Recipient

Recipient name withheld

First report 1 Apr 2014•Latest report 1 Apr 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
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

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 Recipient name withheld linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

1 Apr2014
Gateshead and South Tyneside
Concerns raised10
1. Lack of effective Police Service practice for transparent internal review of incidents
2. Failure to provide integrated electronic aids for location, route planning and safe passage
3. Failure to communicate continuing caller contact to incident managers
1. Failure to plan and evaluate resource allocation for critical incidents
2. Lack of clear protocols, communication lines and incident command identification
3. Failure to define incident management roles
4. Failure to review incident grading and allocate resources using essential information
5. Lack of co-ordinated management, monitoring and control of serious incidents
6. Lack of clear training and understanding of graded-incident response times
7. Over-reliance on presumed training and experience instead of individual incident control
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Vincent Gibson · 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

Vincent Gibson was fatally injured while crossing Whiteleas Way, South Shields, when he was struck by a police vehicle travelling at speed in response to a Grade 1 emergency call. The principal concerns related to inadequate coordination, management, monitoring and control of the incident, including the failure to communicate that the caller remained in contact with the call taker, unclear roles, insufficiently informed risk assessment, resource allocation, route planning and uncertainty about response speed.

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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of effective Police Service practice for transparent internal review of incidents
Wider context from the report
“It is a matter of some concern that this is not an apparent practice of the Police Service even though they have a Professional Standards Department, which is clearly designed to address and respond to issues around Professional Standards and that not only in an objective but effective way. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide integrated electronic aids for location, route planning and safe passage
Wider context from the report
“Electronic aids are a benefit not only to Central Control but also to responders and such electronic aids should eliminate any issue or debate around the fact as to route and leave the crew speculating as to the position, route or speed. 10. Electronic aids should (a) readily identify the location (b) pre-plan the route (c) determine a safe and where appropriate speedy passage. In any event, any electronic aids and/or systems must be fully integrated being identified for the purpose they are intended to serve. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to communicate continuing caller contact to incident managers
Wider context from the report
“Much more significant than all the other facts which appeared on this log directly was the omission of the fact at any stage before the incident of the collision that ████████ was in continued conversation with the caller. 7. ████████ was in the same room as ████████ and it had known of the continuing conversation one assumes, she could have planned accordingly. ████████ clearly appreciated that contact with the caller was an essential way of trying to find out more positive information about him and effectively plan for his help and support. 8. As the Resource Controller and the recipient of the initial log and graded incident she is the obvious point of direct contact for such essential detail. She is also the obvious conduit for not only the fact that the caller is still talking to the Call Taker but to understand the tone and content of that conversation and analyse the level of distress if any, the caller is continuing to demonstrate. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to plan and evaluate resource allocation for critical incidents
Wider context from the report
“Identifying an allocation of resource should not be a spontaneous response to a demand but a reasoned and considered response to effective planning and to positive resource evaluation. a. Self-selection borne of enthusiasm and worse, boredom does not make for a balanced plan and safe approach to a critical incident. Officers in this case were able simply to call in, identify themselves as available and willing. b. The resource controller although she had an electronic map which could identify the whereabouts of resource did not use that map it falling out of favour and being judged not fit for purpose. Accordingly, at no stage was any resource identified even if it was available at a closer proximity. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of clear protocols, communication lines and incident command identification
Wider context from the report
“Rules of practice, ie protocols need to be clear and unequivocal identifying robust rules of procedure identifiable lines of communication where appropriate but at all stages in the identifying of the individual in the management, monitoring and control of an incident who can be properly identified as in charge of the incident in hand. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to define incident management roles
Wider context from the report
“It is not clear that either ████████ or Acting Sergeant Robinson was :- a) Aware of his or her role b) Nor does it appear others were clear as to the role of the Sergeant or the resource controller. c) It is not clear that either of these individuals had a clearly defined role prior to this night in the managing, monitoring or controlling of this incident. Whatever the roles of these individuals was - whether they were joint or mutually exclusive, that role - their roles - was an essential to the discharge of this grade 1 incident safely and effectively. As far as Sergeant Robinson was concerned, I am of a view that he was not the manager of this matter. He was not in a position to control or effectively monitor events. 14. That failure to clearly define an identifiable role and consequential confusion over roles, add to a lack of clarity and lead to a lack of effective co-ordination of the essential tasks set within this matter. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to review incident grading and allocate resources using essential information
Wider context from the report
“It is of primary importance to keep the grading of the incident under review and that with the benefit of essential and relevant information. Similarly the allocation of resource and the tasking of that resource again demands relevant and essential information sufficient to ensure the effective and safe discharge of and completion of, the task in hand. 11. The two crews were ignorant of both source and content of such essential and relevant information and were being asked to risk assess a task in the absence of such essential relevant and critical information. With that critical information available to them they would be in a better position to determine more safely the speed of approach to the task - which they essentially perceived was to visit a house where the caller was believed to be but was not. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of co-ordinated management, monitoring and control of serious incidents
Wider context from the report
“The matters of concern identified by this history centre on an all too apparent lack of co-ordination of the essential elements of management, monitoring and control needed to effectively respond as one would reasonably expect to a properly identified and graded serious incident. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of clear training and understanding of graded-incident response times
Wider context from the report
“Such an apparent conflict of understanding of what that time response meant or means when attached to a grade 1 incident or indeed a grade 2, or any of the other five graded responses underlines an essential need for this process to be taken into some effective control and to be the subject of particular training and clear understanding on the part of both management and staff. ”
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 Recipient name withheld; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Over-reliance on presumed training and experience instead of individual incident control
Wider context from the report
“What is not good practice and gives rise to concern is the apparent over-reliance on presumed skill sets from periods of training and years of experience and dare one say, a successful completion of a number of incidents without any apparent failing. Each incident merits appropriate levels of individual management, monitoring and control. ”
Open source report

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised10

Lack of effective Police Service practice for transparent internal review of incidents

Failure to provide integrated electronic aids for location, route planning and safe passage

Failure to communicate continuing caller contact to incident managers

Failure to plan and evaluate resource allocation for critical incidents

Lack of clear protocols, communication lines and incident command identification

Failure to define incident management roles

Failure to review incident grading and allocate resources using essential information

Lack of co-ordinated management, monitoring and control of serious incidents

Lack of clear training and understanding of graded-incident response times

Over-reliance on presumed training and experience instead of individual incident control