14 Nov 2014 Kirk William Williams · Prevention of Future Deaths report Teesside
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Lack of dialogue between police and local A&E departments about treatment misunderstandings View source Lack of memorandum of understanding or guideline for taking aggressive detainees to A&E departments View source Insufficient A&E consultant understanding of which detainees will be accepted for treatment View source Insufficient police understanding of A&E treatment for detainees View source See 1 more concern
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
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
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations