Natasha Hill

Dear Dr Morris,

RESPONSE TO REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths on 1 May 2026 regarding the unlawful killing of Natasha Hill. I would like to start by extending my deepest condolences to Natasha Hill’s family and loved ones for their devastating loss.

Tackling domestic abuse, child sexual exploitation and abuse and violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a top priority for this government and we will treat it as the national emergency that it is. We are working to deliver a cross-government transformative approach to halve VAWG in a decade, underpinned by the new VAWG Strategy.

Thank you for your conduct of the inquest, and your identification of a number of matters of concern, which are set out in the Report. The safeguarding gaps you have identified are important and I am clear that lessons must be learned across Government and beyond.

The Home Office’s response to your Report focuses on three matters of concern raised, specifically concerns 3, 4 and 5.

Matter of concern 3 Thought should be given to the creation of a young person's protection by way of creation of an extension to the CAWN for the young person, against the adult creating that safeguarding risk e.g. young person's abuse warning notice.

Child Abduction Warning Notices (CAWNs) are a non-statutory tool available to the police to warn suspects that they may be prosecuted, if they persist, for a child abduction offence when there is not enough evidence that a criminal offence is being committed.

CAWNs can be issued by the police to disrupt contact between any potential abductor over the criminal age of responsibility and a child under the age of 16 (the Child Abduction Act 1984), or under 18 years if they are under local authority care (the Children Act 1989). College of Policing guidance requires forces to keep CAWNs under regular review, with a review process scheduled no later than six months after the notice is issued, and decisions on retention or removal taken in line with the Authorised Professional Practice.

Police have a number of powers and tools at their disposal to prevent, disrupt and prosecute child exploitation. CAWNs are one of these tools, but a range of other powers are available to officers, depending on the circumstances in the case, and they are set out

in the Home Office’s Child Exploitation Disruption Toolkit [See more here:

The Child Exploitation Disruption Toolkit supports police, social care and other frontline partners to use a suite of disruption tools to safeguard children and stop offenders. It makes clear that child exploitation cannot be addressed by a single agency working alone, and that effective collaboration, particularly around information sharing, is essential to protecting children and disrupting offending. We continue to keep this framework under review.

Matter of concern 4 The creation of one single national policy for policing and child sexual exploitation following the groundwork laid down by Operation Hydrant and local Forces.

The Home Office is working to create a consistent, victim-centred response to child sexual exploitation, building on progress to date in strengthening the policing response including by the Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) Taskforce (part of the Hydrant Programme). Below is a list of activity underway which seeks to ensure that police are equipped to respond to CSE in a consistent manner.

We are working with national policing partners to strengthen the response to child sexual exploitation, including group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation, by supporting programmes that improve the policing response across England and Wales. The Government has established the national police operation into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, Operation Beaconport, backed by almost £38 million, to improve policing’s ability to investigate group-based offending, ensuring a consistent response wherever abuse is reported and better, trauma-informed support for victims and survivors.

The Government also works closely with the College of Policing to develop and maintain its Authorised Professional Practice (APP), which sets out national guidance and clear expectations for how forces identify risk, safeguard victims and pursue offenders.

This year the Home Office is providing £6.1 million in funding to the CSE Taskforce, part of the Hydrant Programme, which was established in 2023 to strengthen the policing response to child sexual exploitation, including group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Taskforce supports police forces through complex investigations, peer reviews, training and operational advice, helping to build capability and improve investigative practice. It also contributes to the development of national policing guidance and training products, including the Authorised Professional Practice (APP).

In addition, the Taskforce helps to share learning and promote effective multi-agency working. Through force reviews, practitioner networks and engagement with safeguarding partners, it supports local areas to improve the identification of risk, information sharing, offender disruption and the safeguarding of children, recognising that tackling CSE requires a coordinated response across agencies.

The Taskforce works closely with the Home Office funded Tackling Organised Exploitation (TOEX) Programme, which uses data and analytics to identify patterns of exploitation, link offending across force boundaries, and help police better connect intelligence so that risks to children are recognised and acted on more effectively. The Home Office is investing £10.7 million in the TOEX Programme in 2026/27.

The Home Office also funds the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection (NCVPP), launched in April 2025, to provide national leadership and improve professional practice in the policing response to violence against women and girls, child sexual abuse and wider public protection offences. The Centre is intended to place victims’ experiences at the heart of police investigations, deliver improved training

for officers, professionalise public protection work and drive up investigative and operational standards across all police forces.

The Department for Education, in collaboration with the Home Office, are currently consulting on whether to amend the government definition and guidance on child sexual exploitation, working closely with partners including law enforcement, children’s safeguarding and policing.

Matter of concern 5 Re safeguarding offender management, the use of VOO's and the creation of POETs/ DAPST and RMUs: Consideration should be given to the creation of one set of criteria with one name whose role it is to cover and create a central guidance.

While Protective Order Enforcement Teams (POETs), Domestic Abuse Problem Solving Teams (DAPSTs) and Risk Management Units (RMUs) are all distinct operational teams within policing and Violent Offender Orders (VOOs) are an important tool, we recognise that they should operate as part of a coherent system. The NCVPP helps bring together learning, guidance and best practice to improve the consistency and quality of the policing response to VAWG and public protection harms. As part of this, the NCVPP is taking forward work in a number of areas linked to risk assessment, offender management, safeguarding and protection orders including:
• Developing updated national guidance on all VAWG protection orders, including offender management, breach response and escalation pathways
• Supporting work to establish Stalking Protection Order (SPO) intensification sites in select police forces
• Improving risk assessment practice by publishing guidance on secondary risk assessments and strengthening information sharing arrangements
• Strengthening the recording and quality of protection order data by clear instructions on entering and maintaining data to police forces
• Supporting more joined-up multi-agency working by developing consistent, improved and evidence-led MARAC and MATAC arrangements

Thank you for raising these important issues in your report. I hope this response has been helpful in setting out our plans to better safeguard victims and prevent devastating cases like this from occurring.

Very best wishes, Minister of State for Policing and Crime

- HMG USE ONLY OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY THIS RESPONSE IS BEING SENT TO: The Senior Coroner, Dr Julian Morris, for the Coroner Area of London Inner South in response to a ‘REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATH REGULATION 28’ following an inquest into the death of Natasha Hill that concluded on Friday 1 May,
2026.
1. RESPONDENT In line with our duty under Regulation 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, The Secretary of State for Education provides this response within 56 days (plus any extension granted) of the date of the Report to Prevent Future Deaths.
2. 17 July 2026
3. CONFIRMATION OF CORONER’S MATTERS OF CONCERN The MATTERS OF CONCERN identified in the report are as follows:
1. Anyone requiring/ needing/suffering o Safeguarding o Domestic violence o Controlling/ coercive behaviour And incurring the consequential risks, as a teenager approaching 18 should be formally reviewed by an adult safeguarding team and the independent reviewing officer.
2. Thought should be given to creating a young person’s team covering the transition from under 18 (MACE) to adult safeguarding teams e.g. For the period 18-22.
3. Thought should be given to a young person's protection by way of creation of an extension to the CAWN for the young person, against the adult creating that safeguarding risk e.g. young person's abuse warning notice.
4. The creation of one single national policy for policing and child sexual exploitation following the groundwork laid down by Operation Hydrant and local Forces.
5. Re safeguarding offender management, the use of VOO's and the creation of POETs/ DAPST and RMUs: Consideration should be given to the creation of one set of criteria with one name whose role it is to cover and create a central guidance.
6. To consider the wider dissemination of existing local protocols nationally, for example the London Exploitation Protocol.
7. The provision of guidance in respect of missing persons/ runaways and the return to home interviews to assist the actions of the police and local councils.

OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY
3. DETAILS OF ACTIONS TAKEN, CURRENT ACTIONS, AND PLANNED ACTIONS: Matter of Concern 1:
• This government is supporting vulnerable children and their families, including those where domestic abuse is a factor, by intervening at the earliest opportunity through the Families First Partnership programme. Through this programme, which is supported by £2.4bn over the next three years, community based multi-disciplinary Family Help and multi-agency child protection teams are being introduced to help, support and protect children and their families.
• For young people approaching adulthood who are experiencing, or are at risk of, harm, including domestic abuse and/or controlling or coercive behaviour, their ongoing needs and risks should be formally reviewed before they reach 18, in line with statutory safeguarding guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children and the principles of transitional safeguarding.
• This review should include both children’s and adult services, the child, parents/carers, and family network as appropriate, and the Independent Reviewing Officer for children who are looked after.
• This will support a coordinated transition to adult services, ensure that identified risks are appropriately managed, and young people are able to move safely into adulthood.

Actions taken:

• The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) published an independent Bridging the Gap briefing setting out the importance of transitional safeguarding within adult social work in 2021. This briefing focuses on safeguarding young people journeying from adolescence into adulthood, particularly on sexual and criminal exploitation, to help prevent instances of sexual exploitation in adulthood.

Current Actions:

• The National Adult Safeguarding Board will be conducting an urgent review of adult safeguarding powers and duties. The first part of that work will be to consult on updating the safeguarding chapter of Care and support statutory guidance (CASSG). As part of this update, we will consider what guidance can be provided to strengthen safeguarding in the context of the transition of young people to adult services. In that process we will take the learning from this PFD report and consider the recommendation that when a teenager with care and support needs approaches 18 they should be reviewed formally by an adult safeguarding team and the independent reviewing officer.
• In March 2026, DHSC launched an 11-month project, with the Department for Education (DfE), Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) and Skills for Care (SfC) to develop practical materials to improve transitions into adult social care. The project will deliver a set of best practice principles for good transitions, together with bespoke training materials for social workers and social care leaders to help ensure they have the knowledge and tools

OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY to provide high-quality support to young people as they transition into adulthood. Evidence to support best practice in relation to transitional safeguarding will be considered as part of this project, as well as the actions that we can take to make tangible improvements in this area.

DETAILS OF ACTIONS TAKEN, CURRENT ACTIONS, AND PLANNED ACTIONS: Matter of Concern 2:
• The Families First Partnership (FFP) programme guide details expectations of local areas and safeguarding partners. This includes the expectation that local areas have an operational integrated front door, where contacts and referrals can be triaged to the right level of service; ensure front door alignment with multi-agency child protection teams (MACPTs) and wider local arrangements; and consider and set out the MACPT’s role in supporting transitions out of child protection. This can include interactions with Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) and transitions into adult safeguarding teams.
• As government continues to make significant reforms to children’s social care, including through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, we are consulting on updating the statutory framework for help, support and protection for children and their families. This will inform revisions to Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 (Working Together), the Children’s Social Care National Framework 2026 (the National Framework) statutory guidance, and policy that will underpin the development of the MACPT regulations.
• The consultation launched on 22 June and will run until 4 September. We propose substantive changes to Working Together, including on: accountability of multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and the role of the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO); MACPTs; the delivery of Family Help and earlier, more joined-up support for families; family networks and family group decision making; a strengthened response to extra-familial harm; child protection for looked-after children; and responding to potential for extreme violence.
• MACPTs oversee the development, review, and closure of Child Protection Plans and transitions out of child protection for children at risk of or suffering significant harm. We are also further clarifying how these processes apply to looked after children.

Care leavers
• The Department is currently undertaking a review of care leaver deaths, as announced in Spring 2026, which is expected to consider safeguarding- related issues and identify any relevant themes or lessons. We will use the findings from this work to inform future policy development and operational practice, including consideration of whether additional safeguarding arrangements or dedicated structures for adults should be introduced.
• More broadly, we are already strengthening support for care leavers through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act (2026), including a new duty on local authorities to provide Staying Close support up to age 25.

OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY Insights from the review will help inform how we continue to develop and improve support for care leavers’ safety, wellbeing and access to services.

DETAILS OF ACTIONS TAKEN, CURRENT ACTIONS, AND PLANNED ACTIONS: Matter of Concern 6:
• Keeping children safe, both inside and outside the home, is a key pillar in this government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. This is reflected in the Children’s Social Care National Framework.
• Our Families First Partnership Programme, backed by over £2.4 billion funding, and Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 are rolling out the biggest reforms in a generation to family help and multi-agency child protection.
• Children who are experiencing, or likely to experience, significant harm outside the home should receive a child protection response, as set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026.
• Working Together 2026 is also clear that known transition points for a child should be planned for in advance, including where children are likely to transition between child and adult services.
• There is further work to update Working Together to ensure consistent identification of and responses to significant harm under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (inside and outside the home, and online); and for MACPTs to oversee the development, review, and closure of Child Protection Plans and transitions out of child protection for children at risk of or suffering significant harm. This includes further clarification of how these processes are applied for looked after children.

OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY

DETAILS OF ACTIONS TAKEN, CURRENT ACTIONS, AND PLANNED ACTIONS: Matter of Concern 7:
• DfE's Statutory guidance on children who run away or go missing from home or care' (2014) outlines local authorities' responsibilities to all missing children, including their duty to report all incidences of children going missing from care to the DfE in annual data collections.
• The statutory guidance requires local authorities to share that information locally in a multi-agency forum to prevent all children from going missing.
• We expect statutory safeguarding partners to work together to reduce the chances of children going missing, to respond effectively when they do and understand why.
• When a child is found, they must be offered an independent return interview (Return Home Interview - RHI) and local authorities, police and voluntary services should also work together to build a comprehensive picture of why the child went missing and to understand what support they may need in the future to prevent them from going missing again.
• As government continues to make significant reforms to children’s social care, including through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, we are consulting on updating the statutory framework for help, support and protection for children and their families. This will inform revisions to Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026 (Working Together), the Children’s Social Care National Framework 2026 (the National Framework) statutory guidance, and policy that will underpin the development of the Multi-Agency Child Protection Team regulations (MACPT regulations).
• The consultation launched on 22 June and will run until 4 September. We propose substantive changes to Working Together, including on: accountability of multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and the role of the LADO; multi-agency child protection teams (MACPTs); the delivery of Family Help and earlier more joined up support for families; family networks and family group decision making; a strengthened response to extra-familial harm; child protection for looked-after children; and, responding to potential for extreme violence.
• MACPTs oversee the development, review, and closure of Child Protection Plans and transitions out of child protection for children at risk of or suffering significant harm.
• The Department for Education, working with colleagues across government, will be updating the content of the guidance for children who go missing from home or care. We will be working closely with a wide range of operational partners and sector stakeholders as part of this process, including on the format for this guidance, to ensure a robust multi-agency response to missing children.

OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY OFFICIAL - HMG USE ONLY

4. DETAILS OF FURTHER ACTION PROPOSED See responses above.

Signed:

Secretary of State for Education

Dear Senior Coroner Morris, I write on behalf of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) in relation to paragraph 7, Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, in relation to the prevention of future deaths report (dated 01.05.2026) sent via email for my attention as the NPCC Chair (dated 05.06.2026). The notice sets out concerns that arose from the information received during the inquest into the death of Natasha Hill. I am very sorry to read of the circumstances of Natasha’s death. My sympathies are with her family, friends and colleagues. Matters of concern have been highlighted below:  Anyone requiring / needing / suffering o Safeguarding o Domestic violence / abuse o Controlling/ coercive behaviour And incurring the consequential risks, as a teenager approaching 18 should be formally reviewed by an adult safeguarding team and the independent reviewing officer.  Thought should be given to creating a young person’s team covering the transition from under 18 (MACE) to adult safeguarding teams e.g. For the period 18-22.  Thought should be given to the creation of a young person's protection by way of creation of an extension to the CAWN for the young person, against the adult creating that safeguarding risk
e.g. young person's abuse warning notice.  The creation of one single national policy for policing and child sexual exploitation following the groundwork laid down by Operation Hydrant and local Forces.  Re safeguarding offender management, the use of VOO's and the creation of POETs/ DAPST and RMUs: Consideration should be given to the creation of one set of criteria with one name whose role it is to cover and create a central guidance.

 To consider the wider dissemination of existing local protocols nationally, for example the London Exploitation Protocol.  The provision of guidance in respect of missing persons / runaways and the return to home interviews to assist the actions of the police and local councils. In formulating this response, the NPCC Hydrant Programme, The Child Sexual Exploitation Taskforce, and National Centre for Violence Against Women & Girls and Public Protection have been extensively consulted. Initially, I thought it would be beneficial to highlight the national Child Protection Framework at the time of Natasha’s death, before covering more recent developments. During the relevant period, agencies were operating within the statutory framework established by Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015, which was subsequently revised in July 2018. These arrangements required effective multi- agency information sharing, coordinated safeguarding planning, child-centred decision making, and collaborative responses between children's social care, policing, health and education services where concerns about significant harm existed. In parallel, the Department for Education's 2017 guidance on Child Sexual Exploitation reinforced that exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse and highlighted the need to recognise coercion, grooming, power imbalances and the reality that children may continue to associate with those who are exploiting them. The guidance also emphasised the importance of professional curiosity, offender disruption and coordinated multi-agency safeguarding responses. The circumstances identified within the DHR demonstrate that many nationally recognised indicators of child sexual exploitation and abuse were present, including a substantial age disparity, repeated missing episodes, physical injuries, controlling behaviour, isolation from support networks and continued association with a known violent offender. The review found that extensive safeguarding activity was undertaken and that agencies recognised both Natasha's vulnerability and the risk posed by the perpetrator. However, the evidence suggests that safeguarding arrangements were fragmented rather than integrated. While MACE, MARAC and MAPPA processes were all engaged, there was limited coordination between these forums and no single mechanism that retained oversight of the cumulative and escalating risk presented to Natasha. Viewed against the statutory expectations operating at the time, the principal issue therefore does not appear to be the absence of safeguarding structures, but rather the effectiveness with which those structures were connected. The review identifies missed opportunities to share intelligence, coordinate disruption activity, manage cumulative risk and maintain a unified safeguarding plan around both the victim and the perpetrator. The findings also highlight challenges associated with cross-border safeguarding, as Natasha moved between local authority and policing areas. Existing guidance required cooperation between agencies where children crossed geographical boundaries, but the review found that these arrangements did not always operate effectively in practice.

Contextual Safeguarding Although Contextual Safeguarding was not yet fully embedded within statutory guidance during much of the relevant period, it was already emerging as a significant framework for understanding adolescent risk. The 2018 revision of Working Together subsequently incorporated references to contextual safeguarding, recognising that harm may arise in relationships and environments beyond the family home. Natasha's experience reflects many features now associated with extra-familial harm: exploitation by an older adult, abuse within an intimate relationship, repeated missing episodes linked to risk, movement across geographical locations and overlapping indicators of domestic abuse and child sexual exploitation. The review therefore provides a powerful example of the type of adolescent vulnerability that has subsequently informed developments in contextual safeguarding practice. Transitional Safeguarding Perhaps the most significant strategic learning from the review relates to transitional safeguarding. The DHR demonstrates that Natasha's vulnerability did not diminish when she turned 18. Her experiences of trauma, exploitation, coercive control and domestic abuse continued, yet key child- focused safeguarding mechanisms reduced or ceased at the point she became an adult. The Child Abduction Warning Notice expired, children's safeguarding arrangements diminished, and no equivalent safeguarding framework existed to provide continuity of oversight. However, it is important to recognise that there was no established statutory framework for transitional safeguarding in 2017–2018. There was no national requirement for MACE arrangements to continue beyond 18, no expectation that children's safeguarding processes should automatically extend into adulthood, and no dedicated transitional safeguarding model for vulnerable young adults. During this period, transitional safeguarding was still an emerging concept rather than an embedded feature of policy and practice. Reflection: If this happened today If a case with the same horrific circumstances experienced by Natasha presented today, safeguarding partners would be expected to adopt a fundamentally different approach, recognising that vulnerability, exploitation and coercive control do not cease when a young person reaches adulthood. Although transitional safeguarding remains an area of practice development rather than a statutory framework, it is now widely recognised that safeguarding responses should be driven by vulnerability and risk, not solely by age. From a strategic perspective, a young person experiencing child sexual exploitation, domestic abuse, trauma, repeated missing episodes and care experience would not be expected to simply "age out" of safeguarding arrangements at 18. Instead, there should be planned continuity of protection, with transition arrangements commencing well before adulthood and involving children's services, exploitation specialists, police, health, adult safeguarding and leaving care services. The focus should be on maintaining oversight of risk, preserving protective relationships and ensuring clear ownership of safeguarding concerns beyond the child's eighteenth birthday. However, whilst these arrangements are expected, there is limited direction within the current statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026. Transition is limited to “Known transition points for the child should be

planned for in advance. This includes where children are likely to transition between child and adult services”. In short, there is no single statutory national transitional safeguarding framework for children who continue to experience exploitation into early adulthood. Research in Practice, the Department of Health and Social Care, Social Care Institute for Excellence, ADASS (Directors of adult social services), Local Government Association and others have collectively advanced Transitional Safeguarding as an approach to safeguarding young people into adulthood. Importantly, these organisations describe Transitional Safeguarding as a whole-system approach rather than a specific service, panel or statutory process. Current safeguarding practice would also place much greater emphasis on the management and disruption of perpetrators. Rather than focusing primarily on the behaviour of the victim, agencies would be expected to coordinate intelligence, utilise available disruption tactics, consider civil and criminal powers and ensure that offender management and safeguarding arrangements operate as part of a coherent strategy. CSE Taskforce Response Many of the themes identified in the DHR have subsequently informed national improvements in child exploitation policy and practice. In particular, there has been a sustained shift towards child-centred, trauma-informed and perpetrator-focused responses, stronger multi-agency coordination, and greater recognition of contextual safeguarding. There exists the Tackling Child Exploitation Support Programme and Department for Education’s Multi- Agency Practice Principles for responding to child exploitation and extra-familial risk and harm (2026) which promotes a shared partnership understanding of risk, improved information sharing, a welfare-led approach to children affected by exploitation, and recognition of the need for agencies to work across age-related boundaries when exploitation continues into adulthood. Successive editions of Investigating Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (CSAE) Practice Advice (2020, 2023 and 2025) have strengthened national expectations around child-centred investigations, trauma-informed practice, contextual safeguarding, multi-agency working, victim engagement and perpetrator disruption. Collectively, these developments have reinforced that exploitation should be understood as abuse, that vulnerability may persist beyond childhood, and that safeguarding responses should be informed by cumulative risk rather than individual incidents in isolation. Alongside this, national disruption guidance and learning produced through the CSE Taskforce, Hydrant Programme and partners has sought to address one of the key findings of the DHR: the need to move beyond managing victims alone and place greater emphasis on identifying, disrupting and managing perpetrators and exploitation networks. National learning has promoted disruption as a safeguarding intervention, strengthened multi-agency approaches to exploitation through MACE arrangements, and reinforced the importance of linking missing person activity, contextual safeguarding and perpetrator management to achieve earlier intervention and improved safeguarding outcomes. National self- assessment activity has also supported forces and safeguarding partners to evaluate their response to child sexual exploitation and identify areas for improvement. Current national activity has also focused on strengthening the strategic management of exploitation and extra-familial harm through improved multi-agency disruption approaches. National disruption

conferences and learning events have promoted the use of disruption as a safeguarding intervention, encouraging agencies to move beyond reactive measures and develop coordinated, preventative responses to perpetrators and exploitation networks. The CSE Taskforce and Hydrant Programme have supported forces through national self-assessment activity, enabling policing and safeguarding partners to evaluate their response to child sexual exploitation, identify areas for development and inform future national guidance. Learning from major inquiries, inspection findings and independent reviews has been incorporated into successive iterations of national practice advice and guidance products. Alongside developments in contextual safeguarding, increasing attention has been given to Transitional Safeguarding, recognising that young people affected by exploitation, abuse and extra-familial harm often remain vulnerable beyond their eighteenth birthday. National partners across policing, safeguarding and health sectors continue to advance policy and practice in this area to support greater continuity of protection and risk management through the transition to adulthood. National work has also highlighted the importance of effective Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) arrangements, stronger links between missing person activity and exploitation risk, and improved oversight of children who experience harm across geographical boundaries or are placed away from their home area. These developments reinforce the need for coordinated intelligence sharing, disruption activity and safeguarding responses that recognise cumulative vulnerability and exploitation risk. Emphasis has been placed on understanding repeated missing episodes as indicators of exploitation and harm. Work continues to ensure information gathered through missing person investigations informs both safeguarding planning and perpetrator disruption activity. National initiatives have also strengthened engagement with sectors such as hospitality, transport and accommodation providers in recognising and responding to indicators of child exploitation. Taken together, these developments provide a more coherent framework for responding to the risks highlighted by the review, and the concerns raised, including exploitation, extra-familial harm, domestic abuse, cross-boundary offending and the continuing vulnerability of young people transitioning into adulthood. Whilst transitional safeguarding remains an area of developing practice rather than a statutory framework, there is now far greater recognition that safeguarding responses should be driven by vulnerability, harm and need, rather than ending at an arbitrary age threshold. Child Abduction Warning Notice Child Abduction Warning Notice (CAWN) is, by design, a child protection tool and ceases to apply once the young person reaches 18. The DHR demonstrates how this created a significant safeguarding gap: the risk posed by the perpetrator remained unchanged, but one of the key disruption mechanisms available to agencies fell away when Natasha became an adult. The concern highlighted the absence of any equivalent protection despite ongoing exploitation, domestic abuse and coercive control risks. There is currently no direct equivalent of a CAWN for adults and no nationally adopted "young person's abuse warning notice" or similar mechanism. The legal framework remains largely divided between child safeguarding powers and adult safeguarding arrangements.

However, there is growing recognition within Transitional Safeguarding practice that care-experienced young adults and those affected by exploitation may continue to require targeted protection and disruption activity beyond their eighteenth birthday. This has contributed to wider discussions about how safeguarding systems, contextual disruption and civil powers can be adapted to better protect children and young people by being vulnerability led rather than age led. Missing Persons and Transitional Safeguarding Current policing guidance recognises that missing episodes are often indicators of vulnerability, exploitation and harm rather than standalone incidents. Police are expected to view repeated missing episodes as part of a wider safeguarding picture, assess cumulative risk, share information with partners and consider the role of perpetrators and exploiters. Missing episodes should not be managed in isolation but used to build an understanding of escalating risk and vulnerability. For children, Return Home Interviews (RHIs) are a key safeguarding intervention. They provide an opportunity to understand why a child went missing, whether exploitation or abuse has occurred, what support is required and what action should be taken to prevent further harm. The information gathered should inform safeguarding planning, disruption activity and multi-agency risk management. From a transitional safeguarding perspective, Natasha's case highlights a continuing challenge. Whilst there are well-established statutory arrangements for children who go missing, there is no equivalent statutory Return Home Interview requirement or exploitation framework that automatically continues into adulthood. As recognised within transitional safeguarding guidance, abuse and exploitation frequently continue beyond 18 even though statutory safeguarding systems change significantly at that point. The key strategic learning is that where a young person has a history of exploitation, repeated missing episodes, domestic abuse, grooming or coercive control, agencies should ensure that intelligence from missing episodes continues to inform safeguarding and disruption activity beyond the age of 18. Risk management should be driven by vulnerability and harm rather than chronological age, with continuity of oversight through multi-agency partnership arrangements, care leaver support and exploitation risk management. We have taken an urgent review of the Child Abuse Authorised Professional Practice that is currently out for consultation through the College of Policing. There is much within the draft APP that aligns with transitional safeguarding principles, particularly its emphasis on vulnerability, exploitation, coercion and control, trauma informed practice, professional curiosity, information sharing and avoiding victim blaming. However a gap has been identified relating to transition to adulthood, and we have requested that additional wording is included. You can find the consultation here until 4th August 2026: Child abuse APP – have your say | College of Policing. Whilst guidance and statutory arrangements exist to support transition into adult services, not all young people meet the high eligibility thresholds for adult social care. As a result, agencies must remain alert to young adults who continue to experience vulnerability, exploitation, trauma, or harm and ensure they are not viewed solely through a crime or incident-based lens. A holistic assessment of risk, need and lived experience remains essential.

I hope the information provided will go some way to address your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further action or information in relation to my response.

Dear Senior Coroner Morris, I write on behalf of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) in relation to paragraph 7, Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, in relation to the prevention of future deaths report (dated 01.05.2026) sent via email for my attention as the NPCC Chair (dated 05.06.2026). The notice sets out concerns that arose from the information received during the inquest into the death of Natasha Hill. I am very sorry to read of the circumstances of Natasha’s death. My sympathies are with her family, friends and colleagues. Matters of concern have been highlighted below:  Anyone requiring / needing / suffering o Safeguarding o Domestic violence / abuse o Controlling/ coercive behaviour And incurring the consequential risks, as a teenager approaching 18 should be formally reviewed by an adult safeguarding team and the independent reviewing officer.  Thought should be given to creating a young person’s team covering the transition from under 18 (MACE) to adult safeguarding teams e.g. For the period 18-22.  Thought should be given to the creation of a young person's protection by way of creation of an extension to the CAWN for the young person, against the adult creating that safeguarding risk
e.g. young person's abuse warning notice.  The creation of one single national policy for policing and child sexual exploitation following the groundwork laid down by Operation Hydrant and local Forces.  Re safeguarding offender management, the use of VOO's and the creation of POETs/ DAPST and RMUs: Consideration should be given to the creation of one set of criteria with one name whose role it is to cover and create a central guidance.

 To consider the wider dissemination of existing local protocols nationally, for example the London Exploitation Protocol.  The provision of guidance in respect of missing persons / runaways and the return to home interviews to assist the actions of the police and local councils. In formulating this response, the NPCC Hydrant Programme, The Child Sexual Exploitation Taskforce, and National Centre for Violence Against Women & Girls and Public Protection have been extensively consulted. Initially, I thought it would be beneficial to highlight the national Child Protection Framework at the time of Natasha’s death, before covering more recent developments. During the relevant period, agencies were operating within the statutory framework established by Working Together to Safeguard Children 2015, which was subsequently revised in July 2018. These arrangements required effective multi- agency information sharing, coordinated safeguarding planning, child-centred decision making, and collaborative responses between children's social care, policing, health and education services where concerns about significant harm existed. In parallel, the Department for Education's 2017 guidance on Child Sexual Exploitation reinforced that exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse and highlighted the need to recognise coercion, grooming, power imbalances and the reality that children may continue to associate with those who are exploiting them. The guidance also emphasised the importance of professional curiosity, offender disruption and coordinated multi-agency safeguarding responses. The circumstances identified within the DHR demonstrate that many nationally recognised indicators of child sexual exploitation and abuse were present, including a substantial age disparity, repeated missing episodes, physical injuries, controlling behaviour, isolation from support networks and continued association with a known violent offender. The review found that extensive safeguarding activity was undertaken and that agencies recognised both Natasha's vulnerability and the risk posed by the perpetrator. However, the evidence suggests that safeguarding arrangements were fragmented rather than integrated. While MACE, MARAC and MAPPA processes were all engaged, there was limited coordination between these forums and no single mechanism that retained oversight of the cumulative and escalating risk presented to Natasha. Viewed against the statutory expectations operating at the time, the principal issue therefore does not appear to be the absence of safeguarding structures, but rather the effectiveness with which those structures were connected. The review identifies missed opportunities to share intelligence, coordinate disruption activity, manage cumulative risk and maintain a unified safeguarding plan around both the victim and the perpetrator. The findings also highlight challenges associated with cross-border safeguarding, as Natasha moved between local authority and policing areas. Existing guidance required cooperation between agencies where children crossed geographical boundaries, but the review found that these arrangements did not always operate effectively in practice.

Contextual Safeguarding Although Contextual Safeguarding was not yet fully embedded within statutory guidance during much of the relevant period, it was already emerging as a significant framework for understanding adolescent risk. The 2018 revision of Working Together subsequently incorporated references to contextual safeguarding, recognising that harm may arise in relationships and environments beyond the family home. Natasha's experience reflects many features now associated with extra-familial harm: exploitation by an older adult, abuse within an intimate relationship, repeated missing episodes linked to risk, movement across geographical locations and overlapping indicators of domestic abuse and child sexual exploitation. The review therefore provides a powerful example of the type of adolescent vulnerability that has subsequently informed developments in contextual safeguarding practice. Transitional Safeguarding Perhaps the most significant strategic learning from the review relates to transitional safeguarding. The DHR demonstrates that Natasha's vulnerability did not diminish when she turned 18. Her experiences of trauma, exploitation, coercive control and domestic abuse continued, yet key child- focused safeguarding mechanisms reduced or ceased at the point she became an adult. The Child Abduction Warning Notice expired, children's safeguarding arrangements diminished, and no equivalent safeguarding framework existed to provide continuity of oversight. However, it is important to recognise that there was no established statutory framework for transitional safeguarding in 2017–2018. There was no national requirement for MACE arrangements to continue beyond 18, no expectation that children's safeguarding processes should automatically extend into adulthood, and no dedicated transitional safeguarding model for vulnerable young adults. During this period, transitional safeguarding was still an emerging concept rather than an embedded feature of policy and practice. Reflection: If this happened today If a case with the same horrific circumstances experienced by Natasha presented today, safeguarding partners would be expected to adopt a fundamentally different approach, recognising that vulnerability, exploitation and coercive control do not cease when a young person reaches adulthood. Although transitional safeguarding remains an area of practice development rather than a statutory framework, it is now widely recognised that safeguarding responses should be driven by vulnerability and risk, not solely by age. From a strategic perspective, a young person experiencing child sexual exploitation, domestic abuse, trauma, repeated missing episodes and care experience would not be expected to simply "age out" of safeguarding arrangements at 18. Instead, there should be planned continuity of protection, with transition arrangements commencing well before adulthood and involving children's services, exploitation specialists, police, health, adult safeguarding and leaving care services. The focus should be on maintaining oversight of risk, preserving protective relationships and ensuring clear ownership of safeguarding concerns beyond the child's eighteenth birthday. However, whilst these arrangements are expected, there is limited direction within the current statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026. Transition is limited to “Known transition points for the child should be

planned for in advance. This includes where children are likely to transition between child and adult services”. In short, there is no single statutory national transitional safeguarding framework for children who continue to experience exploitation into early adulthood. Research in Practice, the Department of Health and Social Care, Social Care Institute for Excellence, ADASS (Directors of adult social services), Local Government Association and others have collectively advanced Transitional Safeguarding as an approach to safeguarding young people into adulthood. Importantly, these organisations describe Transitional Safeguarding as a whole-system approach rather than a specific service, panel or statutory process. Current safeguarding practice would also place much greater emphasis on the management and disruption of perpetrators. Rather than focusing primarily on the behaviour of the victim, agencies would be expected to coordinate intelligence, utilise available disruption tactics, consider civil and criminal powers and ensure that offender management and safeguarding arrangements operate as part of a coherent strategy. CSE Taskforce Response Many of the themes identified in the DHR have subsequently informed national improvements in child exploitation policy and practice. In particular, there has been a sustained shift towards child-centred, trauma-informed and perpetrator-focused responses, stronger multi-agency coordination, and greater recognition of contextual safeguarding. There exists the Tackling Child Exploitation Support Programme and Department for Education’s Multi- Agency Practice Principles for responding to child exploitation and extra-familial risk and harm (2026) which promotes a shared partnership understanding of risk, improved information sharing, a welfare-led approach to children affected by exploitation, and recognition of the need for agencies to work across age-related boundaries when exploitation continues into adulthood. Successive editions of Investigating Child Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (CSAE) Practice Advice (2020, 2023 and 2025) have strengthened national expectations around child-centred investigations, trauma-informed practice, contextual safeguarding, multi-agency working, victim engagement and perpetrator disruption. Collectively, these developments have reinforced that exploitation should be understood as abuse, that vulnerability may persist beyond childhood, and that safeguarding responses should be informed by cumulative risk rather than individual incidents in isolation. Alongside this, national disruption guidance and learning produced through the CSE Taskforce, Hydrant Programme and partners has sought to address one of the key findings of the DHR: the need to move beyond managing victims alone and place greater emphasis on identifying, disrupting and managing perpetrators and exploitation networks. National learning has promoted disruption as a safeguarding intervention, strengthened multi-agency approaches to exploitation through MACE arrangements, and reinforced the importance of linking missing person activity, contextual safeguarding and perpetrator management to achieve earlier intervention and improved safeguarding outcomes. National self- assessment activity has also supported forces and safeguarding partners to evaluate their response to child sexual exploitation and identify areas for improvement. Current national activity has also focused on strengthening the strategic management of exploitation and extra-familial harm through improved multi-agency disruption approaches. National disruption

conferences and learning events have promoted the use of disruption as a safeguarding intervention, encouraging agencies to move beyond reactive measures and develop coordinated, preventative responses to perpetrators and exploitation networks. The CSE Taskforce and Hydrant Programme have supported forces through national self-assessment activity, enabling policing and safeguarding partners to evaluate their response to child sexual exploitation, identify areas for development and inform future national guidance. Learning from major inquiries, inspection findings and independent reviews has been incorporated into successive iterations of national practice advice and guidance products. Alongside developments in contextual safeguarding, increasing attention has been given to Transitional Safeguarding, recognising that young people affected by exploitation, abuse and extra-familial harm often remain vulnerable beyond their eighteenth birthday. National partners across policing, safeguarding and health sectors continue to advance policy and practice in this area to support greater continuity of protection and risk management through the transition to adulthood. National work has also highlighted the importance of effective Multi-Agency Child Exploitation (MACE) arrangements, stronger links between missing person activity and exploitation risk, and improved oversight of children who experience harm across geographical boundaries or are placed away from their home area. These developments reinforce the need for coordinated intelligence sharing, disruption activity and safeguarding responses that recognise cumulative vulnerability and exploitation risk. Emphasis has been placed on understanding repeated missing episodes as indicators of exploitation and harm. Work continues to ensure information gathered through missing person investigations informs both safeguarding planning and perpetrator disruption activity. National initiatives have also strengthened engagement with sectors such as hospitality, transport and accommodation providers in recognising and responding to indicators of child exploitation. Taken together, these developments provide a more coherent framework for responding to the risks highlighted by the review, and the concerns raised, including exploitation, extra-familial harm, domestic abuse, cross-boundary offending and the continuing vulnerability of young people transitioning into adulthood. Whilst transitional safeguarding remains an area of developing practice rather than a statutory framework, there is now far greater recognition that safeguarding responses should be driven by vulnerability, harm and need, rather than ending at an arbitrary age threshold. Child Abduction Warning Notice Child Abduction Warning Notice (CAWN) is, by design, a child protection tool and ceases to apply once the young person reaches 18. The DHR demonstrates how this created a significant safeguarding gap: the risk posed by the perpetrator remained unchanged, but one of the key disruption mechanisms available to agencies fell away when Natasha became an adult. The concern highlighted the absence of any equivalent protection despite ongoing exploitation, domestic abuse and coercive control risks. There is currently no direct equivalent of a CAWN for adults and no nationally adopted "young person's abuse warning notice" or similar mechanism. The legal framework remains largely divided between child safeguarding powers and adult safeguarding arrangements.

However, there is growing recognition within Transitional Safeguarding practice that care-experienced young adults and those affected by exploitation may continue to require targeted protection and disruption activity beyond their eighteenth birthday. This has contributed to wider discussions about how safeguarding systems, contextual disruption and civil powers can be adapted to better protect children and young people by being vulnerability led rather than age led. Missing Persons and Transitional Safeguarding Current policing guidance recognises that missing episodes are often indicators of vulnerability, exploitation and harm rather than standalone incidents. Police are expected to view repeated missing episodes as part of a wider safeguarding picture, assess cumulative risk, share information with partners and consider the role of perpetrators and exploiters. Missing episodes should not be managed in isolation but used to build an understanding of escalating risk and vulnerability. For children, Return Home Interviews (RHIs) are a key safeguarding intervention. They provide an opportunity to understand why a child went missing, whether exploitation or abuse has occurred, what support is required and what action should be taken to prevent further harm. The information gathered should inform safeguarding planning, disruption activity and multi-agency risk management. From a transitional safeguarding perspective, Natasha's case highlights a continuing challenge. Whilst there are well-established statutory arrangements for children who go missing, there is no equivalent statutory Return Home Interview requirement or exploitation framework that automatically continues into adulthood. As recognised within transitional safeguarding guidance, abuse and exploitation frequently continue beyond 18 even though statutory safeguarding systems change significantly at that point. The key strategic learning is that where a young person has a history of exploitation, repeated missing episodes, domestic abuse, grooming or coercive control, agencies should ensure that intelligence from missing episodes continues to inform safeguarding and disruption activity beyond the age of 18. Risk management should be driven by vulnerability and harm rather than chronological age, with continuity of oversight through multi-agency partnership arrangements, care leaver support and exploitation risk management. We have taken an urgent review of the Child Abuse Authorised Professional Practice that is currently out for consultation through the College of Policing. There is much within the draft APP that aligns with transitional safeguarding principles, particularly its emphasis on vulnerability, exploitation, coercion and control, trauma informed practice, professional curiosity, information sharing and avoiding victim blaming. However a gap has been identified relating to transition to adulthood, and we have requested that additional wording is included. You can find the consultation here until 4th August 2026: Child abuse APP – have your say | College of Policing. Whilst guidance and statutory arrangements exist to support transition into adult services, not all young people meet the high eligibility thresholds for adult social care. As a result, agencies must remain alert to young adults who continue to experience vulnerability, exploitation, trauma, or harm and ensure they are not viewed solely through a crime or incident-based lens. A holistic assessment of risk, need and lived experience remains essential.

I hope the information provided will go some way to address your concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further action or information in relation to my response.