Investigation into police contact with a woman and response to concerns for her welfare prior to her death -North Yorkshire Police and West Yorkshire Police, January 2019
In January 2019, a woman reported a serious sexual assault to North Yorkshire Police, and stated that the suspect had filmed the incident on his phone. The incident was transferred to West Yorkshire Police as the force in which the incident allegedly took place and where the suspect resided. Neither police force succeeded in making further contact with the woman and the investigation was closed after West Yorkshire Police interviewed the suspect, who denied the allegation. The suspect’s phone was not examined during the investigation.
In August 2019, a North Yorkshire Police officer reported the woman as a missing person, after receiving information from Harrogate Borough Council. A missing person investigation ensued and the suspect of the sexual assault was ultimately found guilty of the woman’s murder, after her remains were found in October 2019.
Our investigators obtained and reviewed police logs and other relevant documents relating to the police interaction with the woman and the ensuing investigations, and accounts from involved officers and other witnesses.
Our investigation concluded in October 2021 but we waited for all associated proceedings to conclude before publishing our findings.
We concluded there was no indication any police officer had behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings or had committed a criminal offence.
We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.
In this case, we did identify areas for organisational learning.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC Recommends that North Yorkshire Police (NYP) should review current policy and guidance in relation to safeguarding of victims of crime to ensure that, where more than one force is involved, safeguarding responsibilities are appropriately agreed between the forces, and officers involved are clear on who has responsibility
This follows an IOPC investigation where a vulnerable member of the public reported a crime to NYP, as they lived within the NYP area; however, as the crime occurred in a location covered by West Yorkshire Police (WYP), the incident was passed to WYP for investigation. Ongoing safeguarding was required for the victim, however WYP thought NYP would continue the safeguarding for the victim as they resided in their area, but this did not happen. The current policies do not cover cross-boarder safeguarding. The victim was later reported missing and found deceased having been murdered by the alleged offender of the prior allegation being investigated by WYP.
NYP have since created a bulletin to be sent out of staff reminding them that ‘…it is the responsibility of the original officer within NYP to agree with the foreign force the victim safeguarding strategy. This should include which force will take primacy for the safeguarding and an agreement between both forces as to the agreed actions, ownership of actions and regular updates…’.
NYP are also liaising with Superintendents to review the information and policies regarding domestic violence, serious sexual assault and rape and missing from home.
Whilst the IOPC acknowledges that NYP have taken some steps to address this matter, we consider that it is important that the responsibility is clear in policy.
Recommendation accepted:
On receipt of your recommendation, I shared this broadly with strategic leads across NYP.
Having consulted with them, I took it to the force Ops Board which sits monthly and we take progress against control strategy priorities, and other key pieces of work.
I raised this, and it is being tracked through this board. The next meeting in fact is this week 10th February. I have drafted a force policy which sits above all of our procedures, setting out how ownership of risk must be accepted and absolute clarity is required. I have attached this draft, but it remains in draft whilst the practical activity to achieve this is put in place. I have asked our Chief Inspector in customer contact to look at how this can be automated within the incident management systems, and also maintained once an incident is moved from STORM into Niche.
Additionally, I have liaised with Odette Robson at North Yorkshire County Council who has been managing a multiagency serious case review into this. They cannot share the final outcome yet, as it is going through final checks, but this IOPC recommendation also sits as an action in the report, and as such will receive tracking through that process. The serious case review covers all agencies, not just NYP.
As you put in your letter, this was shared as a lesson learned through force communications, but the next steps as set out above, are there to put the policy and processes in place. Once I have confidence that the automated processes will work, the policy can be launched.
The IOPC Recommends that West Yorkshire Police (WYP) should review current policy and guidance in relation to safeguarding of victims of crime to ensure that, where more than one force is involved, safeguarding responsibilities are appropriately agreed between the forces, and officers involved are clear on who has responsibility
This follows an IOPC investigation where a vulnerable member of the public reported a crime to North Yorkshire Police (NYP), as they lived within the NYP area; however, as the crime occurred in a location covered by West Yorkshire Police (WYP), the incident was passed to WYP for investigation. Ongoing safeguarding was required for the victim, however WYP thought NYP would continue the safeguarding for the victim as they resided in their area, but this did not happen. The victim was later reported missing and found deceased having been murdered by the alleged offender of the prior allegation being investigated by WYP.
WYP have since changed their policy to ensure ‘all victim co-ordination’ is carried out not only across forces, but across WYP districts. WYP have also provided WYP officers with a list of instructions on what to do when safeguarding victims outside of WYP.
Whilst the IOPC acknowledges that WYP have taken some steps to address this matter, we consider that it is important that the responsibility is clear in policy.
Recommendation accepted:
This was discussed at the last DA DIs’ meeting on 13 January 2022 and is reflected in a Force Policy change as below (which covers not only cross Force but between districts within WYP). The wording is as below:
Within the main body of Responsibilities: SGU/DAUs –
• Ensuring that all victim co-ordination is carried out, including making all necessary referrals to partner agencies, regardless of which department or district is investigating. This is especially important when victims live in other districts across the Force. For out of District or out of Force victims please see ‘Safeguarding of victims outside of WYP’. Safeguarding of victims in outside of WYP
Where a report of domestic abuse has occurred in West Yorkshire and the victim resides in another Force, officers and staff in WYP are responsible for:
• Investigating the crime in line with the domestic abuse policy.
• Communicating with the other Police Force, in which the victim resides, to ensure that
safeguarding responsibilities are agreed and clear between Forces.
• Recording on the OEL what action has been agreed and who is taking responsibility.
• West Yorkshire district should afford other Police Forces the same assistance where a victim of
DA crime resides in the West Yorkshire area.
• The above should also be considered as good practice between district/departments within West Yorkshire Police, when victims do not reside in the district in which the crime took place.