PFD report

Lee-Ann Sarah INCE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Jun 2024•Manchester South

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised4

  1. Failure to share information effectively between agencies supporting victims of domestic abuse
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk information
  2. Failure to recognise the additional vulnerability arising from physical health and dependence on a perpetrator for care
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably recognise and assess domestic abuse risks
  3. Failure to listen to the voice of the child in domestic abuse cases
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 share information effectively between agencies supporting victims of domestic abuse

Wider context from the report

“Her children had expressed their concerns to their school. The school had been proactive in sharing those concerns but there was little evidence that other agencies were then listening to “the voice of the child”. This meant that agencies who had direct contact with her did not have a full grasp of the situation or her vulnerability. The inquest was told that if information is not effectively shared and the voice of the child is lost there is an increased risk to the victim. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care; Unreliable interagency sharing of safeguarding risk 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 recognise the additional vulnerability arising from physical health and dependence on a perpetrator for care

Wider context from the report

“A feature of her vulnerability was her physical health and how dependent she was, as a consequence, on the perpetrator to help care for her. The additional vulnerability and impact of this was not recognised by agencies involved in supporting her. The inquest was told that where vulnerability is not properly understood the risk presented to a victim of domestic abuse increases. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and assess domestic abuse risks.

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 listen to the voice of the child in domestic abuse cases

Wider context from the report

“Her children had expressed their concerns to their school. The school had been proactive in sharing those concerns but there was little evidence that other agencies were then listening to “the voice of the child”. This meant that agencies who had direct contact with her did not have a full grasp of the situation or her vulnerability. The inquest was told that if information is not effectively shared and the voice of the child is lost there is an increased risk to the victim. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 recognise coercive and controlling relationship behaviours and their impact on victims’ mental health

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard evidence that agencies involved in supporting her in the months leading up to her death had a limited understanding of how behaviours could be twisted in a coercive and controlling relationship to make it appear as if the victim was part of the problem. In this situation it was clear that Lee-Ann was the victim of so called “love bombing” which meant that she was barraged with messages from the perpetrator. The impact of that on a victim’s mental health was not recognised. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to recognise and respond to coercive and controlling behaviour; Failure to reliably recognise and assess domestic abuse risks.

Open source report
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
2/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026