Recurring concern

Failure to provide criminal courts with relevant vulnerability and risk information

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 2 Oct 2019•Latest report 11 Mar 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in the dedicated process for gathering, transferring or presenting relevant mental-health, vulnerability, behaviour or risk-of-harm information from prosecuting, police, prison or probation functions to criminal courts.

Not included

Excludes generic information-sharing deficiencies that are not tied to providing relevant information to criminal courts.
Excludes clinical, prison or probation risk-assessment failures where the material deficiency is not the failure to provide information to a criminal court.
Excludes court communication concerning routine administrative or procedural matters that do not affect safety-relevant prosecution or sentencing decisions.
Excludes failures to share information with non-court recipients unless the assertion is part of the same court-facing criminal-justice information process.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2019–2025
Stated actions: 2

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Ministry of Justice2

College of Policing1

Department of Health and Social Care1

HM Prison and Probation Service1

National Police Chiefs’ Council1

NHS Dorset Integrated Care Board1

NHS England1

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.

11 Mar2025
Dorset
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of a process for sharing remanded prisoners’ risk information with sentencing courts
This report raised 4 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.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Operate immediate-release pathfinders in three prisons to develop multi-agency identification, support, management and information-exchange approaches.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated in progress
2. Action
  Ask the HMPPS Safety Group to consider court risk-information sharing during its forthcoming Prison Safety Policy Framework review.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated planned
AI-generated summary

Marta Elena Vento · 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

Marta Elena Vento was working alone as a hotel receptionist in Bournemouth when she was fatally beaten in an unprovoked attack on 9 December 2020. The report raises concerns about the sharing of remand prisoners’ risk information with sentencing courts, continuity of mental healthcare after release from prison, risk assessment of violent offenders managed by MOSOVO units, and access to patient information through the National Record Locator.

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 process for sharing remanded prisoners’ risk information with sentencing courts
Wider context from the report
“Evidence was given by the Head of the Offender Management Unit (OMU) at HMP Winchester, a Senior Probation Officer, that there is currently no formal process or guidance in place for the sharing of information by a prison with the Criminal Courts to provide an update of the person's behaviour in prison which may increase their risk of harm or risk offending. It was explained that the person who could enquire about this at Court, if asked, would be the duty Probation Officer, and that this is especially more challenging to complete when a fast delivery report is requested. There is currently no process from a prison perspective to share information to the sentencing Court other than that contained within the Prison Escort Record (PER), which is not provided to the sentencing Judge, the lawyers at Court or Probation staff. I am concerned that the full extent of a remanded prisoner’s risk of harm to the public may not be appreciated by the sentencing Judge, which could impact upon the sentence imposed upon a prisoner and I am concerned that this lack of sharing of information could lead to future deaths. ”
Source location
Marta Elena Vento · 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
Operate immediate-release pathfinders in three prisons to develop multi-agency identification, support, management and information-exchange approaches.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The National Immediate Release Task and Finish Group has established immediate release pathfinders in three prisons, with a focus on developing multi-agency approaches to identify in advance those people who may be immediately released from court and to take steps to ensure that they are supported and managed effectively. This includes exploring methods of information exchange for those on remand who have an upcoming court case which may result in immediate release.”

Source location
Response from HM Prison & Probation Service
Page 1 · response
Published 11 March 2025
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
Ask the HMPPS Safety Group to consider court risk-information sharing during its forthcoming Prison Safety Policy Framework review.

Verbatim wording from the response
“of sharing with courts information about behaviour in custody that may impact on risk of harm or offending. In response to the concerns that you have raised, I have asked the Safety Group in HMPPS to give further consideration to this specific area when they undertake a review of this policy framework later in the 2026-26 business year. This will be informed by the results of the pathfinder projects described above.”

Source location
Response from HM Prison & Probation Service
Page 2 · response
Published 11 March 2025
Open published response
9 Feb2022
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to provide courts with relevant mental health background information
This report raised 5 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

Michelle Louise Jennings · 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

Michelle Louise Jennings had a history of suicidal thoughts and contact with mental health services. She died after delays in accessing therapy, prosecution following a railway incident, and problems with communication and case ownership between mental health teams. The report identified concerns about therapy waiting lists, referral and discharge arrangements, and how prosecuting authorities account for mental health vulnerability.

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 provide courts with relevant mental health background information
Wider context from the report
“3. The evidence before the inquest was that there needed to be a clear understanding by all prosecuting authorities of the impact of a prosecution on someone with a complex mental health background such as Michelle. In Michelle’s case the BTP file reviewer (the nature of the offence Michelle faced meant that it was not a CPS lawyer who made the charging decision) had not correctly applied the public interest test and had not considered the mental health/vulnerability of Michelle Jennings as required to. As a consequence a decision was taken to prosecute her without an assessment of the impact on Michelle and her case was dealt with by the Magistrates Court without them being given the full background in relation to her deteriorating mental health. BTP are as a consequence of Michelle’s death taking steps to address how their prosecution teams should deal with the public interest test and gather information where mental health is an issue. However there is no clear mechanism for such learning and changes (to reduce the risk to life) in relation to vulnerable people such as Michelle to be implemented within the other 42 Police forces in England and Wales or within other agencies responsible for prosecuting criminal offences. ”
Source location
Michelle Louise Jennings · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
2 Oct2019
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to provide the court with sufficient information about the level of risk
This report raised 5 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.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Existing mandatory court-probation liaison arrangements are considered sufficient to address communication of offender risk and sentencing concerns.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Philip Vernon Owen · 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

Philip Vernon Owen was found dead in his flat on 30 October 2016 after being killed by a stab wound to the neck. The report describes failures in mental health risk assessment, discharge planning and communication after the perpetrator’s release from custody, and concerns about how risks associated with short custodial sentences were communicated to sentencing courts and managed by relevant services.

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 provide the court with sufficient information about the level of risk
Wider context from the report
“The Inquest heard evidence from the Prison and Probation Service that, as was demonstrated in this case, there are significant challenges that are difficult to mitigate to ensure a safe release from custody where a very short custodial sentence is imposed which means an individual who is a high risk offender is eligible for immediate release. This is compounded where as in this case there is no significant licence period that the Probation Service can supervise; There was a lack of clarity as to how effectively these risks had been communicated to those involved in sentencing and what if any guidance existed support them in taking steps to minimise the risks to the public; It was unclear how much information was shared with the court regarding the level of risk by the Prosecution or the Probation Service and what expectations were or guidance to those assisting a sentencing court in the discharge of their duty. ”
Source location
Philip Vernon Owen · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
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 mandatory court-probation liaison arrangements are considered sufficient to address communication of offender risk and sentencing concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We are grateful for your observations on the circumstances of Mr Owen's death: it is important that we learn the lessons from any case where the actions of an offender have led to tragic consequences. You identified communication of information about the level of risk posed by the offender as an important factor in enabling the court to take proper account of risk when passing sentence. To ensure that such communication is effective, it is essential that systematic arrangements are in place to ensure regular and frequent liaison between the courts and probation providers. Securing and maintaining a high standard of court liaison has been the subject of detailed joint working between the judiciary and Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS).”

Source location
2019-0330-Response-from-the-HM-Prison-and-Probation-Service-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 8 November 2019
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Lack of a process for sharing remanded prisoners’ risk information with sentencing courts

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Concerns raised1

Failure to provide courts with relevant mental health background information

Concerns raised1

Failure to provide the court with sufficient information about the level of risk

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1