Recurring concern

Failure to reliably make protective-order conditions available to responsible staff

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 3 Aug 2021•Latest report 26 Jul 2024

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of dedicated processes or systems to receive, record, transfer, highlight or make protective-order conditions and associated enforcement powers available to staff responsible for safeguarding, offender management, risk assessment or enforcement.

Not included

Excludes generic information-sharing, record-keeping or alerting deficiencies not specifically concerning protective orders or their conditions.
Excludes failures to impose, vary or enforce a protective order where the order information was reliably available and the concern is a substantive legal or operational decision.
Excludes probation recall-process failures that do not involve making protective-order information available to responsible staff.
Excludes general offender intelligence or licence-condition information unless the assertion specifically concerns protective-order conditions or associated powers.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 5
Date range: 2021–2024
Stated actions: 8

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 Justice3

HM Prison and Probation Service2

Home Office2

Metropolitan Police Service2

Altcourse Prison1

Department for Work and Pensions1

HM Courts & Tribunals Service1

London Borough of Redbridge1

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.

26 Jul2024
East London
Concerns raised1
1. Failure of alert systems to highlight restraining orders
This report raised 24 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 4
1. Action
  Prompt OASys assessors to identify Civil Orders and incorporate their implications into risk assessment and management.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated completed
2. Action
  Deliver the Civil Order e-learning package and complete relevant staff training by the target date.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated in progress
3. Action
  Review practice guidance on recording Civil Orders and adding or removing globe alerts.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated planned
1. Action
  Review the globe system and identify digital solutions to improve accessibility, updating and termination of Civil Order information.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated planned
AI-generated summary

Zara Natasha Aleena · 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

Zara Natasha Aleena died at the Royal London Hospital on 26 June 2022 after sustaining a severe traumatic brain injury during an unprovoked attack while walking home in Ilford. The report identifies concerns about understaffing, risk assessment, information sharing, supervision, recall procedures and coordination across the Probation Service, police and other agencies, as well as concerns about training and reporting of predatory behaviour.

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 of alert systems to highlight restraining orders
Wider context from the report
“(8) The globe system and alert systems did not work effectively in this case. A restraining order had been put in place against the offender, but this was not highlighted, as it should have been. Key staff involved in assessing and managing the offender were unaware of the restraining order. ”
Source location
Zara Natasha Aleena · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 4 · 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
Prompt OASys assessors to identify Civil Orders and incorporate their implications into risk assessment and management.

Verbatim wording from the response
“8.1. We recognise the importance of probation staff being aware of restraining orders and they are expected to record them in a globe in the case record system (i.e., an alert) with the start and end date, with explanatory notes. We also recognise that the globe system requires staff to look for and record relevant information. To ensure that staff are expected to consider whether there is a restraining order and to use the information to inform the management of the case, in April 2023 HMPPS made a change to the OASys tool to prompt assessors to state if people under their supervision are subject to Civil Orders. This means that practitioners are supported to include behaviours which have resulted in the courts imposing a Civil Order in their risk assessment even if they were not convicted of an offence.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS and MoJ
Page 7 · response
Published 2 August 2024
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
Deliver the Civil Order e-learning package and complete relevant staff training by the target date.

Verbatim wording from the response
“8.2. To further strengthen practice and ensure that practitioners do not miss the significance of a restraining order or any other Civil Order, in May 2024 we released a new Civil Order e-learning package to provide HMPPS staff with an overview and awareness of Civil and ancillary Orders and why they are important in probation work. Our target is that all staff in relevant roles will have completed this by the end of March 2025.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS and MoJ
Page 8 · response
Published 2 August 2024
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
Review practice guidance on recording Civil Orders and adding or removing globe alerts.

Verbatim wording from the response
“8.3. We will review practice guidance by December 2024, including when to add and remove a globe to ensure that HMPPS staff are clear on the need to record Civil Orders. We are also committed to a review of the globe system by March 2025 with the purpose streamlining and to make information more accessible to staff. We are committed to identifying whether digital solutions are available to improve the review, updating and termination of information on the globe system. However, this will have multi-system impacts and will need to be embedded alongside other changes as systems are developed, rather than be progressed in isolation. This will impact on timescales for this aspect of the solution.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS and MoJ
Page 8 · response
Published 2 August 2024
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
Review the globe system and identify digital solutions to improve accessibility, updating and termination of Civil Order information.

Verbatim wording from the response
“8.3. We will review practice guidance by December 2024, including when to add and remove a globe to ensure that HMPPS staff are clear on the need to record Civil Orders. We are also committed to a review of the globe system by March 2025 with the purpose streamlining and to make information more accessible to staff. We are committed to identifying whether digital solutions are available to improve the review, updating and termination of information on the globe system. However, this will have multi-system impacts and will need to be embedded alongside other changes as systems are developed, rather than be progressed in isolation. This will impact on timescales for this aspect of the solution.”

Source location
Response from HMPPS and MoJ
Page 8 · response
Published 2 August 2024
Open published response
12 May2023
Cheshire
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to include restraining order breach information in OASys risk assessments and prison recall reports and reviews
2. Failure to ensure receipt of restraining order conditions by relevant staff
This report raised 1 other concern. 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 4
1. Action
  Operate a single Probation Service to simplify information sharing between releasing prisons and receiving probation areas.
  Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated completed
2. Action
  Establish a documented workflow for copying court documents, identifying risks, applying restrictions, updating custody warnings, and obtaining approval for monitoring requests.
  Stated by Sodexo GovernmentStated completed
3. Action
  Provide staff conducting public protection risk assessments with access to live probation and court information through digital casework systems.
  Stated by Sodexo GovernmentStated completed
1. Action
  Scan restraining orders to the relevant safeguarding mailbox and retain an evidence trail of transmission.
  Stated by Sodexo GovernmentStated completed
AI-generated summary

Angela Vanessa CRADDOCK · 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

Angela Vanessa Craddock died on 11 April 2018 after an offender attended her address and inflicted survivable injuries. Concerns included failures to identify and share information about breaches of a restraining order, incomplete risk assessment and recall information, and ineffective deployment of police resources to enforce the recall notice.

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 include restraining order breach information in OASys risk assessments and prison recall reports and reviews
Wider context from the report
“During the 39 days between conviction and release the offender phoned Angela Craddock on 160 occasions. Most of the calls did not connect. The offender also wrote several letters to Angela Craddock from prison in breach of the Restraining Order. Details of the Restraining Order were sent to HMP Altcourse and on receipt a paper copy of the conditions were placed in an envelope to be delivered to the Public Protection Department. This was never received so the relevant staff were not aware of the Restraining Order. Consequently, upon release on licence the community rehabilitation service were unaware of the breaches of the Restraining Order and were unable to include this information in the OASys risk assessment or the prison recall report and review, ultimately sent on to the police for the enforcement of the recall notice. ”
Source location
Angela Vanessa CRADDOCK · 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 to ensure receipt of restraining order conditions by relevant staff
Wider context from the report
“During the 39 days between conviction and release the offender phoned Angela Craddock on 160 occasions. Most of the calls did not connect. The offender also wrote several letters to Angela Craddock from prison in breach of the Restraining Order. Details of the Restraining Order were sent to HMP Altcourse and on receipt a paper copy of the conditions were placed in an envelope to be delivered to the Public Protection Department. This was never received so the relevant staff were not aware of the Restraining Order. Consequently, upon release on licence the community rehabilitation service were unaware of the breaches of the Restraining Order and were unable to include this information in the OASys risk assessment or the prison recall report and review, ultimately sent on to the police for the enforcement of the recall notice. ”
Source location
Angela Vanessa CRADDOCK · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · 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 a single Probation Service to simplify information sharing between releasing prisons and receiving probation areas.

Verbatim wording from the response
“At the relevant time, the post sentence supervision was being delivered by the Cheshire & Greater Manchester Community Rehabilitation Company Limited (CRC) and the separation of the delivery of probation supervision had added to the complexity of arrangements to share information between prisons and probation. The CRCs ceased to hold contracts to deliver probation services on the 25th June 2021 and there is now one Probation Service. This has simplified and therefore improved the sharing of information between releasing prisons and the receiving probation service area.”

Source location
Response from HM Prison and Probabtion Service
Page 2 · response
Published 1 June 2023
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
Establish a documented workflow for copying court documents, identifying risks, applying restrictions, updating custody warnings, and obtaining approval for monitoring requests.

Verbatim wording from the response
“A series of actions were then put in place to ensure we had assurance of no future reoccurrence. Those actions were:”

Source location
Response from Sodexo Government
Page 1 · response
Published 1 June 2023
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 staff conducting public protection risk assessments with access to live probation and court information through digital casework systems.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Since 2018 the Prison has gained access to probation and court documents via N Delius, Digital Prison System and the Common Platform (Courts). These systems give us significant information to allow staff completing Public Protection risk assessments to have access to live and up to date information.”

Source location
Response from Sodexo Government
Page 2 · response
Published 1 June 2023
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
Scan restraining orders to the relevant safeguarding mailbox and retain an evidence trail of transmission.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As further assurance the Custody Department upon receipt of a restraining order will scan the order and email it to the functional mailbox for OMU/Public Protection Unit and an evidence trail is kept of those sent documents. This was put in place to prevent any internal mail failures or the Public Protection Team not collecting items from Admissions.”

Source location
Response from Sodexo Government
Page 2 · response
Published 1 June 2023
Open published response
3 Aug2021
Inner South London
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to record the duration and conditions of protective orders
2. Failure to hold or know protective-order conditions and arrest powers
This report raised 9 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

Emma Day · 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

Emma Day died in the street on 26 May 2017 from multiple stab wounds and was found to have been unlawfully killed. The report describes a history of domestic violence, coercive and controlling behaviour, threats to her life and protective orders that had expired shortly before her murder. Principal concerns included failures to share and record risk information, inadequate domestic-violence training and guidance, and a system failure in handling reports of domestic violence within the Child Maintenance Service.

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 record the duration and conditions of protective orders
Wider context from the report
“1. The Gaia Centre did not record the length or conditions of either the Non-Molestation Order or the Prohibited Steps Order, nor did there appear to be any safety netting if the situation escalated. ”
Source location
Emma Day · 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 to hold or know protective-order conditions and arrest powers
Wider context from the report
“2. Lambeth Children’s Social Care (CSC) had no copy nor knew conditions of either Order, nor that there was a power of arrest. There seem to be steps taken by the CSC to consider action to mitigate the risk posed by the perpetrator in light of these Orders. ”
Source location
Emma Day · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Failure of alert systems to highlight restraining orders

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.4

Concerns raised2

Failure to include restraining order breach information in OASys risk assessments and prison recall reports and reviews

Failure to ensure receipt of restraining order conditions by relevant staff

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.4

Concerns raised2

Failure to record the duration and conditions of protective orders

Failure to hold or know protective-order conditions and arrest powers

Actions described in response 4

Actions described in response 4