Poor police early prosecutor advice

We recommend the CPS and NPCC review the process for police obtaining early advice from prosecutors before full case files are prepared or submitted and charging decisions made. Where possible, we recommend this work draw on local examples of existing good practice.

The coroner raised concerns about police officers having limited access to readily available, clinically qualified mental health advice and patient records after the withdrawal of triage support, with no clear timeline for the intended replacement service.

Merseyside Police were put in a very difficult position given legal restrictions on communicating the identity of the Southport suspect and the need to withhold certain information in order to protect the trial. The inconsistent advice from the CPS over the publication of information about the suspect’s religion was particularly regrettable and hampered the police response. It cannot...

Concerns included Pennine Care Trust's process for raising welfare concerns and escalating issues, North West Ambulance Service's limited investigation and inadequate telephone triage, and inter-agency confusion over police roles in Section 136 incidents.

The coroner noted that a S.136 Mental Health Act assessment was conducted without full information from CNWL or discussion with relevant police officers, recommending an urgent review of S.136 procedures in Milton Keynes.

Important steps in the husband's arrest and conditional pre-charge bail were not followed, including the failure to seek the alleged victim's views on bail conditions. Earlier police discussion might have identified the deceased's dependence and the need for alternative support.

The coroner noted insufficient assertive engagement by the enhanced community mental health team and a lack of liaison between police and the mental health team regarding Claire's deteriorating mental health. Additionally, training on substance misuse for mental health staff is not mandatory.

There is a lack of cooperation between UK investigative and prosecuting bodies, such as the War Crimes Unit of the Metropolitan Police, and the Crown Prosecution Service. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)

The coroner identified a misunderstanding between agencies concerning the urgent use of Section 135 Mental Health Act warrants, regarding notice periods and bed availability. The report notes insufficient inter-agency cooperation and learning from incidents.

As the police and CPS bicker over where the burden of investigation and paperwork should lie, victims and survivors lose out. We understand the rationale for DG6 and we note that the CPS consulted forces and the NPCC when designing the updated guidance.

Now that DG6 has been in place for almost three years, we recommend the CPS review its implementation and impact, consulting stakeholders before proposing changes that will better reflect an appropriate balance between the need for effective early investigation and proportionality in resource consumption. We understand that there is already “work ongoing” in this area, and that the...

The Government should prioritise the establishment of a clear framework to allow for greater cooperation between UK’s relevant national bodies and between the UK and other mechanisms involved in the gathering and preserving of evidence. It should also identify the barriers to undertaking structural investigations and identify how this could be changed and improved. (Recommendation, Paragraph 60)

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council failing to appropriately deal with her reports of anti-social behaviour from her neighbour, who is a council tenant. This is because the complaint is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it concerns the Council’s actions as a social housing landlord.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take action against his neighbour for noisy building works during 2022. I ended this investigation because Mr X’s complaint is late, and we are unlikely able to add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further for Mr X than its offer of £100.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour from his neighbours. This is because his complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation would not...

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his neighbour maintained the trees and bushes in their front garden. We find no fault in the Council’s handling of the high hedges matter itself. However, there was a significant delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint. The Council has apologised and offered a suitable payment to Mr X,...

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a community protection warning letter for removal of graffiti on private property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of nuisance and its issue of an abatement notice to Mr X. We will not investigate this complaint because it was reasonable for Mr X to appeal against the notice. If the Council takes court action against him for breach of the notice, we will not be...

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to take action against his neighbours, who are Council tenants, after his fence was damaged. This is because we have no power to consider the Council’s action in connection with its management of its social housing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s concerns about antisocial behaviour and safeguarding. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.