Response to concern for welfare - Kent Police, March 2018

At 00.25am on 16 March 2018, Kent Police received a call from a member of the public who was concerned for the welfare of her ex-partner, whom she still lived with.

The woman told the call handler her ex-partner had tried to harm himself in the past. She also said he had mental health issues, was due to be interviewed by police at 11am that day for domestic abuse against her, and she could hear him being sick.

The call was graded as ‘high’ and classified as a ‘concern other’ call-type. The duty inspector was made aware of the incident, but no patrols were sent to the address.

At 7.12am the woman phoned Kent Police again to inform a different call handler that her ex-partner was no longer at their home. The interviewing officer made attempts to contact the man by telephone, but these were unsuccessful. The incident remained a ‘high’ grade ‘concern other.’

A dispatcher made the duty sergeant aware of the incident at 11.42am after the man did not arrive for his police interview. At 12.43pm a patrol arrived at the man’s home and confirmed he was not inside. At 12.56pm the man was deemed to be a missing person.

At 1.12pm the man was found dead at the garages situated at the back of his home. An inquest into the man’s death later concluded with a verdict of death by suicide.

During the investigation, the Investigator gathered and examined relevant documents, reviewed the calls between the woman and Kent Police on 16 March 2018, and analysed the available police resources and other incidents on this date. Investigators also obtained a number of witness statements from other police staff and officers who were involved.

Following analysis of the evidence, three members of Kent Police staff were served with misconduct notices. It was alleged all three staff members failed in their duties and responsibilities to categorise/amend the incident from a ‘concern other’ call-type to a ‘missing person’ call-type after the second call at 7.12am. It was also alleged that one of these staff members failed to inform a team leader or sergeant when she became concerned that the woman’s call was still outstanding, as per the training for dispatchers.

At the end of our investigation, based on the evidence available, we were of the opinion that two staff members had displayed unsatisfactory performance.

After reviewing our report, Kent Police agreed that they would address these issues with the two members of staff.

We also recommended that Kent Police should review their policies and provide clarity on when Force Control Room staff should escalate missing person incidents – both inside and outside of the force control room – and to whom.