PFD report

John Paul Hurst · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Oct 2024•Sunderland

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to record detailed information about detained persons’ mental health concerns
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recording in police custody recordsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information
  2. Failure to provide detailed analysis and comprehensive reasoning for CJLD assessment conclusions
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate mental health risk assessment
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. Action

    Provide custody staff with instruction and learning on recording detainees’ mental-health concerns through the Custody Newsletter, Custody Compendium and direct reminders to Custody Sergeants.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 October 2024.
  2. Action

    Conduct monthly random audits of every CJLD staff member’s screening records and discuss audit outcomes in monthly clinical supervision to monitor implementation.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 October 2024.
  3. Action

    Review and update CJLD guidance for recording screening assessments, mental-health concerns, risks, clinical reasoning, referrals and handovers on electronic custody records.

    Stated by Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation TrustStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 October 2024.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to record detailed information about detained persons’ mental health concerns

Wider context from the report

“At the Inquest I heard evidence that, following John’s arrest, concerns were expressed by police officers involved in the investigation as to his mental health, and by John’s sister as to his risk of ending his own life. These concerns were repeated by John’s sister to the Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion Service (CJLD) prior to his assessment. The evidence was that when completing the release risk assessment, the custody sergeant had been greatly assisted by the information recorded on the electronic custody record regarding the concerns that led to the mental health assessment and the assessment itself, in addition to the custody sergeant’s own observations. The evidence highlighted that the electronic custody record contained limited information about the concerns of police officers and John’s sister, and there was a distinct lack of detail about the assessment itself and very little analysis of the concerns and reasoning for the CJLD conclusion. I am concerned that the information on the electronic custody record was inadequate and lacked detail regarding the concerns for the detained person’s mental health, as identified by police officers and family, including the risk of suicide, the content of notes found and the detained persons history of suicidal ideation and previous engagement with mental health services. In addition, I am concerned that the record also lacked a detailed analysis of those concerns by CJLD and comprehensive reasoning for the assessment conclusion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording in police custody records; Unreliable recording of safety-critical mental health information.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide detailed analysis and comprehensive reasoning for CJLD assessment conclusions

Wider context from the report

“At the Inquest I heard evidence that, following John’s arrest, concerns were expressed by police officers involved in the investigation as to his mental health, and by John’s sister as to his risk of ending his own life. These concerns were repeated by John’s sister to the Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion Service (CJLD) prior to his assessment. The evidence was that when completing the release risk assessment, the custody sergeant had been greatly assisted by the information recorded on the electronic custody record regarding the concerns that led to the mental health assessment and the assessment itself, in addition to the custody sergeant’s own observations. The evidence highlighted that the electronic custody record contained limited information about the concerns of police officers and John’s sister, and there was a distinct lack of detail about the assessment itself and very little analysis of the concerns and reasoning for the CJLD conclusion. I am concerned that the information on the electronic custody record was inadequate and lacked detail regarding the concerns for the detained person’s mental health, as identified by police officers and family, including the risk of suicide, the content of notes found and the detained persons history of suicidal ideation and previous engagement with mental health services. In addition, I am concerned that the record also lacked a detailed analysis of those concerns by CJLD and comprehensive reasoning for the assessment conclusion. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate mental health risk assessment.

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

Provide custody staff with instruction and learning on recording detainees’ mental-health concerns through the Custody Newsletter, Custody Compendium and direct reminders to Custody Sergeants.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I agree that it is important that custody officers record all relevant information and concerns expressed in relation to the mental health of a detainee. This is something which all custody officers should be aware of. In order to ensure that custody staff are aware of their obligations in this respect, following receipt of your report appropriate instruction and learning from this Inquest has been provided to custody staff via:”

Source location

Response from Northumbria Police
Page 1 · response
Published 24 October 2024

Open published response

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

Conduct monthly random audits of every CJLD staff member’s screening records and discuss audit outcomes in monthly clinical supervision to monitor implementation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, CJLD Clinical Leads have been given express permission by the Northumbria Police (Superintendent responsible for Custody), to audit Trust staff entries into the electronic custody record provided the reason for accessing the record is documented. Clinical Audit of CJLD screening documentation and will be carried out by CJLD Clinical Leads monthly for every staff member. Three random samples are selected for each staff member each month. Audit includes records made on both ECR and RiO. Audit outcomes are and will be discussed in monthly Clinical Supervision.”

Source location

Response from Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS
Page 3 · response
Published 24 October 2024

Open published response

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

Review and update CJLD guidance for recording screening assessments, mental-health concerns, risks, clinical reasoning, referrals and handovers on electronic custody records.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Trust has carried out a thorough review of the guidance provided to staff in relation to entering information onto the electronic custody record and the following changes have been embedded:”

Source location

Response from Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 24 October 2024

Open published response

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

Circulate the updated operating procedure and train CJLD staff on required electronic-record entries and verbal handover documentation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The updated Local Operating Procedure was circulated to staff on 12 November 2024 via email, please see "Exhibit A". Team training also took place on the 13 November 2024 to discuss the updated guidance. During”

Source location

Response from Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS
Page 2 · response
Published 24 October 2024

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026