Failure to maintain and share security and offender risk intelligence
First to latest report 29 May 2014 — 22 Jan 2025
Reports that mention this concern
13
Times this concern has been raised
17
Stated actions linked to this concern
75
What this concern includes
Includes failures to record, maintain, access or share security and offender-risk intelligence across responsible criminal-justice or security functions.
What is not included
Excludes generic communication, documentation or staffing deficiencies that are not explicitly tied to an operational intelligence picture or risk-management process.
Excludes failures concerning unrelated factual databases or intelligence systems where no shared operational risk-management concern is supported.
Excludes the specific consequential risks, harms or clinical-care deficiencies resulting from incomplete intelligence; those are outcomes or separate concerns rather than the intelligence-system failure itself.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, 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.
Ministry of Justice7
Home Office5
HM Prison and Probation Service4
Probation Service3
Greater Manchester Police2
Lancashire Constabulary2
Metropolitan Police Service2
National Police Chiefs’ Council2
West Midlands Police2
Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust1
Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust1
College of Policing1
Department for Education1
G4S1
Independent Office for Police Conduct1
Ministerial department10
Police force9
Executive agency4
National policing body3
NHS trust3
Sub-organisation3
Executive non-departmental public body2
Higher education regulator1
Local health board1
London borough council1
Non-ministerial department1
Other public body1
Police oversight body1
Prison operator1
University1
Reports and published responses 13 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
Failure to record pertinent information in individuals’ intelligence profiles
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Greater Manchester Police
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1
Greater Manchester Police
Remind Public Protection Investigation Unit supervisors to quality-assure vulnerable-adult PPI logs, submit relevant intelligence and review warnings on finalisation.
Oxfordshire
Concerns raised1
Failure to accurately and widely circulate the nature and duration of threat hits on the relevant intelligence database
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Ministry of Defence
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2
Ministry of Defence
Require PISTOL hits to be reported to the Battle Captain or Duty Watch Keeper and recorded in JCHAT.
Ministry of Defence
Produce daily PISTOL-hit heat maps, analyse them through intelligence staff, and disseminate them to tactical planners and patrol personnel.
London (North)
Concerns raised1
Failure to develop and share operational intelligence between the MPS and SOCA
This report raised 9 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Metropolitan Police Service
National Crime Agency
National Police Chiefs’ Council
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
National Crime Agency
Complete an internal review of procedures for gathering, developing and disseminating intelligence.
Metropolitan Police Service
Adopt intelligence processes and develop training ensuring Senior Investigating Officers receive all relevant intelligence and dynamic strategy changes.
Metropolitan Police Service
Assign Covert Intelligence Managers responsibility for oversight of covert intelligence processes and Senior Investigating Officer awareness.
Metropolitan Police Service
Review Intelligence Officer training to strengthen their role in ensuring Senior Investigating Officers receive relevant intelligence.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.3
National Crime Agency
After reviewing intelligence-gathering, development and dissemination procedures, no further action could realistically have been taken to avoid the incident.
No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
National Police Chiefs’ Council
Weapons-seizure procedures fall to wider operational policing, the senior investigating officer and the operational commander.
Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
Metropolitan Police Service
Existing joint MPS and NCA intelligence processes were considered robust, risk managed and accountable, with clear governance for developing intelligence opportunities.
Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.