Terri Harris, John-Paul Bennett, Lacey Bennett and Connie Gent

HM Coroner Peter Nieto  
Senior Coroner for Derby and Derbyshire  
The Coroner’s Court                                                                                                                                          
Town Hall                                                                                                                                                                   
Rose Hill                                                                                                                                                                
Chesterfield                                                                                                                                                                     
S40 1LP 

Dear Sir, 

Inquests touching upon the deaths of Terri Harris, John-Paul Bennett, Lacey Bennett and Connie Gent 

Capita Business Services Limited response to the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths  

I am providing this repose to the Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths  (“PFD Report”) on behalf of 
Capita Business Services Limited (“Capita”, referred to hereinafter as “EMS”).  

I set out below for ease of refence those matters of concern that relate to  EMS as they appear in your PFD 
Report together with EMS’s responses. 

EMS has stated that it has introduced relevant training but the  inquest heard evidence from the field 
operative  that  comments  made  by  offenders  which  can  be  interpreted  as  potentially  posing  risk  are 
currently routinely not being reported back by EMS field operatives. 

Having  reflected  carefully  on  the  evidence  heard  by  the  Inquests,  EMS  took  immediate  steps  to  reinforce 
safeguarding  requirements  and  ensure  that  field  operatives  (“Field  Monitoring  Officers”  or  “FMOs”,  and 
“Monitoring Support Officers” or “MSOs”) report back comments made by offenders which could be interpreted 
as potentially posing risk. 

These steps were put in place after and as a result of the evidence given by the FMO (which was necessarily 
limited to  her  own experience of reporting comments), as well as other evidence heard by the  Inquest. The 
changes made therefore post-date the FMO’s account of her (then current) experience. 

EMS set out the planned changes for the Coroner in a letter dated 16 October 2023 and we expand upon this 
letter below. 

1.  FMO/MSO Briefing - All Field Service colleagues were briefed in October 2023 on the importance of 
reporting any information they are made aware of, or observations made whilst on-site that could pose 
a risk to EMS staff, members of the public or other services. The briefing emphasised the requirement 
to  report  everything  via  the  established  reporting  process  and  if  colleagues  have  any  doubt  as  to 
whether something is reportable or not, they must always discuss it with the Duty Shift Manager who 
will assess and make a decision on what action to take. All staff available received the briefing (there 
were a small number of staff who were long term absent who are and will be being briefed immediately 
on their return to work). 

2.  New E-Learning Module - A new training module was designed and uploaded to the EMS Learning 
Management System, reinforcing the Incident Reporting section of the Field Manual, the Safeguarding 
Policy and Safeguarding Procedure, and reporting obligations in line with the briefing already given. All 
field employees were required to complete the course and confirm their understanding at the end of the 
module. 530 colleagues (95%) have successfully completed the course to date. A small number of staff 
who are currently absent from work are yet to complete the training but will be required to do so as a 
priority on their return. 

Capita Business Services Limited 
Registered office: 65 Gresham Street |  London |  EC2V 7NQ | www.capita.com  Registered in: England. No 02299747 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3.  Further Training for Duty Shift Managers – After reinforcing requirements for FMOs, we have also 
provided  additional  training  and  support  to  the  Duty  Shift  Managers  with  responsibility  for  actioning 
incident reports, to enable them to recognise matters of concern to other agencies. 15 managers with 
responsibility for  incident reporting within  the  EMS Contact Centre were  enrolled onto the next  level 
Safeguarding  course  provided  by  EMS,  “Safeguarding  –  Level  2  Extended”,  to  provide  them  with  a 
greater  depth  of  understanding  to  inform  onward  reporting.  All  15  managers  have  subsequently 
completed the course. 

4.  Wider Process Review – We have agreed contractual changes with the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”), 

as set out below.  

The  inquests  examined  the  relevant  contract  terms  between  the  MOJ  and  Capita  (EMS)  relating  to 
reporting concerns and there did appear to be lack of clarity on reporting mechanisms and issues to 
report. 

On Thursday 14 December 2023 EMS and the MOJ agreed a Change Control Note (“CCN”) to make changes 
to the Contract for Bridge Electronic Monitoring Services between the Secretary of State for Justice and  EMS 
(dated 01 August 2014) (the "Bridge Services Contract"). The CCN is currently with the MOJ for signature. We 
expect it to be fully executed by both parties immediately after the upcoming Christmas break. Once signed, a 
copy of the CCN can be made available to the Coroner on request.   

The contractual changes address the above matter of concern by formalising the instruction previously provided 
by the Operational Policy Sub-board of the Probation Service entitled “Information Sharing and the Effective 
Management  of  the  Electronic  Monitoring  Requirement  (Community  Sentences)”  (“Information  Sharing 
Requirement”). 

The CCN formally incorporates the following reporting requirements from the Information Sharing Requirement 
into the Bridge Services Contract: 

“3.9 The EM Contractor must notify the Responsible Officer of any relevant risk of harm information within one 
business day, or immediately if necessary to manage the risk.  Relevant risk of harm information may include 
risk of harm information that has been previously provided by the NPS or CRC Responsible Officer. 

3.10 The EM Contractor must provide any information, including relevant risk of harm information, relating to an 
offender, or the monitoring of an offender, that is requested by the NPS or CRC Responsible Officer to inform 
the management of the sentence and/or ongoing risk of harm assessment.” 

EMS and the MOJ have also agreed the following in the CCN: 

a) 

‘relevant risk of harm information’ covers not just ‘safeguarding’ of children and vulnerable adults, but also 
any members of the public, as well as EMS staff and contractors.  

b)  where the offender does not have a Supervising Probation Officer (for example, where an offender is subject 
to a stand-alone curfew requirement), such risk of harm information should be reported to other agencies 
(such as the courts, prison and/or police) as appropriate. 

The consequence of the CCN is that should EMS fail to comply with the above reporting requirements, this will 
amount to an actionable breach of the Bridge Services Contract.  

HM Coroner should be aware that EMS' contract with the MOJ for the Electronic Tagging Service will end on 
30 April 2024. Following this, Serco is set to initiate a new contract with the MOJ, effective from 1 May 2024. 
This transition will involve a Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) - TUPE transfer, which means 
that current EMS employees will become Serco EMS employees. 

It will clearly be crucial for the MOJ to oversee the seamless integration of changes to processes and procedures 
outlined above into the new agreement with Serco. This is essential to ensuring a smooth transition and the 

Capita Business Services Limited 
Registered office: 65 Gresham Street |  London |  EC2V 7NQ | www.capita.com  Registered in: England. No 02299747 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 continued  provision  of  high-quality  services.  EMS  will  duly  notify  the  MOJ  of  any  pertinent  details  or 
considerations during this transition period.  

I trust that the information contained in this response to your PFD Report provides adequate assurance to you 
that EMS has taken steps to understand and address your matters of concern, both internally and in partnership 
with the MOJ. 

Yours faithfully 

Divisional Legal Director                                                                                                                                                         
Capita Public Service 

Capita Business Services Limited 
Registered office: 65 Gresham Street |  London |  EC2V 7NQ | www.capita.com  Registered in: England. No 02299747

Corporate Services 
Ashbourne Centre 
Kingsway Site 
Kingsway 
DERBY 
DE22 3LZ 

Your Ref: 

19 December 2023 

Mr Peter Nieto 
Senior Coroner for Derby and Derbyshire 
The Coroner’s Court 
Town Hall 
Rose Hill 
Chesterfield 
Derbyshire 
S40 1LP 

Dear Sir 

Re:  Regulation  28  Response:  An  Inquest  Touching  the  Death  of  Ms  Terri 
Harris, Connie Gent, Lacey Bennett and John Paul Bennett 

May I first begin on behalf of the Trust by conveying my deepest condolences to the 
families of Ms Terri Harris, Connie Gent, Lacey Bennett and John Paul Bennett, their 
loss is most tragic, and our thoughts are with them. 

Substance  misuse  services  are  provided  in  Derbyshire  under  the  umbrella  of 
Derbyshire  Recovery  Partnership  (“DRP”)  with  the  Trust  subcontracting  partner 
agencies as part of the service, including Phoenix Futures who delivered the service 
to Mr Bendall. 

In preparation of this response the Trust has liaised with Phoenix Futures to identify 
areas of improvement in their operations and how we may work together to resolve 
those. 

Following these discussions, it has been agreed that any attendance by an individual 
open  to  probation  will  be  via  the  Probation  Feedback  Form  within  48  hours  of 
attended  appointments  and  24  hours  of  a  failed  appointment;  a  failed  appointment 
being  when  an  individual  does  not  attend  the  planned  appointment  for  whatever 
reason. For failed appointments the Feedback Form will include the efforts made to 
establish contact with the individual. 

To  ensure  that  this  process  is  embedded  and  operating  as  it  should  be,  Phoenix 
Futures  have  committed  to  monthly  audits  of  compliance  which  will  be  reported  to 

Trust Headquarters, Ashbourne Centre, Kingsway Hospital, Derby DE22 3LZ  

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 the  Trust.  Then,  once  the  Trust  and  Phoenix  Futures  have  received  sufficient 
evidence  that  it  is  being  completed  on  a  regular  basis  to  a  high  standard,  Phoenix 
Futures  will  then  conduct  quarterly  audits  and  local  remedial  action  on  an  ongoing 
basis. 

I hope that this information reassures you and the families of Ms Terri Harris, Connie 
Gent,  Lacey  Bennett  and  John  Paul  Bennett  that  steps  have  been  taken  to  clearly 
identify to probation when an individual does not attend an appointment so that they 
may consider what, if any, action is appropriate when managing that individual in the 
community. 

Yours sincerely  

CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

cc. 

 Head of Quality & Performance, Phoenix Futures

HM Prison & Probation Service 

 Chief Probation Officer 

Date: 9th January 2024 

Peter Nieto – HM Senior Coroner for Derby and Derbyshire  

Dear Mr Nieto,  

INQUESTS INTO THE DEATHS OF TERRI LIZ HARRIS, LACEY ELIZABETH BENNETT, 
JOHN-PAUL JASON BENNETT, and CONNIE ADINE GENT: RESPONSE TO 
PREVENTION OF FUTURE DEATHS REPORT 

Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report, issued following the inquests into the deaths of Terri Liz 
Harris, her children John-Paul Jason Bennett and Lacey Elizabeth Bennett, and their friend Connie 
Adine Gent. I am replying as the Chief Probation Officer of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation 
Service (HMPPS) and on behalf of the Secretary of State for Justice. 

I would like to reassert my condolences to all those who have lost loved ones on account of Damien 
Bendall’s terrible crimes, for which he is rightly serving a whole life order. The implementation of 
learning from this case is my absolute priority. We are grateful for your comments and 
recommendations for improvement, which we have considered in detail.  

In your report you set out a number of concerns, to which I respond below. 

Probation Service (PS) offender records and documents. 
The inquests identified that very concerning information regarding Damien Bendall was made 
known to the PS (including violent assault and injury of a partner, and an incident of possible child 
sexual abuse) but was not recorded clearly or prominently for subsequent PS practitioners to read 
and evaluate in risk assessment and decision-making, and indeed was not read at key and critical 
points. Although this was in part due to the recording made by individual PS practitioners it was 
also the result of confusing proformas (e.g., the OASys misleading drop-down boxes and the open 
and closed sections), imprecise arrangements and expectations of how and where such information 
should be recorded, and where checks should be directed and made when the records needed to 
be reviewed. The inquests were informed of current PS expectations for recording offender risk 
information and assessments, but I remain very unsure that there are clear and efficient recording 
arrangements and systems to ensure that risk information is accurate, prominent, easily seen, and 
easily updateable by PS practitioners. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Response to PS Offender records and documents 

We accept that the recording of information is complex in various ways and pertinent to this case:  

•  Concerns were raised in relation to the recording of information not to be disclosed to the 

offender, how this information is recorded within the Offender Assessment System (OASys), 
and how that is identified for practitioners to review, given the fundamental principle of our 
approach to risk assessment which involves the offender in the assessment of his/her risk. 
We acknowledge the need for further clarity.  

•  Concerns were also raised about how information relating to an offender’s risk is recorded 
and accessible for practitioners, where that offender has completed a period of supervision 
and so his case is closed. We acknowledge that we do not have sufficient guidance as to 
how such information can be stored and accessed. 

•  Concerns were raised about the current assessment system to ensure information is easily 

updated and identifiable. 

•  Prior to the inquests, improvements had been made in Delius to flag information to 

practitioners; however, we acknowledge concerns regarding practitioner awareness of 
where to look within a case to identify key information they need to review. 

We are committed to making sure we have clear guidance on recording risk information and 
identifying the key areas for practitioners to access when looking at a case. 

The following seeks to address the concerns identified above: 

OASys is designed as an open document which can be shared with the offender subject to 
supervision and whose risk is to be assessed, so that the individual can contribute to the 
assessment and see the plans in place for their supervision. They would not need to make a 
subject access request to see the document, so it would not be redacted before they had access to 
it. There may be circumstances where information needs to be withheld from the offender – for 
instance, where information cannot be shared under the Data Protection Act 2018 to protect the 
rights and freedoms of others. OASys makes provision for this by including a section headed 
Information Not to be Disclosed to the Offender. We recognise the challenges this presents for 
practitioners in relation to risk assessments particularly where the risk cannot be evidenced through 
a source of information that is disclosable to the offender.  

The current Risk of Serious Harm Guidance addresses the issue of using information about 
behaviour that has not resulted in a conviction to inform risk assessments. To extend this and aid 
clarity, we are adding specific content to the OASys help text (which practitioners can view as they 
complete their assessment). This will advise on how to address risk assessment and management 
where they have information which cannot be used in the main body of OASys.  
Established guidance is in place for handling and recording sensitive information. This advocates 
the 6-step approach that we expect staff to follow using their professional judgement, when 
considering enquiries or responding to information received relevant to risk, including those 
received about closed cases. We are working to strengthen our guidance through the following 
commitments, which will be completed by April 2024: 

•  We will issue new guidance for practitioners on NDelius recording of closed cases. 
•  We will update existing guidance in relation to recording, handling sensitive information and 

OASys help-text to address risk information received on closed cases.  

•  We will finalise and promote a new Senior Probation Officer (SPO) learning and 

development package, currently in development, to include support for SPOs on advising 
practitioners on handling sensitive information. 

•  We will conduct a review of Information Security Policy Framework to address closed cases.  

A new assessment service is in development and aims to present relevant information about risk, 
needs and strengths back to the practitioner to draw together threads and support holistic and high-
2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 quality analysis of risk. This also aims to reduce cognitive load for practitioners and reduce the 
likelihood of omitting important information.  

The interface of this new assessment service was developed in line with Government Digital 
Service standards and has tested well with practitioners who stated it is accessible, simple and 
easy to understand. The service is also designed to be easily updateable, meaning that changes in 
risk over time are recorded in one place and therefore reflect current circumstances.  

The new assessment service will continue to be designed as an open document, whilst facilitating a 
separate section for recording non-disclosable information. Current timelines aim for the ‘Needs 
analysis’ and ‘Offence analysis’ and sentence plan sections of the new service being available to 
pilot groups of staff by Summer/Autumn 2024. As further changes are implemented, more staff 
groups will be onboarded. Expected rollout of the new assessment service to all staff is 2026. 

There are ‘Registers’ within NDelius, the key purpose of which is to alert all staff, including court 
staff, to key risk information. In response to the concerns raised we will add to existing guidance for 
practitioners and court report writers on ‘where to find risk related information on case records,’ 
covering both OASys and NDELIUS.  

PS domestic abuse (DA) and child safeguarding (SG) checks 
The inquests identified that DA and SG checks were either insufficient or wholly lacking at various 
stages of Damien Bendall’s offender management. The current evidence is that DA and SG checks 
remain generally insufficient or are not being done with consequent on-going risks to children and 
women. 

Insufficient or absent PS DA and SG checks has been a theme of HM Inspectorate of Probation 
reports and reviews for at least the last 5 years. On HM Inspectorate of Probation case sampling to 
determine whether domestic abuse and child safeguarding enquiries were being undertaken when 
indicated, the HM Inspectorate of Probation Annual Report for 2022/2023 states at page 38: - 

where inspectors judged that these enquiries needed to be made by the probation practitioner, child 
safeguarding enquiries were carried out in 55 per cent of cases, domestic abuse enquiries were 
only carried out in 49 per cent of cases and risk of harm was only properly addressed in 39 per 
cent.  

The PS is not currently conducting SG checks in all cases where an offender will live with or have 
access to children. 

The PS has mandated that in all cases where a curfew condition is proposed to the court in a pre-
sentence report (PSR) DA and SG checks will be conducted prior to the proposal and submission 
of the PSR: this is not being done in all cases. I am also unclear whether contact to the address 
homeowner/lead tenant for a potential curfew condition to discuss the suitability of a curfew 
condition is being undertaken in all cases. 

Relatedly, although I have not taken evidence on this wider issue, it appears to me that the systems 
for conducting DA and SG checks are generally severely strained. I say this because as an 
example the PS has now employed staff to make the checks from police records and has had to do 
this because the police service itself is unable to check and provide the information to the PS within 
necessary timeframes.  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Response to PS domestic abuse (DA) and child safeguarding (SG) checks 

The Probation Service is committed to conducting child safeguarding checks in all cases where an 
offender will live with or have access to children, and domestic abuse checks in all cases where 
there are indicators of concern. We are committed to ensuring that DA, SG, and main occupier 
checks are completed prior to proposing a curfew condition to the court in all cases. Measures to 
improve performance have been taken since the inquests and are detailed further below.  

The PS is not currently conducting SG checks in all cases where an offender will live with or have 
access to children. 

The requirement to undertake enquiries with Children’s Services in all cases where an offender 
lives with children, will have contact with children, or who is identified as posing a risk to children, 
is set out in the Child Safeguarding Policy Framework. Compliance with this requirement is 
carefully monitored. 

We continue to see positive advances in our performance of DA and SG checks and we have 
strengthened the messaging to practitioners through a statement issued by the Chief Probation 
Officer which outlines the expectation of compliance. This will include direction to ensure that 
court reports must not have proposals for curfews when DA, SG and main occupier checks have 
not been completed. 

The PS has mandated that in all cases where a curfew condition is proposed to the court in a pre-
sentence report (PSR) DA and SG checks will be conducted prior to the proposal and submission 
of the PSR: this is not being done in all cases.  

A gatekeeping process is mandated to check every report before it goes to court so that any such 
recommendation can be changed before the report is submitted to court if the information from 
enquiries is not available. We have taken further steps since the inquests to add assurance 
through weekly regional meetings to review the data to assure that all cases where a curfew is 
recommended are informed by checks and this is further backed up by a monthly report for senior 
leaders.  

I am also unclear whether contact to the address homeowner/lead tenant for a potential curfew 
condition to discuss the suitability of a curfew condition is being undertaken in all cases. 

The national Domestic Abuse and Safeguarding Enquiries Practitioner Guidance was revised and 
relaunched August 2023. It is explicit in relation to the expectations of main occupier checks and 
we have amended systems to add assurance that the main occupier has been contacted to 
discuss the curfew. Work is underway to explore options to develop standardised recording and 
reporting mechanisms to enable senior managers to be assured that this is happening in every 
case.  

Relatedly, although I have not taken evidence on this wider issue, it appears to me that the 
systems for conducting DA and SG checks are generally severely strained. I say this because as 
an example the PS has now employed staff to make the checks from police records and has had 
to do this because the police service itself is unable to check and provide the information to the 
PS within necessary timeframes.  

We are committed to working with partner agencies such as the police and children’s services.  

With our input to update the Prison and Probation sections, the Department for Education 
published the new Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023 (published on 14 December 
2023 on the GOV.UK website). This statutory guidance helps us protect and promote the welfare 
of children. It applies to all organisations and agencies who have functions relating to children, 
including HMPPS.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The changes will help to strengthen the arrangements which the Probation Service has with 
Children’s Services, particularly in relation to responding to child safeguarding enquiries and 
collaborating to improve outcomes for children at risk of abuse or neglect.  

The Chief Probation Officer meets regularly with the Police to progress joint working in relation to 
domestic abuse through the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for domestic abuse. 

PS PSR reports 
There is no evidence that DA and SG checks were made by the PS practitioner in respect of 
Damien Bendall’s PSR report. Via the report the court was informed that checks had been 
conducted. The PS practitioner put forward a curfew provision as appropriate and the report was 
written in such a way to indicate that the report writer had checked the suitability of the curfew 
address, when she had not in fact done so. Had the court not been misled it is unlikely that the 
court’s disposal would have included a curfew requirement. 

The inquests heard that PSRs written by the same PS practitioner, reviewed before her 
submission of Damien Bendall’s PSR, and reports reviewed after the murders, also lacked 
evidence of DA and SG checks having been made even though they were stated to have been 
done in the reports.  

Evidence from senior PS staff was to the effect that failing to undertake the checks and failure to 
make this explicitly clear in a PSR might be dealt with by management feedback to the PS 
practitioner but is an unlikely to be a disciplinary matter. This leads me to question whether, given 
the potentially very disastrous outcomes in terms of public protection, the PS is failing to grasp the 
seriousness of the issue, to make this explicit to PS practitioners, and ensure that there are 
commensurate penalties for staff where these professional duties have been breached. 

Response to PS PSR reports 

The Probation Service does grasp the seriousness of this issue and has policies to respond as 
detailed below. 

The Performance Management and Conduct and Discipline Policies provide options for dealing 
with staff employed in the Probation Service who fail to meet the required personal and 
professional levels of conduct. Where the failure to maintain standards is through a lack of 
knowledge, skill or ability, this should be dealt with under the Managing Poor Performance Policy. 
Where standards of behaviour fall below what is expected to meet required standards, and the 
employee has the relevant knowledge, skills and ability that they should reasonably be expected 
to have, this could constitute misconduct and should be dealt with under the Conduct and 
Discipline Policy. 

The decision to commence a disciplinary process should not be made purely on the 
consequences of the incident but rather should be based on the seriousness of the practice failing 
and whether it would amount to misconduct or gross misconduct. It is important that decisions 
about whether the threshold for a disciplinary investigation are met are made consistently and 
have been investigated under the disciplinary procedure irrespective of whether there is a SFO or 
not. However, the consequences of the practice failing will be relevant when assessing the 
seriousness of the offence and appropriate sanction.  

The actions of each member of Probation staff involved in this case have been considered against 
both the Performance Management and Conduct & Discipline Policies. This has resulted in a 
member of staff being dismissed and recommendations being made for the additional training and 
supervision of others.  

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HMPPS recognises that managers need further support to determine when a practitioner’s failure 
to comply with policies or manage cases to an acceptable standard reaches the threshold for 
formal action to be taken under the Service’s Capability or Disciplinary Procedures. Human 
Resources will issue interim guidance to address this matter ahead of a fuller review of the 
Conduct and Discipline Policy scheduled for 2024. 

PS DA and SG training 
A significant issue in the inquests was the fact that the very inexperienced staff who were 
(wrongly) allocated Damien Bendall’s case on transfer to the East Midlands PS region had 
insufficient DA and SG training. The PS states it has introduced more robust DA and SG training, 
but it is unclear whether PS practitioners are receiving this before cases are allocated to them to 
manage. 

Response to PS DA and SG training 

The Case Allocation Policy Framework clearly sets out the expected training that must be 
completed prior to allocation. It also requires Senior Probation Officers to record the rationale for 
their allocation decisions. Cases with DA and SG concerns are not allocated to practitioners prior 
to their completion of the domestic abuse, child safeguarding and adult safeguarding training. 

The training expectations prior to allocation of cases are detailed below.  

Professional Qualification in Probation (PQIP – i.e., trainee Probation Officers) and Probation 
Service Officers (PSO) are required to undertake a minimum level of training/learning before they 
are allocated appropriate cases. This learning includes induction, NDelius, OASys, core skills and 
key concepts, risk assessment and management and sentence planning e-learning, and 
safeguarding e-learning (child protection and safeguarding, domestic abuse awareness and adult 
safeguarding). The completion of the minimum learning ensures that practitioners are equipped 
with the awareness, knowledge and understanding of the core skills for practice. Once all of this 
learning has been completed, appropriate cases can be allocated which would be low risk of 
serious harm, and no cases involving safeguarding concerns.  
Domestic abuse, child safeguarding and adult safeguarding training is completed after the initial 
learning described above. It is only after successful completion of this learning and also the 
advanced core skills and key concepts and risk assessment, risk management and sentence 
management learning that cases with safeguarding and domestic abuse concerns can be 
allocated. 
‘Allocate A Case,’ the new digital tool which has been rolled out to regions, enhances the 
allocation framework by providing in a single place all information necessary to support the SPO 
to make a defensible allocation decision, including risk of serious harm, risk of reoffending and 
risk registrations, and individual workloads. The SPO is required to consider the capabilities of the 
practitioner and record their allocation decision.  

Reporting concerns to the PS by the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS)   
Damien Bendall made the comment “if this relationship goes bad I’ll murder my girlfriend and the 
children” to the EMS field operative who fitted his tag and monitoring equipment but this was not 
reported back by the field operative to her manager nor to the PS. EMS has stated that it has 
introduced relevant training but the inquests heard evidence from the field operative that 
comments made by offenders which can be interpreted as potentially posing risk are currently 
routinely not being reported back by EMS field operatives. 

The inquests examined the relevant contract terms between the Ministry of Justice and Capita 
(EMS) relating to reporting concerns and there did appear to be lack of clarity on reporting 
mechanisms and issues to report. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Response to Reporting concerns to the PS by the Electronic Monitoring Service (EMS)   

We accept the concerns that there was a lack of clarity within the service contracts and have put 
measures in place to rectify this for the current and future contracts. 

EMS have reviewed and amended its safeguarding policy and procedures, recognising that 
allowing discretion for Field Officers (FMOs) to assess and decide what to report has led to some 
inconsistency and a lack of clarity. They have therefore amended their instructions to, and training 
for, FMOs so that they are required to report any concerns to Probation, regardless of the FMO 
view of how serious the tagged person was when they made the comments or actions. This has 
already been implemented. Where the offender does not have a Supervising Probation Officer (for 
example, where an offender is subject to a stand-alone curfew requirement), such risk of harm 
information should be reported to other agencies (such as the courts, prison and/or police) as 
appropriate. 

This has also been reflected in a change to the contract, to remove any lack of clarity.   

We have also reviewed the Future Service contracts due for implementation in 2024. The 
providers will commence service delivery under the new contracts in July 2024. The new contract 
will be clear about risk reporting requirements with the expectation that the FMO report what they 
observe and hear to the probation practitioner.  

Notification of missed substance misuse appointments to the PS 
In Derbyshire, the substance misuse services provided to offenders where there is a court-
imposed sentence requirement for such services is provided under the auspices of Derbyshire 
Healthcare NHS FT. Damien Bendall was subject to an alcohol treatment requirement. The 
precise number is not clear on the records, but he missed 4 or 5 appointments with the service 
between 21 July and his first attended appointment on 17 September 2021, but the required 
proforma attendance/non-attendance forms were not sent by the substance misuse service to 
notify the PS. Such non-attendance is non-compliance with the court-imposed alcohol treatment 
requirement and should be considered by the PS practitioner for referral back to the 
court as a breach of the court order. Clearly it is vital that non-attendance is formally and quickly 
notified to the PS practitioner especially where there is a relationship between use of substances 
and violent offending.  

Response to Notification of missed substance misuse appointments to the PS. 

Existing HMPPS guidance sets out that the responsibility relating to information sharing sits with 
both Probation and the Treatment Provider (TP), and that collaborative working is required to 
ensure appropriate supervision and treatment options are provided. The national guidance sets 
out that inter-agency local protocols should be agreed, confirming responsibilities and actions to 
be taken where, for example, an offender is non-compliant with, or absent, from treatment and 
that Probation should then make decisions regarding breach of conditions based on the 
information provided to them by treatment providers, combined with their own assessment. 

We are in the process of updating guidance on Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRR) and 
Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATR) but the existing guidance, explicitly states that: 

•  The ATR may only be used where the offender gives consent to this sentence option. 
Implicit in this consent is the agreement to have information shared between the 
Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) or National Probation Service (NPS) and the 
Treatment Provider. Therefore, the CRC or NPS and alcohol treatment providers must 
ensure they work together in such a way as to provide the relevant supervision and 
treatment options, supporting the offender and each other in the process.  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •  Local protocols should be agreed to ensure appropriate risk management of offenders and 
clarity of agreed roles and responsibilities of the health and criminal justice contributors. 
This will require that inter-agency protocols are agreed which specify the responsibilities 
and actions taken in cases where for example an offender is non-compliant with treatment 
or absent. 

On 1 August 2023, the newly developed joint working arrangements, which detail the roles and 
responsibilities of both the PS and TPs in the provision of Alcohol Treatment Requirements (ATR) 
and Drug Rehabilitation Requirements (DRR), were launched in the East Midlands in Derby and 
Derbyshire.  The arrangements detail the expectations of practitioners and administrators from all 
partners at all stages of the process, including information sharing.  

Governance of these arrangements occurs through regular meetings of the DRR/ATR Working 
Group and the Community Treatment Requirement steering group which is chaired by the 
Probation Service Deputy Head. 

At a strategic level, updates are provided to the Derbyshire Reducing Reoffending & Offender 
Health Board and the Derbyshire Drug and Alcohol Strategic Partnership. 

Yours sincerely  

Chief Probation Officer  
HM Prison and Probation Service  

cc: 

8