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. The finding against PC Stephen Smith and PC Rachel Comotto followed a week-long hearing at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes, and represents a significant rebuke of the officers' actions during an incident that has drawn widespread attention to the policing of vulnerable people.

The panel concluded that there had been "unjustified and excessive use of force" against Donald Burgess, a resident at Park Beck care home in St Leonards-on-Sea, who was living with dementia at the time of the incident in June 2022. Burgess, who had one leg amputated, was hit with a baton, sprayed with Pava pepper spray and Tasered while sitting in his wheelchair in his own bedroom. The disciplinary proceedings were held to determine whether the officers' conduct fell below the standards expected of police officers, and the panel found that it did for both individuals.

The incident began when officers were called to the care home after Burgess threatened carers with a dinner knife. Body-worn camera footage shown during the hearing captured Smith entering Burgess's room and, within seconds, asking: "Do you want to be sprayed or Tasered? It's up to you. Can you put that down for us?" Despite repeated requests from the officers, Burgess did not relinquish the dinner knife. The panel heard that Smith had drawn his pepper spray within just nine seconds of entering the room, and that force was used without any meaningful attempt to calm the situation first.

Force lawyer Aaron Rathmell told the panel that both officers "acted, hastily, harshly and lost control" during the encounter. The panel specifically found that Smith "made no attempt to assess or understand" Burgess's vulnerability as an elderly man with dementia and a physical disability. It also concluded that he failed to consider the option of simply leaving the 92-year-old alone in his room to calm down, and that the use of Pava pepper spray was unreasonable in the circumstances. The panel described the mitigation available for Smith's behaviour as "limited," and criticised his tone and language towards Burgess as "dismissive in nature."

Comotto, 37, was also criticised in strong terms. The panel found that she "showed no compassion" towards Burgess during the incident and that her demeanour was "antagonistic." Her statements to the man, including phrases such as "last chance" and "seriously," coupled with the limited time she gave him to respond to instructions, were deemed inappropriate by the panel. It further concluded that her use of force was unreasonable. Neither officer attempted to de-escalate the situation before resorting to physical measures, according to the panel's findings, and both breached standards of professional behaviour.

The hearing was told that Burgess was taken to hospital following the incident, where he contracted Covid-19 and died 22 days later. However, the officers were not held responsible for his death, and the disciplinary proceedings focused solely on their conduct during the care home encounter rather than on any causal link to his passing. This distinction was important to the panel's remit, which was limited to assessing whether the officers' actions met police standards rather than determining criminal liability for the death.

The disciplinary outcome follows an earlier criminal trial in which both officers were acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That verdict was delivered in May 2025, and the new misconduct findings arise from a separate process with a different legal threshold. The distinction underscores how police conduct can fail to meet professional standards even where no criminal offence is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The misconduct panel's role was to assess whether the officers' behaviour fell short of the expectations placed on police officers, a lower bar than the criminal standard of proof.

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner commented on the case, noting that Burgess had been in his own room and isolated from other residents at the time officers arrived. He stated that the 92-year-old posed no risk to others in that setting and that more information should have been gathered from care home staff before officers resorted to force. Gardner's remarks highlight a broader concern about how police respond to incidents involving people with dementia and other cognitive impairments, where communication and de-escalation are critical tools that should be prioritised over physical intervention.

The case has raised questions about the training and decision-making of officers called to care homes and other settings involving vulnerable adults. The panel's findings suggest that the officers failed to recognise the particular circumstances they were facing, including Burgess's advanced age, his dementia diagnosis and his physical disability. The use of multiple forms of force against a man in a wheelchair in his own bedroom has been widely criticised as disproportionate, and the panel's conclusion that de-escalation was not attempted reinforces concerns that alternatives were available but overlooked.

It has yet to be decided whether Smith, 52, and Comotto, 37, will be dismissed from the force or given a final written warning. The outcome of that sentencing phase will be determined at a later date, and the decision could have significant consequences for both officers' careers. The panel's ruling of gross misconduct is among the most serious findings available in police disciplinary proceedings, and it leaves open the possibility of dismissal without notice, which would represent the most severe sanction available short of criminal conviction.

The case also touches on the wider debate about how police forces handle incidents involving individuals in mental health crisis or with conditions such as dementia. Advocates for vulnerable people have long argued that officers need better training in de-escalation techniques and in recognising the signs of cognitive impairment, which can affect a person's ability to understand and comply with instructions. The panel's emphasis on the officers' failure to assess Burgess's vulnerability suggests that these concerns remain relevant and that procedural improvements may be needed.

The incident has been closely followed in the local area and beyond, with the related coverage documenting the progression from the initial event in 2022 through the criminal trial and now to the disciplinary findings. The body-worn camera footage, which was released during the proceedings, has been described as distressing, and its contents formed a key part of the evidence against the officers. The panel relied on this footage, along with testimony from force lawyers and others, in reaching its conclusions about the officers' conduct and the reasonableness of the force used.

For the family of Donald Burgess, the misconduct findings may offer a measure of accountability, though they cannot undo the events of that day or his death shortly afterwards. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of proportionality, patience and compassion when police are called to deal with elderly and vulnerable individuals, particularly in care settings where the risk to others may be far lower than it initially appears. Sussex Police have not yet indicated what further action, if any, will follow the panel's ruling, and the force will now await the decision on sanctions against the two officers.