PFD report

Agnès Blandine Marthe MARCHESSOU · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Nov 2020•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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised5

  1. Failure to pass relevant incident and vulnerability information to ambulance and hospital staff
    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 carePart of recurring concern: Unreliable police handovers of safety-critical informationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable provision of safety-critical patient information to paramedicsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable sharing of safety-critical risk information between police, healthcare and probation services
  2. Confusion among police officers about how Merlin recording should work in practice
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure police officers receive and retain required training and operational guidancePart of recurring concern: Unreliable officer access to and familiarisation with required operational instructions
  3. Failure to request police-control enquiries or searches of police systems
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.2

  1. Action

    Improve officers’ sharing of vital incident information with colleagues, ambulance crews and medical staff.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 December 2020.
  2. Action

    Introduce a Merlin Toolkit advising officers when to complete reports and requiring Vulnerability Assessment Framework-based risk assessment.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 December 2020.

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 incident and vulnerability information to ambulance and hospital staff

Wider context from the report

“The police officer did not pass on this crucial account to the emergency ambulance crew who transported Ms Marchessou to hospital, nor to any of the doctors or nurses at the hospital. 2. Ms Marchessou told the police officers that she had blacked out and could not remember what had happened, then that she thought she had stepped into the road as the result of a panic attack. She also said that she had stepped in front of the bus because she was upset about being denied contact with her children. The police officers did not pass on the crucial information that Ms Marchessou said she had stepped in front of the bus because she was upset about being denied contact with her children, either to the emergency ambulance crew or to the treating doctors or nurses. ”

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; Unreliable police handovers of safety-critical information; Unreliable provision of safety-critical patient information to paramedics; Unreliable sharing of safety-critical risk information between police, healthcare and probation services.

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

Confusion among police officers about how Merlin recording should work in practice

Wider context from the report

“6. The police officer giving evidence was aware of the view of the Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) regarding the failure to create a Merlin, expressed in its report on the police handling of the incident on 8 July, but he seemed very confused about how that should work in practice. If he is confused, even after police have taken him through the DPS report, then other police officers may also be confused. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure police officers receive and retain required training and operational guidance; Unreliable officer access to and familiarisation with required operational instructions.

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 request police-control enquiries or searches of police systems

Wider context from the report

“3. The two police officers waited with Ms Marchessou at the hospital for well over two hours, but did not at any point during that time radio police control to ask for any enquiries or searches of police systems to be made. Such information could have been potentially extremely helpful to those treating Ms Marchessou. ”

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 create a Merlin record of potential vulnerability and need for assistance

Wider context from the report

“4. When the police officers returned to the police station, they did make a search themselves and discovered that she had been arrested for domestic violence. However, they did not make a Merlin record of her potential vulnerability and need for assistance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Merlin safety-critical 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 learn from incidents and change practice

Wider context from the report

“The police officer defended all of his actions robustly. I could not see that he had learnt anything as a result of these events or that anything about his practice would change in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of police post-incident performance learning and remediation.

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

Improve officers’ sharing of vital incident information with colleagues, ambulance crews and medical staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Officer 1 interviewed the bus driver at the scene of the collision whilst Officer 2 dealt with Ms Marchessou in the ambulance. This would be normal practice where two parties were involved, with each officer initially dealing with their casualty, witness or other party involved. The senior officer has discussed this incident in detail with Officer 1, providing him with the opportunity to reflect on the decisions he made. It was evident from their discussion that the officer was reflective as he recognised that he would deal with a similar incident differently next time. He would now relay the bus driver’s account to his colleague who was dealing with Ms Marchessou at the scene and subsequently provide this information to the medical staff at the scene and at the hospital.”

Source location

2020-0255-Letter-from-Metropolitan-Police-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 30 December 2020

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

Introduce a Merlin Toolkit advising officers when to complete reports and requiring Vulnerability Assessment Framework-based risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MPS will shortly be introducing a Merlin Toolkit, which will provide advice and guidance on the circumstances in which reports should be completed. This also references the Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF) which should be used as the basis for assessment for all officers. This assessment is based on appearance, behaviour, communication/capacity of the victim and whether the victim is in danger and the environment/circumstances they are in. The MPS considers that this action will support officers in making appropriate decisions in respect of completing Merlin Reports for vulnerable people.”

Source location

2020-0255-Letter-from-Metropolitan-Police-Redacted.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 30 December 2020

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.3

  1. 1

    Develop and publish a coordinated Suicide Prevention Policy and accompanying toolkit covering prevention information, risk indicators, support services, contacts and best practice.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 December 2020.
  2. 2

    Develop investigative standards guidance and improve suicide-prevention training and guidance for officers and staff, including first-responder advice.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 December 2020.
  3. 3

    Meet with other police forces to learn and share suicide-prevention good practice.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 December 2020.

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

Develop and publish a coordinated Suicide Prevention Policy and accompanying toolkit covering prevention information, risk indicators, support services, contacts and best practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MPS is committed to ensuring that it learns from tragedies as Ms Marchessou’s untimely death. A small team of dedicated officers is developing a Suicide Prevention Policy Document and Toolkit. The publication of this policy is a key step in developing our co-ordinated strategy to suicide prevention. The policy will draw together information on suicide prevention, support services, risk indicators, contacts and best practice. It will be accompanied by a toolkit providing easy to access guidance and advice from signposting support services to identifying key partners. A draft external Suicide Prevention Policy is due to be submitted through the MPS’s internal policy development process.”

Source location

2020-0255-Letter-from-Metropolitan-Police-Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 30 December 2020

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

Develop investigative standards guidance and improve suicide-prevention training and guidance for officers and staff, including first-responder advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to the policy publication, the suicide prevention team is committed to improving the training and guidance available to all officers and staff. An investigative standards’ document which forms part of the toolkit, is under development and is designed as an easy to follow key points to consider document for police first responders. This will enhance knowledge and understanding across the entire service and build on the additional guidance that is already used by some teams where death by suicide is considered higher risk i.e. Custody, Online Child Sexual Abuse.”

Source location

2020-0255-Letter-from-Metropolitan-Police-Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 30 December 2020

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

Meet with other police forces to learn and share suicide-prevention good practice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MPS Suicide Prevention Team is also meeting with other police forces to learn and share good practice.”

Source location

2020-0255-Letter-from-Metropolitan-Police-Redacted.pdf
Page 4 · response
Published 30 December 2020

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