Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Kirsten Hocking

Ref: 2024-0617 Date: 11 Nov 2024 Coroner: Nick Armstrong Area: West Sussex, Brighton & Hove Responses identified: 2 / 3 View PDF

There is a critical lack of specialist rehabilitation accommodation for women at high risk of self-harm, leading to ineffective post-release support. Probation officers also lack sufficient understanding of available housing options and appropriate release planning.

Date 11 Nov 2024
56-day deadline 6 Jan 2025 est.
Responses identified 2 of 3
State Custody related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary
There is a critical lack of specialist rehabilitation accommodation for women at high risk of self-harm, leading to ineffective post-release support. Probation officers also lack sufficient understanding of available housing options and appropriate release planning.
View full coroner's concerns
Please also refer to the findings of fact, which accompany this report and set out the circumstances of Kirsten Hocking’s death and Box 4 of the Record of Inquest (the narrative conclusion). I have three concerns about future risks, two of which are for the Probation Service (and/or the Ministry of Justice (“MOJ”). The other is for the charity Steps to Recovery (“S2R”):

TO THE PROBATION SERVICE/MOJ: Concern (1) is that there was and remains a real lack of specialist rehabilitation for women, and in particular, women who represent only a low or medium risk of harm to others, but a high risk of self-harm. This cohort are for the most part shut out from Approved Premises (“AP”) (it appears that it is possible for medium risk women to be admitted to an AP but that possibility is not well understood and the reality is that it is not available; that kind of accommodation being very over-subscribed in any event). This means there is little or no effective system of rehabilitative provision for that cohort. This is a cohort in which the state has invested a great deal of time and money (in imprisoning and rehabilitative work) only, the evidence suggests, for that investment to be at risk of being squandered on release. It also means that provision can become dependant on small charities and related acts of individual generosity, which is patchwork and may bring problems of unclear access and unclear criteria (as happened here). The evidence was that this was being looked at by the Probation Service, which does not generally provide specialist rehabilitation accommodation itself but which has an obvious interest in it being available and so is monitoring the situation. However the evidence was also that the situation is getting worse not better, particularly for women (who tend to have higher levels of self-harm), and this is despite things like the Corston review in 2007 and the case of Coll v SSJ ten years later, which found discrimination because of the gender disparity with respect to the availability of APs. There is now a similar lack, and apparent gender impact, with regard to specialist rehabilitation accommodation too. The circumstances creating the risk of other deaths therefore subsist, and might benefit from some renewed focus.

Concern (2) is linked to the first, in that the probation officers, who have primary responsibility for finding accommodation and building release plans, need to understand what accommodation is and is not available. This case showed that no-one, including the relevant officer, realised that an AP might in theory have been available. It also showed a failure to appreciate that once the first specialist placement fell through, a second was very unlikely to be found and so CAS3 accommodation was realistically the only option. That therefore needed finding quickly, so that a support plan could be built around it. There does therefore seem to be a training need.

TO S2R: S2R started providing this kind of specialist accommodation because there was such a pressing need for more of it. They are to be welcomed for having done so. However, like many small organisations which have grown, it appears that their systems have not always grown with them. Work is already being done, but there remains a continuing risk. Placement offers and the conditions and expectations which attach to them are too unclear. The recording of decisions around offers, withdrawal, and reconsideration, also needs to be better, not just to ensure that decisions are recorded, but also to ensure that decision-making is properly structured and takes all relevant matters into account. Withdrawing accommodation offers without first speaking to the requesting organisation (in this case staff at the prison) also gives rise to risks. As this case shows, these are critically important decisions, and great care is required.

Responses

2 respondents
Steps2Recovery
4 Jan 2025 PDF
Action Taken

Steps2Recovery has implemented several measures including clarity in communication, improved referrals, reconsideration policies, leadership experience, policy reviews, staff training, and enhancements to its case management system. (AI summary)

View full response
Lexham House 4TH January 2025 28 St Charles Square LONDON W10 6EE To: Mr Nick Armstrong KC, Assistant Coroner to the West Sussex, Brighton & Hove Coroner’s Service. Response to the Regulation 28 Report following the Inquest into the Death of Kirsten Hocking Steps2Recovery (S2R) acknowledges the findings and conclusions outlined in the Coroner’s report regarding the sad death of Kirsten Hocking and the concerns raised and herein responds to the concern directed to S2R. We would like again to send our condolences to Kirsten’s family. We remain committed to learning from these events and ensuring that every possible action is taken to address the issues raised. Our organization is dedicated to improving our processes, strengthening communication, and refining our approach to supporting vulnerable individuals in need of rehabilitation. The concern raised was as follows:- “S2R started providing this kind of specialist accommodation because there was such a pressing need for more of it. They are to be welcomed for having done so. However, like many small organisations which have grown, it appears that their systems have not always grown with them. Work is already being done, but there remains a continuing risk. Placement offers and the conditions and expectations which attach to them are too unclear. The recording of decisions around offers, withdrawal, and reconsideration, also needs to be better, not just to ensure that decisions are recorded, but also to ensure that decision making is properly structured and takes all relevant matters into account. Withdrawing accommodation offers without first speaking to the requesting organisation (in this case staff at the prison) also gives rise to risks. As this case shows, these are critically important decisions, and great care is required.” In response to this, we have reviewed the findings in detail and have implemented the following measures to address the concern raised and more:
1. Clarity in Communication with Potential Admissions o All potential admissions are informed during the assessment process that they are required to remain fully abstinent from drugs and alcohol. Additionally, it will now include clearer parameters relating to issues such as, but not limited to; self-harm, suicide, prescribed medication, criminality, mobility and physical health. Any changes in these circumstances may lead to a re-evaluation of their application by a

multidisciplinary team, which may include third-party input and may result in the withdrawal of their offer. This information will always be provided in writing in clear and unambiguous terms, as well as communicated verbally. We have implemented a new ‘Offer/Acceptance’ document that details the offer, on which any conditions placed on our offers will be clearly communicated in written form and sent to the main point of contact and where appropriate cc’d to other involved parties. This single document can then be accessed by other involved parties and eliminates any confusion as to what is required to fulfil a successful placement. As part of the review of our case management system ‘Lamplight’, this form will be available on clients’ individual files.
2. Obligations of Referring Services o Referring services, such as Probation Services, HMP Services and substance misuse commissioning agents, will now be explicitly informed during the assessment stage that they must notify S2R, in a timely manner, of any changes in the circumstances of prospective clients. This includes, but not limited to, updates related to mental health, physical health, self-harm, suicide risk, drug or alcohol use, or any other significant issue. We will, whenever possible, recommend to referring services that alternative placements should be considered as a precaution, in case conditions change and the place offered by us is at risk.
3. Documentation of Communication & Decision Making. o To provide further robustness and transparency all communications, discussions, and decisions, with regards to the prospective client, will be recorded on Lamplight, and regularly audited by our new senior management team. This ensures robust documentation and accountability of decision making.
4. Pre-Arrival Updates from Referring Services o In addition to our normal application process, and to ensure preparedness, S2R will contact the referring service two weeks prior to the client’s arrival to confirm there have been no changes in circumstances. If circumstances have changed, which may lead to the withdrawal of the offer, the referring service will be contacted and have input into the final decision before it is made.
5. Leadership Experience. We have appointed new executive team members, with a new Head of Therapy and CEO to further develop the delivery of our services. We have

also expanded our board of Trustees to include someone with extensive experience in clinical management.
6. Policy and Procedure Review o S2R has engaged an external consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of all policies and procedures, including but not limited to:  Referrals  Assessment and Admissions  Self-Harm and Suicide Risk  Planned and Unplanned Discharges o The reviewed policies will now incorporate all the aforementioned processes and actions, ensuring a robust framework moving forward.
7. Staff Training o S2R provides mandatory continuous training to ensure all staff are fully trained on the updated processes, recording of decision-making, policies and procedures.
8. Enhancements to Case Management System o S2R has undertaken a thorough review of its case management system, Lamplight, and is collaborating with Lamplight to ensure the system operates at its most efficient and effective configuration. o Comprehensive further staff training on the Lamplight system will then be provided to ensure its optimal use and accuracy in documentation. We remain committed to continuous improvement and to providing the highest level of care and support for the individuals we serve. We continue to take all necessary steps to minimise risk and ensure a more robust service to the vulnerable individuals who rely on Steps2recovery.
HM Prison and Probation Service Central Government
30 Jun 2025 PDF
Action Planned

The Probation Service is promoting community disposals and engaging with regional female leads to promote Approved Premises placements for women with complex needs; Female AP briefings for practitioners will emphasize this point from September. (AI summary)

View full response
Dear Sir, Inquest Touching the Death of Kirsten Hocking I refer to your Regulation 28 Report following the Inquest into the death of Kirsten Hocking and am issuing this response on behalf of the Probation Service. I know that you will share a copy of this response with her family, and I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences for their loss. You expressed a concern that there was and remains a real lack of specialist rehabilitation for women, and in particular, women who represent only a low or medium risk of harm to others, but a high risk of self-harm. This cohort are for the most part shut out from Approved Premises (“AP”) (it appears that it is possible for medium risk women to be admitted to an AP but that possibility is not well understood and the reality is that it is not available; that kind of accommodation being very over- subscribed in any event). This means there is little or no effective system of rehabilitative provision for that cohort. This is a cohort in which the state has invested a great deal of time and money (in imprisoning and rehabilitative work) only, the evidence suggests, for that investment to be at risk of being squandered on release. It also means that provision can become dependent on small charities and acts of individual generosity, which is patchwork and may bring problems of unclear access and unclear criteria (as happened here). The evidence was that this was being looked at by the Probation Service, which does not generally provide specialist rehabilitation accommodation itself but which has an obvious interest in it being available and so is monitoring the situation. However the evidence was also that the situation is getting worse not better, particularly for women (who tend to have higher levels of self-harm), and this is despite things like the Corston review in 2007 and the case of Coll v SSJ ten years later, which found discrimination because of the gender disparity with respect to the availability of APs. There is now a similar lack, and apparent gender impact, with regard to specialist rehabilitation accommodation too. The circumstances creating the risk of other deaths therefore subsist and might benefit from some renewed focus. From the start of this year, new initiatives have been launched by Government to improve outcomes for women in custody and on probation. These include the creation of the Women’s Justice Board and the introduction of The Women’s Policy Framework and accompanying operational guidance which was developed with over 250 probation practitioners and subject matter experts.  This supports

HMPPS staff across custody and in the community to deliver consistent practice which is gender- specific and trauma informed and includes mandatory actions for working with women. The expectation is that this new oversight from the Women’s Justice Board will renew focus on the accommodation requirements for women who find themselves in the criminal justice system. With specific reference to the female Approved Premises estate, the need to accommodate women with a wide range of needs is recognised and the estate does aim to accommodate women with complex needs who may pose a medium risk of harm. There is a new Central Referral Process which is managed by a dedicated Female Central Referral Unit Manager who has experience of such cases and can best assess the need for an AP space. Such spaces are also available for women who are subject to a community-based disposal, not just for those on licence release. Linked to your first concern, you commented that probation officers, who have primary responsibility for finding accommodation and building release plans, need to understand what accommodation is and is not available. This case showed that no-one, including the relevant officer, realised that an AP might in theory have been available. It also showed a failure to appreciate that once the first specialist placement fell through, a second was very unlikely to be found and so CAS3 accommodation was realistically the only option. That therefore needed finding quickly, so that a support plan could be built around it. There does therefore seem to be a training need. The Central Approved Premises Team are currently promoting the use of community disposals with Probation Court Teams across the county – which prevent the loss of accommodation due to a period in custody. They are also engaging with regional females leads (senior probation officers) to promote the availability of placements in an Approved Premises for women with complex needs who pose a medium risk of harm. From September this year, there will be Female AP briefings for all practitioners where this exact point will be emphasised. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention. I trust that this response provides assurance that action is being taken to address the issues you raised.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 01 June 2023 I commenced an investigation into the death of Kirsten HOCKING aged 31. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 08 November 2024. The conclusion of the inquest was that:

Kirsten Hocking was 31 years old when she died as a result of a heroin overdose. She had been released from prison on 19 May 2023, and found in a public toilet in Worthing on 20 May 2023. She was taken to Worthing Hospital where she died at 16:45 on 24 May 2023.
Circumstances of the death
Kirsten Hocking was 31 years old when she died as a result of a heroin overdose. She had been released from prison on 19 May 2023, and found in a public toilet in Worthing on 20 May 2023. She was taken to Worthing Hospital where she died at 16:45 on 24 May 2023.
Copies sent to
Change Grow Live (West Sussex) [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Forward Trust[REDACTED]

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Similar themes

Report details

Reference
2024-0617
Date of report
11 November 2024
Coroner
Nick Armstrong
Coroner area
West Sussex, Brighton & Hove

Responses identified

Responses identified 2 of 3
1 response not yet linked

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 6 Jan 2025 (estimated).

Sent to

HMPPS
Probation Service
Steps2Recovery

Source links