Recipient

Police Service of Northern Ireland

Pin Request correction

First report 16 Nov 2021•Latest report 16 Nov 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Policing · External territorial police force. 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 Police Service of Northern Ireland linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Inner North London

    AI-generated summary

    Joseph MARTIN · 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

    Joseph Martin approached Metropolitan Police Service officers near Westminster Bridge on 3 June 2021, after concerns had been raised about his mental health and safety. The inquest found that he was suffering a psychotic relapse at the time of his death, but the exact circumstances were unclear. The report raised concerns that important information about his mental health and vulnerability was not shared between police forces and that individual errors and wider system weaknesses failed to provide a safety net.

    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 Service of Northern Ireland; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to search all relevant records before returning safety-critical information

    Wider context from the report

    “Joseph Martin was reported as a person of concern to the PSNI on 28 May 2021 by staff at the hostel where he lived. His consultant psychiatrist called the PSNI on 1 June 2021 and raised very grave concerns about what he described as a vulnerable missing person, explaining that Mr Martin had suffered a psychotic relapse, and voicing significant worries about his safety and about the safety of others. The doctor re-iterated and reinforced all of this on 2 June, when the PSNI rang him to say that they did not consider any further action required. He was told that it would be looked into further. However, when the MPS contacted the PSNI on the morning of 3 June, these concerns were not relayed. I was told that the contacts had not been noted on the missing person report or the occurrence log by the investigating officer. Then the officer tasked with calling the MPS back did not conduct a search of all records, and so did not see the contacts. Finally, when a PSNI officer rang Mr Martin’s mother to say that her son had approached MPS officers, and she told the officer how very worried she was about her son’s mental health, the officer did not then call the MPS back. I appreciate that by then he thought that Mr Martin was going to go to hospital, but Mr Martin had not been detained and in any event the hospital needed the crucial medical history that had been given. There were individual errors, and more significantly a system that does not seem to have provided a safety net. ”
    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 Service of Northern Ireland; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to communicate safety-critical mental-health and medical information to relevant agencies

    Wider context from the report

    “Joseph Martin was reported as a person of concern to the PSNI on 28 May 2021 by staff at the hostel where he lived. His consultant psychiatrist called the PSNI on 1 June 2021 and raised very grave concerns about what he described as a vulnerable missing person, explaining that Mr Martin had suffered a psychotic relapse, and voicing significant worries about his safety and about the safety of others. The doctor re-iterated and reinforced all of this on 2 June, when the PSNI rang him to say that they did not consider any further action required. He was told that it would be looked into further. However, when the MPS contacted the PSNI on the morning of 3 June, these concerns were not relayed. I was told that the contacts had not been noted on the missing person report or the occurrence log by the investigating officer. Then the officer tasked with calling the MPS back did not conduct a search of all records, and so did not see the contacts. Finally, when a PSNI officer rang Mr Martin’s mother to say that her son had approached MPS officers, and she told the officer how very worried she was about her son’s mental health, the officer did not then call the MPS back. I appreciate that by then he thought that Mr Martin was going to go to hospital, but Mr Martin had not been detained and in any event the hospital needed the crucial medical history that had been given. There were individual errors, and more significantly a system that does not seem to have provided a safety net. ”
    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 Service of Northern Ireland; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to record safety-critical contacts in missing-person and occurrence records

    Wider context from the report

    “Joseph Martin was reported as a person of concern to the PSNI on 28 May 2021 by staff at the hostel where he lived. His consultant psychiatrist called the PSNI on 1 June 2021 and raised very grave concerns about what he described as a vulnerable missing person, explaining that Mr Martin had suffered a psychotic relapse, and voicing significant worries about his safety and about the safety of others. The doctor re-iterated and reinforced all of this on 2 June, when the PSNI rang him to say that they did not consider any further action required. He was told that it would be looked into further. However, when the MPS contacted the PSNI on the morning of 3 June, these concerns were not relayed. I was told that the contacts had not been noted on the missing person report or the occurrence log by the investigating officer. Then the officer tasked with calling the MPS back did not conduct a search of all records, and so did not see the contacts. Finally, when a PSNI officer rang Mr Martin’s mother to say that her son had approached MPS officers, and she told the officer how very worried she was about her son’s mental health, the officer did not then call the MPS back. I appreciate that by then he thought that Mr Martin was going to go to hospital, but Mr Martin had not been detained and in any event the hospital needed the crucial medical history that had been given. There were individual errors, and more significantly a system that does not seem to have provided a safety net. ”
    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