’s behaviour had not been threatening, that he had repeatedly said ‘please’ and that it did not understand why Mr Mellor felt he needed to take control of Mr Price when he was not intending to make an arrest — if this had been the case, his actions may have been ‘justified’ Ms Ferrario stated.
The chairman added: “Mr Mellor could have walked away on a number of occasions.
The panel also found him initially putting his hand on Mr Price’s arm to guide him away from the roadside was a ‘protective’ gesture and was acceptable, but the subsequent push and restraint against the fence were unnecessary.
It was also found that his ‘threatening and abusive’ language was entirely unjustified, and that he aught to have shown Mr Price respect.
Ms Ferrario added: “[Mr Mellor] demonstrated an inability, in the circumstances, to control himself. There were moments where the situation was escalated unnecessarily.”
They found his conduct could have “significantly reduced” public confidence in the police.
If Mr Mellor had still been serving as a police officer, the panel found he would have been dismissed.
There had been ‘no accountability, no reflection, no remorse, no offer of apology’ from Mr Mellor, Ms Ferrario noted, but acknowledged it was a single, brief episode which had not been an intentional encounter, but had seen the intentional, deliberate, and targeted use of force — which did infringe on Mr Price’s human rights and would ‘appal’ the average person.