Recipient

David Ake & Co

Pin Request correction

First report 21 Oct 2021•Latest report 21 Oct 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from David Ake & Co linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Richard Gordon Franks · 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

    Richard Gordon Franks was remanded in custody at HMP Leeds and was found dead in his cell on 12 April 2019, after appearing distressed and indicating that he was likely to commit suicide if sentenced to imprisonment. The concerns included that this information was not communicated to prison staff, that he mistakenly believed he had received a five-year sentence, and that no checks were made on him for approximately 10 hours.

    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 David Ake & Co; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to conduct timely welfare checks on a prisoner at risk of suicide

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Franks had a known history of self-harming and suicide attempts. His emotional state when seen at court on 11 April 2019 was triggered at least in part to his reaction to a development in the prosecution brought against him which he had not foreseen. His statement that he was likely to commit suicide was not communicated to either the security staff at the court or the prison staff. In consequence, the prison staff had no information concerning the events which took place at court. (2) Mr Franks somehow perceived that he had been sentenced to five years imprisonment, which was not the case. This false impression caused him to be in distress prior to being locked in his cell around 19:00 hours. (3) Had information concerning his emotions at court been relayed to the prison staff, this may have triggered a decision to open an ACCT – the process by which a prisoner is subject to increased monitoring and support. In the event no checks were made on him for some 10 hours. (4) At a previous hearing on 25.02.17 Mr Franks had made a comparable threat to kill himself as a result of what he perceived to be an adverse development in the case brought against him. At that time his signed consent authorising information to be passed to the prison was obtained and communicated to the prison. (5) The benefit of relaying helpful information to the prison intended to protect Mr Franks, does not seem to involve a breach of professional privilege. It would have been sufficient to request that the prison staff assess Mr Franks for themselves on his return in view of (unspecified) developments at court that day. ”
    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 David Ake & Co; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to communicate suicide risk and relevant court information to prison staff

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Mr Franks had a known history of self-harming and suicide attempts. His emotional state when seen at court on 11 April 2019 was triggered at least in part to his reaction to a development in the prosecution brought against him which he had not foreseen. His statement that he was likely to commit suicide was not communicated to either the security staff at the court or the prison staff. In consequence, the prison staff had no information concerning the events which took place at court. (2) Mr Franks somehow perceived that he had been sentenced to five years imprisonment, which was not the case. This false impression caused him to be in distress prior to being locked in his cell around 19:00 hours. (3) Had information concerning his emotions at court been relayed to the prison staff, this may have triggered a decision to open an ACCT – the process by which a prisoner is subject to increased monitoring and support. In the event no checks were made on him for some 10 hours. (4) At a previous hearing on 25.02.17 Mr Franks had made a comparable threat to kill himself as a result of what he perceived to be an adverse development in the case brought against him. At that time his signed consent authorising information to be passed to the prison was obtained and communicated to the prison. (5) The benefit of relaying helpful information to the prison intended to protect Mr Franks, does not seem to involve a breach of professional privilege. It would have been sufficient to request that the prison staff assess Mr Franks for themselves on his return in view of (unspecified) developments at court that day. ”
    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

    Remind appropriate organisations whenever a client repeats a threat of self-harm.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We accept there are lessons to be learned. We have always endeavoured to follow the correct protocol when threats of self-harm are made by clients. However, we will ensure that we remind appropriate organisations each time a threat to self-harm is repeated.”

    Source location

    2021-0355-Response-from-David-Ake-Co-Solicitors_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 22 October 2021

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026