PFD report

Cherylee Yvette Shennan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Jul 2019•Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

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
11

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
10

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.

Concerns raised11

  1. Failure to carry and use personal protective equipment
  2. Failure of probation staff to engage in full updating training
  3. Failure to challenge or support change in domestic abuse risk during probation supervision
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.6

  1. Action

    Lead a multi-agency redesign of MARAC to test live-time information sharing, tasking, lead-professional coordination and wider household safeguarding.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 September 2019.
  2. Action

    Implement a merits-based MASH safeguarding model focused on individual vulnerability, partnership working, information sharing and early intervention.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2019.
  3. Action

    Replace system-generated email sharing with personal email addresses in Connect so senders receive delivery-failure alerts and can rectify unsuccessful information transfers.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Responsibility for referring relevant life-licensed offenders to MARAC lies with the offender manager.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyRedirects 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

Failure to carry and use personal protective equipment

Wider context from the report

“Following the death of Cherylee, her death, and actions taken in the months leading up to it were the subject of two detailed reviews. Following the Domestic Homicide Review a number of recommendations were made by the author of the Individual Management Report, Mr Gary Fishwick including concerns regarding initial grading of calls to identify initial responses, the obtaining of information as part of initial attendances on reported domestic abuse incidents and the carrying and use of personal protective equipment. Whilst the recommendations were made, Mr Fishwick could give no evidence at the inquest into the death of Cherylee to indicate whether those recommendations had in fact been actioned or not, and accordingly whether anything had changed following the death of Cherylee and the learning exercise that were subsequently undertaken. In particular reference was made to, but unsupported by documentation, or any other form of evidence: • Policies reflecting recommended changes; • Information sharing agreements between agencies; • MARAC emergency policy or notes; • DASH Training or policy regarding obtaining GP details; and • Audits of Grade 2 ‘Ethical fails’ and reasons for such fails. ”

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 of probation staff to engage in full updating training

Wider context from the report

“3) Finally it was also accepted by senior probation witnesses that although staff had access to updated training information, due to pressures of their workloads they lacked the time to engage in full updating training. ”

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 challenge or support change in domestic abuse risk during probation supervision

Wider context from the report

“2) Evidence was further heard regarding the Report of the Chief Inspector of Probation 2019 and in particular the finding that "Many individuals were drifting through their supervision period without being challenged or supported to change their prediction for domestic abuse" and that "The number of probation professionals is now at a critical level. There is a national shortage of professional probation staff and especially those mainly responsible for more complex and demanding casework". It was agreed by those senior probation witnesses that staffing and workloads had been an issue in this matter, as found by the jury, and furthermore continued to be so. ”

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 allocate an appropriately protective MAPPA level for offenders with significant domestic abuse histories who have not been fully tested before release

Wider context from the report

“1) During the course of the inquest statistics regarding the nature of domestic abuse were repeatedly reviewed and accepted by senior member of both probation and police services. In particular domestic abuse features in about half of all cases managed by probation staff and that in the year to the end of 2018 of the 659 homicides 1 in 10 were committed by a partner. Evidence was heard of the MAPPA process, for the managing of risk of offenders to be released on licence, and for the interagency sharing of information regarding those offenders. During the course of the evidence it was made clear that the perpetrator in this instance was a very dangerous individual, who was described as controlling and manipulative, and who, it was accepted by the witnesses involved in his management, was likely to have controlled his meetings by his nature, and by partial disclosures of information. The underlying issue that arose from both the various reviews that took place after the death of Cherylee Shennan, and from the inquest was that there was no substantial interagency communication following the perpetrator's release on licence, which would, the jury found, have allowed the sharing of his licence conditions and action plans to be put in place by local police forces. The jury concluded that such a failing possibly contributed to the death on the 17th March 2014. At the inquest no evidence was heard regarding any changes to MAPPA or the guidance given. Whilst the evidence heard was that the MAPPA level allocated to an individual is fluid, and would be based upon their risks and presentation at that time, my concern centres on the issue that an offender who has served a significant sentence and accordingly has never been fully tested before release on licence, and who has a significant history of domestic abuse and violence, will still be released on MAPPA level 1. On the evidence that was heard there remains no mandated process for joined up inter-agency working or communication at the point of their release, or when they develop new personal relationships. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably recognise and assess domestic abuse risks; Unreliable monitoring and management of high-risk offenders in the community.

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 detail licence conditions during MAPPA Level 1 management

Wider context from the report

“The perpetrator was managed on release at MAPPA Level 1. Following his release there were no local MAPPA 1 meetings, no inter-agency meetings and no significant inter-agency communications regarding the perpetrator, no detailing of his licence conditions, and no information regarding either his nature or the trigger factors for his offending. Evidence was heard regarding the findings of two separate reviews that took place following the death of Cherylee, and the recommendations that were made as a result of those reviews, in particular centred on the lack of inter-agency communications. My concern is that despite this, and the findings of the report, when evidence was heard regarding how systems had changed, there is still no mandatory process for the sharing of information between agencies where the offender despite a known, and extensive, history of domestic abuse and identified trigger factors, is then managed at MAPPA Level 1. ”

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 obtain information during initial attendances on reported domestic abuse incidents

Wider context from the report

“Following the death of Cherylee, her death, and actions taken in the months leading up to it were the subject of two detailed reviews. Following the Domestic Homicide Review a number of recommendations were made by the author of the Individual Management Report, Mr Gary Fishwick including concerns regarding initial grading of calls to identify initial responses, the obtaining of information as part of initial attendances on reported domestic abuse incidents and the carrying and use of personal protective equipment. Whilst the recommendations were made, Mr Fishwick could give no evidence at the inquest into the death of Cherylee to indicate whether those recommendations had in fact been actioned or not, and accordingly whether anything had changed following the death of Cherylee and the learning exercise that were subsequently undertaken. In particular reference was made to, but unsupported by documentation, or any other form of evidence: • Policies reflecting recommended changes; • Information sharing agreements between agencies; • MARAC emergency policy or notes; • DASH Training or policy regarding obtaining GP details; and • Audits of Grade 2 ‘Ethical fails’ and reasons for such fails. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to obtain critical information during initial police incident responses.

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

Insufficient probation staffing capacity for complex and demanding casework

Wider context from the report

“2) Evidence was further heard regarding the Report of the Chief Inspector of Probation 2019 and in particular the finding that "Many individuals were drifting through their supervision period without being challenged or supported to change their prediction for domestic abuse" and that "The number of probation professionals is now at a critical level. There is a national shortage of professional probation staff and especially those mainly responsible for more complex and demanding casework". It was agreed by those senior probation witnesses that staffing and workloads had been an issue in this matter, as found by the jury, and furthermore continued to be so. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient probation officer staffing capacity for safe casework.

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 evidence implementation of recommended safety changes

Wider context from the report

“Following the death of Cherylee, her death, and actions taken in the months leading up to it were the subject of two detailed reviews. Following the Domestic Homicide Review a number of recommendations were made by the author of the Individual Management Report, Mr Gary Fishwick including concerns regarding initial grading of calls to identify initial responses, the obtaining of information as part of initial attendances on reported domestic abuse incidents and the carrying and use of personal protective equipment. Whilst the recommendations were made, Mr Fishwick could give no evidence at the inquest into the death of Cherylee to indicate whether those recommendations had in fact been actioned or not, and accordingly whether anything had changed following the death of Cherylee and the learning exercise that were subsequently undertaken. In particular reference was made to, but unsupported by documentation, or any other form of evidence: • Policies reflecting recommended changes; • Information sharing agreements between agencies; • MARAC emergency policy or notes; • DASH Training or policy regarding obtaining GP details; and • Audits of Grade 2 ‘Ethical fails’ and reasons for such fails. ”

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

Lack of mandated joined-up inter-agency communication at offender release or when new personal relationships develop

Wider context from the report

“1) During the course of the inquest statistics regarding the nature of domestic abuse were repeatedly reviewed and accepted by senior member of both probation and police services. In particular domestic abuse features in about half of all cases managed by probation staff and that in the year to the end of 2018 of the 659 homicides 1 in 10 were committed by a partner. Evidence was heard of the MAPPA process, for the managing of risk of offenders to be released on licence, and for the interagency sharing of information regarding those offenders. During the course of the evidence it was made clear that the perpetrator in this instance was a very dangerous individual, who was described as controlling and manipulative, and who, it was accepted by the witnesses involved in his management, was likely to have controlled his meetings by his nature, and by partial disclosures of information. The underlying issue that arose from both the various reviews that took place after the death of Cherylee Shennan, and from the inquest was that there was no substantial interagency communication following the perpetrator's release on licence, which would, the jury found, have allowed the sharing of his licence conditions and action plans to be put in place by local police forces. The jury concluded that such a failing possibly contributed to the death on the 17th March 2014. At the inquest no evidence was heard regarding any changes to MAPPA or the guidance given. Whilst the evidence heard was that the MAPPA level allocated to an individual is fluid, and would be based upon their risks and presentation at that time, my concern centres on the issue that an offender who has served a significant sentence and accordingly has never been fully tested before release on licence, and who has a significant history of domestic abuse and violence, will still be released on MAPPA level 1. On the evidence that was heard there remains no mandated process for joined up inter-agency working or communication at the point of their release, or when they develop new personal relationships. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable information sharing for prison-to-community discharge coordination; Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures; Unreliable safe-release arrangements for high-risk offenders.

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

Deficiencies in initial grading of calls to identify initial responses

Wider context from the report

“Following the death of Cherylee, her death, and actions taken in the months leading up to it were the subject of two detailed reviews. Following the Domestic Homicide Review a number of recommendations were made by the author of the Individual Management Report, Mr Gary Fishwick including concerns regarding initial grading of calls to identify initial responses, the obtaining of information as part of initial attendances on reported domestic abuse incidents and the carrying and use of personal protective equipment. Whilst the recommendations were made, Mr Fishwick could give no evidence at the inquest into the death of Cherylee to indicate whether those recommendations had in fact been actioned or not, and accordingly whether anything had changed following the death of Cherylee and the learning exercise that were subsequently undertaken. In particular reference was made to, but unsupported by documentation, or any other form of evidence: • Policies reflecting recommended changes; • Information sharing agreements between agencies; • MARAC emergency policy or notes; • DASH Training or policy regarding obtaining GP details; and • Audits of Grade 2 ‘Ethical fails’ and reasons for such fails. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency-service incident grading and response-time coordination.

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 maintain mandatory inter-agency information sharing for MAPPA Level 1 management

Wider context from the report

“The perpetrator was managed on release at MAPPA Level 1. Following his release there were no local MAPPA 1 meetings, no inter-agency meetings and no significant inter-agency communications regarding the perpetrator, no detailing of his licence conditions, and no information regarding either his nature or the trigger factors for his offending. Evidence was heard regarding the findings of two separate reviews that took place following the death of Cherylee, and the recommendations that were made as a result of those reviews, in particular centred on the lack of inter-agency communications. My concern is that despite this, and the findings of the report, when evidence was heard regarding how systems had changed, there is still no mandatory process for the sharing of information between agencies where the offender despite a known, and extensive, history of domestic abuse and identified trigger factors, is then managed at MAPPA Level 1. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain and share security and offender risk intelligence; Unreliable monitoring and management of high-risk offenders in the community.

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

Lead a multi-agency redesign of MARAC to test live-time information sharing, tasking, lead-professional coordination and wider household safeguarding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Lancashire Constabulary are leading a multi-agency systems thinking review of the MARAC process and this is encompassing the journey from initial referral through to the MARAC meeting itself.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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

Implement a merits-based MASH safeguarding model focused on individual vulnerability, partnership working, information sharing and early intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A Corporate systems thinking review of MASH was conducted from 2016-18 and amongst a number of changes implemented was a move from a process-driven response to safeguarding referrals to a model where MASH staff understood their role in supporting people and keeping them safe, achieving this by considering each case on its merits, including the specific needs of the victim, adult and/or children and responding accordingly in partnership. Staff Supervisors/Team Leaders were trained and are now focused on this approach to recognising the risk, sharing information to achieve early interventions.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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

Replace system-generated email sharing with personal email addresses in Connect so senders receive delivery-failure alerts and can rectify unsuccessful information transfers.

Verbatim wording from the response

““In 2014 the force recorded vulnerability reports via an IT system called “Sleuth”. This was achieved through the submission of a PVP (Protecting vulnerable persons) report, which the MASH would share. At that time, information was predominantly shared by a system generated email within sleuth. It was identified that sending emails directly through the Sleuth system did not inform the sender if they failed to be delivered. In light of this when the constabulary changed its IT system from “Sleuth” to “Connect” on 27th November 2018, the operating practice for sharing information changed with it. It was agreed that when information is shared via email it must be done via a personal email address rather than a system generated address.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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

Refresh MASH staff messaging periodically on identifying life-licensed perpetrators as high risk and sharing referral information to prompt safeguarding action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Lancashire Constabulary are a key stakeholder in the MASH (Multi-Agency Sharing Hub), which has dedicated and co-located National Probation Service staff able to access national databases to ensure quality research can be conducted on criminal matters subject of safeguarding referrals – in particular those with previous convictions and actionable orders – such as licence conditions.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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

Adopt a force-wide Safeguarding, Investigation and Prevention model and embed it in vulnerability training and frontline coaching.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The constabulary through its Public Protection Unit has adopted a force-wide model of “SIP” – Safeguarding, Investigation & Prevention which is for officers/staff to apply to all incidents they deal with and will help appreciate wider vulnerabilities of the individuals, families, groups and environments they come into contact with and instil ‘professional curiosity’ in dealing with vulnerability, not least domestic abuse. SIP is incorporated into vulnerability training in all related courses/inputs and has recently been delivered at ‘Vulnerability Coach lunch sessions to over 250 frontline police officers/staff which has seen the recruitment of over 100 Vulnerability coaches in these roles to support, guide and coach their colleagues.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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

Implement a Pan-Lancashire MARAC protocol requiring immediate emergency referral and high-risk prioritisation for relevant life-licensed domestic-abuse homicide offenders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Specifically, with regards to perpetrators with homicide convictions and urgent MARAC referral, a Pan-Lancashire MARAC Operating Protocol Document was agreed in April 2016 which referenced specifically the procedure relating to Emergency MARAC, and reflects a response to the DHR in question.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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 referring relevant life-licensed offenders to MARAC lies with the offender manager.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Specifically, with regards to perpetrators with homicide convictions and urgent MARAC referral, a Pan-Lancashire MARAC Operating Protocol Document was agreed in April 2016 which referenced specifically the procedure relating to Emergency MARAC, and reflects a response to the DHR in question.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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 Pan-Lancashire MARAC operating protocol already addresses urgent referrals and high-risk prioritisation for relevant offenders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Specifically, with regards to perpetrators with homicide convictions and urgent MARAC referral, a Pan-Lancashire MARAC Operating Protocol Document was agreed in April 2016 which referenced specifically the procedure relating to Emergency MARAC, and reflects a response to the DHR in question.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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 MASH arrangements provide research, information sharing and referral of life-licensed perpetrators to relevant agencies, including Probation and Social Care.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Lancashire Constabulary are a key stakeholder in the MASH (Multi-Agency Sharing Hub), which has dedicated and co-located National Probation Service staff able to access national databases to ensure quality research can be conducted on criminal matters subject of safeguarding referrals – in particular those with previous convictions and actionable orders – such as licence conditions.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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.4

  1. 1

    Train MASH staff supervisors and team leaders to recognise risk and share information for early safeguarding intervention.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2019.
  2. 2

    Provide domestic-abuse, stalking and harassment training across police recruitment, probationer, contact-management, decision-maker, investigation, frontline and initial-CID training programmes.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2019.
  3. 3

    Implement Operation Encompass in Lancashire and deliver related domestic-abuse training and awareness raising to schools and police staff.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2019.
  4. 4

    Recruit more than 100 Vulnerability Coaches to support, guide and coach frontline police colleagues on vulnerability.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 September 2019.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.3

  1. 1

    Existing MASH processes and revised email practices address information-sharing and delivery risks identified in the recommendation.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. 2

    Existing commissioning contracts and training arrangements address disclosure and referral compliance for locally commissioned independent domestic-abuse services.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  3. 3

    Existing Lancashire guidance already addresses children exposed to domestic abuse and relationships involving offenders convicted of domestic-abuse-related homicide or manslaughter.

    Stated by Lancashire ConstabularyExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Train MASH staff supervisors and team leaders to recognise risk and share information for early safeguarding intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A Corporate systems thinking review of MASH was conducted from 2016-18 and amongst a number of changes implemented was a move from a process-driven response to safeguarding referrals to a model where MASH staff understood their role in supporting people and keeping them safe, achieving this by considering each case on its merits, including the specific needs of the victim, adult and/or children and responding accordingly in partnership. Staff Supervisors/Team Leaders were trained and are now focused on this approach to recognising the risk, sharing information to achieve early interventions.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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 domestic-abuse, stalking and harassment training across police recruitment, probationer, contact-management, decision-maker, investigation, frontline and initial-CID training programmes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of police training around Domestic Abuse:”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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

Implement Operation Encompass in Lancashire and deliver related domestic-abuse training and awareness raising to schools and police staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The implementation of ‘Operation Encompass’ (early disclosure to Lancashire-based schools hosting children involved in/party to domestic abuse incidents in the preceding 24 hours – to offer silent or active support) during 2018/19 included DA training provision to Dedicated Safeguarding Leads (DSL/ADSLs) from over 800 Lancashire County Council Schools, over 60 Blackburn with Darwen Schools and over 40 Blackpool schools. This training was delivered jointly by police and education.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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

Recruit more than 100 Vulnerability Coaches to support, guide and coach frontline police colleagues on vulnerability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The constabulary through its Public Protection Unit has adopted a force-wide model of “SIP” – Safeguarding, Investigation & Prevention which is for officers/staff to apply to all incidents they deal with and will help appreciate wider vulnerabilities of the individuals, families, groups and environments they come into contact with and instil ‘professional curiosity’ in dealing with vulnerability, not least domestic abuse. SIP is incorporated into vulnerability training in all related courses/inputs and has recently been delivered at ‘Vulnerability Coach lunch sessions to over 250 frontline police officers/staff which has seen the recruitment of over 100 Vulnerability coaches in these roles to support, guide and coach their colleagues.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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 MASH processes and revised email practices address information-sharing and delivery risks identified in the recommendation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A Corporate systems thinking review of MASH was conducted from 2016-18 and amongst a number of changes implemented was a move from a process-driven response to safeguarding referrals to a model where MASH staff understood their role in supporting people and keeping them safe, achieving this by considering each case on its merits, including the specific needs of the victim, adult and/or children and responding accordingly in partnership. Staff Supervisors/Team Leaders were trained and are now focused on this approach to recognising the risk, sharing information to achieve early interventions.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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 commissioning contracts and training arrangements address disclosure and referral compliance for locally commissioned independent domestic-abuse services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Domestic Abuse Strategy Group should ensure that local independent sector agencies have a robust disclosure and referral policy in place and that suitable training is available to promote compliance.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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 Lancashire guidance already addresses children exposed to domestic abuse and relationships involving offenders convicted of domestic-abuse-related homicide or manslaughter.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Specific guidance should be issued to LSCB’s in relation to the risks posed by violent offenders on life licence and should be explicitly referenced in the continuum of needs thresholds for Child Protection.”

Source location

2019-0244-Response-by-Lancashire-Constabulary_Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 9 September 2019

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026