Sussex Police Officers Committed Gross Misconduct in Tasering of 92-Year-Old Amputee, Panel Rules

Two Sussex Police officers used unjustified and excessive force when they Tasered, pepper-sprayed and struck a 92-year-old amputee with dementia inside his care home bedroom, a disciplinary panel has concluded. The ruling against PC Stephen Smith and PC Rachel Comotto brings a measure of accountability in a case that has drawn sustained scrutiny of how police respond to vulnerable people in crisis.

The officers had been called to Park Beck care home in St Leonards-on-Sea in June 2022 after resident Donald Burgess, who was a single-leg amputee, threatened carers with a dinner knife. What followed inside his bedroom was captured on body-worn camera footage that formed a central plank of the week-long misconduct hearing at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes.

The panel found gross misconduct proven against both officers, determining there had been "unjustified and excessive use of force." It concluded that neither officer attempted to de-escalate the situation before resorting to physical measures, and that both had breached standards of professional behaviour. The question of whether the pair will be dismissed from the force or allowed to remain with a final written warning has yet to be resolved.

The case's most startling detail concerned the speed at which events escalated. Force lawyer Aaron Rathmell told the panel that Smith, 52, "acted, hastily, harshly and lost control," noting that the officer had drawn his pepper spray within nine seconds of entering the room. Footage showed Smith walking in and asking Burgess: "Do you want to be sprayed or Tasered? It's up to you. Can you put that down for us?"

Despite repeated requests, Burgess did not release the dinner knife. The panel determined that Smith "made no attempt to assess or understand" the elderly man's vulnerability, while Comotto "showed no compassion" during the encounter. Their findings painted a picture of officers who failed to grasp the medical and cognitive realities of the person in front of them.

The panel specifically criticised Smith for failing to consider simply leaving the 92-year-old alone in his room to calm down. It described the use of Pava, a type of pepper spray, as unreasonable in the circumstances, and said there was "limited mitigation" available for the officers' conduct. It further found Smith's tone and language towards Burgess to be "dismissive in nature."

Comotto, 37, came in for particular criticism over her verbal approach. Statements such as "last chance" and "seriously," combined with the limited time she gave Burgess to respond, were deemed inappropriate. Her use of force was ruled unreasonable. The panel's judgment that she was "antagonistic" suggests a confrontational dynamic that left little room for a peaceful resolution.

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner reinforced the panel's conclusions, stressing that Burgess had been in his own room, physically isolated from other residents, and therefore posed no immediate risk to anyone else. He indicated that officers should have gathered considerably more information from care home staff before entering the room, a failure that might have transformed how the situation was handled.

Burgess was taken to hospital following the incident, where he contracted Covid-19 and died 22 days later. The officers were not held responsible for his death, a distinction the panel was careful to preserve. Even so, the circumstances of his final weeks underscore the vulnerability of a man in his nineties with dementia, an amputated leg and no apparent capacity to comply with shouted commands.

Both officers had previously faced criminal proceedings and were acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in May 2025. That verdict did not preclude the misconduct process, which operates on a different standard of proof. The disciplinary panel's findings now carry their own significant weight, professionally and publicly, for officers whose actions were recorded and later dissected frame by frame.

The case sits within a wider national conversation about police interactions with people experiencing mental health crises or cognitive decline. Dementia charities and disability advocates have long argued that standard law enforcement tactics, including Tasers and chemical irritants, are poorly suited to individuals who may not understand instructions or grasp the consequences of their actions. Care homes, meanwhile, can face difficult judgments about when to summon police at all.

The hearing also raises questions about training and supervision. Critics of such incidents argue that officers need stronger grounding in de-escalation, crisis intervention and the recognition of vulnerability. The panel's emphasis on the absence of any attempt to defuse the situation, coupled with its criticism of Smith's failure to assess Burgess's condition, points directly at gaps that training and policy are meant to close.

Implications extend beyond these two officers. Sussex Police and forces across the United Kingdom face ongoing pressure to demonstrate that lessons are being learned, particularly when the people involved are elderly, unwell or confined to a wheelchair. Public confidence in policing depends heavily on whether such rulings lead to meaningful changes in how calls to care homes and similar settings are handled.

For the family of Donald Burgess, the misconduct finding may offer a form of validation, even as the loss of a relative in such circumstances remains irreversible. For the officers, a further decision looms that will determine whether their careers in policing continue. The panel's verdict has established, at minimum, that what happened in that bedroom fell far below the standards the public expects.

The case is not yet fully closed. The sanctions hearing will decide the professional future of Smith and Comotto. Yet the ruling already stands as a stark illustration of what can go wrong when force is applied rapidly to someone whose frailty should have been obvious from the moment officers walked through the door.