Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019

REDACTED

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0397, written 22 Nov 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report22 Nov 2019
Reference2019-0397
DeceasedREDACTED
CoronerAndrew Cox
Coroner areaCornwall and the Isles of Scilly
CategorySuicide (from 2015)
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.

Information Classification: CONFIDENTIAL 

REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

REGULATION  28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1. 

, Chief Executive, College of Policing, 58 
Leamington Road,  Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Coventry, CVS  3EN 

1  CORONER 

I am  Andrew  Cox, Acting  Senior  Coroner for the  coroner area  of Cornwall  and 
the Isles of Scilly. 

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  3 May 2018, an  inquest was opened  into the death of
 who died 
on  30  April  2018.  The  inquest  culminated  in  a  final  hearing  on  20  November 
2019 with  a conclusion being  recorded of suicide. 
The cause of death identified at post-mortem was: 
1A) hanging 

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

  was  interviewed  by  Devon  and  Cornwall  police  in 
On  4  April  2018, 
relation to allegations 
.  He denied 
all  the  allegations.  On  18  April  2018, - repo r ted  her  husband  as  a 
missing  person.  She  also  received  a text  message from  him  indicating that  she 
would  be  "better off without him."  On  19 April  2018, 
  was  detained  by 
police under section 136 of the Mental  Health Act and taken to a place  of safety. 
 was 
A  Mental  Health  Act examination  was  conducted following  which 
discharged with advice to contact his GP. 
On  29 April  2018, at approximately 10:00 AM, 
going  to  a local  supermarket to buy  milk.  He did  not return . At  18:00 hours, 
reported  to  police  that  her  husband  was  missing.  An 
-

initial  risk 
ent  assessed  the  level  of  risk  at  medium.  Sergeant  (now  Inspector) 
came  on  duty at 21 :30  hours. His  initial  review of the  log  caused  him  to 

 told his wife that he was 

-

1 

 
 Information Classification : CONFIDENTIAL 

express  concern  that  the  appropriate  level  of  risk  was  high.  He  asked  for  a 
review  from  the  duty  Inspector,  Inspector- A  review  was  conducted 
shortly thereafter, and  the  level  of risk was  maintained  at medium.  A number of 
additional  enquiries, however, were  put  in  train, for example, tasking  an  officer 
check whether there was  milk at the 
  property and, additionally, insisting 
upon  review  of  CCTV  footage  at  the  local  supermarket.  The  latter  enquiry 
  had  not been to the supermarket but instead had misled 
revealed that 
his  wife.  At  approximately  02:00  hours  on  30  April ,  the  level  of  risk  was  re-
assessed  as  high.  A  helicopter was  tasked  to  look  for 
  (and  another 
missing  person)  and  attempts  were  made  to  triangulate  his  position  using  his 
  was  subsequently  found  hanged  in  a  secluded  area  of 
phone. 
woodland later that morning. 

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. 

The  appropriateness  of the  police  response  to  the  report  of 
  as  a 
missing  person  on  29  April  was  considered  by  the  IOPC.  In  evidence  at  the 
inquest,  I  heard  from  their -who  concluded  that  there  had  been  an 
opportunity  to  raise  the  risk  to  high  at  an  earlier  stage.  He  did  note,  however, 
that the  matter had  ostensibly been  dealt with  as  a high-risk response for some 
time prior to its re-categorisation at that level.  I was not able to conclude that the 
delay in  raising the  level of risk to high had been causative of the death as it was 
not known at what time 
 had,  in fact, hanged himself. It had to be  noted 
that there was  a period of approximately eight hours before he was first reported 
to police as a missing person. 

It was  accepted  in  evidence  that the decision as  to  the appropriate  level  of risk 
was  essentially  a  "judgement  call"  on  the  part  of the  individual  officer.  It  was 
further  accepted  that  there  would  be  occasions  when  these judgements  would 
be very finely balanced. 

It was  not felt that there  had  been  any failure to follow practice  or protocol  at a 
local  level.  It was  noted, however, that  it would  be  sensible to  share  the  salient 
facts  with  you  in  order  that  there  could  be  a  proper  review  of  the  guidance 
contained  within  the  relevant  College  of  Policing  APP  upon  which  the  police 
officers  relied.  It was  recognised  that if the guidance  could  be  clearer this  may 
assist different officers from  achieving  a greater level  of consistency in decision-
making when faced with the same, complex set of facts. 

2 

 Information Classification: CONFIDENTIAL 

6  ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In  my opinion action should  be taken to  prevent future deaths and  I believe  you 
[AND/OR your organisation] have the power to take such action. 

Would  you  please  consider  whether  it  would  be  appropriate  to  review  the 
Missing  Person  APP MP101  in  the  light of the facts  set out above.  If so,  would 
you  please let me know whether or not you feel  it appropriate to  issue amended 
guidance. 

7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a  duty to respond to this report within  56 days of the date of this 
report, namely by 21/01/2020. 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:  the  family,  the  Chief  Constable  of  Devon  and  Cornwall 
Constabulary, the  IOPC  and  Cornwall  Partnership  Foundation  Trust.  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 

[DATE] 

22/11/2019 

3

Related reports

Other reports by Andrew Cox

See all →

More reports categorised “Suicide (from 2015)”

See all →

Track Suicide (from 2015)

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Suicide (from 2015), 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.