Recipient

Victims' Commissioner

Pin Request correction

First report 19 Oct 2021•Latest report 19 Oct 2021

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Statutory commissioner. 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 Victims' Commissioner linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Donna Constantine · 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

    Donna Ann Constantine, a vulnerable adult known to multiple agencies, was found severely decomposed at her home on 21 September 2019 after neighbours raised concerns. The post-mortem examination could not establish a cause of death, and the inquest conclusion was open. Concerns included the use of unmonitored police work mobile phones for contact from vulnerable people, alongside the absence of clear escalation, audit-trail, and verbatim call-recording policies.

    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 Victims' Commissioner; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unavailability of verbatim recording for calls received by officers

    Wider context from the report

    “The inquest heard evidence that as part of the way in which GMP have sought to embed the Victims Code and engage with victims Police Officers are actively encouraged to provide victims/vulnerable members of the community with their work mobile telephone numbers. Those given the number are encouraged to use those numbers to raise concerns with the Police. In this case that is what Donna Constantine did. However the phones are not monitored when officers are off duty or on annual leave. This inquest heard created an ongoing risk that vulnerable members of the community would contact officers in a way e.g. text/voicemail that would not necessarily allow their contact to be dealt with immediately. The inquest was told that this promotion of contact via mobile telephone numbers was not restricted to GMP and was in fact part of a national policing approach. It had been recognised that there were risks involved in encouraging contact in this way but no solution had been identified to reduce the risk. In contrast to contact via 999 and 101 there was no clear escalation policy for officers to follow if they received calls from members of the community and no clear policy regarding the creation of an audit trail of actions taken and no way of recording the calls verbatim unlike calls to the call handling team. ”
    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 Victims' Commissioner; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a clear escalation policy for calls received by officers from members of the community

    Wider context from the report

    “The inquest heard evidence that as part of the way in which GMP have sought to embed the Victims Code and engage with victims Police Officers are actively encouraged to provide victims/vulnerable members of the community with their work mobile telephone numbers. Those given the number are encouraged to use those numbers to raise concerns with the Police. In this case that is what Donna Constantine did. However the phones are not monitored when officers are off duty or on annual leave. This inquest heard created an ongoing risk that vulnerable members of the community would contact officers in a way e.g. text/voicemail that would not necessarily allow their contact to be dealt with immediately. The inquest was told that this promotion of contact via mobile telephone numbers was not restricted to GMP and was in fact part of a national policing approach. It had been recognised that there were risks involved in encouraging contact in this way but no solution had been identified to reduce the risk. In contrast to contact via 999 and 101 there was no clear escalation policy for officers to follow if they received calls from members of the community and no clear policy regarding the creation of an audit trail of actions taken and no way of recording the calls verbatim unlike calls to the call handling team. ”
    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 Victims' Commissioner; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to monitor officers’ work mobile phones when they are off duty or on annual leave

    Wider context from the report

    “The inquest heard evidence that as part of the way in which GMP have sought to embed the Victims Code and engage with victims Police Officers are actively encouraged to provide victims/vulnerable members of the community with their work mobile telephone numbers. Those given the number are encouraged to use those numbers to raise concerns with the Police. In this case that is what Donna Constantine did. However the phones are not monitored when officers are off duty or on annual leave. This inquest heard created an ongoing risk that vulnerable members of the community would contact officers in a way e.g. text/voicemail that would not necessarily allow their contact to be dealt with immediately. The inquest was told that this promotion of contact via mobile telephone numbers was not restricted to GMP and was in fact part of a national policing approach. It had been recognised that there were risks involved in encouraging contact in this way but no solution had been identified to reduce the risk. In contrast to contact via 999 and 101 there was no clear escalation policy for officers to follow if they received calls from members of the community and no clear policy regarding the creation of an audit trail of actions taken and no way of recording the calls verbatim unlike calls to the call handling team. ”
    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 Victims' Commissioner; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a clear policy for creating an audit trail of actions taken on received calls

    Wider context from the report

    “The inquest heard evidence that as part of the way in which GMP have sought to embed the Victims Code and engage with victims Police Officers are actively encouraged to provide victims/vulnerable members of the community with their work mobile telephone numbers. Those given the number are encouraged to use those numbers to raise concerns with the Police. In this case that is what Donna Constantine did. However the phones are not monitored when officers are off duty or on annual leave. This inquest heard created an ongoing risk that vulnerable members of the community would contact officers in a way e.g. text/voicemail that would not necessarily allow their contact to be dealt with immediately. The inquest was told that this promotion of contact via mobile telephone numbers was not restricted to GMP and was in fact part of a national policing approach. It had been recognised that there were risks involved in encouraging contact in this way but no solution had been identified to reduce the risk. In contrast to contact via 999 and 101 there was no clear escalation policy for officers to follow if they received calls from members of the community and no clear policy regarding the creation of an audit trail of actions taken and no way of recording the calls verbatim unlike calls to the call handling team. ”
    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