Call to review use of 'prone restraint' by law enforcement officers

A study of Australian deaths in custody inquests where police or custodial officers used prone restraint has concluded the use of the practice needs immediate review and reform.

In a project originating in The University of Queensland Law School’s Pro Bono Centre, graduates Daisy Rice and Marnie Ball analysed all publicly available coroner’s reports where prone restraint was implicated in a death in custody.

“Prone restraint involves holding a person face down on the ground or another surface,” Ms Rice said. 

“Policing and clinical guidelines on prone restraint include minimising the period of restraint to a maximum of 3 minutes, avoiding compression of the neck or chest, and close and constant monitoring of the person.”

Ms Rice said their study found Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were more likely to be held in the prone position for longer periods of time than non-Indigenous people.

“This finding is significant and could be underestimated, as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status is underreported in coronial reports,” she said.

“Even with the likelihood of under-reporting, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples made up almost a third of the cases in our sample.

“Given the over-criminalisation of Indigenous people in Australia their prominence in our database is sadly unsurprising.”

Ms Ball said prone restraint deaths often involved people with complex layers of vulnerability.

“The majority were suffering from a mental illness at the time of death, and two-thirds were under the influence of intoxicating substances,” Ms Ball said.  

“The length of time individuals were restrained varied from one minute to more than 30 minutes, and in more than half the cases the person’s breathing was not adequately monitored.”

Ms Ball said in half of the inquests, it was reported additional force had been applied to the deceased’s upper back during the prone restraint.

“Prone restraint was also almost always used in combination with handcuffs, and in some cases with capsicum spray or tasers,” she said.

“In most cases coroners found the restraint was reasonable in the circumstances, but there were also mixed findings where some aspects of the restraint were considered reasonable, and others were not.

“Findings of unreasonable force were made in only 4 cases.”

Recommendations for reform

The researchers said the findings suggest current practices may not align with clinical guidelines on how prone restraint should be used.

“We would support reforms requiring law enforcement officers to be trained in the importance of constant monitoring and observing signs of deterioration,” Ms Rice said.

“Further training on understanding the risks of restraining vulnerable individuals would be welcome.

“We would also support the introduction of yearly reporting obligations on use of force incidents, like those for police in the United Kingdom.

“The time is ripe for Australian law enforcement agencies to review and reform prone restraint, for transparency and accountability.”  

Pro Bono Centre Director Professor Tamara Walsh said the research sheds light on the systemic and situational factors around prone restraint deaths in custody.

“This is an important contribution to legal academic literature and an example of how the Pro Bono Centre works in the public interest for the benefit of community.”

The research has been published in Current Issues in Criminal Justice.

Ms Rice and Ms Ball graduated from the UQ Law School in 2024 with First Class Honours.