Police watchdog investigate Sussex Police after woman, 34, collapses and dies while 'interacting' with officers in Brighton

The Argus: Police watchdog investigate Sussex Police after woman, 34, collapses while 'interacting' with officers in Brighton Police watchdog investigate Sussex Police after woman, 34, collapses while 'interacting' with officers in Brighton

Sussex Police is being investigated after a woman dog-walker died in hospital days after she collapsed during an “interaction” with up to seven officers.

The 34-year-old died in the Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, on Thursday (20) despite police officers’ efforts to resuscitate her following the incident in the street in Brighton on the afternoon of Monday, February 17.

Police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), is now investigating what happened.

Another civilian, a 34-year-old man, was also in the area at the time of the collapse and he has been arrested on suspicion of drugs offences.

The incident took place in the area of Lavender Street and Malthouse Court in Kemp Town.

The woman, who is from Brighton, has not yet been formally identified although her family have been informed of her death. A post-mortem is set to take place tomorrow.

An IPCC statement said they wanted to speak to anyone who witnessed an “interaction between police and a woman with a small dog and a man on a fold-up bicycle to contact them”.

The statement continued: “The woman was white, aged 36, around 5ft 6 inches tall, with dark hair and wearing a large navy jumper.

“The man is white, aged 34, around 6ft tall, of skinny build with shoulder-length blond hair, wearing a light grey hooded top and carrying a backpack.

“According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50 pm in Lavender Street.

“Police state that during the incident the woman collapsed at the scene and officers carried out resuscitation on her before paramedics arrived and she was taken to hospital in a serious condition at around 5.45 pm.

“Following a referral from Sussex Police we have decided to carry out an independent investigation.

“It is understood that two plain-clothed Police Community Support Officers on foot and one police officer in a marked police vehicle were initially involved, and four further officers subsequently attended the incident.”

IPCC Commissioner Jennifer Izekor added today: “We are investigating what contact police had with the woman and man prior to the woman collapsing and being taken to hospital.

“We are gaining initial accounts from the police personnel involved. Investigators are carrying out house-to-house enquiries at the scene and we would really like to hear from any independent witnesses who were in the area on that Monday afternoon and saw what happened.”

Comments (10)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:24pm Mon 24 Feb 14

PorkyChopper says...

Plain clothes PCSOs??? WTF?
Plain clothes PCSOs??? WTF? PorkyChopper

4:33pm Mon 24 Feb 14

ICantThinkOfAName says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Plain clothes PCSOs??? WTF?
My reaction also!!
How can they be supporting the Community if they are in disguise?
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: Plain clothes PCSOs??? WTF?[/p][/quote]My reaction also!! How can they be supporting the Community if they are in disguise? ICantThinkOfAName

4:53pm Mon 24 Feb 14

NickBtn says...

All police should wear video cameras to help sort out incidents like this. It would protect them and help moderate their behaviour to protect the public as well
All police should wear video cameras to help sort out incidents like this. It would protect them and help moderate their behaviour to protect the public as well NickBtn

5:23pm Mon 24 Feb 14

jimpy762 says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Plain clothes PCSOs??? WTF?
Had no idea there even were such things.
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: Plain clothes PCSOs??? WTF?[/p][/quote]Had no idea there even were such things. jimpy762

8:03pm Mon 24 Feb 14

Bill in Hanover says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Plain clothes PCSOs??? WTF?
Otherwise known as 'members of the public'
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: Plain clothes PCSOs??? WTF?[/p][/quote]Otherwise known as 'members of the public' Bill in Hanover

9:41am Tue 25 Feb 14

ThinkBrighton says...

"Interacting", what a wonderful word to hide behind, it's nearly as good as plain clothed PCSO's
Sussex police still haven't realised that Bull Sh1t does not serve as an interim answer to any situation
"Interacting", what a wonderful word to hide behind, it's nearly as good as plain clothed PCSO's Sussex police still haven't realised that Bull Sh1t does not serve as an interim answer to any situation ThinkBrighton

7:31pm Tue 25 Feb 14

CDL1 says...

Interesting semantics from the Argus...women dog walker or druggie with dog? Which makes for more interesting story I wonder?
Interesting semantics from the Argus...women dog walker or druggie with dog? Which makes for more interesting story I wonder? CDL1

8:50am Wed 26 Feb 14

brighton bluenose says...

CDL1 wrote:
Interesting semantics from the Argus...women dog walker or druggie with dog? Which makes for more interesting story I wonder?
Nothing like jumping to conclusions when you know nothing about the situation is their dick head!!!
[quote][p][bold]CDL1[/bold] wrote: Interesting semantics from the Argus...women dog walker or druggie with dog? Which makes for more interesting story I wonder?[/p][/quote]Nothing like jumping to conclusions when you know nothing about the situation is their dick head!!! brighton bluenose

9:34am Wed 26 Feb 14

Darcstar says...

Plain clothes PCSO's - That is definately Illegal !!

"To go "undercover" is to avoid detection by the entity one is observing, and especially to disguise one's own identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of an individual or organization to learn or confirm confidential information or to gain the trust of targeted individuals in order to gather information or evidence."
Plain clothes PCSO's - That is definately Illegal !! "To go "undercover" is to avoid detection by the entity one is observing, and especially to disguise one's own identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of an individual or organization to learn or confirm confidential information or to gain the trust of targeted individuals in order to gather information or evidence." Darcstar

9:54am Wed 26 Feb 14

brighton bluenose says...

Darcstar wrote:
Plain clothes PCSO's - That is definately Illegal !!

"To go "undercover" is to avoid detection by the entity one is observing, and especially to disguise one's own identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of an individual or organization to learn or confirm confidential information or to gain the trust of targeted individuals in order to gather information or evidence."
From where do you get justification that plain-clothes PCSO's are 'illegal'?

And even if they were in plain clothes this clearly doesn't mean that they were 'undercover' does it?!
[quote][p][bold]Darcstar[/bold] wrote: Plain clothes PCSO's - That is definately Illegal !! "To go "undercover" is to avoid detection by the entity one is observing, and especially to disguise one's own identity for the purposes of gaining the trust of an individual or organization to learn or confirm confidential information or to gain the trust of targeted individuals in order to gather information or evidence."[/p][/quote]From where do you get justification that plain-clothes PCSO's are 'illegal'? And even if they were in plain clothes this clearly doesn't mean that they were 'undercover' does it?! brighton bluenose

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree