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

Two Sussex Police officers who Tasered a 92-year-old amputee in his wheelchair at a care home have been found to have committed gross misconduct, a disciplinary panel has ruled. PC Stephen Smith and PC Rachel Comotto faced a week-long hearing at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes, where the panel concluded that their actions amounted to an "unjustified and excessive use of force."

The incident dates back to June 2022, when the officers were called to Park Beck care home in St Leonards-on-Sea. They had responded to reports that resident Donald Burgess, who was living with dementia, had threatened carers with a dinner knife. Burgess, a single-leg amputee, was seated in his wheelchair in his own bedroom when officers entered.

During the encounter, Burgess was struck with a baton, sprayed with Pava pepper spray, and Tasered. Body-worn camera footage played during the hearing showed Smith entering 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 did not relinquish the dinner knife.

The disciplinary panel determined that both officers breached standards of professional behaviour. It found that neither officer attempted to de-escalate the situation before resorting to force. The panel further concluded that Smith "made no attempt to assess or understand" Burgess's vulnerability, while Comotto "showed no compassion" during the encounter.

Force lawyer Aaron Rathmell told the panel that the two officers, Smith, 52, and Comotto, 37, "acted, hastily, harshly and lost control." He noted that Smith had drawn the pepper spray within just nine seconds of entering Burgess's room, suggesting a rushed and aggressive approach rather than a measured response to a vulnerable individual in crisis.

The panel specifically criticised Smith for failing to consider simply leaving the 92-year-old in his room to calm down. It deemed the use of Pava spray unreasonable in the circumstances and found "limited mitigation" for the officers' behaviour. Smith's tone and language toward Burgess were described as "dismissive in nature," while Comotto's statements — including phrases such as "last chance" and "seriously," delivered while giving Burgess limited time to respond — were found to be inappropriate and "antagonistic."

In May 2025, both officers were acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm following a criminal trial. However, the disciplinary proceedings operate under a different standard of proof, and the panel found the gross misconduct allegations proven. It has yet to be decided whether the officers will be dismissed from the force or receive a final written warning.

The case has raised significant questions about how police interact with elderly people experiencing dementia and mental health crises. Burgess was in his own room, isolated from other residents, and posed no immediate risk to anyone else, according to Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner. He said more information should have been gathered from care home staff before officers took any action.

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. Nevertheless, the case has drawn attention to the potential consequences of using forceful tactics on frail, elderly individuals in care settings.

The outcome of the misconduct hearing underscores the importance of training officers to recognise vulnerability and to employ de-escalation techniques whenever possible. The panel's findings suggest that in this instance, basic principles of communication and patience were abandoned in favour of rapid physical intervention.

The decision also highlights the accountability mechanisms in place for police conduct in England and Wales. While criminal proceedings did not result in convictions, the disciplinary panel's verdict demonstrates that officers can still face serious professional consequences for excessive force, even when a jury does not find criminal liability.

For the family of Donald Burgess, the ruling may offer a measure of acknowledgment that the treatment he received was excessive and inappropriate. The case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by care home staff and emergency responders when managing residents with dementia who become agitated or threatening.

As Sussex Police awaits the outcome of the sentencing phase of the disciplinary process, the force faces broader scrutiny over its policies and training regarding interactions with vulnerable individuals. The panel's decision sends a clear message that the use of Tasers, pepper spray, and batons on elderly, disabled people in confined settings must be subject to rigorous justification and that de-escalation should always be the first resort.