Recommendations - Sussex Police, November 2023
We identified organisational learning from a review of an investigation.
A member of the public called 999 to report that her ex-boyfriend was at home alone, drinking and contacted her to tell her that that he was going to kill himself. The call handler reported the matter to the ambulance service and told the caller and ambulance that police would be deployed. In fact, unbeknown to the caller or the ambulance service this decision was reversed on review, and no police were deployed. At that stage it was expected that the ambulance would attend within two hours.
The force called the ambulance service at 4 ½ and 7 ¾ hours after the original call and were told that the ambulance had not yet attended and took no action. After nine hours, the ambulance attended, but did not locate anyone claiming the layout of the property made it difficult. The force called the ambulance service again at 11 ½ hours, and learned that they had been unable to find the man at the property or make contact with him. As a result ,officers were sent to the property where they found the man dead at the property.
IOPC reference
Recommendations
The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police should develop its Calls for Service Policy to ensure that
- The extent to which it applies to calls from members of the public is put beyond doubt;
- The caller is given clear, immediate, and accurate information about whether police will attend and in the event that this decision is changed, this is communicated to the caller without delay.
This follows an IOPC review of the investigation into complaints made about the police response to a report made by a member of the public that her ex-partner had threatened suicide and was at home alone.
The call handler advised that the police would attend. The call was categorised as a "Concern for Safety". The Operation Northwood policy was applied to determine that the ambulance service was the most appropriate agency to respond. The caller was not notified of this. The ambulance service was unable to resource the call for a number of hours. The police found the man deceased approximately twelve hours after the initial call was made.
Operation Northwood was a framework to ensure that a person with mental health & social care needs was responded to by the right person with the right skills, training, and experience to best meet their needs. It has now been replaced by the Calls for Service Policy. When callers wrongly believe police will attend upon a threat of suicide this can cause uncertainty and distress and may also prevent them from taking action to check on the safety of their friend or family member themselves.
Accepted:
The RCRP policy clearly outlines that police will apply RCRP procedures to calls both from member of public and partner agencies. Two separate flowcharts can be used, one of which relates to the public and the other to partner agency but generally the principles of when police should deploy remains very similar. They are broadly speaking article 2 / Article 3 / where we have assumed responsibilities (Sherratt and Woodcock caselaw apply) or where there is a C.O.R.E policing purpose (C=crime, O=other agency at risk, R=risk of significant harm to children, E=environmental factors). Depending on whether the threshold to attend is met or not, the contact handlers will use prepared phases so they are clear on whether the police are attending or not. In training contact handlers are being advised on the legal issues / risk of using language like ‘leave it with us’, ‘police will look into this’.
For example where we are not attending, having applied RCRP, the contact handlers need to read the following script. “This incident does not meet the threshold for attendance and as a result the police will not be attending”.
The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police review the definition and application of the incident categories ‘Concern for Safety’ and ‘Request for Welfare Check’, to ensure there is clear distinction between the categories and clarity on the appropriate policies and processes to follow when applying these to a call.
This recommendation follows an IOPC review of an investigation of a complaint about the force’s response to a call from a member of the public in which it was reported that her ex-partner had threatened suicide and was at home alone. The call was categorised as a “Concern for Safety” which meant that the policy “Operation Northwood” applied. It was determined that the ambulance was the correct agency to attend. There were delays in ambulance attendance and ultimately the man was found dead at home. Had the call been categorised as a “Request for Welfare Check” Operation Northwood would not have applied. Further enquiries suggest that there is in fact no clear difference between the incident categories such that it appears arbitrary as to whether Operation Northwood or its successor policy, " Calls for Service Policy" would apply or not.
Accepted:
RCRP policy clearly defines what a welfare check is (Appendix A points 4 and 5 differentiate between calls from partner agencies and the public). There are two separate flowcharts to follow albeit the general principles of police attendance and our legal obligations are broadly the same. A Concern for Safety and request for Welfare are covered within the policy as “umbrella themes” currently used in policing and what RCRP in the policy aims to address.. Moving forward under RCRP and in line with the national legal advice, where Article 2/3 are not engaged and there is no C.O.R.E policing duty for police to provide a response to attend, then caller will be advised that police will not be attending.
The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police should expand its guidance on the RETHRIVE process to give a clear indication of how to apply the process where both a welfare matter and a Crime/ Crime Related Incident have been reported. Specifically the guidance should state whether the RETHRIVE process should apply both to the welfare matter and the Crime report, or the crime report alone, and set out the actions to be taken/ matters to be considered as part of the RETHRIVE assessment.
This recommendation follows an IOPC review of an investigation of a complaint about the force’s response to a call from a member of the public in which it was reported that her ex-partner had threatened suicide and was at home alone. The caller advised that she had left the scene because he had become violent and accordingly a crime report was logged. Ultimately it was determined that there would be no police attendance on the welfare concern and this was passed to the Ambulance Service but the log remained open because of the crime report. Accordingly the force continued to seek updates from the Ambulance Service, were repeatedly advised that the ambulance had not yet attended, yet took no action on the same. Clear guidance on this issue which sets out which matters should be RETHRIVED, the actions to be taken, and the communication required would be of benefit to operational staff.
Accepted:
From a RCRP perspective, the contact staff will ask the caller to recontact the police if the matter escalates but only following the RCRP assessment and a decision not to provide a police response, the CAD will be closed therefore no need to consider RETHIRVE at this point.
Sussex is currently reviewing its grading policy and re-thive process which will take place for ALL jobs graded on the radio queue will be part of an escalation process and supervisory oversight within this policy.
This remains in consultation and amendments to include the use of THRIVE on all Cad incidents on the radio queues
The re-thrive now manages all delays on all incidents
A Re-THRIVE provides a refreshed view of the incident whilst it remains within FCCCD. It provides an update to the victim/informant, reaffirms the grading required and provides an effective way of managing the incident whilst waiting for an officer to be assigned.
A re-THRIVE must be conducted if:
- There is a delay in deploying to an incident in line with the grading policy (see chart below for times).
- The informant has recontacted with further information.
- There is no response when an officer attends the scene.
- A re-THRIVE timer is activated.
A timer will be applied to CADs which are graded Category C that are ASB, Crime or Crime Related Incidents held on the radio Q.
When a delayed deployment re-THRIVE is required, the informant should be contacted and advised of the delay at the earliest opportunity. A re-THRIVE should be conducted to ascertain if the current incident grading is suitable based on the current risk and circumstance.
The re-THRIVE may highlight that a deployment is no longer required, or the log can be regraded. In both cases the team should manage the callers’ expectations and the rationale for re-grade or closure should be recorded on the log.
The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police develop an escalation process to be adopted in the event that a call has been passed to the Ambulance Service but the Ambulance Service is unable to resource the call. This process should be developed in conjunction with partner agencies and could be considered as part of the existing Op Portway multi-agency working group. Any processes that are developed should be in line with the guidance and principles underpinning the national rollout of the Right Care, Right Person initiative.
This follows an IOPC review of a local investigation in which a member of the public made a 999 call to report that her ex-boyfriend was at home alone, drinking and had contacted her to tell her that that he was going to kill himself. The call handler reported the matter to the ambulance service and told the caller and ambulance that police would be deployed. In fact, unbeknown to the caller or the ambulance service this decision was reversed on review, and there was no immediate police deployment. At that stage it was expected that the ambulance would attend within 2 hours. In fact the ambulance did not attend until more than 9 hours had passed and because of the layout of the house did not locate the subject within. He was found by police officers, deceased in his bedroom, 12 hours after the original call was made.
Since these events the force and the Ambulance Service have recognised the need for improved communication and implemented Operation Portway. Although this identifies routes of escalation it does not prescribe the content of the process, adequately address the issues highlighted by this recommendation or give clear guidance on how to proceed when it is known that the Ambulance Service cannot in fact service the call.
The IOPC is aware of the national rollout of the ‘Right Care, Right Person’ initiative, which is a programme of work that involves police and health partners working together to ensure that the correct agency is responding to calls such as concerns for welfare, mental health incidents or missing persons. The escalation process should be informed by the principles and guidance that form part of this initiative.
Accepted:
There is an escalation process under Appendix A (section 7) where disputes are to be escalated to supervisors then control room inspector if still unresolved. It can then fall into the Op Portway escalation if emerging theme or area for learning (previously formed part of response to IPOC around this case).