Jury concludes police officer’s actions in firing device at Andrew Pimlott were in accordance with his training

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

A 50,000-volt police Taser being fired at a man soaked with the petrol was the “most likely” cause of him becoming engulfed with flames and suffering fatal burns, an inquest jury has ruled.

Andrew Pimlott, 32, poured the fuel over himself during a domestic incident in the back garden of his parents’ house.

One of two police officers, PC Peter Hodgkinson, fired the stun gun at him, later claiming that he discharged the device to try to keep Pimlott safe as he was holding a lit match.

In a narrative conclusion, the jurors said they had decided “we don’t know” whether Pimlott was holding a flame or not, although he was in possession of matches.

“We believe that the Taser was the most likely source of ignition,” they said. “We believe that an exchange of words indicating ‘Put it down’ was said before the Taser was discharged. We don’t know how soon after the Taser was discharged.”

The jury also said Hodgkinson’s actions were “in accordance” with his training.

The inquest was told that Pimlott, who was unemployed and single, had a history of depression and alcohol problems. He had a difficult relationship with his parents and had been banned from their home by magistrates.

He was also well known to police, having been arrested 12 times between August 2010 and his death in April 2013.

On the evening of the incident, his father, Kelvin Pimlott, spotted him in the garden with a petrol can and dialled 999, telling the operator he was worried he was going to set fire to the house.

Two officers, Hodgkinson and PC David Beer, responded. Hodgkinson said that as soon as he stepped into the garden, Pimlott emptied the jerry can over himself. The officer said he spotted that Pimlott had a match in his hand and fired his Taser.

Hodgkinson said he had felt that firing the Taser would stop Pimlott harming himself or others.

The officer said: “I thought he was about to use the flame that was in his hand to set himself alight and if I didn’t take any action that he was going to harm himself and I needed to use the Taser to stop him harming himself.”

The jury was told that the stun gun was discharged within 41 seconds of the officers reaching the scene.

Matthew Barnes, a barrister representing the Pimlott family, suggested to the constable he had fired the device “almost instantaneously” when he saw the lit match. Hodgkinson insisted he had shouted a warning.

Barnes asked Hodgkinson if he had considered a different approach by talking to Pimlott, as he might have got a different outcome.

Hodgkinson replied: “My belief at the time was that he was going to harm himself, that’s why I drew my Taser. I am not going to get into the what ifs of every other possible scenario. I believe I did all I could.”

Relatives wept as they heard Pimlott had asked an ambulance technician to tell his family he loved them if he did not survive his injuries. He was rushed to hospital but died five days later.

Kelvin Pimlott explained that he thought his son was “calling his bluff” when he grabbed the jerry can. “I think it was a cry for help,” he said. His family has complained they were not even told a Taser was involved until days after the incident.

Hodgkinson told the inquest at Plymouth coroner’s court that he had completed his three-day Taser training course in 2012 – the year before Pimlott’s death – but the fatal incident was the first time he had deployed the weapon.

His colleague claimed Hodgkinson had no option but to shoot Pimlott with the Taser because of the risk he was posing to himself and others.

Firearms instructor Sgt Gary Wedge, who is on secondment to the College of Policing, was asked by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to analyse the incident.

Wedge told the inquest national policing guidelines stated it was “likely” that someone doused in petrol would catch fire if a Taser was discharged at them. But the guidelines still permitted the use of a Taser in the presence of flammable liquids and was down to individual officers’ discretion.

Earlier this year, Hodgkinson was cleared of gross misconduct following an internal disciplinary hearing.

The case is one of a number of controversies involving the use of stun guns by police. One in 10 officers is now armed with a Taser.