Leeds collapse dad was at risk of heart attack
AN Inquest jury today concluded a Leeds father who collapsed and died while trying to stop police arresting his son was at risk of suffering a fatal heart attack at any time.
The family of father-of-five Nazim Din, 54, had told the inquest at Wakefield that they blamed officers for his death outside his home on Grasmere Court, Wortley, on August 28 2013.
Four police officers had attended the property to arrest Mr Din’s son, Nadeem, 36, on suspicion of criminal damage.
Police also handcuffed his other son, Naveed, because they were unsure which brother was which. Mr Din was trying to convince the officers that Naveed should not be arrested when he collapsed in the street.
After a two week inquest, the jury returned a narrative verdict this afternoon.
The jury foreman said: “The family’s reaction to the presence of police in the house and agitated state of family members made the situation tense, hostile and stressful, all of which contributed to Mr Din’s cardiac arrest.”
The foreman added: “Upon seeing Mr Din fall we believe police reacted immediately to start the appropriate first aid and called the ambulance service.”
His family told the inquest jury they believe he fell after being pushed or “nudged” by one of the officers. They claimed the officers then failed to help him while he was on the ground and that at least one stepped over his body.
The jury had heard Mr Din was pronounced dead at Leeds General Infirmary at 7.50pm.
The foreman said: “From Mr Din’s doctor’s records and subsequent post mortem it was proven that the condition of Mr Din’s heart and arteries were liable to put him at risk of cardiac death at any time, even when at rest.”
Chf Supt Clive Wain, head of West Yorkshire Police’s professional standards department, said after the inquest: “The death of Mr Din was a tragic incident. West Yorkshire Police co-operated fully with the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s investigation which has now concluded. The IPCC found that no officers or staff involved in this incident had a case to answer regarding their conduct.”