Police Officers Cleared After 'Extraordinary and Wrong' IOPC Directed Misconduct Probe

Questions raised over IOPC’s role after panel finds officers acted appropriately based on paramedic advice

Two Lincolnshire Police officers have been cleared of misconduct following what has been described as an "extraordinary and wrong" investigation, raising significant questions about why the process was pursued by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

The misconduct hearing, held on 16 December, centred on the tragic death of a 44-year-old woman in July 2022 at a Skegness caravan park. Officers Sergeant Connor Ingamells and PC Paige Thompson responded to the scene after a 999 call reporting that the woman had potentially overdosed.

Crucially, they relied on the assessment of East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS) paramedics, who deemed the situation not life-threatening. Despite this, the IOPC directed Lincolnshire Police to pursue misconduct charges against the officers, alleging failures in safeguarding.

The Incident

---

---

The officers attended the incident on 21 July 2022 following a 999 call from a friend of the woman, who believed she had consumed a large quantity of medication. The officers spent approximately 30 minutes at the scene, assessing the situation and liaising with EMAS. Based on the paramedic's professional opinion, the officers were told the case did not require immediate intervention.

Body-worn camera footage presented to the hearing showed the woman acknowledging suicidal thoughts but giving inconsistent accounts of how much medication she had taken. The officers, acting on EMAS's assessment, ensured she was not alone, advising a friend to monitor her condition and to call again if necessary.

PC Thompson was recorded telling the woman: "You know where we are if you need anything. Call us – I mean that."

Misconduct Panel Findings

The panel, chaired by Oliver Thorne, strongly criticised the decision to pursue misconduct allegations. Thorne concluded that the officers had acted appropriately, saying:

"Nothing should have alerted them that EMAS's assessment was wrong or inadequate. Therefore, there was no breach of standards."

---

---

He added, "It's not sufficient to look with hindsight and say they should have acted differently." The panel's findings make clear that the officers could not have reasonably foreseen the tragic outcome and that their actions on the night were in line with their duties and responsibilities.

The panel dismissed all allegations against Sgt Ingamells, including discreditable conduct and failure of duties and responsibilities. PC Thompson was similarly cleared of all allegations, including failing to challenge improper conduct.

'Extraordinary and Wrong' Investigation

The decision to bring the officers before a misconduct panel has been widely questioned. Hugh Davis, representing Sgt Ingamells, described the allegations as "extraordinary and wrong," arguing that the process was guided by hindsight rather than the reality of the officers' situation.

"The decision-making has been led by looking backwards from the tragic outcome, not forwards from the reality of a demanding shift," Davis said.

He also pointed to the immense pressures on both police and ambulance services on the night, noting that officers often face difficult circumstances where they must rely on the assessments of medical professionals. Police officers are not qualified to make medical assessments on individuals and have long relied on the professional judgement of their colleagues when handling such incidents.

Matthew Butts, representing PC Thompson, echoed this sentiment, stating: "It's wrong for other emergency services to assume the police will do [their] duties." He reinforced that the situation was primarily a medical emergency, not a matter for police intervention.

---

---

A Question of Fairness

The case highlights growing concerns over how misconduct allegations are handled and raises questions about the role of the IOPC in directing hearings. Many will feel that the two officers were treated unfairly, particularly given the clear evidence that they acted in good faith and followed protocol by deferring to EMAS's assessment.

The tragedy, which saw the woman make two additional 999 calls that night as her condition deteriorated, underscores the immense pressures on emergency services. EMAS's decision not to grade her case as life-threatening has rightly prompted scrutiny, yet the burden of this tragedy fell disproportionately on the attending police officers.

Thorne's emphatic statement—"Nothing should have alerted them that EMAS's assessment was wrong"—speaks volumes about the process's unfairness. It raises an important question: Why did the IOPC direct this misconduct hearing at all when, by the panel's own assessment, the officers did all they reasonably could?

A Broader Issue for Emergency Services

The case also brings into focus the ongoing strain on emergency services, particularly during high-demand periods. Both police and ambulance services were described as "acutely stressed" on the night in question. Officers are frequently placed in situations where they must rely on the judgement of other professionals, often without the resources to act otherwise.

---

---

The panel's findings reaffirm the need for fairness and proportionality when scrutinising the actions of frontline workers. The decision to pursue misconduct allegations against Sgt Ingamells and PC Thompson has rightly been questioned and will likely fuel further debate about the IOPC's role in such cases.

The tragic death of the woman is a stark reminder of the challenges faced by emergency services. However, this misconduct hearing, described as "extraordinary and wrong," has shed light on an important issue: police officers cannot and should not bear the brunt of systemic pressures or retrospective blame for outcomes beyond their control.

With all allegations dismissed, the case serves as a reminder of the vital role police officers play, often under immense strain, and highlights the need for balanced and, more importantly, fair oversight of their conduct.

Why the Lincolnshire Police Officers Should Never Have Faced a Gross Misconduct Investigation

The recent clearance of two Lincolnshire Police officers, Sergeant Connor Ingamells and PC Paige Thompson, from gross misconduct allegations has ignited a debate about the fairness and necessity of such investigations. This case, involving the tragic death of a woman in Skegness, underscores a broader issue of how we evaluate the actions of emergency service personnel under pressure.

First and foremost, the officers were thrust into a situation where they were not the primary medical responders. They relied on the professional judgement of paramedics from the East Midlands Ambulance Service (EMAS), who assessed the situation and deemed it non-life-threatening. This is a standard protocol; police officers are trained to defer to medical professionals for medical assessments. Therefore, the decision to pursue a misconduct investigation against these officers based on the outcome of that night seems fundamentally flawed.

Become a premium subscriber to continue reading this article