PFD report

Lee Bowman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Nov 2023•South Yorkshire (Eastern)

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to assess missing-person vulnerability without relying on assumptions about addiction
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to recognise vulnerability in safeguarding decisionsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable missing-person response
  2. Failure to give sufficient weight to family information in missing-person risk assessment
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

    Update Missing Persons APP to warn against imprecise, value-laden terminology and require clear descriptions relevant to risk assessment.

    Stated by College of PolicingStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 February 2024.
  2. Action

    Publish Evidence Based Guidelines on vulnerability-related risk assessment, including gathering information from multiple sources to inform professional risk judgements.

    Stated by College of PolicingStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 February 2024.

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 assess missing-person vulnerability without relying on assumptions about addiction

Wider context from the report

“1. There were significant assumptions made about the whereabouts of Lee and the reasons for his failure to contact family. The assumptions were based on the facts of Lee's addiction which on one view ought to have been identified as a vulnerability, on another view were wholly irrelevant in the context of his family confirming he was in day contact until 31 October 2021. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to recognise vulnerability in safeguarding decisions; Unreliable missing-person response.

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 give sufficient weight to family information in missing-person risk assessment

Wider context from the report

“2. Insufficient weight was placed on the information provided by Lee's family about his current state of mind and ordinary behaviours. Although there was a THRIVE assessment undertaken by the call handler on 2 November 2021 when the first missing person report was made, the burden of the duty fell on his PNC record and police intelligence information painting a picture which was not representative of the concerns of his family. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Update Missing Persons APP to warn against imprecise, value-laden terminology and require clear descriptions relevant to risk assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In reading your report, our subject matter expert was troubled by the term ‘chaotic lifestyle’ that appeared to have been used in some of the risk assessments. Terminology such as this is imprecise and invites readers of such comments to assign their own assumptions to what the term means. We will update our Missing Persons APP to alert police officers and staff to the need to avoid such value laden but imprecise terms. Instead, they should set out clearly and simply what matters and issues have been identified that have a bearing on the assessment of risk.”

Source location

Response from College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2024

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

Publish Evidence Based Guidelines on vulnerability-related risk assessment, including gathering information from multiple sources to inform professional risk judgements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your second matter of concern refers to reliance on PNC and intelligence records. Unfortunately, the report to us contains no detail of what was in these records or any commentary on why investigators gave them greater weight. It is, therefore, difficult for us to respond to these particular circumstances. However, the College has recently published Evidence Based Guidelines on Risk Assessment Vulnerability-related risks | College of Policing. This document is based on a broad range of research and sets out clear guidance on how to carry out risk assessment and is based on risk principles Risk | College of Policing. It emphasises the importance of gathering information from a range of sources to inform a decision maker’s professional judgement about the level of risk and what action should be taken to address that risk.”

Source location

Response from College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2024

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.1

  1. 1

    Continue supporting policing to improve responses to missing persons.

    Stated by College of PolicingStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 February 2024.

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

  1. 1

    Police generally cannot obtain financial institution information unless a case is assessed as high risk, limiting earlier use of bank inactivity.

    Stated by College of PolicingUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant 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

Continue supporting policing to improve responses to missing persons.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I hope that this response addresses your matters of concern. We will continue to support policing to improve responses to missing persons.”

Source location

Response from College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2024

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

Police generally cannot obtain financial institution information unless a case is assessed as high risk, limiting earlier use of bank inactivity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report also mentions the lack of activity in Mr Bowman’s bank account. Police find it very difficult to acquire information from financial institutions except in high-risk cases – in this context, ‘high risk’ refers to fears of very serious injury or death. In the case of Mr Bowman, the risk of harm was assessed as high after the passage of a significant period of time. Inactivity on his bank account could have led to his risk being raised earlier, but there is a Catch 22 – the risk of harm could have been raised because of the lack of bank activity but the lack of activity could not be identified without the case being assessed as high risk. This is a broader issue than Mr Bowman’s case but does indicate the difficult environment in which policing sometimes operates.”

Source location

Response from College of Policing
Page 2 · response
Published 28 February 2024

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