PFD report

Andrew Herrin Dodds · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Nov 2025•South Yorkshire (Western)

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
1

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 raised4

  1. Failure to include recent s136 detention information in force control communications
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical informationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable inter-agency information sharing for coordinated care
  2. Failure to inform next of kin how to contact the s136 suite and provide further updates
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe operation of Section 136 mental health assessment and detention procedures
  3. Failure to record recent s136 detention information on the PNC check
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recording and retrieval of safety-critical risk information on the PNC
Responses linked to these concerns

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

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. Position

    A temporary S136 flag would not comply with the PNC Code of Practice because its necessity ends at handover.

    Stated by South Yorkshire PoliceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 include recent s136 detention information in force control communications

Wider context from the report

“(2) There was missing information on the PNC check which meant that Andrew was not flagged as recently being held under s136. The further email from force control also did not mention that he was recently detained under s136. I was told if this had been on the system BTP would have contacted mental health services for more information. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical information; 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

Failure to inform next of kin how to contact the s136 suite and provide further updates

Wider context from the report

“(1) Police did not pass over relevant details including next of kin to the s136 suite meaning next of kin could not be contacted. They also did not inform next of kin to contact the s136 directly and did not provide any further updates. This happened shortly after a shift change over so whether a full handover was provided between officers to allow this information to be given is not clear. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe operation of Section 136 mental health assessment and detention procedures.

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 record recent s136 detention information on the PNC check

Wider context from the report

“(2) There was missing information on the PNC check which meant that Andrew was not flagged as recently being held under s136. The further email from force control also did not mention that he was recently detained under s136. I was told if this had been on the system BTP would have contacted mental health services for more information. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording and retrieval of safety-critical risk information on the PNC.

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 pass relevant details, including next-of-kin information, to the s136 suite

Wider context from the report

“(1) Police did not pass over relevant details including next of kin to the s136 suite meaning next of kin could not be contacted. They also did not inform next of kin to contact the s136 directly and did not provide any further updates. This happened shortly after a shift change over so whether a full handover was provided between officers to allow this information to be given is not clear. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical information; Unreliable police handovers of safety-critical information; Unsafe operation of Section 136 mental health assessment and detention procedures.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A temporary S136 flag would not comply with the PNC Code of Practice because its necessity ends at handover.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The use of a S136 MHA flag would not satisfy the codes of practice for PNC. The use of a flag would only become ‘relevant’ upon a Police Constable making that individual assessment to detain the person in question under S136 MHA and would cease to be ‘relevant’ once the individual was in a place of safety. The ‘necessity’ test would therefore not be met as the individual is already detained by a Police Constable at this point. Further, for most the population with no criminal history, there would be no substantive PNC account to ‘hang’ this flag from.”

Source location

Response from South Yorkshire Police
Page 4 · response
Published 19 November 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Data protection legislation prevents police contacting an adult’s next of kin about detention without expressed consent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Data Protection legislation would preclude us from contacting the next of kin to share information about an adult without their expressed consent, this would include the fact that they have been detained under S136 MHA or taken to a medical establishment. This would be classed as health data and therefore falls within the stronger legal protections of the Data Protection legislation.”

Source location

Response from South Yorkshire Police
Page 2 · response
Published 19 November 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Because the proposed PNC recommendation conflicts with the Code of Practice, no further action is proposed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of this recommendation not being compatible with the Codes of Practice we do not propose any further action on this matter.”

Source location

Response from South Yorkshire Police
Page 5 · response
Published 19 November 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

South Yorkshire Police cannot alter the national PNC to implement the proposed S136 flagging change.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst we would always seek any opportunity to learn lessons and make changes to systems and processes to mitigate future risks, unfortunately South Yorkshire Police is unable to make changes to the Police National Computer that would satisfy this point. Further, the flagging of S136 MHA would not be in line with the Code of Practice for PNC, it is a temporary policing power that can only be used in the moment based on the officers assessment of the individual at that time, usually at point of crisis to take them to a place of safety where they can be supported and assessed by trained professionals.”

Source location

Response from South Yorkshire Police
Page 5 · response
Published 19 November 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Having complied with data protection legislation, no further action is proposed regarding next-of-kin contact.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having reviewed our actions, we complied with Data Protection legislation and therefore we do not propose any further action in relation to this matter.”

Source location

Response from South Yorkshire Police
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 2025

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

After police handover, the NHS trust assumes responsibility for care and appropriate next-of-kin updates.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Once this handover has been completed the police role ceases completely and the NHS trust assume responsibility for the individual, along with any relevant updates to next of kin if assessed as appropriate and in line with Data Protection legislative requirements. This is in line with the protocols in place between South Yorkshire Police and the Integrated Care Boards.”

Source location

Response from South Yorkshire Police
Page 2 · response
Published 19 November 2025

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026