North Wales Police Officer Faces Misconduct Hearing Over Use of Force During 2023 Arrest

A North Wales Police officer has appeared before a disciplinary panel after being accused of deploying unreasonable and excessive force against a suspect, including applying a restrictive neck hold and delivering nine rapid punches to the man's head. PC Richard Williams faces a total of eight formal disciplinary allegations connected to his actions during the May 2023 arrest of Steven Clark in Gwynedd.

The proceedings, convened at North Wales Police headquarters in Colwyn Bay, focus on whether the officer breached professional standards of behaviour regarding the use of force. PC Williams denies all allegations of wrongdoing, maintaining that his actions during the confrontation were justified given the volatile circumstances of the arrest.

The misconduct hearing follows earlier criminal proceedings in 2025, where PC Williams stood trial at Caernarfon in Gwynedd. Following a seven-day trial, the officer was formally cleared of criminal charges, including allegations of assault and intentional strangulation. Despite his acquittal in court, he must now answer to internal regulatory standards governing officer conduct and proportionality.

The incident at the centre of the disciplinary hearing occurred in May 2023, when officers were dispatched to an address in Porthmadog following reports concerning an ongoing domestic argument. Upon arriving at the location, police personnel encountered Mr. Clark, who was 34 years old at the time of the response.

According to testimony presented to the misconduct panel, a woman at the scene informed the attending officers that Mr. Clark was heavily intoxicated. She reported to police that he was under the influence of cannabis, describing him as being "off his head on wacky backy," and indicated that he may have consumed other illicit substances as well.

The panel was informed that the situation deteriorated rapidly when officers moved in to take Mr. Clark into custody. Disciplinary presenters noted that events took a sudden turn during the confrontation, which quickly escalated into a physical struggle that brought the suspect down onto the ground.

During the opening of the hearing, panel members were shown extensive visual evidence documenting the interaction. The footage presented included recordings captured by police body-worn video cameras alongside multiple clips filmed on mobile phones by members of the public who witnessed the altercation in Porthmadog.

Among the specific charges brought against PC Williams is an allegation that he improperly used handcuffs as a pain compliance technique. Presenters alleged that the officer applied the restraints in a manner deliberately intended to inflict pain on Mr. Clark's wrist, prompting the suspect to visibly wince and react during the struggle on the ground.

The hearing also examined the officer's use of a neck restraint, described in the allegations as a headlock or "choker" hold. Disciplinary representatives argued that placing Mr. Clark in such a hold constituted an unreasonable and hazardous application of force during the apprehension.

In records from his subsequent police interview presented to the panel, Mr. Clark stated that the restraint severely restricted his breathing, claiming he told officers at the time that he could not breathe. He further asserted during questioning that the pressure applied to his neck caused him to begin losing consciousness while pinned.

Visual evidence submitted to the hearing captured PC Williams gripping Mr. Clark by the neck with one arm while simultaneously using his other hand to deliver repeated strikes. The panel heard allegations that PC Williams punched Mr. Clark nine times in the face or head in rapid succession, without pausing between blows to assess the suspect's compliance or reflect on the necessity of continued physical strikes.

In addition to the physical blows and headlock, four separate allegations against PC Williams pertain to the deployment or attempted deployment of incapacitant spray. The disciplinary case argues that the use or threatened application of the chemical agent during the arrest was disproportionate under the prevailing circumstances.

A further allegation relates to the manner in which Mr. Clark was loaded into transport after being subdued. Presenters alleged that as Mr. Clark attempted to resist being placed into the police vehicle, he was improperly thrown or dropped directly into the back of the van by the officer.

Disciplinary presenters submitted to the panel that the combination of these eight distinct actions collectively demonstrated an unreasonable, unjustified, and excessive reliance on force. The hearing at force headquarters was subsequently adjourned, with proceedings scheduled to resume on Tuesday to hear further evidence.