Queensland police have say in future use of stranglehold
Queensland police will help decide if they continue to use the controversial ‘stranglehold’ that has been banned across the rest of Australia.
Queensland police will help decide if they continue to use the controversial “stranglehold” that has been banned across the rest of Australia.
A closed-door review into the Queensland Police-approved “Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint”, which led to the death of Indigenous man Steven Nixon-McKellar in 2021, has been extended for another year to allow for more research into its effectiveness and risks.
A working group of senior police, ambulance service, police union and police lawyers last year reviewed the use of the restraint, which involves compressing the arteries and veins in the neck so as to cut off the blood supply to the brain, leading “to altered levels of consciousness”.
The review was not publicly announced and no submissions or input was sought from outside medical or justice advocates.
Leaked documents show despite other police services warning of its dangers – particularly if not applied properly or on people with underlying health conditions – a majority of the 17-member panel voted to continue to allow its use until the outcome of the extended review. Only one person, who was not named, voted to ban the technique.
The panel recommended that the Queensland Police Service engage a university to conduct a “survey of officers’ attitudes” in the use of the restraint in dealing with suspects and offenders resisting arrest.
The initial review was ordered in January last year by Queensland Coroner Terry Ryan after he held an inquest into the 2018 death of Indigenous man Noombah in Townsville.
A police officer testified that he had attempted the controversial restraint on the 39-yerar-old shortly before his death.
Mr Ryan found that the police constable had “not actually achieved” the restraint, in squeezing the sides of Noombah’s neck and compressing his carotid arteries, as he wrestled with him.
The inquest heard medical evidence that while the restraint was “safe if properly applied” it “could result in death and should never be used on people with heart disease’’.
“Presence of other disease and medication was also an unknown factor and thrombotic material may be dislodged in the process,’’ Mr Ryan said in his findings.
Former Victorian Police assistant commissioner Emmett Dunne, a 39-year police veteran, gave evidence that “a LVNR or any restraint that is designed to restrict blood flow to the brain should not be used”.
He said the use of the restraint should not be used except in high risk situations involving a “fight for life”.
Documents show that the working panel reviewing the LVNR was told the restraint had its origins in martial arts and was developed in police training and trademarked in the 1970s by an officer in the Kansas City police.
The technique, which is also known as a stranglehold and sleeper hold, is gradually being outlawed across the world with US police departments increasingly abandoning the practice after the 2020 death of George Floyd.
The working group said despite a “paucity of recent literature” into the LVNR, the American Academy of Neurology had recently put out a “position statement against the use of the technique”.
The working group canvassed the views of other state jurisdictions and the Australian Federal Police on the restraint. All but NSW police had responded with their opposition to its use.
NSW Police told The Weekend Australian that the LVNR “is not a technique within NSWPF’s weaponless control training”.
“That said, officers are trained to use a range of tactical options to bring situations to a safe and effective conclusion, taking action that is appropriate to the specific situation and threat level,’’ NSW Police said.
One of the most detailed responses to the Queensland Police review came from Tasmanian Police.
“Every use of force has the capacity to cause injury,’’ its submission said.
“The degree of risk and negative consequences associated with strangles and chokes are excessive.”
“Particularly when other options are available.”