Nicholas Ledger

Assistant Coroner  
Inner North London  
St Pancras Coroner’s Court  
Camley Street  
London, N1C 4PP 

11th August 2023 

Ref: Nicholas LEGER  

Dear Mr Smith, 

Thank you for your letter dated 8th June 2023 regarding the death of Mr Nicholas Leger which 

occurred  on the 20th February 2023.  We were saddened to hear of the circumstances and the 

loss felt by Mr Leger’s family and friends.  These cases are always tragic and it is incumbent on 

all of us to ensure that lessons are learned. We would like to assure you that we take the 

recommendations in your report extremely seriously and will ensure that the learning from this 

incident will be incorporated into our training and guidance.  Thank you for your work and for 

identifying matters of concern. 

Your report gives us the opportunity to reflect on the circumstances and consider what action 

we might be able to take to prevent future deaths.  

You report covers the following matters of concern: 

•  The welfare and support offered to Mr Leger by the Metropolitan Police 

•  The process for when a person who has been released under investigation (RUI) is 

charged, resulting in postal charge requisition (PCR) 

•  The process for assessing an individual’s mental health and/or risk of suicide or self-

harm at the time of delivery of a PCR.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 You conclude that in the absence of a formal mechanism to assess an individual’s mental 

health and risk of suicide or self-harm at the point of issuing a PCR, you believe there is an 

obvious risk of individuals taking their own lives.   

We have carefully considered the information you have provided.  

It is important to recognise that the offence under investigation carries a maximum life sentence 

and we infer that this was a very serious allegation and that there would have been significant 

concerns about harm that had been caused by the alleged offence and the risks of future harm. 

Investigators must consider the needs of all involved in investigations and this can sometimes 

be a difficult balancing act, taking account of the fact that, at this stage, the person under 

investigation has not been convicted.  

Pre Charge Bail and Released Under Investigation 

The law regarding pre charge bail has significantly changed following the Police, Crime, 

Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Significant changes to pre charge bail were introduced in 

October 2022. Whilst the precise offence in question is not mentioned, we consider that it is far 

less likely that a case such as Mr Leger’s would result in a person being on RUI under today’s 

legislation.   

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSC) removed the previous presumption 

against bail, replacing it with a neutral position to encourage the use of pre-charge bail where it 

is necessary and proportionate in all of the circumstances of the case. It amended the police 

ranks of authority, requiring less seniority in rank, and changed the duration of bail periods, 

including extending the initial bail period to three months, from 28 days, in standard cases. To 

provide further protection for victims, the PCSC introduced a duty to seek the views of victims 

when imposing or varying bail conditions. The consequences of these changes – no 

presumption against the use of pre charge bail, lowering of the ranks to authorise its use and 

the extension of the bail periods means that pre charge bail is much more likely to have been 

continued had the investigation been commenced after October 2022.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The College of Policing produced Statutory Guidance which supports the legislative 

amendments.  The Statutory Guidance can be found here.  The following guidance is 

particularly relevant based on the information provided.   

If there is a risk of serious harm to the victim(s), witness(es), suspect or public, bail must 

be considered in conjunction with other protective measures. Bail with conditions should 

always be considered in any domestic or sexual abuse cases.1 

In the unlikely event pre charge bail did end and convert to RUI, the statutory guidance provides 

further advice and instruction. 

The threat, risk and potential for future harm associated with the investigation must be 

proportionately managed, taking into consideration the safeguarding of all persons linked 

to the investigation. 

Onward suspect management and welfare assessment will be the responsibility of the 

investigator, with oversight from their supervisor. There should be a clear plan in place, 

linked with the likely progress of the investigation.  

Forces are recommended to establish a formal mechanism, prior to release, for notifying 

suspects that they have been RUI and explaining what this means. 

Due to these changes, the likely scenario now is that Mr Leger would be on bail and that he 

would be recalled to custody to answer charge.  Following a new risk assessment, there would 

be the opportunity to refer him to NHS liaison and diversion services should there be any 

indication of any health need, including any concerns about mental ill-health and that would 

include indications of self-harm or suicide.  

The law has significantly altered since Mr Leger was investigated, bailed and RUI’d.  Detailed 

Statutory Guidance was made available earlier this year, which was accompanied with e-

1 Pre Charge Bail, Statutory Guidance, March 2023, College of Policing - Pre-charge bail - Statutory 
guidance (publishing.service.gov.uk), Page 9 para 6.4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 learning and a communications plan and roll out, supported by a number of knowledge products 

to assist forces to implement the change.  We take the view that this should make a significant 

difference to the number of suspects on RUI and we have been clear about how forces should 

manage those who are on RUI and pre charge bail, including specific guidance on safeguarding 

those subject to RUI.   

Pre release risk assessments 

Bringing Mr Leger into the police station on a ‘voluntary attendance’ in November 2022 would 

have been considered a way of progressing the investigation in the least intrusive way, seeking 

to reduce the impact on him.  

There is specific College guidance on risk assessments for those released from custody, 

including a specific module on the higher risks associated with those under investigation for 

possession of child sexual abuse material – the risks for this cohort of detainees are higher with 

them comprising around half of all post release suicides.  

Conclusion 

It is unlikely that someone released on bail for sexual offences would now revert to RUI.  This 

means that they would be recalled to custody for charge, where a pre-release risk 

assessment can be completed, for which there is full guidance.  There is specific custody 

training aimed at reducing the risks of post detention suicides. 

I hope this description of how current pre charge bail arrangements work reassure s you that 

should a similar case arise, there would be further opportunities to assess a person’s risk of 

suicide.  

Yours sincerely 

Chief Executive Officer 
College of Policing

HM Assistant Coroner  

Inner North London  

St Pancras Coroner’s Court 

Camley Street 

London N1C 4PP 

T/Assistant Commissioner 

Metropolitan Police Service 

New Scotland Yard 

Victoria Embankment 

London 

SW1A 2JL 

Date: 04/08/2023 

Dear Mr Smith 

I am the Assistant Commissioner for the Met Ops Chief Officer Team in the Metropolitan Police 

Service (“MPS”).  On behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, I write to provide the 

Day/Month 2023 

response to the matters of concern addressed to the MPS in your Report to Prevent Future Deaths 

dated 19th June 2023. 

Our Ref: IX/1952/20 

On behalf of the MPS may I first of all express my condolences to the family and friends of Nicholas 

Leger, our thoughts and sympathies are very much with them. 

The MPS has acknowledged and reviewed all the matters of concern raised in your Regulation 28 

Report and responds as follows: 

The Coroner’s “Matters of Concern” 

The Prevention of Future Deaths report records:- 

It appears to me that, in the absence of a formal mechanism to assess, at the time of being charged, an 

individual’s mental health and risk of suicide or self-harm, there is an obvious risk of individuals in 

the future taking their own lives as a result of being charged by way of a PCR (potentially following a 

lengthy period of having been RUI’d and potentially months or years since there was last any 

consideration by the police of their mental health and risk of suicide or self-harm). 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MPS Response 

The MPS process for issuing a Postal Charge Requisition (“PCR”) is for the Officer in the Case 

(“OIC”) to gain charging authority from the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”), who will then 

request a PCR via the MPS CONNECT system (database for recording case file progression - 

previously known as the COPA system in March 2022). This is then transferred to the Case 

Management Team (“CMT”) who complete the PCR administrative process, sending it directly to the 

recipient.  Prior to this, no additional checks are completed on the information or the recipient and no 

advance warning of this PCR is given by the CMT.    

At all stages prior to this request, the OIC is able to communicate to the CMT via email, telephone 

and the CONNECT file, that the suspect may be vulnerable because of their mental health.  The OIC 

can then decide whether to serve the PCR by delivering it by hand direct to that person.  This does not 

necessarily need to be due to the individual being in a high risk offence category.  The delivery of this 

PCR can be communicated prior to the event by the OIC and it would be reasonable to expect in 

certain circumstances, following any highlighted risk, that this action would be taken, however, there 

is currently no compulsory process for this.   

There are currently no risk assessment questions on the CONNECT file that the CMT have sight of or 

access to.  As stated in the report, the decision whether an individual is considered to be in a high-risk 

offence category, which would suggest the benefit of personal PCR delivery, is reliant on information 

regarding their mental health and risk of self-harm or suicide, coming to the attention of the OIC. 

There is no formal requirement for the OIC proactively to seek this information outside of the custody 

environment.    

It is acknowledged that being charged with any criminal offence, especially one which carries the 

potential for a custodial sentence, can have a detrimental effect on an individual’s mental health, and 

certain types of allegation, such as a sexual allegation, may carry a higher risk.  It is recognised that 

there is currently no formal process for assessing an individual’s mental health or risk of suicide or 

self-harm at the time of delivery of a PCR.   

For those persons detained in custody suites, custody officers complete a risk assessment on 

CONNECT prior to release.  For sexual offences, an additional risk assessment is completed by the 

investigation team.  A Voluntary Attendance Assessment and log is completed for all suspects who 

attend for voluntary interviews under caution and this includes questions on mental health, self-harm 

and suicide.   

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Following this Prevention of Future Deaths report, a proposal will be made for the implementation of 

a new policy requiring a risk assessment to be completed by the OIC, no earlier than fourteen days 

prior to issuing the PCR.  This would build on the intelligence already gathered through the 

relationship between the OIC and the suspect, including any risk assessments completed at the time of 

their arrest/detention/voluntary interview under caution and by the Custody Sergeant upon 

release from custody.  This would then form the basis of a decision as to whether to post or serve the 

PCR in person.   

Due to the volume of work required, this policy would be restricted to suspects charged with a 

recordable offence.  

This assessment will be supervised by line management and form part of the PCR process.  This will 

include provision for risk management and mitigation controls.  

The design will commence in partnership with investigation and safeguarding teams to ensure 

consistency and viability with the expectation that it will be implemented by April 2024. 

It is expected that when a suspect for a criminal offence is released on bail or Released Under 

Investigation (RUI), the OIC should maintain regular contact.  Ordinarily, there should not routinely 

be long periods of time where no contact has been made between the OIC and suspect without further 

risk assessment.  Unfortunately due to the implementation of RUI, there has previously been a 

substantial period of time between leaving custody and receiving a PCR.  However, due to a change in 

legislation in 2022, it is anticipated that RUI may be used less frequently. Instead, the intention of the 

new legislation is to increase the use of pre-charge bail in every case where it is necessary and 

proportionate to do so. The consequences are anticipated to be a reduction in the numbers of suspects 

receiving a PCR as suspects on pre-charge bail will be charged on their return to custody. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries. 

Yours sincerely 

Assistant Commissioner Met Operations and Performance