Recipient name withheld

Pin Request correction

First report 24 Jul 2017•Latest report 24 Jul 2017

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

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

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. East Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    GUSTAVO SILVA DA CRUZ and 6 others · 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

    On 24 June 2016, Gustavo Silva da Cruz and Mohit Dupar entered the sea at Camber Sands; Da Cruz's body was later washed ashore, and Dupar was brought unconscious to the beach and died at Ashford Hospital on 28 July 2016. On 24 August 2016, five young Sri Lankan men entered the sea as the tide came in and all died, with their bodies recovered that day or after the tide receded. The report raises concerns about the lack of formal governance and risk management for beach safety, including lifeguard provision, public education, communication, resources, and whether restrictions on beach use should be considered.

    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

    Visitors’ language difficulties and lack of experience with the sea

    Wider context from the report

    “(b) There appears to be no formal governance or control of risk management requirements. Should the present, virtually voluntarily, structure be examined? Could perhaps the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who have enforcement powers akin to those of the Police, be given more resources and take a bigger role than they currently have? The problem is an increasing one. The evidence suggested that on a pleasant hot summer’s day 25,000 to 30,000 people visit Camber Sands, many of whom have language difficulties and do not speak much English, and many others of whom have no experience of going into the sea. The question is whether leaving matters to a charity is really the best basis of a structure intended to spearhead a possibly overdue attempt to modernise, harmonise, and improve the safety regime, given so many changes at Camber. (c) Changes include:- (i) possible climate change effects, (ii) differences in ethnic origins and language spoken by current visitors, (iii) constant and fast changes in means of communication with the public, which everybody at these inquests agreed to be crucial to the necessary educative process, (iv) improvement, considered vital, of education and awareness of coastal dangers amongst children and those who live far from the sea. (d) Inevitably resource and monetary considerations affect decision making by those charged with safeguarding people like the seven who died here. Perhaps that is another reason why a review of the current system may well be needed. ”
    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 maintain effective public communication about coastal safety

    Wider context from the report

    “(b) There appears to be no formal governance or control of risk management requirements. Should the present, virtually voluntarily, structure be examined? Could perhaps the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who have enforcement powers akin to those of the Police, be given more resources and take a bigger role than they currently have? The problem is an increasing one. The evidence suggested that on a pleasant hot summer’s day 25,000 to 30,000 people visit Camber Sands, many of whom have language difficulties and do not speak much English, and many others of whom have no experience of going into the sea. The question is whether leaving matters to a charity is really the best basis of a structure intended to spearhead a possibly overdue attempt to modernise, harmonise, and improve the safety regime, given so many changes at Camber. (c) Changes include:- (i) possible climate change effects, (ii) differences in ethnic origins and language spoken by current visitors, (iii) constant and fast changes in means of communication with the public, which everybody at these inquests agreed to be crucial to the necessary educative process, (iv) improvement, considered vital, of education and awareness of coastal dangers amongst children and those who live far from the sea. (d) Inevitably resource and monetary considerations affect decision making by those charged with safeguarding people like the seven who died here. Perhaps that is another reason why a review of the current system may well be needed. ”
    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 formal governance and control of coastal risk management

    Wider context from the report

    “(b) There appears to be no formal governance or control of risk management requirements. Should the present, virtually voluntarily, structure be examined? Could perhaps the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who have enforcement powers akin to those of the Police, be given more resources and take a bigger role than they currently have? The problem is an increasing one. The evidence suggested that on a pleasant hot summer’s day 25,000 to 30,000 people visit Camber Sands, many of whom have language difficulties and do not speak much English, and many others of whom have no experience of going into the sea. The question is whether leaving matters to a charity is really the best basis of a structure intended to spearhead a possibly overdue attempt to modernise, harmonise, and improve the safety regime, given so many changes at Camber. (c) Changes include:- (i) possible climate change effects, (ii) differences in ethnic origins and language spoken by current visitors, (iii) constant and fast changes in means of communication with the public, which everybody at these inquests agreed to be crucial to the necessary educative process, (iv) improvement, considered vital, of education and awareness of coastal dangers amongst children and those who live far from the sea. (d) Inevitably resource and monetary considerations affect decision making by those charged with safeguarding people like the seven who died here. Perhaps that is another reason why a review of the current system may well be needed. ”
    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

    Insufficient education and awareness of coastal dangers

    Wider context from the report

    “(b) There appears to be no formal governance or control of risk management requirements. Should the present, virtually voluntarily, structure be examined? Could perhaps the Marine and Coastguard Agency, who have enforcement powers akin to those of the Police, be given more resources and take a bigger role than they currently have? The problem is an increasing one. The evidence suggested that on a pleasant hot summer’s day 25,000 to 30,000 people visit Camber Sands, many of whom have language difficulties and do not speak much English, and many others of whom have no experience of going into the sea. The question is whether leaving matters to a charity is really the best basis of a structure intended to spearhead a possibly overdue attempt to modernise, harmonise, and improve the safety regime, given so many changes at Camber. (c) Changes include:- (i) possible climate change effects, (ii) differences in ethnic origins and language spoken by current visitors, (iii) constant and fast changes in means of communication with the public, which everybody at these inquests agreed to be crucial to the necessary educative process, (iv) improvement, considered vital, of education and awareness of coastal dangers amongst children and those who live far from the sea. (d) Inevitably resource and monetary considerations affect decision making by those charged with safeguarding people like the seven who died here. Perhaps that is another reason why a review of the current system may well be needed. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

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