Police Officer CLEARED After Punching Suspect NINE TIMES In The Head

A police officer filmed punching a man nine times in the head while holding him in a headlock has been cleared of all eight gross misconduct allegations after a disciplinary panel ruled his actions were justified during a violent and chaotic arrest.

PC Richard Williams, of North Wales Police, faced losing his career over his treatment of Steven Clark, who suffered facial bruising and other injuries during an arrest in Porthmadog, Gwynedd, on May 10, 2023.

The officer was accused of using excessive force, including repeatedly punching Mr Clark, holding him in a headlock for approximately 36 seconds, using incapacitant spray and allegedly throwing or dropping him into a police van.

But after examining body-worn camera footage, mobile phone recordings and evidence from witnesses, a misconduct panel concluded that the officer had been dealing with a volatile and potentially dangerous suspect who was actively resisting arrest.

In a significant finding, the panel acknowledged that footage of the nine punches, when viewed in isolation, appeared disproportionate.

However, it ruled that the blows were reasonable when considered in the context of the entire struggle.

The decision marked the second time PC Williams had been cleared over the incident, having already been acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and intentional strangulation following a criminal trial at Caernarfon Crown Court in May 2025.

The misconduct panel rejected the allegations against him following a hearing at North Wales Police headquarters in Colwyn Bay, which concluded on September 18, 2026.

Arrest followed frightening claims of domestic violence

The incident began when PC Williams and fellow officer PC E Williams attended the home of Mr Clark’s former partner.

She told police that Mr Clark had arrived that morning while allegedly under the influence of cannabis and amphetamines and had attempted to attack her.

The couple’s approximately ten-year-old child had reportedly intervened and managed to get him to leave the property.

The child was described as distressed and crying.

During a domestic abuse risk assessment, the woman told officers she was frightened Mr Clark might return.

She also alleged that he had previously held a knife to her throat.

Officers were informed that Mr Clark had mental health difficulties linked to drug use.

After assessing the information, they decided to arrest him on suspicion of common assault.

He was located in the front garden of a friend’s property shortly before midday.

The panel later described the circumstances as presenting a high-risk situation, with concerns that Mr Clark could be violent, under the influence of drugs or potentially carrying a weapon.

It emphasised that the lawfulness and necessity of his arrest had not been challenged.

‘He was not compliant from the outset’

The confrontation began when PC Williams attempted to handcuff Mr Clark.

The officer initially placed a handcuff on his left wrist and repeatedly instructed him to provide his right hand.

But Mr Clark was holding a mobile phone and socks and did not comply with the instructions.

The panel found that footage showed him pulling away, attempting to dictate the situation and resisting efforts to secure the handcuffs.

Mr Clark claimed he had told officers that an existing arm injury prevented him from complying.

However, the panel said the footage did not support his claim that he had expressly explained this.

It also rejected an allegation that PC Williams deliberately twisted the handcuffs to inflict pain.

The panel found no twisting movement on the video and concluded there was insufficient evidence that the officer had caused the pain Mr Clark complained about.

It said: “The Panel considered that it was more likely that Mr Clark was feigning significant pain as a manipulation technique to resist the application of the handcuffs.”

The panel noted inconsistencies in Mr Clark’s account of which arm was injured.

Medical information cited in the investigation report showed no new fractures following the arrest, although Mr Clark had suffered extensive bruising around his left eye and had an existing wrist injury.

Female officer ‘rugby tackled’ to the ground

The situation escalated when Mr Clark and both officers ended up on the ground.

The case against PC Williams alleged that he had used the handcuffs to force Mr Clark down.

But the panel rejected that version of events.

PC E Williams told the hearing that Mr Clark had effectively “rugby tackled” her, driving forwards with his body and knocking her to the ground.

She believed the movement was deliberate and said she had been shocked by it.

Another witness, Mr Parry, also gave evidence that Mr Clark had pushed into the female officer.

The panel accepted that PC Richard Williams had suddenly lost his grip on the handcuff, which was consistent with an unexpected movement rather than a planned takedown.

That development was critical to its assessment of the officer’s subsequent actions.

Mr Clark had not been searched and could potentially have been carrying a weapon.

The loose handcuff also posed a danger, as it could have been used to cause serious injury.

The panel accepted that allowing him to regain his feet would have increased the risk to everyone involved.

Why the headlock was justified

PC Williams then restrained Mr Clark in a headlock for approximately 36 seconds.

The tactic became one of the most serious allegations examined at the hearing, particularly because Mr Clark said he had struggled to breathe and lost consciousness.

But the panel found that the footage did not support his account of losing consciousness.

Instead, it showed him continuing to struggle and attempting to get away.

PC E Williams also described Mr Clark as strong, continuing to kick out and resisting attempts to restrain him.

The panel acknowledged that the headlock was not an ideal technique.

However, it accepted PC Williams’ explanation that it was the first part of Mr Clark’s body he had been able to grab during the struggle.

It also recognised the practical difficulties confronting the officer, including uncertainty over where his colleague was positioned and the likelihood of a delay before reinforcements could arrive.

Although the tactic was not taught as part of police training, evidence given to the panel established that this did not automatically make its use unreasonable.

The panel said: “The Panel did not consider that there was any evidence that PC Williams used the headlock as a punishment or attempted to choke Mr Clark until he lost consciousness.”

It concluded the headlock was neither unreasonable nor excessive in the circumstances.

Nine punches ‘appear disproportionate’ on video

The most striking part of the case concerned footage showing PC Williams delivering nine punches to Mr Clark’s head or face while restraining him.

The panel openly acknowledged the disturbing appearance of the recording.

It stated: “It is important for the Panel to make clear that it recognises the video of the footage of the punches to Mr Clark’s head, in isolation, appear disproportionate.”

However, the panel stressed that it had considered everything leading up to the blows and what happened afterwards.

It found that the headlock had failed to bring Mr Clark under control and that he continued to resist despite repeated instructions to stop.

PC Williams told the hearing that he wanted to change his position and bring the struggle to an end quickly rather than prolong a headlock, which carried its own risks.

He explained that he was unable to reach his baton, Taser or incapacitant spray because of his position on the ground.

The panel accepted that striking Mr Clark was a reasonable option in those circumstances.

It also noted that distraction strikes were an established police tactic.

PC Williams said he had used his left, non-dominant hand and had been unable to put significant power into the punches because of his position.

He maintained that he stopped striking when he felt Mr Clark’s resistance diminish.

The panel accepted his evidence.

It found there were no further blows, kicks or other actions suggesting he had lost control of his temper or was attempting to punish the suspect.

The decision stated: “The Panel therefore determined that the strikes to Mr Clark were a reasonable use of force in these circumstances.”

Incapacitant spray allegations also rejected

The hearing separately examined the use of Captor incapacitant spray while Mr Clark was on the ground and later when officers attempted to secure him inside a police van.

PC Williams had deployed or attempted to deploy the spray on four occasions.

The panel accepted that his original spray canister had malfunctioned, with little or no incapacitant being released during the earlier attempts.

It heard that Mr Clark was repeatedly warned and instructed to calm down, stop resisting and cooperate with being handcuffed.

PC E Williams had herself suggested using the spray.

She told the panel that in ten years as a response officer, she had never previously used her own spray.

The panel regarded that as compelling evidence of how serious she considered the confrontation to be.

It also found that Mr Clark continued resisting efforts to place him in the police van, including using his legs to prevent officers from closing the doors.

PC Williams was accused of throwing or dropping him into the vehicle, but the panel rejected this allegation after examining footage and witness evidence.

It found no sufficient evidence that he had deliberately thrown or dropped Mr Clark.

The panel accepted that the attempts to get him inside the van could have been better coordinated.

Nevertheless, it found the decisions taken were reasonable in a fast-moving situation, particularly given the need to transport Mr Clark for medical attention.

The further uses of incapacitant spray were also considered reasonable.

Officer’s 20-year record considered

In reaching its conclusions, the panel considered positive character evidence submitted on PC Williams’ behalf.

It heard that he had served as a police officer for approximately 20 years and had no previous disciplinary history.

Character witnesses described him as calm under pressure and measured in his dealings with members of the public.

The panel also gave considerable weight to his experience as a response officer who had made hundreds of arrests.

It found insufficient evidence that his actions were motivated by anger, frustration or a loss of self-control.

Instead, it accepted that he had been trying to restrain a resisting man during a dangerous and rapidly escalating confrontation.

Ultimately, the panel concluded there was no established conduct that amounted to a breach of professional standards.

All eight allegations of gross misconduct were found not proven.

‘This matter is now at an end’

Following the hearing, North Wales Police welcomed the conclusion of proceedings that had lasted more than three years since the arrest.

Deputy Chief Constable Nigel Harrison said: “Having now been cleared by a misconduct panel which reviewed all the evidence and also a Crown Court trial where he was found not guilty, this matter is now at an end.”

He added: “I look forward to PC Williams returning to full duties.”

Mr Harrison said officers regularly faced violence and danger while carrying out their responsibilities and that the challenges of policing needed to be recognised alongside legitimate public scrutiny.

He said: “Officers are confronted with violence and danger on a daily basis and carry out their duties under difficult circumstances, rightly there should be public scrutiny but also a recognition of the challenges that they face trying to keep the public safe.”

For PC Williams, the decision brings to an end misconduct proceedings over an incident which had already resulted in his acquittal by a criminal jury.

The panel’s central finding was that although the footage of the arrest appeared troubling when viewed in isolation, PC Williams’ actions were reasonable when assessed against the threat, resistance and circumstances he faced at the time.