Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2025

Dean Bradley

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2025-0248, written 28 May 2025. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report28 May 2025
Reference2025-0248
DeceasedDean Bradley
CoronerClare Bailey
Coroner areaTeesside and Hartlepool
CategorySuicide (from 2015) · Police related deaths
Organisation namedTees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published7

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

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 Department of Health and Social Care
2 Chief Executive of Integrated Care Board (NHS North East and North Cumbria)
3 Chief Executive of Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS Mental Health Foundation

Trust

4 Chief Executive of Middlesbrough Council
5 Chief Executive of Stockton Council
6 Chief Executive of Hartlepool Council
7 Chief Executive of Redcar Council

1

CORONER

I am Clare BAILEY, Senior Coroner for the coroner area of Teesside and Hartlepool
Coroner's Service

2

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS

I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013.

3

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

Mr Dean Bradley died on 15th October 2021 at
Tees.

, Stockton on

An inquest into Mr Bradley’s death was opened on 28th July 2023 and his inquest was heard
before me on 19th May 2025.

The medical cause of Mr Bradley’s death was:
1a. Pressure on the neck
1b. Hanging

It was discovered in toxicology testing that the level of Venlafaxine in his blood was around
twenty times that expected from a therapeutic dose and in the range associated with
fatality.

A narrative conclusion was given:
“Dean Bradley hanged himself on the morning of 15th October 2021 in

, Stockton on Tees whilst under the influence of excess amount of prescribed

medication. The police failed to contact the mental health services when they assisted him
at Thornaby station earlier in the day and failed to adequately relay details of his mental
health crisis to staff at the hostel. The staff at the hostel failed to respond to information
provided by the police. There were missed opportunities by both Cleveland Police and the
hostel to involve mental health professionals and secure appropriate mental health support
for Dean.”

4

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH
At approximately 0300 on 15th October 2021 Mr Bradley was found by the police walking on
a dual carriageway. Following a discussion in which he revealed he was homeless the police
secured emergency overnight housing for him at a hostel. There were no concerns for Mr
Bradley’s mental health at that point.

Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021

 This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

Mr Bradley was seen outside the hostel at 0450 and was met by the security officer. He
spoke of people being after him. He was reassured and taken back to his flat.

Mr Bradley left the hostel unwitnessed by the security officer. At 0540 a member of the
public came across Mr Bradley sat on a bridge over a railway line. Mr Bradley stated he
intended to kill himself. The member of the public spoke with Mr Bradley and called the
police. During his time with the member of the public Mr Bradley moved himself as if to
jump in front of a train when he thought a train was coming.

The police attended.  The police succeeded in bringing Mr Bradley down from the bridge
and spoke with him in the police van. The officers came to the conclusion that Mr Bradley
was under the influence of drugs. One of the officers raised concerns about Mr Bradley’s
mental health as he was expressing persecutory beliefs and appeared paranoid and
delusional. He believed that people were chasing him and wanted to kill him.
The police considered contacting the Crisis Team and other mental health services but did
not do so. The main reason for this is that, in their shared experience, the mental health
services would tell them to safeguard Mr Bradley until he was sufficiently sober to be
assessed. The police returned Mr Bradley to the hostel and, with the assistance of the
security officer, Mr Bradley was shown CCTV of the premises. The purpose of showing Mr
Bradley the CCTV was to prove no one was chasing him. Mr Bradley reportedly relaxed and
accepted that no one was pursuing him. The police determined that the risk of suicide and
self-harm had lessened and that it was safe and appropriate to leave Mr Bradley at the
hostel. The police did not adequately relay the circumstances in which they found Mr
Bradley to the security officer at the hostel. There was a brief comment that he was found
sitting on the edge of a bridge at the station. The security officer did not enquire further.

The security officer saw Mr Bradley leave his flat at approx. 0720. Mr Bradley refers to
people being after him again. The security officer met with Mr Bradley, reassured him and
took him back to his flat.

Staff from the hostel knocked on Mr Bradley’s door at approx. 1015 as he had not left the
flat. There was no response. Police attended and Mr Bradley as found deceased, hanging in
his flat.

The staff from the hostel were clear that the hostel was not a place for a person suffering
from a mental health crisis. Residents are not checked upon, it is a service which provides
accommodation only.

Evidence was received from a Detective Chief Inspector who concurred. He also gave
evidence as to Right Care Right Person initiative. He spoke of Crisis Cafes and Calming
Centres in other regions where people who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol and
present with metal health concerns may be supervised pending a mental health
assessment. There appears to be a gap in the services available for people in this category.
The officer spoke of a discussion with Middlesbrough County Council about provision of such
a service.

I stress that I did not make a causal link between Mr Bradley’s death and the unavailability
of this resource. Neither the local authorities in this jurisdiction, the Integrated Care Board
(NHS North East & North Cumbria), Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS Mental Health
Foundation Trust nor the Department of Health were Interested Persons in the inquest.
They did not give evidence at the inquest as the concerns raised did not come to light until
the hearing.

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.

Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021

 This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows:
(brief summary of matters of concern)

1) Current resources for safeguarding those with mental health illnesses whilst intoxicated
may be placing people at risk.
2) I heard evidence that a person who was suicidal, suffering with mental health concerns
and was intoxicated could not be adequately safeguarded until he was sufficiently sober to
allow a mental health assessment.

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.

7

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report,
namely by July 23, 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.
COPIES and PUBLICATION

8

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

Watson Woodhouse – Legal representative for Mr Bradley’s family

I have also sent it to

Cleveland Police
New Walk CIC

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: 28/05/2025

Clare BAILEY
Senior Coroner for
Teesside and Hartlepool Coroner's Service

Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021

 This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

Regulation 28 – After Inquest
Document Template Updated 30/07/2021

Responses

7 responses 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 Department of Health and Social Care 1 (PDF)
From 

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 
for Patient Safety, Women’s Health  
and Mental Health  

39 Victoria Street  
London  
SW1H 0EU  
020 7210 4850  

Our Ref: 

HM Senior Coroner Clare Bailey  
Teesside and Hartlepool Coroner's Service   
Middlesbrough Town Hall  
Albert Road  
Middlesbrough  
TS1 2QJ                                                                                                

18 August 2025  

Dear Ms Bailey,  

Thank you for your Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths dated 28 May 2025 
about the death of Dean Bradley. I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for 
mental health and patient safety.       

Firstly,  I  would  like  to  say  how  saddened  I  was  to  read  of  the  circumstances  of  Mr 
Bradley’s death, and I offer my sincere condolences to his family and loved ones. The 
circumstances  your  report  describes  are  concerning  and  I  am  grateful  to  you  for 
bringing these matters to my attention.   

I  have  noted  the  contents  of  your  report,  and  the  matters  of  concern  raised.  In 
response, I have liaised with the NHS North East and Cumbria Integrated Care Board 
(NENC ICB) who will be responding to you directly.   

The ICB has advised that it commissions a 24/7 mental health crisis assessment suite 
based on the Roseberry Park Hospital site in Middlesbrough, alongside a dedicated 
mental health crisis response and home treatment team. These services provide timely 
assessment, support and intervention to individuals in crisis, including individuals who 
may be unable to participate in an assessment due to their level of intoxication.    

The crisis assessment suite and the crisis team were available and fully operational at 
the time of Mr Bradley’s death but were not contacted during the events leading to his 
death.  

The ICB has also advised that, while clinical judgement will always factor in a person’s 
level of intoxication, this is not a barrier to initial engagement,  and there is no blanket 
rule preventing assessment while a person is intoxicated.    

Your report also mentions Right Care, Right Person (RCRP). As you may be aware, 
this is a police-led initiative that is being rolled out nationally to reduce police time spent 
on health and social care related incidents, with a particular focus on mental health. At 

  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 the centre of the RCRP approach is a threshold to assist police in making decisions 
about when it is appropriate for them to respond to incidents which relate to people 
with mental health needs. Under RCRP, police will continue to be involved in incidents 
where  there  is  a  real and  immediate  risk  to  life  or  serious  harm  or  responding  to  a 
report  of  crime.  To  minimise  delays  to  handovers  of  care  between  the  police  and 
mental health services, local areas should be working towards handovers taking place 
within one hour from arrival at an appropriate health setting (unless mutually agreed 
in relation to a particular incident on a case-by-case basis). An Oversight Group has 
been set up by the Home Office and Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), 
in  partnership  with  NHS  England  (NHSE)  and  the  National  Police  Chiefs’  Council 
(NPCC),  in  order  to  provide  a  national  level  forum  to  regularly  review  any 
concerns/issues with RCRP implementation.   

I understand that Cleveland Police began to implement this approach in 2024, so while 
it would not have been relevant to this case, it should be helpful in assisting Cleveland 
Police,  working  in  partnership  with  the  NHS  locally,  in  making  decisions  about 
responses to future incidents relating to people with mental health needs.   

information   on   Right   Care   Right   Person  

Further  
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-partnership-agreement-
rightcare-right-person/national-partnership-agreement-right-care-right-person-rcrp  

is   available  

at: 

We are also committing £26 million in capital investment to support people in mental 
health crisis, including opening new mental health crisis centres, which aim to provide 
accessible and responsive care for individuals in mental health crisis. This builds on 
the hundreds of alternative crisis services, including crisis cafes, sanctuaries and crisis 
houses, put in place in recent years, that provide supportive environments outside of 
traditional clinical settings, and 33 new or improved health-based places of safety.  

I hope this response is helpful. Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention.   

All good wishes,
Response from Hartlepool Council (PDF)
CLASSIFICATION – Confidential 

Tel:  

www.hartlepool.gov.uk 

Our Ref:   
Your Ref:   

, Executive Director  

Adult and Community Based Services 
Civic Centre 
Hartlepool 
TS24 8AY 

Contact Officer: 
Email: 

23 June 2025 

Clare Bailey 
Senior Coroner 
Teesside and Hartlepool Coroner’s Service 
(by email) 

Dear Ms Bailey 

Regulation 28 Report: Dean Bradley  

I write in response to the Regulation 28 report dated 28 May 2025 regarding the death 
of Dean Bradley in the Stockton area in October 2021, which highlighted concerns in 
relation to resources for safeguarding those with mental health illnesses whilst 
intoxicated and how a person who was suicidal, suffering with mental health concerns 
and intoxicated could be adequately safeguarded until sufficiently sober to allow a 
mental health assessment. 

I can confirm that I raised these issues with the Independent Chair of the Teeswide 
Safeguarding Adults Board (TSAB) following receipt of the Regulation 28 Report, and 
the matters of concern were subsequently discussed at a meeting of the Board on 11 
June 2025. 

Following that discussion I can confirm that, while there is not a ‘Crisis Café’ provided 
within the Tees area, such a provision would not have been appropriate for an 
individual presenting as Mr Bradley did.  The appropriate place for him to have been 
supported at the time of the incident in 2021 was the assessment suite at Roseberry 
Park which is designated as a place of safety under Section 136 of the Mental Health 
Act, and this remains the case at the present time.  This service is provided by Tees 
Esk & Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust and their policy relating to Section 136 
(which is available on their website and is attached for reference) clearly identifies that 
this provision is appropriate for an individual who is intoxicated but not presenting with 
immediate physical health risks.  If there are immediate risks to physical health, the 
appropriate place of safety would be a hospital emergency department. 

There is a Multi Agency Mental Health Legislation Operational Group where this policy 
and related issues are shared and, through this route, consideration will be given to 
whether there is a need for further education and awareness raising within Cleveland 
Police regarding the use of Section 136 powers to safeguard an individual requiring 
mental health assessment. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CLASSIFICATION – Confidential 

I will take this opportunity to recirculate the Section 136 Policy to relevant staff within 
Adult Social Care in Hartlepool Borough Council, and to make them aware of the 
concerns identified through Mr Bradley’s inquest.  

Yours sincerely 

Executive Director of Adult and Community Based Services  

c.c. 

, Managing Director 
, Independent Chair of TSAB
Response from Integrated Care Board NHS North East and North Cumbria (PDF)
NENC ICB 
Pemberton House 
Colima Avenue 
Sunderland 
SR5 3XB 

02 July 2025 

Strictly Confidential 
Miss Clare Bailey 
Senior Coroner  
Teesside and Hartlepool Coroner's Service  
Middlesbrough Town Hall 
Albert Road 
Middlesbrough 
TS1 2QJ 

Dear Miss Bailey 

Mr Dean Bradley 

I write in response to your Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths, dated 28 May 2025, 
concerning the death of Mr Dean Bradley. Firstly, I would like to extend my sincere condolences to 
Mr Bradley's family and loved ones. We have noted the contents of the report, and the matters of 
concern raised requiring a response from NHS North East and Cumbria Integrated Care Board 
(NENC ICB), as follows: 

1) Current resources for safeguarding those with mental health illnesses whilst intoxicated 
may be placing people at risk. 

In Teesside, the NENC ICB commissions a 24/7 mental health crisis assessment suite based on 
the  Roseberry  Park  Hospital  site  in  Middlesbrough,  alongside  a  dedicated  mental  health  crisis 
response  and  home  treatment  team.  These  services  are  in  place  to  provide  timely  assessment, 
support and intervention to individuals in crisis.  We note the reference in the report to the crisis 
team, however, as they were not contacted by the police in Mr Bradley's case, we are unable to 
comment on what response might have been elicited.  However, the ICB would  expect the crisis 
team to respond to such a request and that an assessment would have been attempted.  Similarly, 
had the individual presented to the crisis assessment suite accompanied by police, an assessment 
would have commenced. 

In circumstances where an individual is unable to participate in an assessment due to their level of 
intoxication,  the  clinical  team  will  make  a  plan  to  complete  the  assessment  at  the  earliest 
opportunity, taking into account the person's presentation and any immediate risks. If the individual 
is presenting as violent or aggressive, a request may be made to the police to remain present during 
the assessment, to ensure the safety of all involved. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The crisis assessment suite and the crisis team have been in place in Teesside for many years and 
were available and fully operational at the time of Mr Bradleys tragic death.  Cleveland Police were 
involved in the development of the crisis assessment suite from its  inception, and we value their 
ongoing collaboration. However, as mental health services were not contacted during the events 
leading to Mr Bradley’s death, we are unable to determine whether their  involvement might have 
altered the outcome.  

2) I heard evidence that a person who was suicidal, suffering with mental health concerns 
and was intoxicated could not be adequately safeguarded until he was sufficiently sober to 
allow a mental health assessment 

We understand that police officers considered contacting the crisis team but did not do so, based 
on their experience that services may not assess a person until they are sufficiently sober. While 
clinical judgement will always factor in a person’s level of intoxication, this is not a barrier to initial 
engagement. Referrals are received regularly for individuals with varying levels of intoxication, and 
risk is assessed on a case-by-case basis. There is no blanket rule preventing assessment while a 
person is intoxicated.  The crisis service will undertake specific alcohol and drug use assessments 
in  all  cases  in  order  to  inform  care,  treatment  and  ongoing  support  planning  an  individual  may 
require, in relation to both their mental health and any coexisting substance use. 

The NENC ICB has no plans to develop a specific holding facility for intoxicated individuals awaiting 
assessment. We continue to work closely with mental health providers and partners, including the 
police, to ensure our crisis services remain responsive. We remain committed to reducing risk and 
improving pathways of care for individuals in mental health crisis. 

I  hope  this  response  addresses  the  concerns  outlined  in  your  report.  Please  do  not  hesitate  to 
contact me should you require any further information. 

Yours sincerely, 

Executive Medical Director  
North East and North Cumbria ICB
Response from Middlesbrough Council (PDF)
This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

Director of Adult Social Care and Health Integration

Email: 

Claire Bailey
Senior Coroner
Teesside & Hartlepool Coroners Service
By email

Dear Ms Bailey

Re: Regulation 28 Report : Dean Bradley

18th July 20205

I am writing in regard to the above report dated 28 May 2025, concerning the death of
Dean Bradley within the Stockton area on 15th October 2021. The report highlighted
concerns  in  relation  to  current  resources  for  safeguarding  those  with  mental  health
illness whilst intoxicated, and furthermore how an induvial whom is intoxicated with a
mental illness and exhibiting suicidal tendencies is safeguarded until the appropriate
time to undertake a mental health assessment.

This  enquiry  has  been  discussed  at  strategic  board  level  within  the  Teeswide
Safeguarding Adults Board (TSAB) on the 11th June 2025.

The conclusion from these muti-agency discussions identified, that whilst within the
Tees area we do not currently have a “crisis café”, we do have some designated safe
spaces, however in the circumstances outlined these would not be an appropriate
response.

It was agreed that the most appropriate action at the time of the incident, and also
relevant now, would have been a presentation to the assessment suite at Roseberry
Park, which is a designated place of safety under Section 136 of the Mental Health
Act. I understand my colleague from Hartlepool Council has sent through the relevant
policy guidance in regard to this provision.

The service is provided by Tees Esk & Wear Valley Trust, and confirmation has been
sought that this provision is appropriate for an individual who is intoxicated but not
presenting with any immediate physical health concerns.

Therefore in light of the report received I can confirm that this has been discussed at
the Teeswide Safeguarding Board which concluded local provision is in place, I
furthermore also commit to ensuring my own mental health service received
refreshed communication with regard to section136 guidance, and the circumstances
relating to the Regulation 28 report. This will be actioned with immediate effect.  In
addition this will also be flagged within the Multi-Agency Mental Health Legislation

Middlesbrough Council, PO Box 500, Middlesbrough, TS1 9FT
middlesbrough.gov.uk

 This document was classified as: OFFICIAL

Operational Group to determine the need for further awareness and training roll out
among our wider partners.

Yours sincerely

Director of Adult Social Care & Health Integration
Response from Redcar Borough Council (PDF)
Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council
Directorate of Adults and Communities
Redcar & Cleveland House
Kirkleatham Street
Redcar
Yorkshire
TS10 1RR

Our Ref:

Contact: 

Direct line: 

21 July 2025

Dear Ms Bailey,

Regulation 28 Report: Dean Bradley

I write on behalf of Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council in response to the Regulation 28
report  dated  28  May  2025  regarding  the  death  of  Dean  Bradley  in  the  Stockton  area  in
October 2021.  This highlighted concerns in relation to resources for safeguarding those with
mental health illnesses whilst intoxicated and how a person who was suicidal, suffering with
mental  health  concerns  and  intoxicated  could  be  adequately  safeguarded  until  sufficiently
sober to allow a mental health assessment.

These  issues  were raised with the  Independent Chair of  the Teeswide  Safeguarding Adults
Board (TSAB) following receipt of the Regulation 28 Report, and that the matters of concern
were subsequently discussed at a meeting of the Board on 11 June 2025.

Following  that  discussion  there  was  an  agreed  view  that,  while  there  is  not  a  ‘Crisis  Café’
provided  within  the  Tees  area,  such  a  provision  would  not  have  been  appropriate  for  an
individual  presenting  as  Mr  Bradley  did.  The  appropriate  place  for  him  to  have  been
supported at the time of the incident in 2021 was the Crisis Assessment Suite at Roseberry
Park  which  is  designated  as  a  place  of  safety  for  Police  to  use  under  Section  136  of  the
Mental Health Act, and this remains the case at the present time. This service is provided by
Tees  Esk  &  Wear  Valleys  NHS  Foundation  Trust  and  their  policy  relating  to  Section  136
clearly identifies that this provision is appropriate for an individual who is intoxicated but not
presenting  with  immediate  physical  health  risks.  An  alternative  if  the  individual  was
incapacitated, would be the Hospital Emergency Department, however in Mr Bradley’s case
the Crisis Assessment Suite would have been most appropriate.

A Multi Agency Mental Health Legislation Operational Group meeting was held on the 11th of
July  where  this  policy  and  related  issues  were  discussed.  Cleveland  Police  was  present  at
this meeting and will continue to raise awareness with Police colleagues regarding the use of
Section 136 powers to safeguard an individual requiring mental health assessment.

The  Council  will  take  this  opportunity  to  recirculate  the  Section  136  Policy  to  relevant  staff
within Adult Social Care in Redcar & Cleveland Adult Social Care and to make them aware of
the  concerns  identified  through  Mr  Bradley’s  inquest.  We  will  commence  this  process
immediately.

 I trust that this response meets your requirements but please let me know if you require any
further information or clarification of the points set out above.

Yours sincerely,

Executive Director, Adults & Communities
Response from Stockton on Tees Council (PDF)
This document was classified as: OFFICIAL 

My Ref: 
Your Ref:  

Dunedin House  
Columbia Drive  
Thornaby  
Stockton-on-Tees  
TS17 6BJ 

Tel: 01642 526156 

Date: 14 July 2025 

Email: 

Dear Ms Bailey 

Regulation 28 Report: Dean Bradley 

Thank you for the Regulation 28 Report dated 28 May 2025 regarding the death of Dean Bradley in 
October 2021 which you sent to 

, Chief Executive. 

The report highlighted concerns in relation to resources for safeguarding those with mental health 
illnesses whilst intoxicated and how a person who was suicidal, suffering with mental health concerns 
and  intoxicated  could  be  adequately  safeguarded  until  sufficiently  sober  to  allow  a  mental  health 
assessment. 

It was noted that the Regulation 28 Report was sent to the four Local Authorities in the area. I am 
aware  that  the  matters  for  concern  were  raised  with  the  Independent  Chair  of  the  Teesside 
Safeguarding Adults Board (TSAB) and were discussed at a meeting of the Board on 11 June 2025.  

It is noted that the evidence heard during the Inquest was that an intoxicated person could not be 
adequately  safeguarded  until  they  were  sufficiently  sober  to  allow  a  mental  health  assessment 
leading to the conclusion of there being a gap in services available. In our view, the most appropriate 
approach to dealing with Mr Bradley at his time of crisis would have been for the Police Officers to 
detain him under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and take him to a place of safety. Section 
136  of  the  Mental  Health  Act  is  a  critical  legal  framework  that  enables  Police  Officers  to  act  in 
situations  where  individuals  may  be  at  risk  due  to  mental  health  issues.  This  power  allows  the 
detention of individuals appearing to have a mental disorder who are in a public place. When the 
Police attended, Mr Bradley was sitting on the bridge over the railway line, he was in a public place, 
and it is relayed in the Regulation 28 Report that Mr Bradley was having persecutory beliefs and 
paranoia saying he wanted to kill himself. This meets the criteria of the S136 power and therefore 
the most appropriate action would have been to detain Mr Bradley under that power and take him to 
the assessment suite. 

Clare Bailey 
Senior Coroner 
Teesside & Hartlepool Coroners Service 
Middlesbrough Town Hall 
Albert Road 
Middlesbrough 
TS1 2QJ 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 This document was classified as: OFFICIAL 

The assessment suite is in Roseberry Park Hospital. Tees, Esk and Wear Valley NHS Foundation 
Trust (TEWV) run this hospital. This is the designated place of safety for those under the influence 
of drugs or alcohol and presenting with mental health concerns. Under the S136 power, the individual 
can be held for up to 24 hours, extendable by an additional 12 hours if necessary for assessment. 
During this time, mental health professionals would assess an individual to determine their needs 
and  whether  further  treatment  is  required.  The  region  does  not  have  ‘crisis  cafes’  or  ‘Calming 
Centres,’  but  the  assessment  suite  is  deemed  to  be  a  service  that  works  well  when  used  by  the 
Police.  

Representatives  from  Stockton  Borough  Council  sit  on  a  Mental  Health  Legislation  Operational 
Group. It is proposed that TEWV’s policy on Section 136 is brought to this group to consider whether 
there is a need for further education and awareness within Cleveland Police regarding the use of 
Section 136 powers to safeguard an individual requiring mental health assessment.  

I will  also recirculate the Section 136 Policy  to relevant staff within  Adult Social  Care in Stockton 
Borough Council raise awareness of the concerns identified through Mr Bradley’s inquest. 

Yours sincerely 

Interim Director Adults Social Care
Response from Tees Esk and Wear Valley NHS (PDF)
Chief Executives Office
West Park Hospital
Edward Pease Way
Darlington
DL2 2TS
Tel: 0191 333 6533

www.tewv.nhs.uk

22 July 2025

Email: 

To:
Claire Bailey
Senior Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool Coroner’s Service
His Majesty's Coroner for Teesside
The Coroner's Service
Middlesbrough Town Hall
Albert Road
Middlesbrough
TS1 2QJ

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths - Mr Dean Bradley

Dear Ms Bailey,

Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (Regulation 28) dated 28/05/2025, following
the inquest into the death of Mr Dean Bradley. We acknowledge the findings and concerns raised
in your report. We take your concerns extremely seriously and are committed to taking appropriate
actions to address any issues and reduce the risk of deaths in similar circumstance and ensure
organisational learning from this tragic event to prevent future deaths.

Brief description of the incident wherefrom the concerns arise taken from Regulation 28 report:
Mr Bradley was seen by the police on two occasions on the morning of his death. On the first
occasion there were no concerns about his mental health, but he was homeless, and the Police
secured him emergency accommodation. On the second occasion he had left his emergency
accommodation, police were alerted to his presence on a bridge by a member of the public, and
he was thought to have paranoid beliefs of people chasing him and wanting to kill him and
expressed he intended to kill himself. The officers came to the conclusion that he was under the
influence of drugs. The police considered contacting the Crisis Team and other mental health
services but did not do so as they reported that in their shared experience Mental Health services
would tell them to safeguard him until he was sufficiently sober to be assessed. He was returned
to the hostel.

Interim Chief Executive: 
Interim Chair: 

1

 The Detective Chief inspector gave evidence as to Right Care Right Person initiative. He spoke of 
Crisis Cafes and Calming Centres in other regions where people who are under the influence of 
drugs or alcohol and present with mental health concerns may be supervised pending a mental 
health assessment. There appears to be a gap in the services available for people in this category. 
The officer spoke of a discussion with Middlesbrough County Council about provision of such a 
service.

Concern 1
Current resources for safeguarding those with mental health illnesses whilst intoxicated may be 
placing people at risk.

Within TEWV we provide health-based places of safety (HBPOS) across the Trust including in 
Middlesborough, and we did so at the time of this incident. These are used by the police to bring 
people they have concerns about under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 to 
enable assessment by appropriately trained Mental Health Professionals.  This would be the case 
even if the person is intoxicated or under the influence of substances but with no suspected 
physical risk.

Concern 2
I heard evidence that a person who was suicidal, suffering with mental health concerns and was 
intoxicated could not be adequately safeguarded until he was sufficiently sober to allow a mental 
health assessment.

The police have the option, based on their contact with the person, to detain the person under
Section 136 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 and bring them to a Health Based Place of
Safety (HBPOS) which for Teesside is located in Roseberry Park Hospital, Middlesbrough
adjacent to the Crisis Assessment Suite. Had the police contacted the Crisis Service they would
have been advised that this was the appropriate course of action in these circumstances. If there
is a physical health related issue in addition to mental health issues such as an overdose of
medication, the Police may transport the person to A&E first and Psychiatric Liaison Service may
be called upon later, once the person is physically stable.

In the last quarter of 2024, the police brought people to a HBPOS in TEWV on 230 occasions, 73
of which were to the Middlesbrough HBPOS. In 2021, there were 531 uses of S136 MHA across
the Trust.

Section 136 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 is an emergency police power which allows for
the removal of a person, without warrant, from any place other than a private dwelling, if the
person appears to a police officer to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate
need of care or control, if the police officer believes it necessary in the interests of that person, or
for the protection of others. The person will then receive a mental health assessment, and any
necessary arrangements will be made for their on-going care and/or treatment.
Section 136 MHA and the Trust’s Section 136 Policy outlines that individuals detained under
Section 136 MHA must be assessed by a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) and an Approved
Mental Health Professional (AMHP) as soon as possible, ideally commencing within 3 hours of

Interim Chief Executive: 
Interim Chair: 

2

 arrival at the Place of Safety. However, the policy allows for clinical discretion to delay assessment
if intoxication impairs the person’s ability to engage meaningfully. The assessment must be safe,
and the person must be physically stable before proceeding.

Crisis clinicians use the Alcohol intoxication assessment to ensure the individual is able to take
part in a mental health assessment in a meaningful way.

Even if a Crisis Café or Calming Centre had been available, given the person’s expressions of
suicidal intent and potential paranoid ideation and the fact that a person can just leave these
premises, it would be unlikely that it would have been appropriate to take him to such a provision.

Organisational Learning
The Trust host regular Muti-Agency Mental Health Legislation Operational Groups where partner
agencies and organisations, including the police, meet to discuss operational issues and to try to
resolve issues that may have arisen and to identify areas of best practice. We have shared
learning with the police via the Multi-Agency Mental Health Legislation Operational Group on the
11 July 2025. This enabled us to ensure that the police are aware of the Report and the issues of
concern that you have raised and to identify and re-iterate best practice in this, or any similar,
scenarios.  This report has also been shared with Crisis Teams.

Conclusion
We would like to express our condolences to the family and friends of the deceased. We are
committed to ensuring that learning from this tragic event ensues and grateful for the opportunity
to reflect and improve. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require further information.

Yours sincerely

Chief Nurse & Interim Chief Executive

Interim Chief Executive: 
Interim Chair: 

3

Related reports

Other reports by Clare Bailey

See all →

More reports categorised “Suicide (from 2015)”

See all →

Track Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, 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.