Deborah Lamont

Dear Mr Hughes,

I write on behalf of the College of Policing in response to the Prevention of Future Deaths report of the 20 January 2020 in relation to Deborah Margaret LAMONT (deceased) who sadly lost her life through suicide in
2019.

The notice sets out concerns that arose from the information received during the inquest into the death of Deborah Lamont. We are very sorry to read of the circumstances of Deborah’s death and our sympathies are with her family and friends. We share your commitment to addressing the issues that have been raised following her untimely loss.

When dealing with such incidents, the duty of care shown by officers to the individual concerned is always paramount and we welcome any findings and recommendations to ensure that the highest standards are maintained.

Your notice sets out your principle concerns namely:

1) Whether s136 could have been legally used in a hotel room if the officer concerned felt it was necessary to do so and;

2) For the police to consider their interpretation of whether a hotel room falls within the exception provided for by s136 (1A) Mental Health Act (MHA), and to provide clear guidance and instruction to officers faced with similar circumstances.

In this case, the officer’s interpretation of s136 MHA was that the power to detain was not available to him as he believed that, having paid for the hotel room in which she was staying, Deborah Lamont was ‘living’ there. This can cause confusion as there are occasions and situations where some people do ‘live’ in hotels, for example when they have been displaced following serious incidents and are subsequently housed in hotels by Local Authorities. In these cases there is no doubt that the people in the hotel are clearly ‘living’ there.

The use of s136 MHA is prohibited “in any house, flat or room where that person or another person is living.” When the Home Office and Department of Health produced guidance for the 2017 amendments to the MHA1983, the document did not contain any reference to hotels. That guidance states that in most situations it will be obvious whether or not s136 applies, “however in other situations it may be less-clear cut”.

As this is a matter of law, the College has sought its own legal advice to assist in providing this response. The advice received agreed with your assessment that someone “living” in a room implies that the person normally resides in that place and is not there temporarily. There are no definitions provided within the legislation and no stated cases that assist in providing clarification. Consequently, the use of s136 in these circumstances is a subjective one and requiring individual assessment and interpretation. In other words, the use of s136 in the case of Deborah Lamont could have been a consideration.

In summary, I share your view that s136 was an available option in this instance but there is no legal basis to mandate this. I am therefore going to be amending the College guidance in respect of the use of s136 powers and will ask that a summary of this issue is circulated to all police force mental health leads across England and Wales so that they can ensure that their officers consider the use of s136 in similar circumstances. The College has already raised the issue with the Home Office and we will work together to assess the need for relevant changes to the current national guidance in relation to the use of s136 and hotel rooms. The College will keep forces appraised of developments.

I hope that this addresses the concerns that you set out in your report and I am grateful for you bringing them to my attention.

Dear J:c write on behalf of the Chief Constable of the South Wales Police in response to the Prevention of Future Deaths report of the 20 January 2020 in relation to Deborah Margaret LAMONT (deceased) Your notice under Paragraph 7 , Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and Regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 sets out your concerns which may be summarised as:-
1) Whether s136 could have been legally used in a hotel room if the officer concerned felt it was necessary to do S0 and;
2) For the Police and College of Policing to consider their interpretation of whether a hotel room falls within the exception provided for by s136 (1A) Mental Health Act (MHA), and HEDDLU DE CYMRU SOUTH WALES POLICE Pencadlys Heddlu De Cxmru; Heol y Bont-faen; Penybont CF3I 3SU South Wales Polilce Headquarters, Cowbrldge Road, Bridgend CF3| 35U Mewn argyfwng fioniwch 999, felarall; fifonlwch I0I In an emergency always dlal 999, for non-emergendes di3l I01 Gwefan: wwwheddlu-de-cymrupollce uk Website: wwwsouth-wales pollce.uk Mea Heddlu De Cymumn crocsawu derbm pohebhedyn Grmreera Stcmes; South Wk s Folkca wekome} feceMng con pondence h Wbh and Endth Bxddmmyn ateb pchebbeth dderbynnrryn Grnvegy Gymecrec n frdd Aty conZpondenc receted In Wekh be anawered in Webh ud conEponding sohebum Gymneyn uvin at Ocdi; In Wckh Wll not toad t0 dely In rexponding: Prif Gwnstabl QPM, MA(Oxon)MSc Chkef Constable Wd

to provide clear guidance and instruction to officers faced with similar circumstances The report was sent to the Chief Constable and the Chief Executive of the College of Policing and we have had the benefit of copied into the response ofl Faculty Lead for Uniformed Policing, College of Policing dated 3r March 2020. As you are aware, the College of Policing was established in 2012 and its purpose is to provide those working in policing with the skills and knowledge necessary to prevent crime, protect the public, and secure public trust They hold three complementary functions namely Knowledge, Education and Standards: The latter function includes the maintenance of Authorised Professional Practice (APP): APP is the official source of professional practice on policing: Police officers and staff are expected to have regard to APP in discharging their responsibilities. We note that the College of Policing has sought its own legal advice to assist in the provision of a response and have shared your view that $.136 was an available option in this instance but there is no legal basis to mandate this. The Chief Constable also notes that whilst you interpreted s.136 as likely to afford the officer the power to remove Dr Lamont on the night in question, his [the officers] assessment of Dr Lamont was a reasonable one and the grounds to remove her did not exist [at that time] as she was not in immediate need of care or control: The Chief Constable notes that the College will circulate a summary of this issue to all police force mental health leads across England and Wales so that can ensure that their officers consider the use of s136 in similar circumstances: It is noted that in addition, the College has raised the issue with the Home Office and will work together to assess the need for relevant changes to the current national guidance (APP) in relation to the use of s136 and hotel rooms. The College will ensure that all Forces are kept appraised of developments. The Chief Constable has also asked that this issue is fully considered by the Force Mental health lead in the intervening period and the use of hotel rooms and s.136 is subject of a specific note upon force guidance and within training: This will be the interim position until such time as the Home Office andlor College of Policing offer the additional guidance andlor legislative amendment etc. It is hoped that this response combined with that of the College of Policing will address the issues and concerns as set out in your report