Man seriously injured after reporting he had removed his electronic tag - Metropolitan Police Service, February 2019

On 9 February 2019, the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) received a call from a man reporting he had cut off an electronic location monitoring tag he was required to wear as part of a community order issued by the court.

During the call, the man mentioned receiving death threats previously and indicated that was the reason he had cut off his tag. He said he wanted to hand himself in to police and asked if officers were on their way. The call handler told him they did not know, but had forwarded the call to despatch operators, advising the man wanted to hand himself him.

The record of the call was later updated with a note that the man could hand himself in at a local police station and any threats to him were already being managed by the police. The call was closed.

Approximately four hours later, the man was stabbed multiple times by individuals who had forced their way into the property where he was at the time. He received serious injuries during the assault and went to hospital for treatment.

During the investigation, our investigators obtained and reviewed information held on the MPS computer systems. This included the call handling record, the voice recording of the call, information relating to the threats as well as relevant policies, guidance and training documents. We also reviewed relevant national guidance.

The first thing the man told the call handler was that he was not reporting an emergency. He said he was ‘at large,’ meaning he was wanted by police. The man did not focus on the threats to life he had received during the call, but mentioned them as the reason why he had removed his tag, which was the purpose of his call to the police. Throughout the call the man’s voice was even and calm, and he gave no indication that he was scared or concerned. We were of the view that resolution without deployment of officers was an appropriate response to the man’s call.

Based on the evidence available we found no indication that any person serving with the police may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, or had committed a criminal offence. However, we recommended that the control room supervisor should be reminded of the importance of keeping callers updated with the outcome of their enquiries/contact with police – the supervisor had closed the call without informing that man that no officers would be attending and that he should hand himself into a police station.

We completed our investigation in August 2019.

After reviewing our report the MPS agreed and advised they would address this with the member of staff concerned.