Gloucestershire Constabulary

Policing · Police force

Pin Request correction

First report 28 Jul 2014•Latest report 8 Mar 2023

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

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

Reports
3

Naming this recipient

Published responses
33%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Gloucestershire Constabulary linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Maxine Betty Davison and 4 others · 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

    On 12 August 2021, Jake Davison used a lawfully held shotgun to kill his mother, Maxine Davison, and four other people in Keyham, Plymouth. The inquest identified serious failures in firearms licensing, including inadequate training, governance, supervision, scrutiny, information gathering and decisions to grant and return the shotgun certificate. The report expressed particular concern about the continuing lack of nationally accredited and mandatory training for firearms licensing staff and the risk of incorrect licensing decisions and future deaths.

    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 Gloucestershire Constabulary; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to condition firearms licensing delegation on adequate training

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that there is an urgent need to develop a national accredited training for FELU staff that covers how to apply the relevant Home Office Guidance on firearms licencing including, in particular, training in assessing the suitability of applicants to be granted a licence. The development of such accredited training is vitally important to achieve consistency and drive up standards. I am concerned that there is currently no requirement or guidance that FELU staff should undergo mandatory training. I am also concerned that there is currently no requirement that Chief Officers of Police may only delegate decision making authority regarding issuing firearms licences to a person who has undergone adequate training. Whilst I acknowledged that the current NPCC lead for firearms licencing is now working with the College of Policing and others to develop the required training, I am concerned to ensure that the momentum to effect change after the horrific tragedy in Keyham should not be lost, as it has been in respect of lessons and recommendations over the past 27 years. I am therefore reporting the matters above to: The NPCC lead for firearms licencing and all other Chief Constables in England and Wales So that each Chief Constable is made aware of my concern that, that despite the many recommendations made over the past 27 years, there continues to be a lack of nationally accredited training for their FELU staff. I also report my concern that in the absence of such the training there is a risk that the Statutory Guidance is not being appropriately applied by FELU staff today, and so each Chief Constable may need to take steps to satisfy themselves that (i) adequate local training, of a satisfactory standard has been universally delivered to all their FELU staff and supervisors in applying the Home Office Guidance on Firearms Licencing Law (published in November 2022) and the revised Statutory Guidance for Chief officers of Police (published in February 2023) and (ii) they have only delegated decision making to persons who have undergone adequate training in firearms licencing and in applying that recent Guidance. The College of Policing (CoP) So that the College of Policing is made aware of my concern that (1) despite the repeated recommendations being made over the past 27 years, and the earlier requests made specifically to the College of Policing asking for such training to be developed, no accredited training as yet exists. (2) neither the current CoP APP guidance on firearms nor the proposed update (which I am assured is still under consultation) includes any requirement that FELU staff are trained in firearms licencing generally or trained in conducting suitability assessments in particular. The Home Secretary and The Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire So that they may be made aware of my concern that despite the repeated recommendations being made over the past 27 years, beginning with the Cullen report in 1996: (i) successive governments appear to have failed to ensure that any guidance is produced that makes having training in firearms licencing generally (and in conducting suitability assessments in particular) mandatory for all FELU staff; (ii) there appears to be no requirement that Chief Officers of Police should only delegate authority to issue and revoke licences to officers and staff who have completed adequate (and preferably nationally accredited) training. I am concerned that the lack of accredited training combined with the absence of a mandatory requirement for all those making firearms licensing decisions to undertake adequate training for their role increases the risk of incorrect decision making and, consequently, increases the risk of future deaths. ”
    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 Gloucestershire Constabulary; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence of a mandatory requirement for role-specific firearms licensing training

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that there is an urgent need to develop a national accredited training for FELU staff that covers how to apply the relevant Home Office Guidance on firearms licencing including, in particular, training in assessing the suitability of applicants to be granted a licence. The development of such accredited training is vitally important to achieve consistency and drive up standards. I am concerned that there is currently no requirement or guidance that FELU staff should undergo mandatory training. I am also concerned that there is currently no requirement that Chief Officers of Police may only delegate decision making authority regarding issuing firearms licences to a person who has undergone adequate training. Whilst I acknowledged that the current NPCC lead for firearms licencing is now working with the College of Policing and others to develop the required training, I am concerned to ensure that the momentum to effect change after the horrific tragedy in Keyham should not be lost, as it has been in respect of lessons and recommendations over the past 27 years. I am therefore reporting the matters above to: The NPCC lead for firearms licencing and all other Chief Constables in England and Wales So that each Chief Constable is made aware of my concern that, that despite the many recommendations made over the past 27 years, there continues to be a lack of nationally accredited training for their FELU staff. I also report my concern that in the absence of such the training there is a risk that the Statutory Guidance is not being appropriately applied by FELU staff today, and so each Chief Constable may need to take steps to satisfy themselves that (i) adequate local training, of a satisfactory standard has been universally delivered to all their FELU staff and supervisors in applying the Home Office Guidance on Firearms Licencing Law (published in November 2022) and the revised Statutory Guidance for Chief officers of Police (published in February 2023) and (ii) they have only delegated decision making to persons who have undergone adequate training in firearms licencing and in applying that recent Guidance. The College of Policing (CoP) So that the College of Policing is made aware of my concern that (1) despite the repeated recommendations being made over the past 27 years, and the earlier requests made specifically to the College of Policing asking for such training to be developed, no accredited training as yet exists. (2) neither the current CoP APP guidance on firearms nor the proposed update (which I am assured is still under consultation) includes any requirement that FELU staff are trained in firearms licencing generally or trained in conducting suitability assessments in particular. The Home Secretary and The Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire So that they may be made aware of my concern that despite the repeated recommendations being made over the past 27 years, beginning with the Cullen report in 1996: (i) successive governments appear to have failed to ensure that any guidance is produced that makes having training in firearms licencing generally (and in conducting suitability assessments in particular) mandatory for all FELU staff; (ii) there appears to be no requirement that Chief Officers of Police should only delegate authority to issue and revoke licences to officers and staff who have completed adequate (and preferably nationally accredited) training. I am concerned that the lack of accredited training combined with the absence of a mandatory requirement for all those making firearms licensing decisions to undertake adequate training for their role increases the risk of incorrect decision making and, consequently, increases the risk of future deaths. ”
    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 Gloucestershire Constabulary; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of nationally accredited training for firearms licensing staff

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that there is an urgent need to develop a national accredited training for FELU staff that covers how to apply the relevant Home Office Guidance on firearms licencing including, in particular, training in assessing the suitability of applicants to be granted a licence. The development of such accredited training is vitally important to achieve consistency and drive up standards. I am concerned that there is currently no requirement or guidance that FELU staff should undergo mandatory training. I am also concerned that there is currently no requirement that Chief Officers of Police may only delegate decision making authority regarding issuing firearms licences to a person who has undergone adequate training. Whilst I acknowledged that the current NPCC lead for firearms licencing is now working with the College of Policing and others to develop the required training, I am concerned to ensure that the momentum to effect change after the horrific tragedy in Keyham should not be lost, as it has been in respect of lessons and recommendations over the past 27 years. I am therefore reporting the matters above to: The NPCC lead for firearms licencing and all other Chief Constables in England and Wales So that each Chief Constable is made aware of my concern that, that despite the many recommendations made over the past 27 years, there continues to be a lack of nationally accredited training for their FELU staff. I also report my concern that in the absence of such the training there is a risk that the Statutory Guidance is not being appropriately applied by FELU staff today, and so each Chief Constable may need to take steps to satisfy themselves that (i) adequate local training, of a satisfactory standard has been universally delivered to all their FELU staff and supervisors in applying the Home Office Guidance on Firearms Licencing Law (published in November 2022) and the revised Statutory Guidance for Chief officers of Police (published in February 2023) and (ii) they have only delegated decision making to persons who have undergone adequate training in firearms licencing and in applying that recent Guidance. The College of Policing (CoP) So that the College of Policing is made aware of my concern that (1) despite the repeated recommendations being made over the past 27 years, and the earlier requests made specifically to the College of Policing asking for such training to be developed, no accredited training as yet exists. (2) neither the current CoP APP guidance on firearms nor the proposed update (which I am assured is still under consultation) includes any requirement that FELU staff are trained in firearms licencing generally or trained in conducting suitability assessments in particular. The Home Secretary and The Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire So that they may be made aware of my concern that despite the repeated recommendations being made over the past 27 years, beginning with the Cullen report in 1996: (i) successive governments appear to have failed to ensure that any guidance is produced that makes having training in firearms licencing generally (and in conducting suitability assessments in particular) mandatory for all FELU staff; (ii) there appears to be no requirement that Chief Officers of Police should only delegate authority to issue and revoke licences to officers and staff who have completed adequate (and preferably nationally accredited) training. I am concerned that the lack of accredited training combined with the absence of a mandatory requirement for all those making firearms licensing decisions to undertake adequate training for their role increases the risk of incorrect decision making and, consequently, increases the risk of future deaths. ”
    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

    Provide training for firearms licensing administrators and decision makers, and consider retraining firearms licensing officers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In addition to the above I have agreed to the below uplifts within our Firearms Licensing Department to ensure we address other areas highlighted in your reports and to ensure the new Statutory Guidance is followed:”

    Source location

    Response from Gloucestershire Constabulary
    Page 2 · response
    Published 10 March 2023

    Open published response

  2. Exeter and Greater Devon

    AI-generated summary

    Lewis Charles Francis · 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

    Lewis Charles Francis was arrested after stabbing his mother while acutely psychotic and was remanded to HM Prison Exeter after no ready medium secure mental health hospital transfer facility was available. He died at the prison on 24 April 2017 by suicide as a result of suspension by a ligature. Concerns included the lack of a ready transfer mechanism from police custody to medium secure mental health facilities, and insufficient understanding of the needs and vulnerabilities of prisoners on the autistic spectrum.

    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 Gloucestershire Constabulary; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient understanding of the special needs and vulnerabilities of prisoners within the autistic spectrum

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Evidence at the inquest suggested that there was an insufficient understanding of the special needs and vulnerabilities of those prisoners who are within the autistic spectrum ”
    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 Gloucestershire Constabulary; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a mechanism for ready transfer of people in police custody suspected of or charged with serious crime to a medium secure mental health facility for assessment or treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) At present there is no mechanism for the ready transfer of a person in police custody within the police areas of Devon and Cornwall, Avon and Somerset, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire from police custody to a medium secure mental health facility for assessment / treatment under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 where such a person is suspected of or charged with a serious crime. Such an arrangement exists in the West Midlands where a Memorandum of Understanding has been developed and agreed between relevant agencies. ”
    Open source report

  3. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Suzanne Cammell · 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

    Suzanne Cammell died on 3 October 2013 after lying beneath the wheels of a lorry in a layby near Burford Golf Club; she sustained severe blunt head injuries when the lorry drove away. The principal concern was that high-risk information about the incident and a previous similar incident may not have been communicated by Thames Valley Police to Gloucestershire Constabulary or made available to the officer conducting a welfare check.

    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 Gloucestershire Constabulary; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to make high-risk information available to responding officers

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There was also an incident on 23 September 2013 in Gloucestershire when Ms Cammell had been sectioned under Section 136 of the MHA because she had been seen placing her head under the wheels of a recycling lorry where she lived. She was seen by neighbours and/or the driver in time. This information about the incident on 23 September 2013 was held on the Police National Database which, presumably, Gloucestershire control and ████████ would have had access to. The concern therefore is in relation to communication between TVP and Gloucestershire Constabulary and, in turn, communication between Gloucestershire Control and its Officers. At Inquest, I did not have available to me details of the specific information passed by TVP control to Gloucestershire control in the early hours which subsequently led to ████████ and his colleague carrying out the welfare check at approximately 03.30. The evidence of ████████ at Inquest was that he did not know that she had been found lying underneath the wheels of the lorry earlier in the morning. He gave evidence that, if he had known this, he would have put in hand arrangements for a MHA assessment. ████████ also gave evidence that he did not know about the previous similar incident on 23 September despite the fact that it was on the PND and, furthermore, on Gloucestershire’s “Unified” Intelligence database. The issue of concern therefore is the fact that specific information, of a high risk nature, was not or may not have been passed by TVP to Gloucestershire Constabulary or, if it was, it may not have been available to ████████. I appreciate that ████████ carried out a prompt welfare check and that Ms Cammell’s presentation was such that ████████ did not consider her to be at risk but it appears he did not have available crucial 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 Gloucestershire Constabulary; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to pass high-risk information between police forces and control rooms

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) There was also an incident on 23 September 2013 in Gloucestershire when Ms Cammell had been sectioned under Section 136 of the MHA because she had been seen placing her head under the wheels of a recycling lorry where she lived. She was seen by neighbours and/or the driver in time. This information about the incident on 23 September 2013 was held on the Police National Database which, presumably, Gloucestershire control and ████████ would have had access to. The concern therefore is in relation to communication between TVP and Gloucestershire Constabulary and, in turn, communication between Gloucestershire Control and its Officers. At Inquest, I did not have available to me details of the specific information passed by TVP control to Gloucestershire control in the early hours which subsequently led to ████████ and his colleague carrying out the welfare check at approximately 03.30. The evidence of ████████ at Inquest was that he did not know that she had been found lying underneath the wheels of the lorry earlier in the morning. He gave evidence that, if he had known this, he would have put in hand arrangements for a MHA assessment. ████████ also gave evidence that he did not know about the previous similar incident on 23 September despite the fact that it was on the PND and, furthermore, on Gloucestershire’s “Unified” Intelligence database. The issue of concern therefore is the fact that specific information, of a high risk nature, was not or may not have been passed by TVP to Gloucestershire Constabulary or, if it was, it may not have been available to ████████. I appreciate that ████████ carried out a prompt welfare check and that Ms Cammell’s presentation was such that ████████ did not consider her to be at risk but it appears he did not have available crucial information. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

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