Two Sussex Police Officers Committed Gross Misconduct in Tasering of 92-Year-Old Amputee, Panel Rules

Two Sussex Police officers who Tasered a 92-year-old amputee inside his care home bedroom have been found to have committed gross misconduct, a disciplinary panel has concluded. PC Stephen Smith and PC Rachel Comotto were informed of the ruling at a hearing held at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes, bringing a painful chapter in the case of Donald Burgess one step closer to resolution.

The panel determined that the officers were responsible for "unjustified and excessive use of force" during the confrontation, which took place at Park Beck care home in St Leonards-on-Sea in June 2022. The finding of gross misconduct was proven against both officers. It has not yet been decided whether the pair will be dismissed from the force or receive a final written warning, with that determination expected to follow separately.

The incident unfolded after Burgess, who was living with dementia, threatened carers with a dinner knife. Officers were called to the home to respond to the situation. What followed, according to the disciplinary panel, was a series of decisions that departed sharply from the standards expected of police officers dealing with a vulnerable person in crisis.

Burgess, a single-leg amputee, was hit with a baton, struck with Pava pepper spray and then Tasered while seated in his wheelchair in his own bedroom. The panel found that the force used against him was unreasonable, and that the officers had failed to take steps to de-escalate the situation before resorting to physical measures. Both officers were also found to have breached standards of professional behaviour.

The hearing, which ran for a week, heard forceful criticism of the officers' conduct from force lawyer Aaron Rathmell. He told the panel that Smith, 52, and Comotto, 37, "acted, hastily, harshly and lost control" during the encounter. According to Rathmell, Smith had drawn his pepper spray within just nine seconds of entering Burgess's room, an extraordinarily short window in which to assess a complex and delicate situation involving an elderly man with dementia.

Body-worn camera footage played during the hearing showed Smith entering the room and asking Burgess: "Do you want to be sprayed or Tasered? It's up to you. Can you put that down for us?" Despite repeated requests from the officers, Burgess, who was seated in his wheelchair, did not release the dinner knife. The footage formed a central part of the evidence considered by the panel.

The panel's conclusions were damning in their assessment of how the officers approached the situation. It found that Smith "made no attempt to assess or understand" Burgess's vulnerability as a dementia sufferer and amputee. Comotto, meanwhile, was found to have "showed no compassion" toward the elderly man during the confrontation.

Smith also failed to consider simply leaving the 92-year-old in his room to calm down, the panel found — an option that might have defused the situation without any physical intervention. The use of Pava, a type of pepper spray, was judged to be unreasonable in the circumstances. The panel said there was "limited mitigation" for the officers' behaviour.

The panel further criticised the manner in which the officers communicated with Burgess. Smith's tone and language toward the pensioner were described as "dismissive in nature," while Comotto's approach was characterised as "antagonistic." Her statements, including phrases such as "last chance" and "seriously," along with the limited time she allowed Burgess to respond, were all found to be inappropriate. Her use of force was deemed unreasonable.

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner said Burgess had been in his own room, isolated from other residents, and posed no risk to anyone at the time officers confronted him. He said more information should have been gathered from care home staff before officers took action, suggesting that better communication on the ground could have altered the outcome significantly.

The case has already been through the criminal courts. In May 2025, both Smith and Comotto were acquitted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, meaning they faced no criminal liability for their actions. The disciplinary proceedings, however, operate under a different legal threshold, and the panel's finding of gross misconduct reflects a separate judgment about whether the officers' behaviour fell below the professional standards required by the force.

Burgess was taken to hospital following the incident and contracted Covid-19 while there. He died 22 days later. The officers were not held responsible for his death, and no finding of causation was made against them in that regard. Nevertheless, the circumstances of his final weeks have lent the case a particular gravity, and the disciplinary panel's findings will add to the scrutiny facing Sussex Police over how it handles incidents involving elderly and vulnerable people.

The outcome of the hearing raises broader questions about police tactics when responding to calls involving people with dementia or other cognitive impairments. In such situations, the ability of officers to slow down, gather information from those who know the individual, and consider alternatives to force can be decisive. The panel's finding that Smith failed to weigh the option of withdrawing from the room highlights the importance of tactical patience — particularly where a subject is contained, isolated and not posing an immediate danger to others.

The case also underscores the role of body-worn camera footage in holding officers to account. The recorded exchanges between Smith, Comotto and Burgess provided the panel with direct evidence of how quickly the encounter escalated, and how little time the officers gave the 92-year-old to comply before force was deployed. Such footage has become an increasingly important tool in disciplinary and criminal proceedings alike.

For Sussex Police, the ruling represents a significant reputational moment. The force must now decide on sanctions for two officers found to have committed gross misconduct in connection with the treatment of a man who, by the panel's own findings, was vulnerable and posed no risk. The decision on whether Smith and Comotto are dismissed or given final written warnings will be closely watched, both within the force and by the wider public.

Burgess's family have previously spoken of their loss, and the panel's findings confirm that the officers' actions fell far short of what the circumstances demanded. While the criminal acquittal stands, the disciplinary verdict paints a stark picture of an encounter that spiralled rapidly and unnecessarily, ending with an elderly, disabled man subjected to baton blows, pepper spray and a Taser in the privacy of his own bedroom.

The case is likely to feed into ongoing debates about police training, the use of less-lethal weapons, and the duty of care officers owe to people with dementia. For now, the panel's finding of gross misconduct stands as a formal condemnation of the conduct of both officers, with the question of their futures on the force still to be answered.