Source · IOPC Learning Case

Recommendations - Sussex Police

Sussex Police Ref: 2022/168770

Death and serious injury

View on IOPC website ↗

Case background

Text published by the IOPC.

We identified organisational learning from a 'death or serious injury' investigation.

Recommendations and responses

3 indexed

Recommendation 1

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Sussex Police

Linked bodies: Sussex Police

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police takes steps to ensure the responsibility of sergeants to actively supervise medium risk missing persons cases is complied with.

This follows an IOPC investigation in which a 15-year-old child was found deceased, having taken their own life after being reported as missing by family.

During the IOPC investigation, it was identified that according to the Sussex Police Missing Persons Policy 2022, police sergeants are the assigned commanding officer for investigations relating to both low and medium risk missing persons cases. This case specifically was graded at medium risk and as such was required to be overseen by the on-duty response sergeant. The policy stipulates that the on-duty response sergeant should both check and verify the risk assessment that has already been completed but also set the immediate investigation plan and identify lines of enquiry. It is then the responsibility of the on-duty response sergeant to ensure that the identified lines of enquiry are completed and that sufficient resources are allocated.

The IOPC found that in this specific case while the Missing Persons Policy gave responsibility to the on-duty response sergeants to oversee the missing persons cases and the actions that come from lines of enquiry, the late shift sergeant did not follow up on the outstanding actions or actively supervise their response officers. The explanation provided for this was that unless the appropriate missing person’s report came through or there were any significant updates that were brought to their attention, they trusted the judgement of their officers.

Response published by the IOPC

Accepted:

The following amendments will be made to Sussex Police policy. This acknowledges and makes clear the concerns mentioned within the review and complies with APP for Missing People.

4.1 Once a supervisor has been notified of a missing incident from FCCCD supervisor to record on CAD that they have command and control of the response. Review initial risk assessment and record the risk level on CAD.

If risk changes to high, then inform duty 99 to take command.

Supervisor to actively supervise the response, directing activity and maintaining an awareness of the progress.

When units have been deployed, ensure that a niche missing record is completed. Ensure all missing persons are subject to handover to incoming response Sergeants/ Missing Person Team. Ensure the DMM sheet is updated with all active missing persons.

The officer in command of the investigation (Sergeant for Low and Medium risk cases, Inspector for High-risk cases) should check and verify the risk assessment completed by the first attending officer. They must set an immediate investigation plan, detailing lines of enquiry to be pursued, monitor completion of them, and ensure that there are sufficient resources allocated to pursue an effective investigation.

Sussex Police have reviewed all missing training for Sussex and have agreed further CPD for all our Response and Neighbourhood officers involved in missing investigations to refresh on ‘manging a missing investigation.’

Sussex Police also have a new Sergeants Course which also include managing a missing person, risk assessing and lines of enquiry.

Sussex Police will also be putting in place further training for Acting Police Sergeants to ensure they are also equipped to manage missing.

Check the original case on the IOPC website

Recommendation 2

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Sussex Police

Linked bodies: Sussex Police

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police reviews its missing persons policy and relevant training and guidance, to ensure vulnerabilities in individual missing persons cases are acknowledged, assessed, and graded appropriately.

This follows an IOPC investigation in which a 15-year-old child was found deceased, having taken their own life after being reported as missing by family.

When the teenager was reported missing by their mother, she listed numerous vulnerabilities, a suicide attempt three months prior, drug and alcohol issues, a history of self-harm and gender dysmorphia. Despite these vulnerabilities, which referenced a recent attempt at suicide, the first contact officer noted this history on the CAD but noted there was no indication of suicidal intent which formed part of the basis of their decision to assign a medium risk missing person designation. This assessment was reviewed by the morning and afternoon on-call duty sergeants who agreed with the assessment.

The current Sussex Police Missing Persons policy states a medium risk missing person is an individual where the risk of harm to themselves or others is assessed as likely but not serious, as opposed to a high-risk missing person where the risk is assessed as very likely.

Response published by the IOPC

Accepted:

Sussex Police have acknowledged that when talking about the vulnerabilities it is important to acknowledge the vulnerabilities but also to understand them. We have therefore added the following after the words THRIVE of the Risk as follows:

2.4 The Contact Officers will use the answers to the Initial Assessment Questions and any known information regarding the missing person on police systems (Niche, as a minimum, to be searched in all cases) to undertake a THRIVE of the risk (and to understand the risks and vulnerabilities of the missing person).

We will also be adding to our missing policy the definition of risk of serious harm which will appear after the high-risk definition that will also provide further clarity when officers risk assess and make decision on risk level. This also cross references APP for Missing.

Risk of serious harm has been defined as (Home Office, 2002; OASys, 2006):

A risk which is life threatening and/or traumatic, and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible. Where the risk cannot be accurately assessed without active investigation, appropriate lines of enquiry should be set to gather the required information to inform the risk assessment.

Check the original case on the IOPC website

Recommendation 3

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: Sussex Police

Linked bodies: Sussex Police

IOPC recommendation

The IOPC recommends that Sussex Police amend its missing persons policy to clearly reflect the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice for notifying the British Transport Police of when a missing person may potentially use the rail network.

This follows an IOPC investigation in which a 15-year-old child was found deceased, having taken their own life after being reported as missing by family.

During the investigation, it was found that after the teenager was reported as missing, they were issued with a penalty fare notice while using the rail network. However, at the time the penalty fare notice was issued, the British Transport Police (BTP) had not been updated by Sussex Police. BTP were subsequently updated after the penalty fare notice was issued. This was despite the family of the deceased twice providing information indicating the deceased might use a train. BTP were updated three hours after Sussex Police were informed the second time that the deceased might be travelling by train.

The current missing person policy provides guidance for when there is a need to transfer a missing persons case to another force. In relation to BTP, there are specific guidelines to aid police staff with the notification process, however this does not appear to be clear within the policy. The information is accessible via a series of internal Sussex Police hyperlinks situated in the missing persons policy. The guidelines say that when notifying BTP, the overall responsibility for investigating the whereabouts of a missing person remains with the relevant Home Office territorial police force, in this case Sussex Police, but BTP should be notified if there is specific information that the missing person is likely to visit or use the railway system.

Response published by the IOPC

Accepted:

Under 3.2 further amendment within Sussex Missing Policy, also cross references with APP Missing guidance for the following:

British Transport Police (BTP) has a valuable role to play in supporting relevant investigations. Although the responsibility for the investigation of missing persons will remain with the relevant Home Office territorial police force, BTP should be notified if:

BTP has placed a suicide related information marker on the PNC, or

there is a risk of suicide, and the missing person resides, frequents or was last seen within the vicinity of a railway line, or

there is specific information that the missing person is likely to visit or use the railway system.

Engagement with BTP should form part of the investigation strategy and should be related to tangible lines of enquiry or search strategy. Where there is risk of suicide or other serious harm is likely, immediate assistance from BTP can be obtained in relation to intelligence checks, CCTV, ticketing enquiries, railway, and revenue enforcement officer enquires and other railway-related matters.

Where the initial report of a missing person is made to BTP, they will take initial information to enable an assessment to be made.

Check the original case on the IOPC website