Handling of missing person’s report - West Yorkshire Police, November

In the early hours of 5 November 2016 a man reported to West Yorkshire Police (WYP) that his daughter was missing from their home address in Leeds. The man had last seen his daughter at 6.45pm the previous day at their home shortly before he went out. When he returned she was not there. The young woman had a history of mental health issues and had previously been admitted to a mental health centre. The man checked his daughter’s whereabouts with the centre without success.

On the morning of 5 November 2016 a dog walker found the body of a woman in a woodland area near Leeds. This was the missing woman, who appeared to have taken her own life.

During the investigation, investigators obtained witness accounts from police officers who carried out and reviewed risk assessments. Investigators also interviewed the woman’s father to explore his contact with WYP.

Investigators examined WYP policy on missing persons and risk assessments, analysed data from the missing person report and obtained audio recordings of police communications during the search for the woman. Investigators also examined evidence from the mental health centre showing how risk assessments were communicated to WYP.

Investigators interviewed three WYP officers as subjects in the investigation. All officers answered questions in interview.

The evidence suggested the risk assessments carried out by WYP officers may not have been adequate and officers may not have considered relevant information in reviewing risk assessments.

Based on the evidence available, the Lead Investigator was of the opinion that a reasonable tribunal, properly directed, could find misconduct in respect of one officer (officer A) for failing to adequately review and reassess the risk in light of further information obtained from the mental health centre, and in respect of another officer (officer B) for failing to adequately review the risk assessment of the missing person’s report in line with WYP policy.

After reviewing our report, WYP considered that there was a case for misconduct for both officers, but proposed to deal with this through management action.

We agreed that this was an appropriate course of action for officer A and proposed this should focus around awareness of the risks involved when dealing with people with mental health issues, particularly with those at high risk of harm to themselves.

Regarding officer B, we recommended the force hold a misconduct meeting, as we considered that management action was not appropriate in the circumstances. WYP agreed with this recommendation. However, as the officer had retired from the force during the investigation, no further action could be taken.

As there had been other recent cases where a WYP officer retired under misconduct notice without the WYP Professional Standards Department being aware, we made a formal learning recommendation to the force as detailed below.