28 Oct 2022 Jade Hutchings · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Lack of REBOOT provision for older children nearing 18 View source Failure of police officers to read the mental health guide in full View source Inadequate police mental health training View source Confusion among police officers about the provision and use of the Haven at Millview service View source See 1 more concern
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Jade Hutchings · 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
Jade Hutchings, who was 18, had been struggling with his mental health and using alcohol and drugs. After going missing while under their influence, he was found hanging at home and died in hospital on 23 May 2020. Concerns included inadequate police mental-health training and a lack of early-intervention provision for older children through the REBOOT scheme.
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 Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of REBOOT provision for older children nearing 18
Wider context from the report “2. REBOOT - Lack of provision for older age group
There was clear evidence that Jade was vulnerable and had become involved in violence and crime in 2019 (the year before his death). It was believed by some that Jade exploited by gangs running county line drug operations. A need for an early intervention was identified by his social worker and a referral to Reboot was made.
The Inquest was told that at the time REBOOT was prioritising 12 – 14 years children and as Jade was nearing 18 they were unable to work with him . This was a missed opportunity for Jade to be involved in a form of early intervention before his life started unravelling and he became more heavily entrenched in the world of crime.
It is understood that at the time of Jade’s death the Police and Crime Commissioner was responsible for the REBOOT scheme but at the time of writing this report the scheme is now run by Sussex Police.
” 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 Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of police officers to read the mental health guide in full
Wider context from the report “1. Inadequate Police training on Mental Health
During the course of the Inquest officers involved in dealing with Jade (and in particular around the exercise of their Section 136 powers on 21/5/20) acknowledged that they had received very little mental health training. Some officers could not recall any additional training provided since their initial training when they first joined the force.
The officers admitted that although they were aware of the Sussex Police mental health guide they had not read it in full .
The expert police witness, ████████, told the Inquest that in his view the online training provision that we were told was being rolled out in Sussex was not sufficient. None of the officers involved in this case had yet undertaken this online training.
It was his opinion that officers should be provided with the nationally recognised two day training course written by the College of Policing, The course is available for all Police forces to be rolled out locally. This training had not been adopted by Sussex Police.
There was also confusion amongst Officers (and a lack of clear understanding) around the provision and use of service the Haven at Millview could provide.
” 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 Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Inadequate police mental health training
Wider context from the report “1. Inadequate Police training on Mental Health
During the course of the Inquest officers involved in dealing with Jade (and in particular around the exercise of their Section 136 powers on 21/5/20) acknowledged that they had received very little mental health training . Some officers could not recall any additional training provided since their initial training when they first joined the force .
The officers admitted that although they were aware of the Sussex Police mental health guide they had not read it in full.
The expert police witness, ████████, told the Inquest that in his view the online training provision that we were told was being rolled out in Sussex was not sufficient . None of the officers involved in this case had yet undertaken this online training .
It was his opinion that officers should be provided with the nationally recognised two day training course written by the College of Policing, The course is available for all Police forces to be rolled out locally. This training had not been adopted by Sussex Police .
There was also confusion amongst Officers (and a lack of clear understanding) around the provision and use of service the Haven at Millview could provide.
” 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 Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Confusion among police officers about the provision and use of the Haven at Millview service
Wider context from the report “1. Inadequate Police training on Mental Health
During the course of the Inquest officers involved in dealing with Jade (and in particular around the exercise of their Section 136 powers on 21/5/20) acknowledged that they had received very little mental health training. Some officers could not recall any additional training provided since their initial training when they first joined the force.
The officers admitted that although they were aware of the Sussex Police mental health guide they had not read it in full.
The expert police witness, ████████, told the Inquest that in his view the online training provision that we were told was being rolled out in Sussex was not sufficient. None of the officers involved in this case had yet undertaken this online training.
It was his opinion that officers should be provided with the nationally recognised two day training course written by the College of Policing, The course is available for all Police forces to be rolled out locally. This training had not been adopted by Sussex Police.
There was also confusion amongst Officers (and a lack of clear understanding) around the provision and use of service the Haven at Millview could provide .
” 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 Launch and fund REBOOT as an early-intervention programme supporting young people at risk of serious violence.
Verbatim wording from the response “I named and launched the REBOOT initiative in 2019, as an early intervention youth programme and local response to the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy. To do this, I secured one-off funding of £890,616 from the Home Office’s Early Intervention Youth Fund to increase support for young people in Sussex who were at risk of becoming involved in serious violence. This additional funding was over and above the annual policing budget for Sussex and complimentary to the wider Sussex statutory services provided to young people by local authorities and their youth justice and social services.” Source location Response from Police and Crime Commissioner
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation REBOOT cannot support every young person referred because available funding and programme capacity are limited.
Verbatim wording from the response “REBOOT was co-designed with local statutory and non-statutory partners and was aimed at complementing existing services provided by statutory agencies to identify young people showing signs of taking part in risky behaviours and on the periphery of becoming involved in serious violence. REBOOT was not intended as an alternative criminal justice pathway where a young person was already part of Youth Justice Service case load. It was acknowledged by all agencies at the outset that the additional funds, albeit significant, would be unlikely to satisfy the total demand across Sussex and, hence, only those young people displaying the greatest risk would take priority. Initially it was anticipated this funding would provide services for around 300 young people.” Source location Response from Police and Crime Commissioner
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations