PFD report

Ronald Bainborough · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Feb 2025•Inner North London

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
14

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 raised3

  1. Delays in scheduling police execution of s135(1) warrants
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant procedures
  2. Delays in obtaining Magistrates Court hearings for s135(1) warrant applications
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Mental Health Act detention arrangementsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant procedures
  3. Lack of an official fast-track procedure for s135(1) warrants
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure timely and appropriate Mental Health Act assessmentPart of recurring concern: Unreliable Mental Health Act detention arrangements
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.9

  1. Action

    Review the corporate section 135 warrant process and incorporate matters raised in the report and identified learning.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  2. Action

    Review police databases, conduct warrant-execution risk assessments, and record and supervisor-ratify controls on MHAA RA3 forms.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  3. Action

    Provide remote mental health warrant applications with online self-service booking.

    Stated by HM Courts & Tribunals ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 February 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Responsibility for applying to court for a section 135(1) warrant rests with Approved Mental Health Professionals, who are the only authorised applicants.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 scheduling police execution of s135(1) warrants

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the Inquest, evidence was heard from 2 consultant psychiatrists and an Approved Mental Health Act Professional (AMHP) regarding the timescales for applying for and executing s135(1) warrants. All of them had concerns about the time taken for a warrant to be issued and executed (2) The warrant application was submitted to the Magistrates Court on 18 August 2023, the hearing took place on 23 August and it was intended that the warrant would be executed on 7 September 2023. This was a timescale of 20 days. The jury was told that this timescale was typical of the time taken to apply for and execute a s135(1) warrant in the experience of the professionals giving evidence at the Inquest. (3) Applications for a warrant are heard at Westminster and Uxbridge Magistrates Courts which consider applications from all 32 London Boroughs. There are a limited number of video hearing slots, so AMPH teams may have to wait several days for a hearing. (4) Once a warrant has been issued, an appointment then needs to be arranged for police officers to execute the warrant. The evidence before the court was that it would generally take in the region of 10 days for an appointment to be scheduled. (5) There is no official fast track procedure. Consequently, there is a risk of harm to the individual and others during the time taken for a warrant to be granted and executed. (6) As individuals have been identified as requiring assessment under the Mental Health Act, the risk of potential harm is recognised. In the absence of treatment, there is an ongoing risk that individuals will harm themselves or others before the warrant can be executed. This includes a risk of fatal harm. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant 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

Delays in obtaining Magistrates Court hearings for s135(1) warrant applications

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the Inquest, evidence was heard from 2 consultant psychiatrists and an Approved Mental Health Act Professional (AMHP) regarding the timescales for applying for and executing s135(1) warrants. All of them had concerns about the time taken for a warrant to be issued and executed (2) The warrant application was submitted to the Magistrates Court on 18 August 2023, the hearing took place on 23 August and it was intended that the warrant would be executed on 7 September 2023. This was a timescale of 20 days. The jury was told that this timescale was typical of the time taken to apply for and execute a s135(1) warrant in the experience of the professionals giving evidence at the Inquest. (3) Applications for a warrant are heard at Westminster and Uxbridge Magistrates Courts which consider applications from all 32 London Boroughs. There are a limited number of video hearing slots, so AMPH teams may have to wait several days for a hearing. (4) Once a warrant has been issued, an appointment then needs to be arranged for police officers to execute the warrant. The evidence before the court was that it would generally take in the region of 10 days for an appointment to be scheduled. (5) There is no official fast track procedure. Consequently, there is a risk of harm to the individual and others during the time taken for a warrant to be granted and executed. (6) As individuals have been identified as requiring assessment under the Mental Health Act, the risk of potential harm is recognised. In the absence of treatment, there is an ongoing risk that individuals will harm themselves or others before the warrant can be executed. This includes a risk of fatal harm. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Mental Health Act detention arrangements; Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant 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

Lack of an official fast-track procedure for s135(1) warrants

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the Inquest, evidence was heard from 2 consultant psychiatrists and an Approved Mental Health Act Professional (AMHP) regarding the timescales for applying for and executing s135(1) warrants. All of them had concerns about the time taken for a warrant to be issued and executed (2) The warrant application was submitted to the Magistrates Court on 18 August 2023, the hearing took place on 23 August and it was intended that the warrant would be executed on 7 September 2023. This was a timescale of 20 days. The jury was told that this timescale was typical of the time taken to apply for and execute a s135(1) warrant in the experience of the professionals giving evidence at the Inquest. (3) Applications for a warrant are heard at Westminster and Uxbridge Magistrates Courts which consider applications from all 32 London Boroughs. There are a limited number of video hearing slots, so AMPH teams may have to wait several days for a hearing. (4) Once a warrant has been issued, an appointment then needs to be arranged for police officers to execute the warrant. The evidence before the court was that it would generally take in the region of 10 days for an appointment to be scheduled. (5) There is no official fast track procedure. Consequently, there is a risk of harm to the individual and others during the time taken for a warrant to be granted and executed. (6) As individuals have been identified as requiring assessment under the Mental Health Act, the risk of potential harm is recognised. In the absence of treatment, there is an ongoing risk that individuals will harm themselves or others before the warrant can be executed. This includes a risk of fatal harm. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure timely and appropriate Mental Health Act assessment; Unreliable Mental Health Act detention arrangements.

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

Review the corporate section 135 warrant process and incorporate matters raised in the report and identified learning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MPS corporate process to s.135 warrants is currently being reviewed and the matters raised in this PFD report and learning identified will be incorporated into this.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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 police databases, conduct warrant-execution risk assessments, and record and supervisor-ratify controls on MHAA RA3 forms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After a warrant is obtained under section 135(1) MHA 1983 information held on police databases about the person concerned is reviewed and a risk assessment is conducted. This enables officers to make an informed decision as to the police resources required to execute the warrant and ensure the safety of attending officers, healthcare professionals and the individual.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Provide remote mental health warrant applications with online self-service booking.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the pandemic, a mental health practitioner who was applying for a mental health warrant could attend court and apply for the warrant. HMCTS operated (and still operates) an open-door policy for this category of priority one work. At the beginning of the pandemic there was a duty of care on HMCTS to protect court users and to embrace, wherever possible, remote ways of working. HMCTS swiftly responded and introduced a remote application system for mental health warrants, accompanied by an online booking system for applicants. The success of this system was such that once pandemic protection measures were removed applicants asked for the system to continue.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Provide out-of-hours access to the Judiciary for urgent mental health warrant applications seven days a week.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Additionally, the court provides a daily out of hours service for such applications, ensuring that the ability to apply for a mental health warrant is not hampered or impeded by a lack of access to the Judiciary. Again, there is an over provision of this service, to ensure that there are no delays in the out of hours operations.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Prioritise mental health warrant applications as priority-one work when allocating court time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1) Listing is a judicial function and responsibility and arrangements for the operation of court lists are agreed with the judiciary and implemented by HMCTS. Arrangements for s.135 MHA warrants fall into these arrangements.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Provide practitioners with guidance describing booking arrangements for non-urgent, urgent and out-of-hours applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3) As above, the application was considered 3 working days after submission. Had the case been considered urgent, established procedures existed. Guidance to practitioners describing the scheme for booking non-urgent, urgent and out of hours applications had been provided by HMCTS. Regular inter-agency meetings provide for discussion about service provision. No concerns about service provision have ever been raised with HMCTS by NHS colleagues. The warrant courts at Westminster and Uxbridge provide sufficient supply of hearings for non-urgent applications based on data analysis and reviews over time. All London magistrates’ courts are available at any time for urgent applications. A central team provides access to urgent applications on request. This service is used relatively frequently by AMHPs.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Provide a central team and access routes through London magistrates’ courts for urgent warrant applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Had the application been considered and assessed as urgent, emergency procedures are well established for applications to be made within the working week – and out of hours on a 24/7 basis.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Provide two separate remote warrant sessions daily on weekdays, with capacity exceeding typical demand.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The search warrant remote process was specifically designed to meet the needs and demands of the 32 London boroughs it serves. Since the inception of the remote process HMCTS has provided daily access to two separate, remote warrant sessions through Monday - Friday. The system is set up as an online self service, which means applicants can select hearing dates and times for their applications. Where sessions have been booked in advance, it is not unusual and indeed is commonplace for applicants to cancel slots, those slots are released back to the booking in system.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Maintain an open-door process allowing applicants to obtain immediate access to a courtroom for warrant applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the pandemic, a mental health practitioner who was applying for a mental health warrant could attend court and apply for the warrant. HMCTS operated (and still operates) an open-door policy for this category of priority one work. At the beginning of the pandemic there was a duty of care on HMCTS to protect court users and to embrace, wherever possible, remote ways of working. HMCTS swiftly responded and introduced a remote application system for mental health warrants, accompanied by an online booking system for applicants. The success of this system was such that once pandemic protection measures were removed applicants asked for the system to continue.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 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

Responsibility for applying to court for a section 135(1) warrant rests with Approved Mental Health Professionals, who are the only authorised applicants.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Applying for a warrant under Section 135(1) of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 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

The application was non-urgent, was granted within three working days, and involved no delay attributable to court listing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Evidence presented to the Inquest confirmed that the application was made on 18 August with an intended date for execution on 7 September 2023.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 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

Existing booking, open-door, urgent and out-of-hours arrangements provide sufficient access to magistrates’ courts for mental health warrant applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2) Whilst there is a maximum number of hearing slots within the online booking system, the applicant’s access to a court hearing is not limited to the online booking slots. It is long established practice and procedure for mental health practitioners to attend court and apply for urgent mental health warrants.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 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

Arrangements for executing warrants, including any fast-track procedure, do not fall within magistrates’ courts’ responsibilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4) This matter does not apply to the magistrates’ courts responsibilities.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. 1

    Build confirmation that pre-consultation occurred into the online warrant-assistance portal.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  2. 2

    Operate weekly Community Consultation Meetings with partner agencies before section 135(1) warrant applications.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  3. 3

    Continue communicating application arrangements as part of ongoing partnership working to address misconceptions among AMHPs.

    Stated by HM Courts & Tribunals ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  4. 4

    Hold a meeting between senior HMCTS and NHS professionals to explore concerns about warrant application arrangements.

    Stated by HM Courts & Tribunals ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  5. 5

    Reiterate routine, urgent and out-of-hours magistrates’ court application arrangements to NHS colleagues.

    Stated by HM Courts & Tribunals ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 February 2025.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Responsibility for conveying a person to hospital after a home assessment and inpatient admission rests with the Approved Mental Health Professional, not police officers.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Build confirmation that pre-consultation occurred into the online warrant-assistance portal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There must be agreement by all parties for the AMHP to continue to the warrant application stage and request police assistance through the on-line portal.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Operate weekly Community Consultation Meetings with partner agencies before section 135(1) warrant applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Community Consultation Meetings are informal collaborative arrangements that are supported by senior NHS personnel. Guidance was sent by the MPS to AMHP leads of London on 17th November 2022 setting out the expectations of the meetings:”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Continue communicating application arrangements as part of ongoing partnership working to address misconceptions among AMHPs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6) Immediately on receipt of this report and in response to exchanges between HMCTS and NHS colleagues, we have re-iterated the arrangements for applications to be made to magistrates’ courts in London whether routine, urgent or out of hours. A meeting to explore any concerns was arranged and held in July between senior HMCTS and NHS professionals. Continued communication of our arrangements will form part of our ongoing service and renewed commitment to partnership working to understand and resolve how serious misconceptions of service provision could have occurred amongst some AMHPs. We remain confident that our arrangements provide excellent access to AMHPs for urgent and emergency warrants.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Hold a meeting between senior HMCTS and NHS professionals to explore concerns about warrant application arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6) Immediately on receipt of this report and in response to exchanges between HMCTS and NHS colleagues, we have re-iterated the arrangements for applications to be made to magistrates’ courts in London whether routine, urgent or out of hours. A meeting to explore any concerns was arranged and held in July between senior HMCTS and NHS professionals. Continued communication of our arrangements will form part of our ongoing service and renewed commitment to partnership working to understand and resolve how serious misconceptions of service provision could have occurred amongst some AMHPs. We remain confident that our arrangements provide excellent access to AMHPs for urgent and emergency warrants.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Reiterate routine, urgent and out-of-hours magistrates’ court application arrangements to NHS colleagues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6) Immediately on receipt of this report and in response to exchanges between HMCTS and NHS colleagues, we have re-iterated the arrangements for applications to be made to magistrates’ courts in London whether routine, urgent or out of hours. A meeting to explore any concerns was arranged and held in July between senior HMCTS and NHS professionals. Continued communication of our arrangements will form part of our ongoing service and renewed commitment to partnership working to understand and resolve how serious misconceptions of service provision could have occurred amongst some AMHPs. We remain confident that our arrangements provide excellent access to AMHPs for urgent and emergency warrants.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 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

Responsibility for conveying a person to hospital after a home assessment and inpatient admission rests with the Approved Mental Health Professional, not police officers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• If the premises specified on the warrant is the individual’s home address of the AMHP/doctor may undertake the mental health assessment at the premises, provided that it is safe and appropriate to do so and they have the consent of the individual and any occupier. In such cases, there is no legal obligation for police to remain at the premises whilst the assessment takes place. However, police may remain at the premises if there is a risk posed to the AMHP/doctor or the individual;”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026