Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019

Amir Siman-Tov

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0302, written 28 Aug 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report28 Aug 2019
Reference2019-0302
DeceasedAmir Siman-Tov
CoronerSean Cummings
Coroner areaWest London
CategoryState Custody related deaths
Organisation namedWest London NHS Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses publishednone published

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS  

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

 wife of the deceased 

1. 
2.  Mitie Care and Custody;  
3.  Home Office;  
4.  Central and North West London NHS Trust;  
5.  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust; 
6. 
7. 

; 

 Langley Health Centre Common Road Langley SL3 8LE 

1 

CORONER 

I am Dr Séan Cummings, Assistant Coroner for the Western District, London 

2 

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 
and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On the 28th February 2016 an investigation was opened into the death of Amir Siman-
Tov. The investigation was concluded by way of Inquest over the period 13th May 2019 
to 30th May 2019.  

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Mr Siman-Tov was detained on the 25th January 2016 under immigration regulations at 
The Beckett House Reporting Centre. 

He had had previous involvement with police, custodial services and also the Home 
Office over a number of years and there were a number of documented suicide 
attempts. 

He had had a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, depression and epilepsy and was 
treated for all three. 

At Beckett House Mr Siman-Tov asks to use the toilet. Sometime later a choking sound 
is heard coming from the toilet and officers enter to discover that he had attempted to 
strangle himself with an electrical wire that was in his pocket at the time of his arrest. 
The ligature was around his neck. 

Following this, Mr Siman-Tov was moved to the Walworth Road Police Station. 

At around 1750 on the 25th January 2016 at Walworth Police Station Mr Siman-Tov is 
subject to a forced search. His clothing is removed and he is placed in his cell in his 
underpants. He removes his underpants and attempts to make a ligature of them. His 
underpants are removed from his cell and he is then under constant supervision/watch 

1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 whilst at the police station. 

While at Walworth Police Station and partly because of (1) the attempt to strangle 
himself at Beckett House and (2) the attempt to strangle himself with his underpants at 
the police station he is deemed to require constant supervision. 

On the 27th January 2016 Mr Siman-Tov was moved from the Walworth Road Police 
station to Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre. Tascor, a private secure transport 
firm collected Mr Siman-Tov at 0055 from Walworth police Station and removed him to 
Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), Heathrow, arriving at 0230 hrs on the 
28th January 2016. 

On arrival Mr Siman-Tov was placed on an ACDT. An ACDT is an Assessment Care in 
Detention and Teamwork (ACDT) self harm reduction strategy. It provides a holistic 
approach to suicide prevention (with a move away from simple awareness to 
prevention), within the broader context of decency, safety, and the concept of a healthy 
centre, but also brings existing policy in line with similar changes implemented by the 
Ministry of Justice. In short it is a process designed to avoid at risk individuals taking 
their own lives. To be effective it needs participation in by all staff involved in caring for a 
detainee. 

Mr Siman-Tov remained on an ACDT constant watch from his arrival at Colnbrook IRC 
to his death on the 17th February 2016. During his stay at Colnbrook IRC he repeatedly 
expressed suicidal thoughts and articulated that he would save his medication and take 
as an overdose. 

At about 1042 on the 16th February 2016, Mr Siman-Tov was suspected of taking an 
overdose of medication. He was taken to the Hillingdon Hospital and assessed. After 
assessment he was discharged from the Hillingdon Hospital at 1710. The “discharge” 
note sent by Hillingdon Hospital staff contained no clinical information or advice. 

He was returned to Colnbrook.  

At 0419 the next morning he was found to have died. The medical cause of death is 
recorded as 1a Codeine Toxicity. 

Mr Siman-Tov had a genetic variant which meant that his metabolism of codeine into 
morphine was faster than in people without the variant. 

5 

CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the Inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In 
my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the 
circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows: 

1.  A GP who had seen Mr Siman-Tov during his stay at Colnbrook IRC told the jury 
that he never seen and was not aware of the content of ACDT documents and 
regarded the document as a custody officer process. He told the Court that it 
was not customary for healthcare staff to attend or participate in the ACDT 
process. This puts detainees at risk. 

2.  The nurses who gave evidence similarly were uncertain of their role with respect 
to the ACDT process and had variable accounts of their involvement in the 
ACDT process. This puts detainees at risk. 

3.  The Consultant Forensic psychiatrist did not read the ACDT documents. This 

puts detainees at risk. 

4.  The Centre Manager gave evidence that he recognised the importance of the 

2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ACDT process in keeping detainee’s safe and he actively encouraged as wide 
participation in the process as possible. He stated that he was only able to direct 
the custody staff and it was not in his power to direct that healthcare staff 
participated. 

5.  Mr Siman-Tov expressed that he might save his medication and take as an 

overdose. There was conflicting evidence as to the rigour of the checks to 
ensure detainees had swallowed issued medicine at the time of dispensing and 
the nurses who gave evidence described different practices of observation. Mr 
Siman-Tov was able to collect sufficient codeine ultimately to be able to end his 
life. This lack of consistency of checks puts detainee’s at risk. 

6.  Mr Siman-Tov was taken to the Hillingdon Hospital in the late morning following 

his overdose on the 16th February 2016. At the Hillingdon Hospital an 
assessment, examination and blood tests were taken. The blood tests indicated 
renal impairment. An information system TOXBASE is used in emergency 
departments to provide assistance to clinicians. Toxbase indicates that in renal 
impairment greater care must be taken in cases of codeine overdose. This was 
missed. 

7.  The hospital clinicians gave evidence which suggested that they were not fully 

aware of the level of medical monitoring and supervision available at Colnbrook 
IRC. Mr Siman-Tov had taken an overdose whilst supervised within that facility 
and a decision was made to return him to that environment. 

8.  On discharge Mr Siman-Tov in the early evening of the 16th February 2016 was 
returned to Colnbrook IRC with no accompanying clinical information at all and 
no advice or directions to the clinical staff at the Colnbrook IRC from the 
hospital. The only information provided was that one of the hospital doctors had 
spoken to one of the Colnbrook IRC on the telephone and that Mr Siman-Tov 
was “good to go”. Failure to provide detailed written information puts patients at 
risk. 

9.  During the journey back to the Colnbrook IRC Mr Siman-Tov vomited several 
times. He vomited on his return to the healthcare unit. The nurse on duty was 
not told by the escorting custody staff and did not ask about any vomiting in the 
returning minibus. In oral evidence the nurse said that had he known of the 
vomiting then he would have returned Mr Siman-Tov to the hospital for further 
assessment. He did not know because he did not ask and was not told.  

10.  Mr Siman-Tov’s care was then handed over to night staff. No explicit direction or 

handover was given. The explanation for this was that the observations should 
be second nature and did not need elaboration. 

11.  The night nurse on duty at around 2100 noted that Mr Siman-Tov was sleeping 
and snoring. He made no attempt to wake him, check him or take his vital signs. 
This put Mr Siman-Tov at risk. 

12.  At approximately 3.10 on the 17th February 2016 Mr Siman-Tov was found to be 
unresponsive by custody officers. Medical assistance was called for but the 
required “code blue” for summoning an immediate emergency ambulance was 
not used. 

13.  Nursing and other staff arrived. A custody officer asked the nurse if Mr Siman-

Tov should be moved to the floor for resuscitation. The nurse replied no.  Dr 
Harris, an expert in Emergency Medicine said that he should have been moved 
to the floor for effective resuscitation. This puts detainees at risk. 

14.  An emergency bag was brought containing adrenaline autoinjector and also 
naloxone which Dr Harris said was a temporary antidote to opiates. A nurse 
gave an injection of adrenaline into the thigh “because he thought it might help”. 
Naloxone was not given, even though 
 had required emergency 
admission the day prior because of an opiate overdose. This puts detainees at 
risk. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you have the 
power to take such action. 

3

 
 
 
 
 7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, 
namely by 23rd October 2019.  I, the coroner, may extend the period. 

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out 
the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 

8 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested 
Persons: 

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 

 wife of the deceased 

Mitie Care and Custody;  
Home Office;  
Central and North West London NHS Trust;  
Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust; 

GP Langley Health Centre Common Road Langley SL3 8LE 

 I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.  

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary 
form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful 
or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your 
response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 

9 

28 /08/ 2019                Dr Séan Cummings 

4

Related reports

Other reports by Sean Cummings

See all →

More reports categorised “State Custody related deaths”

See all →

Track West London NHS Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching West London NHS Trust, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.