Two Sussex Police Officers Found Guilty of Gross Misconduct Over Tasering of 92-Year-Old Amputee in Care Home

Two police officers who deployed a Taser and pepper spray on a 92-year-old amputee inside his care home bedroom have been found to have committed gross misconduct, a disciplinary panel has ruled. The decision concludes a long-running case that has raised searching questions about how officers respond to vulnerable people in crisis.

PC Stephen Smith and PC Rachel Comotto appeared before a hearing at Sussex Police headquarters in Lewes, where a panel determined that their treatment of Donald Burgess amounted to "unjustified and excessive use of force." Both officers were found to have breached standards of professional behaviour.

The incident dates back to June 2022, when the officers were called to Park Beck care home in St Leonards-on-Sea. Staff had raised the alarm after Burgess, a resident who was living with dementia, threatened carers with a dinner knife. What followed would become the subject of criminal proceedings, an internal disciplinary process, and sustained public scrutiny.

Burgess, who had just one leg and used a wheelchair, was struck with a baton, sprayed with Pava — a type of pepper spray — and Tasered while seated in his bedroom. Body-worn camera footage played during the hearing captured the moments leading up to the use of force, including an officer asking the pensioner whether he wished to be sprayed or Tasered.

The two officers had previously faced criminal charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In May 2025, they were acquitted of those charges. The disciplinary panel, however, applied a different legal test and reached a markedly different conclusion about the reasonableness of their actions.

Panel members concluded that neither officer made any meaningful attempt to de-escalate the situation before resorting to force. Force lawyer Aaron Rathmell told the week-long hearing that Smith, 52, and Comotto, 37, had "acted, hastily, harshly and lost control" during the encounter.

The panel heard that Smith had drawn his pepper spray within just nine seconds of entering Burgess's room. In the footage, he is heard telling the elderly man: "Do you want to be sprayed or Tasered? It's up to you. Can you put that down for us?" Despite repeated requests, Burgess did not release the dinner knife.

According to the panel's findings, Smith "made no attempt to assess or understand" the vulnerability of the man in front of him. It further determined that he failed to consider simply leaving the 92-year-old alone in his room to calm down. The use of Pava was judged unreasonable given the circumstances, and the panel said there was only "limited mitigation" for the officers' conduct.

The panel was equally critical of Comotto. It found that she "showed no compassion" towards Burgess during the interaction. Her statements — including phrases such as "last chance" and "seriously" — and the limited time she allowed the pensioner to respond were described as inappropriate. Her use of force was also ruled unreasonable.

Smith's tone and language towards Burgess were characterised by the panel as "dismissive in nature," while Comotto's approach was labelled "antagonistic." Those findings formed part of the broader conclusion that the officers had fallen short of the standards expected of them.

Assistant Chief Constable Peter Gardner addressed the wider circumstances of the case, noting that Burgess had been in his own room at the time and was isolated from other residents. On that basis, he posed no immediate risk to others. Gardner said more information should have been gathered from care home staff before officers decided how to proceed.

Burgess was taken to hospital following the incident. While there, he contracted Covid-19 and died 22 days later. The disciplinary panel did not hold either officer responsible for his death, and that distinction remains an important element of the case's legal outcome.

The consequences for the two officers are not yet settled. The panel has still to decide whether they will be dismissed from Sussex Police or issued with a final written warning. That decision will determine the immediate future of both officers' careers.

The case sits within a wider national conversation about the use of force by police, particularly against elderly people, those with mental health conditions, and individuals living with dementia. Critics argue that incidents of this kind expose gaps in training and a failure to recognise vulnerability as a factor that should shape decision-making.

Advocates for people with dementia have long stressed that behaviour such as agitation or aggression is often a form of communication rather than a deliberate criminal act. In care settings, they argue, de-escalation techniques and specialist knowledge can often resolve situations without physical intervention.

For Sussex Police, the ruling represents a significant reputational moment. The force must now weigh the panel's findings alongside its duty to maintain public confidence and its responsibility to officers facing difficult, fast-moving calls. The outcome of the sanctions hearing will be closely watched by policing bodies, care providers, and families across the country.