Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2024
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2024-0665, written 29 Nov 2024. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 29 Nov 2024 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2024-0665 |
| Deceased | Charlie Owen |
| Coroner | Robert Simpson |
| Coroner area | Berkshire |
| Category | Service Personnel related deaths · Suicide (from 2015) |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
Regulation 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS NOTE: This form is to be used after an inquest. REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 1 Secretary of State for Defence 1 CORONER I am Robert SIMPSON, Assistant Coroner for the coroner area of Berkshire 2 CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 3 4 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. INVESTIGATION and INQUEST On 15 September 2023 I commenced an investigation into the death of Charlie Anthony OWEN aged 25. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 29 November 2024. The conclusion of the inquest was that: The deceased ended his life by suicide. The assessment of the level of risk posed was appropriate as was the overall plan to address this risk. However there was a failure to pass on all of the pertinent risk management information to those making decisions; the full purpose of asking the deceased to return to barracks was not communicated effectively to him, protective factors mitigating the resulting lack of proximity to family, including meeting him or assessing his welfare on arrival, were not considered. These factors taken together may possibly have contributed to his death on that day. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH On the 11th September 2023 Charlie Anthony Owen was found deceased in his room at the Combermere Barracks, Windsor. On the 5th September 2023 he had taken action to end his own life which he aborted and sought help from his lieutenant. This was the second time that he had made, and aborted, an attempt to end his own life; breakdown. both relationship of which occurred context the of in The army arranged a medical and mental health assessment and Charlie denied current intent to end his life in all subsequent conversations with medical and army personnel. Charlie was still assessed as posing a risk to himself and was called back to his battalion. This was for further assessment and treatment as well as a return to work. Not all relevant information was shared and considered when plans were made return. for his He left his family home in Wales on the 10th September; having prepared notes indicating an intent to end his life at some point prior to this. After returning to barracks he hung himself. Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 5 CORONER’S CONCERNS During the course of the investigation my inquiries revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows: (brief summary of matters of concern) Vulnerability Risk Management (VRM) process I heard evidence that the army VRM guidance does not invite those attending case conferences to consider 'checking in' or meeting those assessed as posing a risk of self-harm on return to their unit. In this inquest no consideration was given to this possibility even though Charlie posed an elevated level of risk and had been initially placed under the VRM process whilst at home. This gives rise to a concern that the army does not know where soldiers who pose a risk are and does not facilitate additional support that may be necessary. I accept the evidence I heard that different units will have different requirements but this would not prevent them from giving consideration of this issue. Training I heard that suicide prevention training is not mandatory for army welfare officers/welfare NCOs. This gives rise to a concern that those specifically tasked to deal with people who are most likely to pose a risk of suicide or self harm are not best equipped to identify this and assist the individual. I heard evidence regarding the VRM process training. I am concerned that there is insufficient focus in that training on the actual aim including reducing risk and preventing suicide. A better understanding of risks and the purpose of VRM seems likely to assist those tasked with running it. Information sharing Witnesses for the army have noted that information sharing between medical and command personnel poses challenges. I am concerned that the VRM process does not require adequate documentation of the information shared. The lack of detail contained within the case conference notes hindered this inquest’s ability to establish precisely what risk information was shared. This gives rise to a concern that audits of effectiveness and potential learning points are being missed. I was concerned to hear that when a risk management and safety plan has been prepared by the Defence mental health services the information contained about relevant protective factors and safety actions is not necessarily shared with the Chain of Command. There is no prompt on the relevant template to remind of team of the potential benefit of sharing this information or requesting consent from the individual in question to do so which gives rise to a concern that this important information is not shared. 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. Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 7 YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by January 24, 2025. 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 of Charlie Owen I have also sent it to MOD Defence Inquests Unit (DIU) who may find it useful or of interest. I am also under a duty to send a copy of your response to the Chief Coroner and all interested persons who in my opinion should receive it. I may also send a copy of your response to any person who I believe may find it useful or of interest. 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 Dated: 29/11/2024 Robert SIMPSON Assistant Coroner for Berkshire Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021
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.
MINISTER FOR VETERANS AND PEOPLE
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
FLOOR 5, ZONE B, MAIN BUILDING
WHITEHALL LONDON SW1A 2HB
Telephone 020 7218 9000 (Switchboard)
7 February 2025
Dear Mr Simpson,
REF: YOUR REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
DATED 29 NOVEMBER 2024
Thank you for your letter of 29 November 2024 to the Ministry of Defence enclosing your
Regulation 28 Report following the sad death of LCpl Owen on 11 September 2023. My
deepest sympathies go out to LCpl Owen’s mother and his wider family and friends.
The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to respond, and I am grateful for your
thorough inquest into LCpl Owen’s death. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure
you that suicide prevention is taken very seriously by the Armed Forces, and is something
which I am personally, very committed to. I have carefully considered your observations and
the recommendations raised in your Regulation 28 Report to ensure that future deaths are
prevented. I have tried to address each of your points below.
Matter of Concern 1: Vulnerability Risk Management (VRM) process
The policy that supports the Army’s VRM Process is currently undergoing a comprehensive
review. The plan is to reissue the policy by the end of March 2025. I expect this to further
improve the process, while also making it easier to understand and action.
The review of the VRM policy will reassure you that we seek to continuously improve our
approach to suicide prevention and that caring for our vulnerable personnel is of paramount
importance.
Matter of Concern 2: Training
Suicide prevention training is already mandatory for Army Welfare Officers. I am sorry that
this did not come through clearly at the inquest. This is clearly a point of concern and
therefore, a working group is being established to fully review all aspects of the training for
mental health and wellbeing. I expect the recommendations to be published by April 25 to
inform an update to training policy in the following quarter. Your comments concerning a
greater focus upon suicide prevention; understanding risk, and the purpose of VRM, will be
included within this review.
HM Coroner Mr Robert Simpson
Assistant Coroner for Berkshire
Berkshire Coroners’ Office
Reading Town Hall
Blagrave Street
Reading
RG1 1QH
Matter of Concern 3: Information sharing
Your concern about the adequacy of record keeping and the sharing of the risk management
plan will be factored into the policy review of the Army’s VRM Process and templates will
be amended accordingly. Additionally, consideration will be given to directing units on what
information should be captured, recorded, shared, and kept, during and after case
conferences.
Regarding wider information sharing, particularly between Defence mental health services
and the Chain of Command (CoC), it is clear we need to improve. Work has already been
done by the Defence Medical Services (DMS) Clinical Reference Group (CRG) around
information sharing practices. This work comprises a three-pronged approach:
• Better communication with patients, including obtaining patient consent for
information sharing with the chain of command;
• Where appropriate, greater involvement of families (usually spouse or parents) in
the delivery of specialist mental healthcare; and
• Wider sharing of best practice, including the Department of Health and Social Care’s
Consensus Statement and the Zero Suicide Alliance’s guidance.
Of course this is not an end in itself, and we will continue to assess whether we are getting
this right and where we can improve.
I hope that my response highlights the steps that the Ministry of Defence has and will
continue to take to improve the Army’s VRM process and policy, suicide prevention and
VRM training and information sharing. I appreciate your thorough investigation and
challenge, both of which is essential so that the MOD can continue to learn lessons and
ensure that this government provides the support our Armed Forces need. As ever, my
thoughts remain with LCpl Owen’s family and all those affected by his very sad death.
*
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Service Personnel 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.