Response to a domestic incident - Greater Manchester Police, September 2016

On 24 September 2016 Greater Manchester Police (GMP) officers went to the home of two men after a report was made by a neighbour that one of the men had a knife and had run out of their home after shouting for someone to help him and to call the police.

The men were separated and the police took one of the men to another address. Prior to this incident. GMP had received a number of calls from one of the men that, when the police attended, gave way to concerns being raised for mental health and potential domestic violence between the two men.

Two days after the incident, the man who was taken to the other address went back to collect his belongings. When he arrived he could not get into the flat as it was locked from the inside. He could see the other man standing still on the balcony. Concerned, he rang the police, who arrived and gained entry. The other man was found dead.

The surviving man was interviewed and provided a detailed account of how, on the evening of 24 September 2016, he feared for his life and thought that the other man was going to kill him. He said that at one point the other man was holding a knife to his throat. He also described how the dead man was paranoid and took drugs on a regular basis.

The two attending officers who attended provided a completely different account, saying that the surviving man had not mentioned that the man who later died had tried to kill him, and that it was he who appeared to be under the influence of drugs.

The attending officers did not complete any further paperwork and did not refer the incident to any other agency or safeguarding body, which had been done on previous occasions. They said that the reason that they did not treat this as a domestic violence incident was that the men were referring to themselves as flatmates and were clearly living in separate bedrooms.

Again, this was in contrast to the account provided by the surviving man, who said that they referred to each other as ex-partners. On the previous occasions the police had been called, it had been noted that they were partners/ex-partners.

Due to these disparities, the Investigator was unable to decide whose account to attribute more weight to due to the lack of further independent evidence. The Investigator was therefore of the opinion that an independent tribunal could find a case to answer for gross misconduct for both of the attending officers for:

• Failing to identify the incident as a domestic situation that required positive action and to identify both victim and perpetrator.
• Failing to record potential crimes that were reported and appropriately record and close the incident or take any investigative action.

After reviewing our report, GMP considered that the account of the surviving man could not be considered as credible, and that there was therefore no case to answer for misconduct.

As the surviving man was unwilling to engage in misconduct proceedings and provide an account of what took place on 24 September, we considered that it wouldn’t be in the public interest to recommend a misconduct hearing.

The officers therefore did not face misconduct proceedings and no further action will be taken.