Two Sussex Police Officers Found Guilty of Gross Misconduct Over Tasering of 92-Year-Old Amputee in Care Home

Two Sussex Police officers who deployed a Taser and pepper spray on a 92-year-old amputee inside his care home bedroom have been found to have committed gross misconduct, a disciplinary panel has ruled. The decision concludes a lengthy process that followed the officers' criminal acquittal in May 2025 and has renewed questions about how police handle vulnerable people in crisis.

PC Stephen Smith and PC Rachel Comotto were called to Park Beck care home in St Leonards-on-Sea in June 2022 after resident Donald Burgess, who had dementia, threatened carers with a dinner knife. Burgess was a single-leg amputee and was sitting in his wheelchair in his own room when officers arrived.

The week-long hearing at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes concluded that both officers were responsible for "unjustified and excessive use of force." The panel determined that gross misconduct had been proven against each of them. It is still to be decided whether the two will be dismissed from the force or receive a final written warning.

Force lawyer Aaron Rathmell told the panel that Smith, 52, and Comotto, 37, "acted, hastily, harshly and lost control" during the encounter. He said Smith had drawn his pepper spray within just nine seconds of entering Burgess's room, a speed that the panel ultimately found inconsistent with the careful, graduated approach expected of officers facing a vulnerable person.

Body-worn camera footage played during the hearing showed Smith walking into the room and asking: "Do you want to be sprayed or Tasered? It's up to you. Can you put that down for us?" Despite repeated requests, Burgess, who was seated in his wheelchair, did not drop the dinner knife.

The panel found that Smith "made no attempt to assess or understand" Burgess's vulnerability, while Comotto "showed no compassion" toward him. These findings went to the heart of the case, because officers are trained to recognise the signs of dementia and other cognitive impairments and to adjust their tactics accordingly.

Smith failed to consider simply leaving the 92-year-old in his room to calm down, the panel found. It also deemed his use of Pava, a type of pepper spray, unreasonable in the circumstances. The panel said there was "limited mitigation" for this behaviour, meaning it saw few factors that could excuse or reduce the seriousness of what occurred.

The panel further criticised Smith's tone and language toward Burgess as "dismissive in nature," while describing Comotto's approach as "antagonistic." Her statements, including "last chance" and "seriously," along with the limited time she gave Burgess to respond to instructions, were found to be inappropriate. The panel concluded that her use of force was unreasonable.

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner said Burgess had been in his own room, isolated from other residents and posing no risk to anyone else at the time. He said officers should have gathered more information from care home staff before entering the room and escalating the encounter.

Burgess was taken to hospital after the incident. While there, he contracted Covid-19 and died 22 days later. The officers were not held responsible for his death, and the criminal trial that ended in May 2025 resulted in both being acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The misconduct proceedings therefore operated on a different legal standard from the criminal case. Disciplinary panels assess whether officers breached professional standards, rather than whether their conduct met the threshold for a criminal conviction. That distinction helps explain how the same events could produce an acquittal in court yet a finding of gross misconduct in a hearing.

The case has drawn attention to the wider issue of policing people living with dementia. Care homes and dementia charities have long argued that residents experiencing confusion or agitation should be met with patience, de-escalation and specialist support rather than physical force. Experts in mental health and policing note that cognitive impairment can make a person's behaviour appear confrontational when it is in fact a symptom of illness.

The panel's findings also raise questions about the training officers receive for incidents involving older people with dementia. A single 92-year-old amputee in a wheelchair, isolated in his own bedroom, presented what Assistant Chief Constable Gardner described as no risk to others, yet the encounter escalated quickly into the use of a baton, pepper spray and a Taser.

For the family of Donald Burgess, the ruling brings a measure of accountability more than four years after the events at Park Beck. The disciplinary outcome does not reverse the criminal acquittal, but it establishes formally that the officers' conduct fell below the standards expected of them.

Sussex Police now faces a decision on sanctions. Dismissal without notice is the most severe outcome available to a misconduct panel, while a final written warning would allow both officers to remain in post. The force has not indicated when that determination will be announced.

The case is among a number in recent years in which the use of Tasers on elderly or vulnerable people has prompted scrutiny. Policing bodies have emphasised that such devices are intended for situations involving serious risk, and that their use must be proportionate, lawful and necessary. The panel's conclusion that both officers breached standards of professional behaviour places this incident firmly within that broader debate about force, vulnerability and duty of care.