Recipient

Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Detention

Pin Request correction

First report 11 Dec 2018•Latest report 11 Dec 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Advisory non-departmental public body. 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
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

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.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Detention linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Addressed to Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody, now represented here by Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Detention.

    County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    John Mayhew · 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

    John Mayhew died at HMP Durham on 15 January 2017 from self-inflicted hanging. He had a recent history of suicide attempts and made comments concerning potential self-harm or suicide after returning to custody, but the ACCT was closed at the initial case review without a care plan. The report raised concerns about the lack of involvement of the person who initiated the ACCT and the ambiguity of the relevant PSI 64/2011 attendance requirements.

    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 Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Detention; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of clarity in PSI64/2011 guidance on first case review of an ACCT assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) Clarification is needed as to how to construe the part of PSI64/2011 dealing with first case review of an ACCT assessment, in particular the proviso in the words “whenever possible” as to which type of potential attendee it might apply. (2) Consideration should be given to re-drafting this part of the PSI. (3) Consideration might thereafter, be given, as to providing guidance on how this part of the PSI, if modified, should be applied in practice by all staff in all prisons. ”
    Open source report
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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
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