23 Sep 2020 Mrs Jane Jowers · Prevention of Future Deaths report East London
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of a statutory procedure for checking criminal convictions outside the UK View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Mrs Jane Jowers · 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
Mrs Jane Jowers, who had advanced Alzheimer’s dementia and was dependent on carers for medication, did not receive her anti-epileptic medication on 21 October 2018. She suffered a seizure the following day, was admitted to hospital, and her health deteriorated before she died in a hospice on 23 November 2018. The report raised concern that there was no statutory procedure for checking criminal convictions outside the UK, which may allow unsuitable people to work with vulnerable adults and children.
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 a statutory procedure for checking criminal convictions outside the UK
Wider context from the report “The evidence at the Inquest revealed that there is no statutory procedure for checks to be undertaken for criminal convictions outside of the UK . The absence of statutory international checks may result in unsuitable persons with prior convictions working with vulnerable adults and children.
” Source location Mrs Jane Jowers · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Publish advice on obtaining overseas criminal-record checks and link to relevant Home Office guidance on the DBS website.
Verbatim wording from the response “Advice in this regard and reference to the appropriate Home Office guidance is published on the DBS website and is attached as Appendix A. The Home Office published guidance provides information as to how to apply to a number of countries, including the Republic of Ireland, for an overseas criminal records check. Home Office guidance is attached as Appendix B.” Source location 2020-0180-Response-from-DBS-Redacted.pdf
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 Existing statutory arrangements allow overseas criminality information to be disclosed, while employers can obtain further overseas checks as part of recruitment risk assessment.
Verbatim wording from the response “The decision to carry out an overseas check is made by the employer and forms part of their risk assessment to be used in conjunction with their other pre-employment checks. DBS guidance states that the DBS check is only one component of an employer’s recruitment practices and the employer should decide on whether to obtain an overseas check on applicants who have lived or worked abroad, where there is not a statutory requirement to do so.” Source location 2020-0180-Response-from-DBS-Redacted.pdf
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 Further statutory obligations concerning overseas criminal-record checks are matters for the Home Office and Parliament.
Verbatim wording from the response “In conclusion, under the existing statutory arrangements, there is provision to disclose criminality information from overseas on DBS certificates, but DBS has not considered the appropriateness or not of further statutory requirements and no further action is proposed. Consideration of further statutory obligations is a matter for the Home Office and Parliament. However, as I have explained above, there are considerable practicable limitations in gaining access to and sharing such information.” Source location 2020-0180-Response-from-DBS-Redacted.pdf
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 Reliable international data flows cannot be established because necessary agreements and cooperation with overseas law-enforcement agencies are unavailable.
Verbatim wording from the response “There is no other international system available to DBS to identify overseas convictions. The DBS is not, therefore, aware of overseas criminality information unless it is passed from international law enforcement agencies to UK forces and recorded on their systems. DBS guidance for employers, therefore, sets out that DBS does not access overseas criminal records.” Source location 2020-0180-Response-from-DBS-Redacted.pdf
Open published response
12 Jul 2016 Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report Inner West London
View report summary
Concerns raised 6
Failure to undertake foreign-conviction checks on UK nationals View source Lack of audit systems for regular checking of foreign-conviction and border-control processes View source Deletion of serious convictions from international databases View source
Unavailability of a readily referenced international-border database of serious convictions View source Failure to mandate foreign-conviction checks on arrest across all UK police forces View source Non-automated identification of foreign convictions for non-EU foreign nationals View source See 3 more concerns
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
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 Failure to undertake foreign-conviction checks on UK nationals
Wider context from the report “(2) That checks for foreign convictions are not undertaken on UK nationals given the current levels of international travel and the potential relevance for such convictions to the matter for which that person may have been arrested.
” Source location Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Lack of audit systems for regular checking of foreign-conviction and border-control processes
Wider context from the report “(8) That systems of audit are in place that would allow regular checking of whether (i)checks for foreign convictions are being carried out by all UK police forces on arrest; (ii) that "watch and warning lists" are up to date; (iii) and that persons with serious convictions are detained at UK borders and their potential criminal propensity thus appropriately managed.
” Source location Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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
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 Unavailability of a readily referenced international-border database of serious convictions
Wider context from the report “(3) That the Home Office continues to encourage both EU and Non EU countries to update the “watch list” such that there is a readily referenced computer database at international borders of matters such as murder convictions .
” Source location Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 to mandate foreign-conviction checks on arrest across all UK police forces
Wider context from the report “(1) That checks for foreign convictions on arrest are not mandatory in all police forces across the UK .
” Source location Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Non-automated identification of foreign convictions for non-EU foreign nationals
Wider context from the report “(7) Whether non- EU foreign nationals need special consideration in respect of how to identify their foreign convictions and thus for the UK to manage their criminal propensity, since I understand from the evidence that their convictions are most likely identified by non-automated Interpol or police to police queries .
” Source location Alice Poppy Madeleine Gross · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 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
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 Operate the Warnings Index and connect UK law-enforcement and border authorities to SISII criminality information.
Verbatim wording from the response “The UK maintains its own domestic ‘watch list’ known as the Warnings Index and information on that system can and is used to refuse entry to individuals who pose a risk to the UK public. Indeed, over 6,500 individuals from the EU and wider European Economic Area have been refused entry since 2010. Furthermore, the UK’s connection to the EU second generation Schengen Information System (SISII) in April 2015 has enhanced the amount of criminality information which the police and border officers can access. SISII helps to track the movements around Europe of over 10,000 people convicted of sexual or violent offences in the UK as and when they come into contact with law enforcement across the EU, with over 6,000 hits received on these individuals.” Source location 2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
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 Provide UK police with mechanisms to conduct foreign criminal-record checks on arrested foreign nationals through ECRIS and related systems.
Verbatim wording from the response “Since 2010 however, mechanisms have been put in place to allow the police to conduct criminal records checks on all foreign nationals who are arrested in the UK. Since 2012 the European Criminal Record Information System (ECRIS) has provided police forces with access to criminal records information quickly and through an automated system via the ACRO Criminal Records Office (ACRO), which manages criminal records exchange across the European Union for the UK.” Source location 2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
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 Promote foreign criminal-record checks in all relevant cases and improve criminality-data quality with police and police and crime commissioners.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Government sees the use of criminality information as an important tool in protecting the public and continues to engage with law enforcement agencies to ensure that this information is used to the fullest. It is, however, ultimately for individual chief constables to decide how their police force should conduct operational matters. Furthermore it is for police and crime commissioners, as the elected persons responsible for police governance under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, to hold their chief constables to account for their performance in combating crime. That is not to say that there is not more that can be done which is why ACRO has worked with police forces and chief constables to promote the importance of conducting checks in all cases.” Source location 2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
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 Promote daily use of Interpol I-24/7 by UK law-enforcement agencies for foreign criminality searches.
Verbatim wording from the response “For non-EU nationals, police forces are increasingly using Interpol I-24/7, a browser-based system, which was made available to the 190 Interpol members in 2002, to search police information across the globe on a 24/7 and 365 days a year basis. Police forces in the UK are able to access information via the secure Police National Network. Usage of the system has rapidly increased in the last few years and work continues with UK law enforcement to promote its use on a daily basis.” Source location 2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
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 Decisions on police operational checks rest with individual chief constables, with police and crime commissioners responsible for holding them to account.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Government sees the use of criminality information as an important tool in protecting the public and continues to engage with law enforcement agencies to ensure that this information is used to the fullest. It is, however, ultimately for individual chief constables to decide how their police force should conduct operational matters. Furthermore it is for police and crime commissioners, as the elected persons responsible for police governance under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, to hold their chief constables to account for their performance in combating crime. That is not to say that there is not more that can be done which is why ACRO has worked with police forces and chief constables to promote the importance of conducting checks in all cases.” Source location 2016-0488-Response-by-Home-Office
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
Open published response
23 Oct 2014 Maria Christina Stubbings · Prevention of Future Deaths report Essex
View report summary
Concerns raised 3
Absence of a mechanism notifying local police when a person with a foreign murder conviction resides in their area View source Exclusion of foreign murder convictions from the Notification Order framework View source Failure of the Central Authority to identify UK nationals serving sentences for serious crimes in EU prisons under the non-retrospective notification system View source
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
×
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 Absence of a mechanism notifying local police when a person with a foreign murder conviction resides in their area
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
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 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
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
Open source report
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures in arrangements to identify, check, receive, retain, update or make available foreign-conviction information for safety-critical decisions, including statutory checks, police or Interpol queries, international databases and cross-border notification arrangements.
