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

Two police officers who used a Taser on a 92-year-old amputee inside his care home bedroom have been found to have committed gross misconduct, a disciplinary panel has ruled. PC Stephen Smith and PC Rachel Comotto were found to have used "unjustified and excessive force" against Donald Burgess, a dementia sufferer who was confronted while sitting in his wheelchair at Park Beck care home in St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex.

The ruling, delivered at a hearing at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes, marks the conclusion of a long-running disciplinary process that followed the events of June 2022. The outcome carries significant weight because both officers had previously been cleared of criminal wrongdoing; in May 2025 they were acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm at a criminal trial. The misconduct panel's decision means the same conduct that did not meet the criminal threshold has nonetheless been judged to have breached professional policing standards.

The facts of the case are stark. Mr Burgess, who was a single-leg amputee and lived with dementia, had threatened carers with a dinner knife, prompting staff to call police. When officers arrived, the situation escalated rapidly. Body-worn camera footage shown during the week-long hearing captured PC 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?" Within nine seconds of entering the bedroom, according to the force's legal representative, PC Smith had drawn his pepper spray. Mr Burgess was subsequently hit with a baton, sprayed with Pava — a type of pepper spray — and Tasered as he remained seated in his wheelchair.

The panel concluded that both officers failed in their fundamental duties. It found that they made no attempt to de-escalate the situation before resorting to physical force, a core principle of modern policing, particularly when dealing with elderly and vulnerable people. Force lawyer Aaron Rathmell told the hearing that Smith, 52, and Comotto, 37, "acted, hastily, harshly and lost control." The panel accepted that characterisation in substance, determining that the officers had breached standards of professional behaviour.

Specific criticisms were levelled at each officer. The panel found that PC Smith "made no attempt to assess or understand" Mr Burgess's vulnerability, and that he failed to consider simply leaving the 92-year-old alone in his room to calm down. It described his tone and language towards the pensioner as "dismissive in nature." The use of Pava spray was deemed unreasonable in the circumstances. The panel also noted there was only "limited mitigation" for his behaviour, suggesting little in the way of excuse for how events unfolded.

PC Comotto, meanwhile, was found to have "showed no compassion" during the encounter. Her statements — including "last chance" and "seriously" — and the limited time she allowed Mr Burgess to respond were judged inappropriate. Her overall use of force was found to be unreasonable, and the panel described her manner as "antagonistic." Taken together, the findings painted a picture of an encounter that went badly wrong from the outset, with neither officer taking steps to slow the situation down, despite the obvious frailty and confusion of the man they were facing.

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner, commenting after the hearing, emphasised that Mr Burgess had been in his own room, isolated from other residents, and posed no immediate risk to anyone. He said more information should have been gathered from care home staff before officers intervened. That assessment goes to the heart of the panel's reasoning: officers had time, space, and the opportunity to seek background about Mr Burgess's condition and the nature of the threat, but instead moved quickly towards coercive force.

The human consequences of the incident were severe. After being taken to hospital following the confrontation, Mr Burgess contracted Covid-19 and died 22 days later. The officers were not held responsible for his death, and no causal link between the force used and his passing was established in the proceedings. Nevertheless, the case has drawn attention to how police respond to vulnerable people in care settings, where residents may be disoriented, frightened, or unable to understand commands.

The disciplinary panel has yet to decide the sanction the two officers will face. The options include dismissal from the force or a final written warning. That decision will be closely watched, as it will signal how seriously Sussex Police treats excessive force against the very elderly and those with cognitive impairments. A finding of gross misconduct does not automatically mean dismissal, but it places the officers at the most serious end of the disciplinary spectrum.

The case also raises broader questions for policing nationally. Officers are regularly called to care homes and private residences to deal with people experiencing mental health crises or dementia-related distress. Guidance generally stresses containment, communication, and patience, with force reserved as a last resort. Critics argue that incidents like this one show such principles can be forgotten in the heat of the moment, particularly when officers feel their safety is under threat. Supporters of police, however, note the genuine difficulty of facing a weapon-wielding individual, even one who is elderly and unsteady on their feet.

For the family of Donald Burgess, the misconduct ruling offers a measure of official acknowledgment that the treatment he received was wrong. The image of a frail, smiling man in a straw hat and glasses, circulated by his family, stands in sharp contrast to the account of the confrontation that ended with him being pepper sprayed and Tasered in his wheelchair. The panel's verdict does not bring criminal consequences, but it delivers a clear institutional judgment: the force used was excessive, the officers' conduct fell below the standards expected, and a vulnerable man was not treated with the care and restraint his circumstances demanded.