PFD report

Mr. Thomas REILLY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Feb 2020•Brighton and Hove

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 route safeguarding alerts to the appropriate generic mental health service mailbox
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain effective safeguarding review and monitoringPart of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
  2. Delays in processing medium-risk safeguarding alerts
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding referrals and noticesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination
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 route safeguarding alerts to the appropriate generic mental health service mailbox

Wider context from the report

“When the police officer arrived back at Eastbourne police station he raised a safeguarding alert. This alert was sent to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). When received there it should have triggered fast onward transmission to the appropriate agency to support Mr Reilly. It was received at MASH at 15.33hrs on the 1st October but, although it had been sent as soon as possible after the incident, it was clear from the evidence that it stood no chance of being dealt with on the 1st. (2) The alerts are graded low, medium and high risk. The high risk alerts stand a chance of being dealt with timeously. This was graded medium which was a reasonable assessment. Everything else will be delayed. Indeed the alert for Mr Reilly was not dealt with until 12:40 hours on Friday, the 4th of October. That is after lunch on a Friday. (3) This alert was not dealt with again until Monday, the 7th of October when it was sent to the mailbox of a named mental health social worker ████████ rather than to the Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust generic mailbox where it would have been actioned on the 7th. As it was, it was received by ████████ on the morning of the 8th. She actioned it at once. Too late, Mr Reilly had been found dead early on the 3rd of October. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain effective safeguarding review and monitoring; Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care.

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

Delays in processing medium-risk safeguarding alerts

Wider context from the report

“When the police officer arrived back at Eastbourne police station he raised a safeguarding alert. This alert was sent to the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). When received there it should have triggered fast onward transmission to the appropriate agency to support Mr Reilly. It was received at MASH at 15.33hrs on the 1st October but, although it had been sent as soon as possible after the incident, it was clear from the evidence that it stood no chance of being dealt with on the 1st. (2) The alerts are graded low, medium and high risk. The high risk alerts stand a chance of being dealt with timeously. This was graded medium which was a reasonable assessment. Everything else will be delayed. Indeed the alert for Mr Reilly was not dealt with until 12:40 hours on Friday, the 4th of October. That is after lunch on a Friday. (3) This alert was not dealt with again until Monday, the 7th of October when it was sent to the mailbox of a named mental health social worker ████████ rather than to the Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust generic mailbox where it would have been actioned on the 7th. As it was, it was received by ████████ on the morning of the 8th. She actioned it at once. Too late, Mr Reilly had been found dead early on the 3rd of October. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding referrals and notices; Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination.

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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.