Police Officer CLEARED Of Gross Misconduct After ‘Threatening’ Handcuffed Prisoner And Pushing Him Into Cell

A police officer accused of threatening a handcuffed prisoner, pushing him into a custody cell and then giving a misleading account of what happened has had all three allegations against him found not proven.

PC Jonathan Graham, of Gwent Police, faced allegations of gross misconduct following an incident involving Daniel Whittaker, who fell inside a holding cell at Ystrad Mynach police station on May 1, 2024.

The officer admitted using force to move Mr Whittaker into the cell and accepted that he had used words similar to those alleged during an earlier journey in a police car.

But a misconduct panel concluded his language was appropriate in the circumstances, the force he used was reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and his subsequent witness statement was an honest account of what he believed had happened.

The panel also accepted that Mr Whittaker, who had a history of violence towards emergency workers, continued to pose a threat despite being handcuffed.

The decision followed a hearing at Rodney Parade in Newport on September 14 and 16, 2026, chaired by Assistant Chief Constable John Wade alongside independent panel members Keith Meredith and Carli Evans.

‘You will be on the floor’

The case arose after Mr Whittaker attended Blackwood police station to answer bail on May 1, 2024.

Sergeant Liam Brown told the hearing that Mr Whittaker was drunk, abusive and aggressive, shouting and swearing at officers.

He was arrested and handcuffed before PC Graham and fellow officer PC Hannah Scott were instructed to transport him to Ystrad Mynach.

Because no police vans were available, the officers had to use an ordinary police car, with PC Scott sitting alongside the prisoner in the back.

During the journey, PC Graham was alleged to have told Mr Whittaker: “Dan last week you fucked around mate you’re not going to be doing the same today….if you start like this again, you will be on the floor alright? If you carry on mate, you know what’s going to happen alright.”

The officer accepted that he had used similar words but denied that they amounted to misconduct.

He explained that a week earlier, another officer had used the same language towards Mr Whittaker when he was making racially abusive remarks, and it had successfully calmed him down.

PC Graham believed ordinary language would not have had the same effect and that Mr Whittaker might have thought he was being mocked.

PC Scott described the prisoner’s behaviour during the journey as unpredictable, switching between periods of calm and aggression.

She recalled him clenching his teeth, leaning towards her and pushing himself in her direction.

She also had a vague recollection of PC Graham saying something about Mr Whittaker ending up on the floor.

However, the panel accepted the officer’s explanation for his choice of words.

In its written decision, it stated: “The Panel took the view that the language used was appropriate in these particular circumstances with words that were in a terminology that Mr Whittaker would understand.”

It noted that Mr Whittaker’s behaviour had temporarily de-escalated after the comments and that the remarks had not been made in public.

The panel concluded the words did not breach the professional standard of Authority, Respect and Courtesy.

Prisoner fell after officer pushed him towards cell

The second allegation concerned what happened when the officers arrived at Ystrad Mynach.

PC Graham was accused of deliberately pushing or propelling Mr Whittaker forwards into a holding cell, causing him to fall.

The force was alleged to have been unnecessary, unreasonable and disproportionate.

Footage of the incident was examined by the panel.

PC Graham accepted that the video showed him pushing Mr Whittaker, although he maintained he had not realised at the time that he had done so.

He explained that the prisoner was resisting attempts to move him forwards and that PC Scott did not have a firm grip on him.

He told the hearing that he had used force to move Mr Whittaker into the cell and create a safe distance between them.

The officer insisted he had never intended to hurt the prisoner.

He also said Mr Whittaker’s handcuffs were positioned in front of his body, meaning they could potentially be used as a weapon, and that there was a risk of officers being headbutted.

PC Scott initially believed PC Graham had simply released his grip on Mr Whittaker, who had then stumbled.

She told the hearing that she had not felt PC Graham push the prisoner.

However, after subsequently reviewing body-worn video footage, she accepted that it looked as though a push had occurred.

Crucially, the panel considered the speed at which events unfolded.

From the officers entering the custody suite to reaching the cell, just six seconds had elapsed.

The panel said it had taken care not to judge the footage by freeze-framing individual moments.

It accepted that Mr Whittaker remained a threat, despite being handcuffed, because of his unpredictable behaviour and violent history.

The panel also noted that the police authority bringing the case accepted PC Graham had not intended to cause harm.

In its findings, it said: “The Panel viewed the action of the Officer and his use of force to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.”

It also found the officer’s reaction after Mr Whittaker fell was consistent with shock at what had happened following the use of an appropriate level of force.

The allegation that PC Graham breached the professional standard governing use of force was therefore not proven.

Officer accused of misleading account

The third and potentially most serious allegation concerned a witness statement PC Graham provided shortly after the incident.

In that statement, he said Mr Whittaker had fallen because he stumbled due to intoxication.

He made no reference to having pushed the prisoner.

The force alleged that the omission amounted to a deliberately misleading and inaccurate account, breaching the professional standard of Honesty and Integrity.

But PC Graham maintained that when he wrote the statement, he genuinely did not believe he had pushed Mr Whittaker.

He told the hearing there had been no attempt to minimise what happened or conceal the prisoner’s injuries.

He said he had reported Mr Whittaker’s complaint of injury over the police radio and knew the incident had been recorded on custody cameras and PC Scott’s body-worn video.

The panel accepted his explanation.

Its written decision stated: “The Panel accepted that, at the time he gave the statement, he honestly believed that there had not been a push.”

It added: “The Panel found that the statement was an accurate record of events as he believed them at the time that he made the statement.”

The allegation of dishonesty was consequently found not proven.

‘Properly brought case’

The panel heard positive character evidence about PC Graham from a range of referees.

It also found that all witnesses who gave evidence had done so professionally and were credible.

Although the officer successfully defended the allegations, the panel stressed that the disciplinary proceedings had been justified.

It stated: “The Panel wish to make it clear that this was a properly brought case.”

It added that it was in the public interest for such matters to be examined and decided in public.

Mr Whittaker had been informed of the hearing date but did not attend.

The panel acknowledged the impact of the proceedings on everyone involved and expressed concern about the time taken to bring the case to a conclusion.

It said: “It is perhaps disappointing and obviously a matter of stress for the Officer that it is taken so long for this hearing to take place.”

PC Graham, who joined the force in July 2021 after previously serving as a special constable, told the hearing he had undergone a substantial period of reflection in the two years since the incident.

He had been absent from work through sickness but was never suspended and had returned to duty in April 2026.

In its concluding remarks, the panel expressed hope that Mr Whittaker had recovered from his injuries and could move forward with his life.

It also hoped PC Graham could put the disciplinary investigation behind him.

The panel said it hoped the officer had “now been afforded closure to this investigation and can move on with his policing career.”

All three allegations against PC Graham were found not proven, with no breach of professional standards established.