Recurring concern

Unreliable cross-border information arrangements for the UK watch list and Operation Nexus

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 23 Oct 2014•Latest report 12 Jul 2016

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the dedicated cross-border information arrangements supporting the UK watch list or Operation Nexus, including continuity after changes to EU-based mechanisms, receipt and incorporation of foreign-conviction information, warning or notification mechanisms, and international communication or cooperation needed for risk identification and management.

Not included

  • Excludes generic contingency planning that is not specifically tied to the UK watch list, Operation Nexus or their cross-border safety information.
  • Excludes general police, immigration or offender-management information failures where the watch-list or Operation Nexus process is not the deficient control.
  • Excludes domestic offender monitoring, supervision or risk-management failures after relevant cross-border information has been reliably received and incorporated.
  • Excludes routine EU-exit policy or legal changes without an identified safety deficiency in the operation or information supply of the watch list or Operation Nexus.
Reports
2

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
4

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2016

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
2

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Home Office2
Government Legal Department1
House of Commons Home Affairs Committee1
Ministry of Justice1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner West London

    AI-generated summary

    Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross, aged 14, was murdered in a sexually motivated attack near the River Brent in Hanwell, Ealing, on or soon after 28 August 2014; her body was discovered concealed and weighted down in the river on 30 September 2014. The principal concerns included inconsistent checking of foreign criminal convictions on arrest, incomplete international conviction data and weaknesses in the border watch-list system.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of contingency planning for post-EU management of the watch list and Operation Nexus

    Wider context from the report

    “(5) That contingency plans are considered as to how to manage the “watch list” and Operation Nexus when and if the UK leaves the EU, both in respect of how systems operate when no longer resting on EU Directives and how to maintain international communication and cooperation. ”

    Source location

    Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Deletion of serious convictions from international databases

    Wider context from the report

    “(4) That the Home Office continues to encourage both EU and non EU countries not to delete serious convictions such as murder from their data bases. ”

    Source location

    Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Promote greater criminality-information sharing within the EU and establish robust criminal-record-sharing arrangements for the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Within the EU the UK has been a leading proponent of greater information exchange between countries for public protection reasons, including at the border, supporting an EU ‘Roadmap’, endorsed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in June this year, which seeks to enhance the sharing and management of criminality information systems. This envisages exchanges of data between the Schengen and non-Schengen countries, which includes the UK.”

    Source location

    2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
    Page 3 · response
    Published 12 July 2016

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Encourage EU and international partners to retain serious criminal records for longer periods.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you suggest, the UK continues to encourage EU Member States to commit to longer retention periods of criminal records, particularly where the offence is serious. Likewise, the UK continues to encourage our international partners to consider longer retention periods of criminal records for serious offences, setting out the clear public protection arguments as to why this information is needed. However, these matters are of course ultimately for individual countries to decide.”

    Source location

    2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
    Page 4 · response
    Published 12 July 2016

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Specific future security and intelligence-sharing arrangements cannot be addressed before negotiations with European partners.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Prime Minister has put the whole machinery of Government behind getting the best deal as the UK leaves the EU. A great deal of work is going on across Government to ensure that happens. The Prime Minister has made clear that whilst we are leaving the EU, cooperation on security with our European and global allies will continue and we will do whatever is necessary to keep our citizens safe. Clearly it would be wrong to be drawn on the specifics of any future arrangements in advance of negotiations with our EU partners.”

    Source location

    2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
    Page 4 · response
    Published 12 July 2016

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Retention periods for serious criminal convictions are ultimately matters for individual countries to decide.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As you suggest, the UK continues to encourage EU Member States to commit to longer retention periods of criminal records, particularly where the offence is serious. Likewise, the UK continues to encourage our international partners to consider longer retention periods of criminal records for serious offences, setting out the clear public protection arguments as to why this information is needed. However, these matters are of course ultimately for individual countries to decide.”

    Source location

    2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
    Page 4 · response
    Published 12 July 2016

    Open published response

  2. Essex

    AI-generated summary

    Maria Christina Stubbings · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Maria Christina Stubbings was murdered in December 2008 by a man who had previously served a life sentence in Germany for murder and had been arrested for assaulting her. The principal concerns relate to gaps in the identification, notification, monitoring and control of people with serious foreign convictions entering or residing in the UK.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Exclusion of foreign murder convictions from the Notification Order framework

    Wider context from the report

    “Notwithstanding the changes that have occurred (i) enabling a Violent Offender Order to be made in relation to someone who has a conviction for murder (including murder abroad) in May 2014 and (ii) the EU Directive which requires EU member states to notify the UK of foreign convictions of UK Nationals, at the time of conviction (as opposed to later than this which occurred in the ████████ case) and (iii) the electronic system now in place at the Central Authority – it seems that there are further opportunities that might be considered which would reduce the likelihood of another individual (with a murder conviction like ████████) entering the UK without conditions and without any police force being made aware of that person’s existence, until arrested for different offence. I ask the Home Office/MoJ to give consideration to further steps that could be taken to address the issues, including those detailed below. In making the suggestion below it is recognised that the issues are complex. (i) The Central Authority needs to be notified now of all EU nationals currently serving a sentence for serious crimes such as murder in those countries. We understand the new notification system which obliges an EU state to notify at the time of conviction, is not retrospective. Accordingly, there are likely to be a pool of older prisoners who are UK nationals, serving sentences in EU prisons, which the Central Authority is not yet aware of. Further consideration could be given to making a request of each country in order to identify who these individuals are and the offences for which they have been convicted; (ii) Consideration could be given to some form of “warning marker” which could be placed on an individual’s passport which would alert the authorities to the entry of a UK national convicted of murder, back into the UK. Furthermore, it might be possible for the Immigration Rules to be amended to enable a passport officer to request details from that individual as to the address they are going to stay at in UK; details of any car to be used by them; details of relatives; people they intend to stay with etc. The police are aware from the evidence disclosed in the Inquest (notably pre-sentence reports on ████████ that he was told by the German authorities upon his deportation that he would be met by Security Officers in the UK, who would ensure that he was given advice and keep an eye on him. It appears that this did not happen and he was free to enter the UK at Heathrow airport of 24th January, 2008 and met his father who was waiting for him; (iii) Consideration needs to be given to putting in place a mechanism which notifies local police that someone with a conviction like the murder conviction ████████ has come to reside in their area. (iv) There could be an amendment to allow for a Notification Orders to be applied for. The principle response of the Home Office/MoJ was to amend the law to allow for the police to apply for the Violent Offender Order (VOO) However, as you are aware such orders will only be granted if there is a risk that the individual is likely to commit one of more of the specified offences in Section 98(3) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Those offences are 6 types of serious violent offences from Section 20 OAPA 1861 upwards to manslaughter. It is doubtful that a VOO would have been granted in the case of ████████ following the incident in July 2008, as he had only been convicted of the offence of common assault and the circumstances of the sexual offence left on file would not be relevant. (v) It may be possible for an amendment to be made to Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to include a foreign conviction for murder. With the benefit of hindsight this would allow the police to have applied for a Notification Order against ████████ as soon as they were aware of his existence. This would require him to comply with the notification requirements under section 83(5) of that Act requiring him to state his date of birth; national insurance number; home address and specify any address at which he stays on a periodic basis. It would be a useful mechanism to monitor an individual’s movements when no licence conditions would apply. ”

    Source location

    Maria Christina Stubbings · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the Central Authority to identify UK nationals serving sentences for serious crimes in EU prisons under the non-retrospective notification system

    Wider context from the report

    “Notwithstanding the changes that have occurred (i) enabling a Violent Offender Order to be made in relation to someone who has a conviction for murder (including murder abroad) in May 2014 and (ii) the EU Directive which requires EU member states to notify the UK of foreign convictions of UK Nationals, at the time of conviction (as opposed to later than this which occurred in the ████████ case) and (iii) the electronic system now in place at the Central Authority – it seems that there are further opportunities that might be considered which would reduce the likelihood of another individual (with a murder conviction like ████████) entering the UK without conditions and without any police force being made aware of that person’s existence, until arrested for different offence. I ask the Home Office/MoJ to give consideration to further steps that could be taken to address the issues, including those detailed below. In making the suggestion below it is recognised that the issues are complex. (i) The Central Authority needs to be notified now of all EU nationals currently serving a sentence for serious crimes such as murder in those countries. We understand the new notification system which obliges an EU state to notify at the time of conviction, is not retrospective. Accordingly, there are likely to be a pool of older prisoners who are UK nationals, serving sentences in EU prisons, which the Central Authority is not yet aware of. Further consideration could be given to making a request of each country in order to identify who these individuals are and the offences for which they have been convicted; (ii) Consideration could be given to some form of “warning marker” which could be placed on an individual’s passport which would alert the authorities to the entry of a UK national convicted of murder, back into the UK. Furthermore, it might be possible for the Immigration Rules to be amended to enable a passport officer to request details from that individual as to the address they are going to stay at in UK; details of any car to be used by them; details of relatives; people they intend to stay with etc. The police are aware from the evidence disclosed in the Inquest (notably pre-sentence reports on ████████ that he was told by the German authorities upon his deportation that he would be met by Security Officers in the UK, who would ensure that he was given advice and keep an eye on him. It appears that this did not happen and he was free to enter the UK at Heathrow airport of 24th January, 2008 and met his father who was waiting for him; (iii) Consideration needs to be given to putting in place a mechanism which notifies local police that someone with a conviction like the murder conviction ████████ has come to reside in their area. (iv) There could be an amendment to allow for a Notification Orders to be applied for. The principle response of the Home Office/MoJ was to amend the law to allow for the police to apply for the Violent Offender Order (VOO) However, as you are aware such orders will only be granted if there is a risk that the individual is likely to commit one of more of the specified offences in Section 98(3) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Those offences are 6 types of serious violent offences from Section 20 OAPA 1861 upwards to manslaughter. It is doubtful that a VOO would have been granted in the case of ████████ following the incident in July 2008, as he had only been convicted of the offence of common assault and the circumstances of the sexual offence left on file would not be relevant. (v) It may be possible for an amendment to be made to Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to include a foreign conviction for murder. With the benefit of hindsight this would allow the police to have applied for a Notification Order against ████████ as soon as they were aware of his existence. This would require him to comply with the notification requirements under section 83(5) of that Act requiring him to state his date of birth; national insurance number; home address and specify any address at which he stays on a periodic basis. It would be a useful mechanism to monitor an individual’s movements when no licence conditions would apply. ”

    Source location

    Maria Christina Stubbings · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026