Source · IOPC Learning Case

Response to concern for welfare report - Kent Police, July 2018

Kent Police Ref: 2018/107171 Recommended 13 Mar 2019 Response due 8 May 2019

Death and serious injury Domestic abuse Welfare and vulnerable people

Case background

Text published by the IOPC.

At 7.54pm on 31 July 2018, a woman contacted Kent Police to raise concerns regarding the welfare of her mother. The woman told the call handler that she was unable to get through to her mother and that her mother had been unwell the last time another family member had seen her. The woman explained that her mother’s ex-partner, who had a restraining order preventing him from contacting her mother, had recently been released from prison and they were concerned he had made contact.

The call was graded as ‘high’ priority and attendance was requested for a welfare check. Throughout the next 48 hours, no units were deployed to carry out the welfare check. During this time the woman made two further calls to the police, and another relative also called on her behalf.

At approximately 10pm on 2 August 2018, officers went to the mother’s home and found her dead. The cause of death has since been identified as natural causes.

Our investigators gathered Kent Police documents in relation to the concern for welfare report, copies of phone calls and radio airwaves and Kent Police policy documentation. They also carried out witness interviews with various call handlers and dispatchers who had been involved in the incident.

Our investigation found that the call handler dealt with and graded the woman’s initial call appropriately and in line with policy. While it took over 48 hours for officers to attend to the call, the evidence suggested that action was continually being taken by dispatchers to attempt to deploy resources. The evidence also showed that officers attended the woman’s mother’s home as soon as they were able due to higher-priority calls they were dealing with at the time.

Based on the evidence available we found no indication that any person serving with the police may have behaved in a manner that would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings, or had committed a criminal offence. We also identified some learning for the force (see learning recommendations below). We completed our investigation in January 2019.

After reviewing our report Kent Police agreed.

Recommendations and responses

2 indexed

Recommendation 1

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: During the IOPC investigation, there was a lack of clarity over the need

Linked bodies: During the IOPC investigation, there was a lack of clarity over the need

IOPC recommendation

During the IOPC investigation, there was a lack of clarity over the need to make an inspector aware of a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) warning linked to an incoming call, which may have contributed to the delay in the call being escalated to the duty inspector. The requirement to highlight MARAC warning markers is explicit in the force’s domestic abuse policy but there is no mention of this requirement in the Concern for Welfare policy. It is therefore recommended that Kent Police review their policy in relation to warning markers and clarify the circumstances in which they should be escalated to the duty inspector. The outcome of the review should be disseminated to all dispatchers in the force control room

Response published by the IOPC

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

The previous policy stated that domestic abuse (DA) incidents where there was a MARAC must be referred to the local inspector. There was never any requirement to notify the local inspector of a non-DA incident involving a MARAC person/address, hence no mention of it in the 'Concern' policy. The wording of the 'MARAC' information on STORM has now been changed, in agreement with the domestic abuse policy holder, to:- MARAC: Person A is at serious risk of harm from Person B. Inform LP insp of delayed attendance (beyond 4 hours) to any DA/stalking/harrassment/bail breach type incident between them. Since the incident... we have introduced the 'Concern No Contact' call type, for incidents such as these. These are auto-tagged for the Force Incident Manager, so they can have oversight. The approach appears to be successful. In addition this (and other concern call-types) will auto-transfer as a reminder to the Team Leader Supervisor at 3 hours old, if unresolved, to act as a reminder.

Check the original case on the IOPC website

Recommendation 2

Link to recommendation · Accepted

Addressed to: It was also identified, during the IOPC investigation, that there are no guidelines in the incident grading policy on when a call

Linked bodies: It was also identified, during the IOPC investigation, that there are no guidelines in the incident grading policy on when a call

IOPC recommendation

It was also identified, during the IOPC investigation, that there are no guidelines in the incident grading policy on when a call should be prioritised by dispatch and whose responsibility it is within dispatch to ensure CADs are prioritised. Therefore, it is recommended that Kent Police may wish to review their incident grading policy to specify who is responsible for prioritising high grade incidents and the time-frame in which this should be carried out. The outcome of the review should be disseminated to all dispatchers and supervisors in the force control room.

Response published by the IOPC

Do you accept the recommendation?

Yes

Accepted action:

Our current Incident Grades policy says:- Dispatch will risk assess High grade incidents. They will use the PRIORITISE function. There should be no more than 5 incidents per Dispatch Filter. The PRIORITISE function will be applied to those incidents that pose the greatest risk, and require the next priority of attendance after Immediate. This includes reputational risk e.g. there is a current risk to a person or property, Sudden Death, Burglary etc. The January 2019 dispatch working practices state that it is the role of the ‘back-up’ position is to, ‘Identify which incidents within the list needs to be ‘prioritised’ for attendance. If LDPT response deployment required, ‘prioritise’ the incident and transfer to the Dispatch 1 operator". Between 0800 & 2200 hours daily, a bespoke team of FCR personnel (the ‘Active Resolution Team’) will review and re-risk assess incidents over 3.5 hours old, to ensure that all upward referrals, actions and enquiries are undertaken. Part of their remit, is to refer incidents to their Supervisor, if they believe that the risk is such that it needs to be ‘PRIORITISED’.

Check the original case on the IOPC website