3 Jun 2024 Tcherno Bari · Prevention of Future Deaths report Birmingham and Solihull
View report summary
Concerns raised 12 Failure to ensure police access to the written risk assessment View source Failure to provide attending police officers with the written risk rating View source Failure to maintain an accurate and up-to-date missing person policy View source Lack of police officer awareness of the required risk rating View source Failure to communicate the RCRP challenge process to BSMHFT View source Delays in communicating police disagreement with the reported risk category View source Failure to require attending constables to give particular regard to mental health clinicians’ risk expertise View source Lack of formal notification of police disagreement about risk category View source Failure of Clinical Service Managers to coordinate attempts to locate high-risk missing patients View source Failure to inform BSMHFT when missing patient investigations are closed View source Failure to invite police representatives to daily appraisal meetings View source Failure of routine monitoring to ensure completion of the risk rating View source See 9 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Tcherno Bari · 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
Tcherno Bari, who had been detained under the Mental Health Act and admitted to a psychiatric unit with psychotic depression, left the hospital grounds while assessed as at high risk of suicide. He was found deceased the following day, 26 September 2023, hanging from a tree in parkland outside the police search area. The principal concerns were significant gaps in multi-agency coordination, communication of risk information, use of risk-assessment procedures, and the handling of differing assessments between mental health staff and police.
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. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure police access to the written risk assessment
Wider context from the report “(7) The BSMHFT Missing Patient Policy and RCRP do not require BSMHFT to hand attending constables a copy of the risk assessment , or require attending constables, or later the Locate team, to request a copy of the risk assessment . In the event of a conflict about risk category, requiring attending constables to take early possession of the written risk assessment may lead to the police identifying they have overlooked key information and revisit their own risk category.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide attending police officers with the written risk rating
Wider context from the report “(1) I am not reassured BSMHFT staff are handing attending police officers ‘appendix C – risk rating’ as required by their missing person policy . I am not reassured WMP officers are aware they should be provided with ‘appendix C – risk rating’. Context: I did not accept the Nurse-in-Charge routinely used ‘appendix C – risk rating’ , and police witnesses - including a Locate Sergeant, and the Head of Locate, a Detective Chief Inspector - indicated they had never seen ‘appendix C – risk rating’.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to maintain an accurate and up-to-date missing person policy
Wider context from the report “(5) The BSMHFT Missing Person Policy purports to append WMP’s missing person process but makes no mention of RCRP . I am not reassured the BSMHFT Missing Person Policy is therefore accurate and up-to-date .
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of police officer awareness of the required risk rating
Wider context from the report “(1) I am not reassured BSMHFT staff are handing attending police officers ‘appendix C – risk rating’ as required by their missing person policy. I am not reassured WMP officers are aware they should be provided with ‘appendix C – risk rating’ . Context: I did not accept the Nurse-in-Charge routinely used ‘appendix C – risk rating’, and police witnesses - including a Locate Sergeant, and the Head of Locate, a Detective Chief Inspector - indicated they had never seen ‘appendix C – risk rating’ .
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to communicate the RCRP challenge process to BSMHFT
Wider context from the report “(4) I am not reassured the RCRP ‘challenge’ process has been effectively communicated to BSMHFT . Context: I was told by WMP’s Head of Locate there has been an agreed ‘challenge’ process to WMP’s decision on risk category since February 2024, albeit BSMHFT have never used it . However, I heard from BSMHFT’s Head of Acute Nursing that there was no such process . Further, she explained ongoing frustration bearing in mind BSMHFT’s expertise, that WMP often do not accept BSMHFT’s reported high-risk category, WMP often do not communicate they have not accepted it with BSMHFT only finding out much later, and WMP often close missing patient investigations without informing BSMHFT.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Delays in communicating police disagreement with the reported risk category
Wider context from the report “(4) I am not reassured the RCRP ‘challenge’ process has been effectively communicated to BSMHFT. Context: I was told by WMP’s Head of Locate there has been an agreed ‘challenge’ process to WMP’s decision on risk category since February 2024, albeit BSMHFT have never used it. However, I heard from BSMHFT’s Head of Acute Nursing that there was no such process. Further, she explained ongoing frustration bearing in mind BSMHFT’s expertise, that WMP often do not accept BSMHFT’s reported high-risk category, WMP often do not communicate they have not accepted it with BSMHFT only finding out much later , and WMP often close missing patient investigations without informing BSMHFT.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to require attending constables to give particular regard to mental health clinicians’ risk expertise
Wider context from the report “(8) RCRP and APP do not require attending constables to have particular regard to the expertise of mental health clinicians and hesitate or be extra vigilant before rejecting their opinion on risk category. RCRP and APP appear to regard reports from mental health clinicians no differently to those from members of the public, and family and friends of the missing person . Context: police witnesses agreed that BSMHFT clinicians were the experts on mental health diagnosis, including identifying those conditions that carry an increased risk of suicide, and assessing the risk of suicide generally. However, this case demonstrates how in the heat of the moment an (inexperienced) attending constable can overlook that expertise and quickly dismiss it .
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of formal notification of police disagreement about risk category
Wider context from the report “(6) RCRP does not require WMP to formally indicate to BSMHFT (i.e. via a form) when the police have taken a different view about the risk category . BSMHFT will often be unaware of the different view taken by the police rendering the ‘challenge’ process redundant and reducing the chances of the police identifying they have overlooked key information.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of Clinical Service Managers to coordinate attempts to locate high-risk missing patients
Wider context from the report “(3) I am not reassured BSMHFT Clinical Service Managers (‘CSMs’) are (a) coordinating the attempts to locate high-risk missing patients , and (b) inviting a representative from WMP to attend ‘daily appraisal’ meetings to discuss the high-risk missing patient’s absence as required by their missing patient policy. I am not reassured WMP officers are aware this is the CSM’s role and of the expectation of being invited to a ‘daily appraisal’. Context: this process did not happen in Mr Bari’s case, and the WMP’s Head of Locate said she was not aware of the police ever being invited by a CSM to attend a ‘daily appraisal’.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to inform BSMHFT when missing patient investigations are closed
Wider context from the report “(4) I am not reassured the RCRP ‘challenge’ process has been effectively communicated to BSMHFT. Context: I was told by WMP’s Head of Locate there has been an agreed ‘challenge’ process to WMP’s decision on risk category since February 2024, albeit BSMHFT have never used it. However, I heard from BSMHFT’s Head of Acute Nursing that there was no such process. Further, she explained ongoing frustration bearing in mind BSMHFT’s expertise, that WMP often do not accept BSMHFT’s reported high-risk category, WMP often do not communicate they have not accepted it with BSMHFT only finding out much later, and WMP often close missing patient investigations without informing BSMHFT .
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to invite police representatives to daily appraisal meetings
Wider context from the report “(3) I am not reassured BSMHFT Clinical Service Managers (‘CSMs’) are (a) coordinating the attempts to locate high-risk missing patients, and (b) inviting a representative from WMP to attend ‘daily appraisal’ meetings to discuss the high-risk missing patient’s absence as required by their missing patient policy. I am not reassured WMP officers are aware this is the CSM’s role and of the expectation of being invited to a ‘daily appraisal’. Context: this process did not happen in Mr Bari’s case , and the WMP’s Head of Locate said she was not aware of the police ever being invited by a CSM to attend a ‘daily appraisal’ .
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of routine monitoring to ensure completion of the risk rating
Wider context from the report “(2) A ‘monitoring tool’ in the BSMHFT Missing Patient Policy requires routine monitoring to ensure nurses are completing ‘appendix A’ and ‘appendix B’, but not ‘appendix C – risk rating’ . Context: I was told this is under review, however I was concerned this is still outstanding 9 months following the death .
” 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 Operational implementation of Right Care, Right Person is assigned to Chief Constables rather than Police and Crime Commissioners.
Verbatim wording from the response “At a local policing level, PCCs are not responsible for making operational policing decisions, including the implementation of Right Care, Right Person, this is a decision for Chief Constables. Rather, PCCs are responsible for scrutinising their Chief Constables and holding them to account for the delivery of their duties. Additionally, PCCs have responsibilities to commission services, and where necessary, to bring partners together and work with them.” Source location Response from APCC
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 The APCC cannot mandate its members to undertake actions in response to the identified safety concerns.
Verbatim wording from the response “As a membership body, the APCC cannot mandate actions upon its members. However, our role does include the provision of advice and recommendations to inform our members’ local activities, including the development of evidence-based guidance.” Source location Response from APCC
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations