The Custody Corridor

Safety and medical care first. I would have the man seen by the station doctor or ambulance immediately, with a written record of the lip injury, any spit allegation, and his demeanour. This addresses the immediate risk of unnoticed injury and secures a medical account that may later be evidence. I would ensure he is not left alone with the member and that restraint is reviewed; handcuffs should remain only if necessary and proportionate.

Separate and preserve. I would remove the member from custody duties, take his account initially without collusion, and separately speak to the probationer. I would download the member's body-worn camera, preserve the corridor CCTV, identify the blind spot, and log times. I would record my own observations verbatim, including the two strikes, the bleeding lip, and the member's explanation.

Report and escalate. I would notify the Superintendent on duty and request referral to the independent oversight body, because this is an allegation of assault by a member and there is an injured detainee. I would open an incident log and ensure preservation of all relevant records.

Detainee's complaint. I would ask the man if he wishes to make a complaint, record it, and arrange support. I would not promise an outcome. If he declines, I would still record the incident.

Probationer. She is a witness, not the accused. I would reassure her that she is not in trouble for witnessing, but I would not promise immunity or secrecy. I would explain the Code of Ethics duty to report wrongdoing and the need for a written statement while her memory is fresh. I would separate her from the member, arrange a support person, and consider whether she is fit to finish the shift. Her welfare is a leadership responsibility, but it must not become a reason to soften the account.

Experienced member. He must be treated fairly: no public humiliation, no predetermined guilt. I would take an initial account, caution him if he becomes a suspect, and consider restricted duties or suspension from operational contact pending investigation. I would preserve his equipment and records. The fact that he is popular is irrelevant to the duty to report; it increases the risk of a cover-up.

Informal resolution. I would not agree to 'deal with it in the station'. A quiet word would expose the detainee to further risk, contaminate evidence, and breach accountability. If a senior officer suggested it, I would record the suggestion and escalate. The Code of Ethics requires integrity and accountability, not loyalty to a colleague over a person in custody.

Response. 'Superintendent, I have a detainee with a bleeding lip, a probationer witness, and an allegation that a member struck him twice. I have preserved the body-worn camera and CCTV and recorded my observations. I cannot keep this in the station. I am asking you to authorise referral to the independent oversight body and to record your decision. If you decline, I will escalate to the next senior officer and record why.'

Reasoning. The use of force may be lawful if necessary and proportionate to the spit, but it must be investigated independently of the unit. The detainee is vulnerable and in custody; the State owes him a duty of care. The probationer must not learn that loyalty buys silence. The Superintendent's instruction tests command accountability and the Code of Ethics.

Governance principles. I would rely on accountability, transparency, fair procedure, and the duty to report wrongdoing. I would not destroy or delay records. I would keep the member's welfare in view but not at the expense of the investigation. I would document all instructions and times, because the test is not whether the station looks good, but whether the decision would withstand scrutiny by a court, the oversight body, and the public.