Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2020

Jason Devoti

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2020-0017, written 21 Jan 2020. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report21 Jan 2020
Reference2020-0017
DeceasedJason Devoti
CoronerDavid Reid
Coroner areaWorcestershire
CategoryAlcohol, drug and medication related deaths · Emergency services related deaths (2019 onwards) · Mental Health related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

Text recovered by OCR from a scanned PDF. OCR is imperfect: check anything you rely on against the source PDF. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO:

1. Dave THOMPSON, Chief Constable West Midlands Police

CORONER

lam David REID, H.M. Senior Coroner for the coroner area of Worcestershire.

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS

| 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.

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST [the details below are fictional]

On 12 December 2018 | commenced an investigation into the death of Jason Paul
DEVOTI, then aged 46. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 10
January 2020. The conclusion of the inquest was misadventure, the medical cause of
death being: 1a acute ethyl! alcohol poisoning.

|
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

(1) Jason Devoti had a history of mental health issues and alcohol dependency. In
the weeks leading up to his death he had had a number of hospital admissions
having been heavily intoxicated and expressing suicidal thoughts. Mental
health assessments found him not to be suffering from any enduring mental
illness, but rather to be someone who, when under the influence of alcohol,
was more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviour.

(2) On 5 October 2018 Jason was admitted to the Alexandra Hospital, Redditch
having told paramedics that he had taken an intentional overdose of diazepam
and drunk half a bottle of vodka. On arrival at hospital he denied any overdose,
and having been medically and mentally assessed, was discharged. At the time
of his discharge, he was unable to return to his mother's address ( where he
had been staying ) and therefore attended the offices of Redditch Borough
Council, who arranged accommodation for him in Aston, Birmingham, through
an agency called Select Homes. He was taken to Select Homes' offices by taxi,
and from there to the accommodation at

(3

Later that day, in the afternoon/early evening Jason spoke to his mother by
phone and confirmed that he had arrived at the address. That was the last
contact he had with any member of his family.

(4) On 7 October 2018, there having been no further contact from Jason, his
sister now phoned West Mercia Police expressing concerns
about his safety. at time, the family were unable to provide the police with
Jason's address. West Mercia Police carried out a number of enquiries and,

having failed to locate him, classified him as a Medium risk Missing Person, i.e.
the risk of harm to Jason was assessed as likely but not serious.

(5) On the morning of 8 October 2018 West Mercia Police identified the address at
which Jason was believed to be staying. As a result, they emailed West
Midlands Police ( within whose area the address fell ) at 1235hrs asking them
to carry out a check on Jason at the address. In that email, West Midlands
Police were advised of the recent background history, the risk level ( Medium )
and the contact details of the landlord of the address.

(6) West Midlands Police accepted the request, and created their own incident log
requiring a P2 priority response. This required officers to attend the address
within 60 minutes. The incident log was transferred to and accepted by a
Dispatcher within the Bournville control room at 1331hrs. That log was not
looked at by 3 consecutive Dispatchers, despite having become overdue after
6 hours at 1931hrs. When a Dispatcher did eventually look at the log at
0653hrs the following morning ( 9 October 2018 ) he entered "for allocation
when resourcing allows" because there were no officers available to attend the
address.

(7

During the course of the morning of 9 October 2018, having heard nothing from
West Midlands Police, West Mercia Police continued their enquiries, and
eventually arranged for one of their officers to meet the landlord at the [I

dress. They discovered Jason deceased in his room at the address at
1140hrs that morning.

(8) By the time of Jason's discovery West Midlands Police had taken no action in
respect of their incident log, despite having accepted the incident and opened a
log more than 22 hours earlier, and despite the incident being graded as a P2
priority response by them.

(9) At inquest, the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination on

Jason confirmed in evidence that:

(a) Jason died as the result of acute ethyl alcohol poisoning ( his blood
alcohol level was 483mg/dL; his urine alcohol level was >500mg/dL );

(b) it was not possible to say when he died;

(c) whenever he did die, it is probable that he was consuming alcoho! within
the 12 hours before his death ( as opposed to within the 12 hours before
he was found at 1140hrs on 9.10.18 );

(d) it is possible that he was alive at 1430hrs on 8 October 2018 (i.e. an hour
after West Midlands Police accepted the incident ), but no more likely he
was alive then than at any other specific time;

(€) if he had been found unconscious at 1430hrs, it is possible that treatment
may have saved his life ( but one can't say higher than that ).

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) Chief Inspector FY who investigated the incident on behalf of West
Midlands Police, accepted in his evidence to the inquest that the West Midlands
Police had failed not only to deal this particular incident log, but also many other
P2 incident logs which were open at the time, as they should have;

(2) The four police Dispatchers working in the Bournville control room gave
evidence to the inquest that:

(a) At the time of these events a very large number ( 150-200 ) of P2 incident
logs would regularly be outstanding at the beginning of a shift;

(b) That many of those logs would be "overdue" — which meant not only that
they had passed the one hour deadline, but in fact that more than 6 hours
had passed since the log was last looked at;

(c) That those operating the terminals which would have to try to deal with
these logs were overwhelmed by the number of logs they had to deal with;

(d) That if there was an escalation process in force at the time, then:

(i) Either dispatchers were not sufficiently aware of the process so as

to be able to act in accordance with it; or

(ii) They were being given the impression by supervisors that there was
little point in escalating overdue logs to them, as there was little that
could be done;

(e) That the reason for the large number of logs being overdue was mainly
because there were insufficient officers to deploy to incidents, but also
because there were not enough staff in the control room to work through the
logs;

(f) That_measures taken to reduce the number of overdue logs ( known as

) would provide only temporary respite before the
number of overdue logs built up again;

(g) That at various times since these events, there had been little improvement
in_the situation: in January 2019 the situation was "still overwhelming"

in June 2019 there would always be a lot of overdue
logs ( ); in October 2019 there were still too many P2 logs
that were not being dealt with in time ( [MM] ); the current
situation is "a little better" in that "more robust decisions are being taken by
call takers", but there are still problems now, and "the crux is that we don't
have enough police officers on the streets to deal with incidents" (
i.

(3) | heard evidence from a a Senior Leader within the West Midlands
Police's Force Contact Department about changes which have been put in place
to try to deal with the problems identified above. | was told that:

(a) Figures suggested that compared with a backlog of 189 P2 logs in the
Bournville Control Room in October 2018, there were 54 P2 logs open on
8.10.19, and 27 open on 7.1.20;

(b) Anew Command & Control system is due to be introduced shortly;

(c) The triage terminal at Bournville would no longer hold onto open logs, but
would only review new logs and pass them onto other terminals
straightaway;

(d) Dispatchers would be able to identify differing levels of risk within P2
incidents, and tag those with higher levels of risk for supervisors to be
aware of;

Whilst there were still the same numbers of logs coming through, control

rooms were better able to manage how to deal with them, resulting in a

decrease in the number of outstanding logs which required resourcing.

(e

(4

>

In order to try to assist with understanding the figures involved, | was provided
with a number of tables designed to give a "snapshot" of current logs and
available police resources at particular times, viz. 8-9 October 2018, 8 October
2019 and 7 October 2020. In my view, this provided limited assistance as (a) the
column giving the total of logs open appeared to be incorrect as it did not tally
with the figures within other columns; and (b) it was not possible to see how
many of the open logs were overdue, and in particular how many of the P2 logs
had passed the critical one hour mark without a response.

(5) | am concerned at how overwhelmed those working in the Bournville control
room had been by the increased demand on resources, and how their views
about any improvement in the situation in the months following Jason's death
did not appear to match what | was told by J | was also concerned
about the lack of awareness of and implementation of whatever escalation
process may have been in place in the control room at the time of these events;
this suggests a lack of appropriate training. Whilst | understand that the West
Midlands force is undergoing a period of transition so far as their control rooms
are concerned, | am not satisfied that measures have yet been put in place to
ensure that all those working in control rooms have received sufficient and

appropriate training to deal with situations of increased demand.

_(6) | therefore remain concerned that in times of increased demand, and particularly

unanticipated demand, there is a risk that West Midlands Police will be unable to |
resource and attend a P2 incident within the 60 minute period that is their stated
aim, and that that in turn will create a risk of death of the subject of such a P2
incident, if vulnerable and at some risk of harm as Jason Devoti undoubtedly
was.

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe you have the
power to take such action.

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report,
namely by 13 March 2020. |, 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.

COPIES and PUBLICATION

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

(1) Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors, who act for Jason Devoti's family;

(2) West Mercia Police;

(3) Independent Office for Police Conduct.

| have also sent it to David Jamieson, West Midlands Police & Crime Commissioner who
may find it useful or of interest.

| 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.

24 January 2020 Signed: rT wa

Responses

1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from West Midlands Police (PDF)
Keeping our Communities  
Safe and Reassured 

Preventing crime, protecting the 
public and helping those in 
need 

STAFFORDSHIRE AND WEST MIDLANDS POLICE 
JOINT LEGAL SERVICES 

Director of Legal Services 

VIA EMAIL ONLY 
coroner@worcestershire.gov.uk 

Worcestershire Coroner’s Court 
The Civic, Martins Way 
Stourport on Severn 
Worcestershire 
DY13 8UN 

Dear Sir, 

Your Ref: GUW/TW/28229 

Our Ref: L14002682/NB  

Email: jointlegalservices@west-midlands.pnn.police.uk 

Date: 30 April, 2020 

Inquest touching the death of Jason Devoti  
Regulation 29 response to a report on action to prevent other deaths 

Please find attached to the end of this letter,  the Chief Constable’s response to the PFD report from 
the Coroner. 

Firstly I must apologise for the delay in this being sent to you but I am sure you can appreciate with the 
critical issues that have arisen from COVID-19 it has been difficult to get this finalised.  

I hope this  response   provides some reassurance to the Coroner and the family in this matter that the 
Chief Constable and West Midlands Police Force have and will continue to take all necessary steps to 
ensure  our    procedures  and  practices    are  reviewed  and  are  fit  for  purpose  to  meet  the  challenges 
when dealing with calls in Force Contact.  Also that the necessary steps to train and support staff are 
in place and will be reviewed on a regular basis. 

If I can assist further please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Please reply to: 
Birmingham Office: 
Joint Legal Services 
West Midlands Police  
Lloyd House, Colmore Circus  
Birmingham, B4 6NQ 
Tel: 0121 626 8317  
Fax: 0121 626 8272 

Staffordshire Office 
Joint Legal Services 
Staffordshire Police Headquarters 
PO Box 3167 
Stafford, ST16 9JZ  
Tel: 01785 232259 

Please  be  aware  that  all  information  provided  to  Staffordshire  and  West  Midlands  Police  Joint  Legal  Services  will  be  held  and  treated  in  confidence  in 
accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018.  It may be shared with other Force departments or third party organisations including, but not limited to, external 
solicitors, Counsel and, in relation to claims handling, Insurers.  Personal information may also be used for statistical purposes, for fraud and crime prevention 
and may be checked with/disclosed to regulatory bodies.  The information provided may be held electronically and/or in paper form and will be kept secure at all 
times.  Please be aware that your personal data will be processed for the performance of tasks carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of the Police’s 
official authority, and to comply with legal obligations. 

*Calls may be monitored and/or recorded for security, quality control or training purposes.   
Regulated by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority 
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL OR FAX 

L14002682/SA / 00281346  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Yours faithfully 

Principal Lawyer 
Staffordshire and West Midlands Police Joint Legal Services 

Attached Below: Response to PFD report 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jason DEVOTI- Response to PFD issued by HM Senior Coroner DDW Reid 

1. 

Pursuant to Regulation 29 of the Coroners (Investigation) Regulations 2013, this 

is  the  response  of  the  Chief  Constable  for  West  Midlands  Police  to  the 
coroner’s Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths dated 21st January 2020. 
The  coroner’s  report  and  this  response  arises  from  the  inquest  into  the  death 
of Mr. Jason Devoti which was concluded on 10th January 2020. 

2. 

The  coroner  raises  in  principle  two  key  matters  for  consideration.  Firstly  the 

actions  taken  to  reduce  the  demand  pressures  placed  on  control  room  staff, 
recognised at the time of Mr. Devoti’s death. Secondly the training and support 
provided  to  staff  to  alleviate  these  demand  pressures  ensuring  that  incidents 

are dealt with effectively.  

3. 

4. 

5. 

Chief  Inspector 
  gave  evidence  at  the  inquest  of  Mr  Devoti  and 
accepted  that  at  the  time  of  this  incident,  there  were  a  number  of  other  P2 
incidents outstanding. There were in excess of 500 P2 incidents open across West 
Midlands  Police  Force  and  this  was  reflected  on  the  date  of  the  incident 
regarding the death of Mr Devoti on 9th October 2018. 

West  Midlands  Police  supports  the  evidence  presented  at  the  inquest  and  was 
explained  by 
  a  Senior  Manager  within  Force  Contact.  This 
demonstrated  that  a  year  on,  in  October  2019,  the  number  of  outstanding  P2 
incidents was reduced to an average to 200 open P2 incidents; and at the time of 
the inquest in January 2020, this was further reduced to approximately 100 open 
incidents.  This position has been maintained since. 

These  reductions  have  been  achieved  through  changes  in  systems  and  processes 
across the force to better understand and manage demand:  
a. Escalation process –  Whilst this was in place at the time of the death of Mr 
Devoti, this has been refreshed with all staff and is now subject of regular 
audits  and  feedback.  The  ‘rank’  involved  in  this  decision  making  has  been 
reduced  to  make  the  decision  process  quicker  and  has  been  explained  to  the 
wider organisation.  

b. Changes  to  control  room  model  –   The  model  that  is  used  within  dispatch  is 
continually  reviewed  to  ensure  that  it  delivers  the  most  effective  approach. 
Changes  were  implemented  in  the  summer  of  2019  in  order  to  manage  incoming 
demand  and  the  risk  contained  within  existing  logs.  This  includes  the 
introduction  of  a  dedicated  triage  terminal.  This  terminal  does  not  hold 
legacy  demand,  therefore  is  able  to  review  every  new  incident  log  sent  to 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 dispatch,  ensuring  the  risk  is  understood,  primary  actions  and  checks  have 
been completed and the incident is ready to dispatch officers.  

c. Incident  logs  are  now  reviewed  at  various  touch  points  during  the  day  with 
increasing  supervisory  levels  and  at  three  review  touch  points  during  Threat 
Risk Meetings (TRM) by managers.  

d. The  new  dispatch  model  reviews  unresolved  incidents  at  24  hours  to  assess 
whether  the  risk  still  exists  or  the  incident  can  be  managed  in  a  different 
way,  reducing  the  front  end  incident  management  and  resourcing  pressures.  At 
this  point  it  will  be  moved  out  of  the  dispatch  group  for  resolution.  This 
means  that  there  is  a  greater  ability  for  dispatchers  to  concentrate  on  the 
risk contained within the incidents still in the dispatch group.   

e. This  has  been  combined  with  a  focus  within  Contact  handling,  around  the 
policing  purpose  for  incidents.  Historically  there  were  incidents  being 
created as a P2 that were lower risk and should have been graded as a P3, or 
where  there  was  no  policing  response  required.  This  has  further  reduced 
unnecessary demand on control rooms. 

f. In June 2019 a new shift pattern was implemented for control rooms, this was 
in part due to there being no dedicated training days in the previous pattern 
and  to  align  with  Contact  handling  colleagues  to  improve  understanding  and 
opportunities for joint training. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

There  is  acceptance  that  there  is  still  work  more  to  do,  including  the 
introduction of a new Command and Control System and a performance analysis tool 
which provides incident and resource demand data at 15 minutes periods in order 
that  this  can  be  easily  identified  and  responded  to.  This  has  continued  to 
improve  the  position  demonstrated  by  the  snapshots  presented  as  evidence  and 
described at Point 4 above.  

In  relation  to  the  Birmingham  West  (BW)  dispatch  group  specifically,  the 
dispatch  group  covering  the  incident  involving  Mr.  DEVOTI,  at  the  time  there 
would  be  in  excess  of  150  P2  incidents  to  be  resourced.  During  the  inquest, 
evidence was presented to show that at the time of the inquest, this had reduced 
and  was  currently  at  12  outstanding  P2  incidents.  This  reduction  had  been 
achieved through the changes described above and continues to be our focus.  

It  was  presented  during  the  inquest  that  the  reason  for  the  number  of 
outstanding incident logs was due to  resourcing challenges because of austerity 
and the availability of officers to deploy. This has been addressed in a number 
of ways since the incident involving Mr DEVOTI:  
a. Support of the Force Support Unit to manage legacy demand. 
b. Use of the closest available resource to support with front end log demand. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c. Support  from  Neighbourhood  Policing  Unit  senior  leaders  to  allocate  logs 
unresolved  at  96  hours  to  the  most  appropriate  resource  to  own  until 
finalised.  

d. Load sharing across control rooms to match demand with resource. Logs are now 
transferred  to  another  control  room  to  ensure that demand is equally managed 
across all staff.  

9. 

Even  Keel  has  proven  to  be  a  successful  tactic  that  can  be  used  to  manage  a 
sudden  increase  in  demand  (i.e.  following  a  critical  incident  where  resources 
have  been  committed  elsewhere).  The  tactic  can  be  used  to  surge  resources  into 
demand to bring it back under control.  

10.  In  relation  to  point  4  of  HM  Coroners  areas  of  concern,  it  is  accepted  that 
there  were  some  issues  with  how  the  ‘snapshot’  was  completed.  This  has  been 
addressed  and  as  seen  during  the  inquest,  this  snapshot  has  been  changed  to 
simplify  what  is  being  presented  and  an  online  dashboard  is  now  in  place  to 
support the understanding of resources. 

11.  Staff  across  the  control  rooms  continue  to  be  supported  in  the  use  of  the 
escalation process. There are a number of processes being implemented to ensure 
that this is the case:  
a. THRIVE, which is a tool used to gather information to assess risk incorporated 
with  the  National  Decision  Model  (NDM),  supporting decision making on how an 
incident  should  be  managed.  This  is  now  an  agreed  policy  and  the  process 
change training is being developed ready for delivery to teams.  

b. THRIVE  is  now  embedded  into  the  new  Command  and  Control  system  and  was 
delivered  to  all  Force  Contact  staff  as  part  of  the  training  for  the  system 
‘go live’.   

c. Introduction of the new Command and Control system –  This is now implemented, 
having gone live on 2nd March 2020. The functionality of the system allows for 
the improved management of incidents and risk identification and also improves 
the management of demand across our control rooms.  

12.  The role by its very nature is one of managing competing demands, assessing risk 
and  identifying  appropriate  resources  to  deploy  against  this  assessment.  The 
initial  training  is  over  a  six  month  period  involving  initial  training, 
mentoring  and  the  completion  of  a  portfolio  for  competence  and  capability  in 
being  able  to  operate  in  this  high  pressured  role.  To  support  staff  in 
delivering against these demands, all of these systems and processes are now in 
place to support staff appropriately. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13.  In relation to the lack of resources to deal with incidents, the introduction of 
the  escalation  process  allows  for  the  use  of  any  resource  to  respond  to  an 
incident where the risk dictates. It has taken time to embed this process and we 
are  now  seeing  this  supporting  delivery.  This  has  become  more  focussed  during 
Force  TRM,  held  three  times  a  day,  where  decisions  are  made  to  move  additional 
resources according to demand.  

14.  It  is  right  to  reflect  the  positive news of an uplift to police resources over 
the  next  three  years,  recently  announced  by  the  Government  and  these  are 
welcomed.  It  is  necessary  to  acknowledge  the  impacts  of  austerity  through  the 
funding  formula  over  the  last  five  years  particularly  on  West  Midlands  Police 
and the challenge this has created in managing increasing demand levels. 

15.  Within  the  limits  of  the  resources  available,  it  is  the  aim  of  West  Midlands 
Police to allocate funds in the most efficient and appropriate way to deal with 

the  demand  for  a  huge  range  of  policing  activities.  West  Midlands  Police 

recognises  that  response  to  emergency  calls  from  the  public  within  an 

appropriate  time  is  of  vital  importance  and  seeks  to  prioritise  this  as  far  as 

possible. 

16.  Before  and  since  the  events  leading  up  to  Mr  Devoti’s  death,  West  Midlands 
Police  has  taken  steps  to  ensure  that  the  Response  resources  it  has  available 

are allocated as swiftly and efficiently as possible to all emergency calls. In 

addition  to  those  measures  set  out  above  the  following  steps  have  also  been 

taken: 
a. 

Instituting  a  process  of  involving  the  Force  Incident  Manager  (FIM)  when 

response shifts become particularly busy so resources from outside the area 

b. 

can be redeployed to Response or a different policing area.  
Instituting  a  “Log  Closure  Doctrine”  to  encourage  bolder decision-making 
from  dispatchers  dealing  with  emergency  calls  to  ensure  resources  are 

focussed on those calls requiring greatest need. 

c. 

Reducing  the  number  of  logs  held  by  each  dispatcher.  Logs  more  than  24 

hours  old  are  now  dealt  with  by  a  different  team  so  that  dispatchers  can 

concentrate on the most critical calls without the distraction of managing 

older logs.   

17.  West Midlands Police takes its response to emergency calls extremely seriously. 
We  constantly  review  and  strive  to  implement  new  processes,  systems  and 

technology,  maximising  the  efficiency  of  the  control  room.  This  allows 
redeployment  of  available  resources  to  respond  at  particularly  busy  times.  An 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 example is the ongoing completion of a record of all missing person logs managed 

and overseen by supervisors in control rooms until resolved. This maintains the 

constant awareness including in the handover between teams. 

18.  West  Midlands  Police  will  endeavour  to  ensure  that  they  manage  and  maximise 
those  available  resources  it  has  designated  to  them  to  improve  our  ability  to 

provide the most efficient and effective service possible to our communities.   

Signed  

Dated:   

29th April 2020 

7

Related reports

Other reports by David Reid

See all →

More reports categorised “Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths”

See all →

Track Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Alcohol, drug and medication related deaths, 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.