Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Robert Day

Ref: 2026-0371 Date: 24 Mar 2026 Coroner: Ian Potter Area: Kent and Medway 3 responses identified · 2 indexed addressees View PDF

Response deadline: 19 May 2026 (stated in the report).

Date 24 Mar 2026
56-day deadline 19 May 2026 stated in the report
Responses identified 3 of 2

Coroner's concerns

Coroner’s Concerns (source excerpt)
While this report has three recipients due to the crossover between the services involved (ambulance service, police, community mental health), I am more than content that one recipient and / or government department may wish to take the lead in providing a single response. The MATTER OF CONCERN is as follows: (1) I heard compelling...
View full coroner's concerns
While this report has three recipients due to the crossover between the services involved  (ambulance service, police, community mental health), I am more than content that one  recipient and / or government department may wish to take the lead in providing a single  response.   

The MATTER OF CONCERN is as follows:  (1) I heard compelling evidence from the Head of Mental Health at South East Coast  Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust regarding the difficulties faced by emergency  services generally in situations such as the presentation of Robert Day on 14 January 2025. It  must be accepted (with no disrespect intended) that frontline paramedics and police officers  are not specialists in the provision of mental health care. Despite this, the evidence was that an increasing number of calls to the emergency services (ambulance and police, in particular)  have a mental health element to them.    It was clear from the evidence that the joint response crew (one paramedic and one police  officer) who attended Robert on 14 January 2025, did their very best to assist Robert in what  can be described as a particularly difficult set of circumstances. A capacity assessment was  undertaken and the responders reasonably believed that Robert did have capacity to make the decision to refuse treatment even in the knowledge that, without it, his death within the coming  hours was highly likely. 

I heard that the police could not have deployed section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to  take Robert to a place of safety because, at that time, the hotel room was his home. In any  event, section 136 would not allow for treatment. Further, in the circumstances of Robert’s  case, the process of applying for a warrant under section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983  was also likely inappropriate given the critical nature and timing of Robert’s situation.   

While not hearing specific and detailed evidence on other provisions of the Mental Health Act  1983, the witness was clear that these matters would likely be beyond the scope of understanding of most frontline emergency workers.  The fundamental issue was considered to be ‘what can the frontline crew actually do’ in such  complex situations. I heard evidence that, sadly, Robert’s situation is unlikely to have been  novel but that there is an absence of national guidance to frontline emergency services in  dealing with the complexities of cases such as Robert’s.   

I acknowledge the complex interplay between the various agencies and services involved, but  highlight to you my concern that the absence of any national guidance / advice to frontline  emergency crews risks the lives of others

Responses

3 respondents

Home Office

Central Government
PDF
AI-classified response stance Existing Practice
AI-generated response summary

The Home Office explains the existing legal framework under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Mental Health Act, outlining the limited powers available to police in such situations. It concludes that police could not have legally removed Mr Day from the premises given the legal constraints and his presumed capacity to make decisions.

View full response
Dear Mr Potter, Thank you for your letter of 27 March 2026 enclosing a copy of the Regulation 28 Report to Preventing Future Deaths, following the inquest into the death of Robert Joseph Day. I am responding as the Minister for Policing and Crime. I would first like to express my deepest condolences to Robert’s family for their loss in what must be a truly difficult time for them. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is designed to protect individuals who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about care or treatment. The legislation states that a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if they are unable to make a decision for themselves on that matter due to an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. Further, a person is unable to make a decision for themselves if they are unable to understand relevant information; to retain that information, to use or weight the information to make a decision or to communicate their decision. A person is to be assumed to have capacity unless it is established otherwise and making what might be considered to be an unwise or irrational decision is not by itself, proof that someone lacks capacity. Where a person is deemed to lack capacity, others, including police, may intervene in certain vital or imminent circumstances such as to enable them to receive life sustaining treatment. The College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (https://www.college.police.uk/app/mental-health/mental-capacity), which is the official, evidence-based guidance for policing in England and Wales, is clear that where an issue of capacity has arisen and “where health or social care professionals are on the scene, police should defer to their expertise and provide support as appropriate and in accordance with local protocols” which was the case in this event with the attendance of paramedics. There are limited powers which are available to the police in these types of circumstances. I see that you have acknowledged that Section 136 of the Mental Health Act could not be used as Mr Day was not in a public space, which is of course correct, and your view that section 135 was inappropriate given the critical timing of the situation. In order for section

[Page 2] 135 to have been used, an approved mental health practitioner (AMHP) would have needed to be involved as they are the only professional who is able to apply for the warrant needed (although as you note, it may be unlikely that a warrant could have been granted and executed swiftly enough given the urgency of an overdose.) Further to this and the case law of R (Sessay) v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust & Anor [2011] EWHC 2617 (QB) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2617.html), suggests the police would not have been able to remove Mr Day from the premises as the judge in that case gave clear direction that intervention of this kind must be conducted under the Mental Health Act, either admission under s4 MHA or the execution of a s135(1) MHA warrant. The judgement highlights that the MCA and common law doctrine of necessity cannot be used by the police to remove a person from a private premises as an alternative to using the MHA 1983 s135 (where a warrant must be obtained) or s136 (where the power can only be used in a place to which the public has access). Unfortunately, there was little that the police could have legally done in this particular sad situation where Mr Day lost his life, as the officers must have regard to that person’s rights and freedom of action, which he was deemed to have under the mental capacity act; an unwise decision does not amount to an automatic lack of capacity – people are entitled to make unwise decisions and decline medical treatment, where they have legal capacity to do so. Thank you again for your letter. Very best wishes, Minister of State for Policing and Crime

Department of Health and Social Care

Central Government
PDF
AI-classified response stance Action Taken
AI-generated response summary

The Department of Health and Social Care defers the national guidance concern to NHS England but commits to a consultation on powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. It highlights completed actions such as the introduction of the NHS 111 mental health option and the Mental Health Response Vehicles programme, alongside plans to roll out crisis text services and invest in Mental Health Emergency Departments. The CQC also conducted inspections and issued a warning notice to the relevant trust.

View full response
Dear Mr Potter, Thank you for the Regulation 28 report of 24th March 2026 sent to myself and the Secretary of State for Department of Health and Social Care about the death of Mr Robert Joseph Day. I am replying as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women’s Health and Mental Health. Firstly, I would like to say how saddened I was to read of the circumstances of Mr Day’s death, and I offer my sincere condolences to his family and loved ones. The circumstances your report describes are very concerning and I am grateful to you for bringing these matters to my attention. In your report, you state you heard compelling evidence from the Head of Mental Health at South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust regarding the difficulties faced by emergency services generally in situations and must accept that frontline paramedics and police officers are not specialists in the provision of mental health care. A capacity assessment was undertaken and the responders reasonably believed that the deceased did have capacity to make the decision to refuse treatment even in the knowledge that, without it, his death within the coming hours was highly likely. You also heard that the police could not have deployed section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to take Mr Day to a place of safety because, at that time, the hotel room was his home. In any event, section 136 would not allow for treatment. Further, in the circumstances of Mr Day’s case, the process of applying for a warrant under section 135 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was also likely inappropriate given the critical nature and timing of Robert's situation. While not hearing specific and detailed evidence on other provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, the witness was clear that these matters would likely be beyond the scope of understanding of most frontline emergency workers. The fundamental issue was considered to be 'what can the frontline crew actually do' in such complex situations. You acknowledged the complex interplay between the various agencies and services involved but highlighted your concern that the absence of any national guidance/advice to frontline emergency crews risks the lives of others who are found to be at time critical risk as a result of underlying mental health concerns.

[Page 2] I understand that this report has also been sent to the Home Office. In preparing this response, my officials have made enquiries with NHS England and the Care Quality Commission to ensure we adequately address your concerns. Upon reviewing your report, our NHSE colleagues felt it was more appropriate to reply directly to you given concerns around the absence of any national guidance/advice to frontline emergency crews. You may want to address your report to NHSE, so that they can also address your concerns. For CQC, you will see that their response to your concerns is highlighted in this letter below. While I cannot comment on the applicability of section 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act in this case, it may be helpful to say that the Government have committed to carrying out a consultation to explore the powers available to different professionals in different situations and settings, in particular but not limited to the operation of sections 135 and
136. The consultation will seek views on powers and joint working approaches to ensure health and social care professionals and police have the appropriate powers to act in order to protect people from harm to themselves and to others when in a mental health crisis. While the exact scope of the consultation is not yet defined, we are working closely with the police, health and care representative groups and people with lived experience, to define the scope for the consultation and will set out further details in due course. Whilst NHS England will reply directly to your concern about guidance, it may be helpful if I describe some of the other actions being taken to improve overall care for people in mental health crisis. To supplement the NHS 111 mental health crisis triage service, we are also deploying mental health professionals in 999 call emergency operation centres and clinical assessment services to ensure people experiencing a mental health crisis are directed towards appropriate services. We continue to increase mental health expertise for ambulance services including ensuring that mental health professionals are embedded in all emergency operation centres and improve training for ambulance staff to enable effective responses to those in mental health crisis. Substantial progress has been achieved in building a more robust crisis care pathway across all ages ensuring that people in mental health crisis have access to timely and appropriate support. Key developments include the introduction of the NHS 111 ‘select mental health’ option alongside hundreds of alternative crisis services, including crisis cafes, sanctuaries and crisis houses which provide a supportive environment outside of traditional clinical settings. Work is underway with all Integrated Care Boards to roll out crisis text services across England by March 2026. NHS England has successfully completed the delivery phase of the Mental Health Response Vehicles programme, with 88 vehicles now built and handed over to local systems. These vehicles are providing on-scene support for individuals in crisis and

[Page 3] reducing attendance in A&E for mental health concerns by delivering care directly in the community. There is also full national coverage of 24/7 liaison mental health teams providing mental health assessments and care in general acute hospitals, as well as high fidelity crisis teams in a community. We are also investing up to £120m to bring the number of mental health emergency departments up to 85. Mental Health Emergency Departments (MHEDs) provide rapid assessment and support in a therapeutic setting, helping those with mental health needs get the right care quickly and reducing reliance on Emergency Departments. Early evidence shows that MHEDs can improve patient experience and outcomes, while also easing pressure on wider urgent and emergency services. Alongside this, NHS England is also developing new core standards of care for community mental health services. These will set out the ‘must dos’ for all services to ensure that at least a minimum quality of care is being provided in all areas for all people with serious mental illness. By providing better care for all people sooner, fewer people will require the highest levels of intensive and assertive community treatment. CQC response CQC have shared the following information regarding Mr Day’s death: Mr Day was a person receiving support from Kent and Medway Mental Health NHS Trust at the time of his sad death. We note that it was his community psychiatric nurse who alerted emergency service following the disclosure that he had taken an overdose. We inspected the trust’s community mental health services for working age adults in March 2025. This inspection was completed as part of CQC's Adult Community Mental Health Programme. We also inspected crisis services and health-based places of safety as part of the programme. The programme of inspections contributes to CQC's commitment to inspect the standard of care in community mental health services across the country. We undertook a short-notice, announced comprehensive inspection of this service. You can read the report here:

health-services-for-adults-of-working-age At this inspection we rated the service as requires improvement. We found 4 breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, buildings and premises, governance, and staffing. We served a warning notice on the trust for failing to meet the regulations related to risk assessment and management of service users accessing community mental health services. We have since carried out a follow up inspection in December 2025 and we are satisfied that the Warning Notice has been met, but the report from this inspection has yet to be published.

[Page 4] I hope this response is helpful. Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention.

NHS England

NHS / Health Body
PDF
AI-classified response stance Existing Practice
AI-generated response summary

NHS England states that existing national NICE guidance is applicable to frontline emergency services for managing patients who refuse treatment after an overdose. The response also details South East Coast Ambulance Service's existing practices, including the use of mental health single points of contact, mandatory Mental Capacity Act training, and the 'Mental Capacity Act and Suicide Guidance' implemented in August 2025.

View full response
Dear Mr Potter, Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Robert Joseph Day who died on 15th January 2025. Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 24th March 2026 concerning the death of Robert Joseph Day on 15th January 2025. In advance of responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my deep condolences to Robert’s family and loved ones. NHS England is keen to assure the family and yourself that the concerns raised about Robert’s care have been listened to and reflected upon. Your Report raises concern that there is an absence of national guidance to frontline emergency services in dealing with the complexities of cases such as Robert's. That being where a patient informs a healthcare professional that they have taken an overdose of prescription medication but refuse treatment by paramedics and are deemed to have capacity following a mental capacity assessment. NHS England’s Mental Health and Ambulance Teams have carefully reviewed the concerns raised within the Report and recognise the tragic circumstances surrounding this case. Having considered the information presented, we believe the issues identified primarily relate to the application of the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act frameworks, professional decision-making, and local arrangements for accessing specialist mental health advice. From the information available to us, it appears that the ambulance service took reasonable steps within the scope of its role and responsibilities to support and safeguard the patient in a complex and difficult situation. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have published guidance on responding to situations where people do not consent to treatment after an overdose Scenario: Management | Management | Poisoning or overdose | CKS | NICE. This guidance is applicable to frontline emergency services, and sets out how to manage a person who refuses admission to hospital after an overdose.

[Page 2] Regional Response The South East Regional NHS England Team have liaised with South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust (SECAmb) regarding your Report. They provided a copy of their witness statement provided to you in this case. SECAmb states “When considering the responsibilities and powers of the ambulance service in relation to the Mental Health Act (1983), there is not an explicit duty or responsibility on the ambulance service to initiate the detention of patients and ambulance service staff are accordingly not trained in these areas. The ambulance service is also not responsible or commissioned to ensure the compulsory admission of patients who are liable to detention under the Mental Health Act (1983). … Ambulance crews are generalist clinicians and not specialists in mental health, therefore when dealing with mental health incidents they are encouraged to utilise dedicated ‘mental health single points of contact’. These single points of access provide 24/7 tactical advice and guidance to our crews and in Kent and Sussex a ‘Rapid Response’ deployment service for applicable incidents; the Kent service is known locally as the ‘836’ line. It is essential that they have a good working knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and give great care and consideration to its application. Ambulance crews are required to follow the Mental Capacity Act (2005) policy and complete mandatory training on the subject. SECAmb also provides access to clinical guidance on how to deal with mental health incidents where patients are suicidal through its “Mental Capacity Act and Suicide Guidance” that went live in August 2025. The SECAmb guidance was developed to be congruent with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellent guidance (225) on ‘Self-harm: assessment, management and preventing recurrence’ and NHS England’s ‘Staying safe from suicide: Best practice guidance for safety assessment, formulation and management’. The SECAmb guidance is available on the trust intranet, a mobile app and is linked via prompts in the electronic patient records system. For the avoidance of doubt, in terms of what was available at the time of the incident, crews will have been able to utilise the ‘836’ line and would have been required to complete mandatory e-learning on the Mental Capacity Act (2005) as well as follow the Mental Capacity Act Policy. Crews will have also had access to a “Mental Capacity Act” pocket guidance but not the specific guidance on “Mental Capacity Act and Suicide Guidance” which was only published in August 2025.” I would also like to provide further assurances on the national NHS England work taking place around the Reports to Prevent Future Deaths. All reports received are discussed by the Regulation 28 Working Group, comprising Regional Medical Directors, and other clinical and quality colleagues from across the regions. This ensures that key learnings and insights around events, such as the sad death of Robert, are shared across the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to any emerging trends that may require further review and action.

[Page 3] Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.

Report sections

Investigation and inquest
On 16 January 2025 an investigation into the death of Robert Joseph DAY was commenced. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest heard by me on 5 and 6 March 2026.  The conclusion of the inquest was:  Suicide 

The medical cause of death was:  1a       Overdose of Prescription Medication
Circumstances of the death
Robert Day was 60 years of age at the time of his death. He was under the care of community  mental health services in relation to his diagnosis of severe depression. 

On the afternoon of 14 January 2025, Robert Day disclosed to his mental health nurse during a telephone conversation that he had taken a significant overdose of his prescription  medication. An ambulance was called and a joint response unit (police and ambulance service) attended Robert’s room at the Travelodge in Sittingbourne (his home address at that  time). Robert refused all forms of treatment, including being taken to hospital, despite being  advised of the likely fatal consequences of not receiving treatment. The paramedic undertook a mental capacity assessment and concluded that Robert did have the mental capacity to  refuse treatment. Robert was given safety-netting advice. 

Sadly, Robert was found deceased in his room on the morning of 15 January 2025. He died as a result of the overdose of prescription medication.
Copies sent to
South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Report details

Reference
2026-0371
Date of report
24 March 2026
Coroner
Ian Potter
Coroner area
Kent and Medway

Responses identified

Responses identified 3 of 2
All listed responses identified

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 19 May 2026 (stated in the report).

Sent to

Department of Health and Social Care
Home Office

Part of a series

3 reports
2026-0169 All responses identified
2026-0372 All responses identified

Source links