A police officer whose altered statement led to an inquest being abandoned has told a fresh hearing his evidence should not have been changed.

A statement DC Richard Bazeley made in the wake of the death in custody of Habib Ullah in 2008 was redacted prior to being used in evidence at the original inquest.

Two other officers also had their statements altered following legal advice, the new inquest into the death of Mr Ullah in High Wycombe heard today.

DC Bazeley was one of three officers who restrained Mr Ullah in Sharrow Vale on July 3, 2008, during a stop-and-search, believing he was concealing drugs in his mouth. Mr Ullah died after a packet become lodged in his throat.

He agreed all the passages that were redacted from his original statement were relevant pieces of information that should have been disclosed to the original inquest jury.

But he said: "The Crown Prosecution Service concluded we were looking to make the evidence more accurate and not wishing to mislead people.

"I can remember some of the advice not to comment on things I wasn't sure about. If I was affirming things in a positive when I was mistaken, I could be giving a false positive on something.

"I accepted it. I was pacified enough that this was normal practice."

The officer added however: "I don't think I would take it [that legal advice] again next time."

DC Bazeley said he had not seen his original statement since making it, and when he came to give evidence at the original inquest he found it was the redacted version.

He said he volunteered this fact, which led to the hearing collapsing.

He told the inquest today: "I discussed with the lawyer at the time, if a suspect were to not mention something and later went on down the line they bring it up, it's suspicious and adverse inferences can be drawn. I was concerned about that and wasn't happy to continue without raising this."

Mr Ullah was searched along with two other occupants of a car that had been stopped, Emma Forbes and Morris Ned.

The Ullah family's lawyer, Anthony Metzer QC, said: "The fact all three of the occupants had abided by your instructions was omitted."

A passage where DC Bazeley described feeling Mr Ullah being struck while being restrained, but being unable to see what was happening, was omitted.

The words "with some force" to describe how DS Jason Liles had struck Mr Ullah were taken out, as had a reference to the same officer applying pressure to his ear as part of a restraint technique.

Mr Metzer also said the following passage was deleted: "Whilst restraining Mr Ullah's left arm in the arm entanglement, I became aware Miss Forbes was saying: 'They're trying to break his arm, they are strangling him'. I thought she had misinterpreted his command to break his arm."

Jurors heard yesterday the instruction from DS Liles to 'break his arm' was a technique used to stop Mr Ullah from shielding himself using his arms.

The hearing continues.