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

Two Sussex Police officers who Tasered a 92-year-old amputee in his care home bedroom have been found to have committed gross misconduct, a disciplinary panel has concluded. The ruling, delivered at a hearing at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes, found that PC Stephen Smith and PC Rachel Comotto used "unjustified and excessive force" against Donald Burgess, a resident with dementia who was sitting in his wheelchair when the incident unfolded in June 2022.

The panel's decision marks the latest chapter in a case that has drawn significant attention since the events at Park Beck care home in St Leonards-on-Sea first came to light. Burgess, a single-leg amputee, had threatened carers with a dinner knife before officers were called to the scene. What followed, according to the disciplinary proceedings, was a rapid escalation of force that included a baton strike, pepper spray, and a Taser deployment, all within the confines of the elderly man's own room.

During a week-long hearing, force lawyer Aaron Rathmell told the panel that Smith, 52, and Comotto, 37, "acted, hastily, harshly and lost control." Body-worn camera footage presented as evidence showed Smith entering Burgess's bedroom and drawing his pepper spray within just nine seconds. The footage captured Smith asking the pensioner: "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 had dementia, did not relinquish the dinner knife.

The panel determined that Smith made no attempt to assess or understand Burgess's vulnerability, and that Comotto showed no compassion during the encounter. It found that Smith had failed to consider simply leaving the 92-year-old alone in his room to calm down. The use of Pava, a type of pepper spray, was deemed unreasonable under the circumstances, and the panel concluded there was "limited mitigation" for the officers' behaviour.

The panel's findings painted a detailed picture of the encounter. Smith's tone and language toward Burgess was described as "dismissive in nature," while Comotto was characterised as "antagonistic." Her statements, including phrases such as "last chance" and "seriously," along with the limited time she gave Burgess to respond to commands, were found to be inappropriate. The panel concluded that her use of force was also unreasonable.

The officers had previously been acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in May 2025 following a criminal trial, but the disciplinary panel's ruling represents a separate judgment on their professional conduct. The misconduct findings do not carry criminal penalties, but they place the officers' careers in jeopardy. It has yet to be decided whether Smith and Comotto will be dismissed from the force or receive a final written warning.

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner, commenting on the case, said that Burgess was in his own room, isolated from other residents, and posed no risk to anyone. He suggested that officers should have gathered more information from care home staff before entering the situation. The case has raised broader questions about how police respond to incidents involving elderly people with dementia, particularly when they are in familiar surroundings and not posing an immediate threat to public safety.

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, and no causal link was established between their actions and his passing. The family of the deceased, who provided a photograph of Burgess smiling in a straw hat and glasses, have had to endure both the loss of their relative and the lengthy legal proceedings that followed.

The case has also highlighted the challenges officers face when dealing with individuals in mental health crises, particularly those with degenerative conditions such as dementia. Dementia can cause confusion, agitation, and behaviour that may appear threatening but stems from a medical condition rather than criminal intent. The panel's findings suggest that the officers failed to account for these factors adequately when deciding how to respond to Burgess's refusal to put down the knife.

The disciplinary outcome adds to a growing body of scrutiny around police use of force in care settings. The incident took place in Burgess's private bedroom, a space where he was entitled to feel safe. Instead, it became the scene of a confrontation that escalated to the use of multiple weapons against a man whose mobility was already severely limited by his amputation.

Smith and Comotto's acquittal in the criminal trial had left unanswered questions about their professional accountability, which the misconduct panel has now addressed. The panel's conclusion that both officers breached standards of professional behaviour sends a message about the expectations placed on police when dealing with vulnerable individuals. It also underscores the importance of de-escalation techniques and the need for officers to gather sufficient background information before resorting to force.

The decision on their future with Sussex Police is expected to follow in due course. Whether they are dismissed or permitted to remain with a final warning, the case will serve as a reference point for future disciplinary proceedings involving the treatment of elderly and vulnerable people by law enforcement. The findings also reinforce the argument that officers need better training in dementia awareness, crisis intervention, and the principles of proportionality when responding to calls in care home environments.

For the family of Donald Burgess, the panel's ruling may offer a measure of vindication, though it cannot undo the events of that day in June 2022. The case remains a stark illustration of how quickly a routine call to a care home can turn into a tragic and avoidable confrontation. The Sussex Police misconduct panel has now made clear that, in its view, the force used against a 92-year-old man in his wheelchair was not just excessive but a violation of the standards the public expects from its police officers.