The Police Ombudsman concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support disciplinary action against an officer who struck a man while officers were attempting to apply handcuffs.

The incident happened in the Hollow Mills area of Newmills, Co. Tyrone, shortly after 11pm on 9 October 2010.

Police had stopped a car containing four men, one of whom (Man A) was reported to be intoxicated and became abusive to police.

After being warned to stop shouting and swearing at officers, Man A pushed a police officer (Officer 2) on the chest. He was then arrested for assault on police, and two officers assisted Officer 2 in restraining him.

The officers moved Man A to a police car and placed him over the bonnet so that handcuffs could be applied behind his back. As they did so, Man A struggled and banged his head off the car bonnet. Officer 2 placed his hand under Man A's head to prevent this, and he then ceased struggling, though his arms remained tense.

At this point a handcuff had been applied to Man A's right wrist, but officers were having difficulty applying the second one as the cuffs had been applied upside-down.

Officer 2 told Police Ombudsman investigators that another officer (Officer 1) then approached and struck Man A three times on the lower arm or body with a clenched fist. Officer 2 said he could see no justification for these strikes as he believed Man A was under control.

He later told Officer 1 that he was not happy with what had happened.

Police Ombudsman investigators also spoke to the senior officer who had been present during the incident (Officer 3). Having assisted in placing one of the handcuffs on Man A, Officer 3 said he believed Man A had been under control. He turned away to allow Officer 2 to take full control of Man A's left arm.

Officer 1 then walked past him and he heard three slapping sounds, but did not see any strikes taking place. He later spoke to Officer 2 about his concerns about the strikes, and subsequently reported the concerns to the relevant police authorities.

While Officers 2 and 3 expressed concerns about the strikes, two other officers who were present during the incident said they believed they were justified. One had helped to restrain Man A and said that the left handcuff could not be applied as Man A was struggling. He said Officer 1 had struck Man A three times on the wrist in an attempt to assist in the application of the handcuff.

Another officer who saw what happened but was not directly involved in the arrest said Officer 1 had used "distractor blows" in an attempt to allow the handcuffs to be applied.

None of the other officers who had been at the scene saw the blows, but they did comment on Man A's aggressive behaviour, and all agreed that he had been intoxicated.

When interviewed, Officer 1 said his colleagues had been having difficulty restraining Man A and he believed he continued to pose a risk. He said he assisted his colleagues by striking Man A two or three times with the heel of his closed hand on Man A's inner forearm.

Officer 1 said he had been taught this technique, which he called "distraction blows" during his police training. He added that he had ruled out other options, including the use of his baton or CS Spray, due to the proximity of other officers.

He added that he believed the force used to have been reasonable and proportionate, and the minimum necessary in assisting his colleagues to apply the handcuffs.

Police Ombudsman investigators also spoke to PSNI trainers about the use of "distraction blows" and established that officers are taught to use strikes on designated body areas and nerve points. Officers are taught to use such blows to distract someone, and it is up to individual officers to justify their use.

A report on the incident was submitted to the Public Prosecution Service, which directed that Officer 1 should not be prosecuted in relation to the incident.

Man A appeared in court in April 2011 and was sentenced to a total of nine months imprisonment for the offences of Disorderly Behaviour, Resisting Police and Assault on Police arising from the incident.

Having considered the evidence, the Police Ombudsman concluded that Officer 1 had acted to assist his colleagues in a dynamic and rapidly changing situation. Two officers were concerned by level of force used, two others believed it to be necessary and proportionate.

The Police Ombudsman concluded that, given the conflicting witness accounts, there was insufficient evidence to warrant disciplinary action against Officer 1.