Recipient

Legal representatives of the interested persons

Pin Request correction

First report 14 Nov 2014•Latest report 14 Nov 2014

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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 Legal representatives of the interested persons linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Teesside

    AI-generated summary

    Kirk William Williams · 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

    Kirk William Williams ingested several drugs and displayed highly agitated and aberrant behaviour before being restrained by police. Although one officer considered that he should be taken to hospital, he was taken to a police station and later suffered cardiac arrest and died in hospital. The concerns included differing understandings between police and A&E staff about treating aggressive detainees, and the absence of clear dialogue or guidance for managing such medical emergencies.

    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 Legal representatives of the interested persons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of dialogue between police and local A&E departments about treatment misunderstandings

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Some police officers still consider that notwithstanding that they may be faced with a medical emergency, A&E departments will not treat violent or aggressive patients. (3) The various consultants that gave evidence are clear that they will treat violent patients provided that (a) treatment is warranted and (b) they are provided with sufficient assistance from either or both the police or security staff. (4) It therefore follows that there is a mismatch in perception and expectations between Cleveland police officers and local A&E staff. (5) There did not appear to be a sufficiency of understanding within Cleveland Constabulary about how and whether detainees may be treated at A&E departments. (6) Further or alternatively, the insufficiency in understanding lies with A&E consultants and their perception of what type of patients will be accepted and allowed to be treated in their departments. (7) There does not appear to be a dialogue between Cleveland Constabulary and local A&E departments to address these particular misunderstandings or misconceptions. (8) There does not appear to be any memorandum of understanding or guideline to cover aggressive detainees in police custody being taken to A&E departments. (9) Without a fuller understanding of the true position, police officers will continue to be faced with the perennial dichotomy of whether to take an aggressive medical emergency detainee to an A&E department for treatment or to a police station to prevent self harm or harm to others. ”
    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 Legal representatives of the interested persons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of memorandum of understanding or guideline for taking aggressive detainees to A&E departments

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Some police officers still consider that notwithstanding that they may be faced with a medical emergency, A&E departments will not treat violent or aggressive patients. (3) The various consultants that gave evidence are clear that they will treat violent patients provided that (a) treatment is warranted and (b) they are provided with sufficient assistance from either or both the police or security staff. (4) It therefore follows that there is a mismatch in perception and expectations between Cleveland police officers and local A&E staff. (5) There did not appear to be a sufficiency of understanding within Cleveland Constabulary about how and whether detainees may be treated at A&E departments. (6) Further or alternatively, the insufficiency in understanding lies with A&E consultants and their perception of what type of patients will be accepted and allowed to be treated in their departments. (7) There does not appear to be a dialogue between Cleveland Constabulary and local A&E departments to address these particular misunderstandings or misconceptions. (8) There does not appear to be any memorandum of understanding or guideline to cover aggressive detainees in police custody being taken to A&E departments. (9) Without a fuller understanding of the true position, police officers will continue to be faced with the perennial dichotomy of whether to take an aggressive medical emergency detainee to an A&E department for treatment or to a police station to prevent self harm or harm to others. ”
    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 Legal representatives of the interested persons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient A&E consultant understanding of which detainees will be accepted for treatment

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Some police officers still consider that notwithstanding that they may be faced with a medical emergency, A&E departments will not treat violent or aggressive patients. (3) The various consultants that gave evidence are clear that they will treat violent patients provided that (a) treatment is warranted and (b) they are provided with sufficient assistance from either or both the police or security staff. (4) It therefore follows that there is a mismatch in perception and expectations between Cleveland police officers and local A&E staff. (5) There did not appear to be a sufficiency of understanding within Cleveland Constabulary about how and whether detainees may be treated at A&E departments. (6) Further or alternatively, the insufficiency in understanding lies with A&E consultants and their perception of what type of patients will be accepted and allowed to be treated in their departments. (7) There does not appear to be a dialogue between Cleveland Constabulary and local A&E departments to address these particular misunderstandings or misconceptions. (8) There does not appear to be any memorandum of understanding or guideline to cover aggressive detainees in police custody being taken to A&E departments. (9) Without a fuller understanding of the true position, police officers will continue to be faced with the perennial dichotomy of whether to take an aggressive medical emergency detainee to an A&E department for treatment or to a police station to prevent self harm or harm to others. ”
    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 Legal representatives of the interested persons; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient police understanding of A&E treatment for detainees

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) Some police officers still consider that notwithstanding that they may be faced with a medical emergency, A&E departments will not treat violent or aggressive patients. (3) The various consultants that gave evidence are clear that they will treat violent patients provided that (a) treatment is warranted and (b) they are provided with sufficient assistance from either or both the police or security staff. (4) It therefore follows that there is a mismatch in perception and expectations between Cleveland police officers and local A&E staff. (5) There did not appear to be a sufficiency of understanding within Cleveland Constabulary about how and whether detainees may be treated at A&E departments. (6) Further or alternatively, the insufficiency in understanding lies with A&E consultants and their perception of what type of patients will be accepted and allowed to be treated in their departments. (7) There does not appear to be a dialogue between Cleveland Constabulary and local A&E departments to address these particular misunderstandings or misconceptions. (8) There does not appear to be any memorandum of understanding or guideline to cover aggressive detainees in police custody being taken to A&E departments. (9) Without a fuller understanding of the true position, police officers will continue to be faced with the perennial dichotomy of whether to take an aggressive medical emergency detainee to an A&E department for treatment or to a police station to prevent self harm or harm to others. ”
    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