Alun John Davies · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Jun 2022•Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

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. Lack of public announcements directing people to obtain assistance
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency response arrangements at railway stations
  2. Failure to fully implement identified station security recommendations
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to implement identified safety actions
  3. Insufficient CCTV surveillance and platform visibility

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. First MTR South Western Trains Limited

    Review Portchester station’s status in relation to managing suicide risks with Network Rail.

  2. First MTR South Western Trains Limited

    Install trespass gates, witches hats and anti-tread guards at the ends of Portchester station platforms.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. First MTR South Western Trains Limited

    No increase in Portchester ticket-office staffing is required following consideration of the incident.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  2. First MTR South Western Trains Limited

    No platform staff need to be introduced at Portchester following review of the station’s platform and train-interface assessment.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  3. First MTR South Western Trains Limited

    Network-wide CCTV cannot be monitored in real time or proactively because staffing every camera continuously is impracticable.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  4. First MTR South Western Trains Limited

    Portchester’s low-risk classification means regular, predetermined Railway Community Officer patrols are not required.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  5. First MTR South Western Trains Limited

    Existing automated security and welfare announcements, help points, emergency buttons and Samaritan posters are considered appropriate.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 public announcements directing people to obtain assistance

Wider context from the report

“(3) The post-incident site report further identified the lack of public security and welfare announcements at the station (and within the station concourse) aimed at providing direction in the event of illness or of assistance being required. There is a lack of information/announcements to other members of the public as to how to obtain assistance if they are concerned by someone else’s condition or actions. It is not clear to what extent this has been further considered or addressed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency response arrangements at railway stations.

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 fully implement identified station security recommendations

Wider context from the report

“(2) The post-incident site report further identified that Portchester Railway station is an impending ‘escalated’ location. Since 2017 there have been 2 previous fatalities in similar circumstances at the station – which is now recognised as having lower levels of surveillance – with Mr Davies’ death being the third. Although recommendations were made after the first incident, the above recommendations and identified risks (at 1) have not yet been (fully) addressed or implemented. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to implement identified safety actions.

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 CCTV surveillance and platform visibility

Wider context from the report

“(1) The post-incident site report presented by British Transport Police (in conjunction with the Design Out Crime Unit) and completed on 22 July 2021 identified that there was (and remains) limited staffing and CCTV surveillance at Portchester Railway Station and limited visibility of the platforms - requiring a security risk assessment with a view to increasing staffing (at the ticket office and on the platform) with increased RCO Patrols and platform surveillance and that additional CCTV installation and coverage was required (of the platforms and public areas) with real time capability. ”

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

Limited staffing at the railway station

Wider context from the report

“(1) The post-incident site report presented by British Transport Police (in conjunction with the Design Out Crime Unit) and completed on 22 July 2021 identified that there was (and remains) limited staffing and CCTV surveillance at Portchester Railway Station and limited visibility of the platforms - requiring a security risk assessment with a view to increasing staffing (at the ticket office and on the platform) with increased RCO Patrols and platform surveillance and that additional CCTV installation and coverage was required (of the platforms and public areas) with real time capability. ”

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

Review Portchester station’s status in relation to managing suicide risks with Network Rail.

Verbatim wording from the response

“21. SWR is also currently in discussions with Network Rail to review of the status of Porchester station in relation to the management of suicide risks.”

Source location

Response from South West Trains
Page 3 · response
Published 22 September 2022

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

Install trespass gates, witches hats and anti-tread guards at the ends of Portchester station platforms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“18. Response to Paragraph 2: Previous incidents”

Source location

Response from South West Trains
Page 2 · response
Published 22 September 2022

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

No increase in Portchester ticket-office staffing is required following consideration of the incident.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. At Portchester Station, there is a member of staff present in the ticket office during commuter times (Monday to Friday 05:50 to 10:40 and Saturday 07:50 to 14:20). However, outside of these hours there are no staff present in the ticket office.”

Source location

Response from South West Trains
Page 1 · response
Published 22 September 2022

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

No platform staff need to be introduced at Portchester following review of the station’s platform and train-interface assessment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“9. SWR conducts ‘platform/train interface assessments’ which informs decisions on staffing arrangements at platforms. For example, at some stations there may be a high frequency of trains stopping at the station, a high footfall of passengers and/or special events (such as at Twickenham station on match days) which may require platform staff to be present.”

Source location

Response from South West Trains
Page 1 · response
Published 22 September 2022

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

Network-wide CCTV cannot be monitored in real time or proactively because staffing every camera continuously is impracticable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“15. The purpose of CCTV at train stations is largely twofold: first, to try to deter criminal activity, and secondly to provide a record of any incidents that occur, which can be used in the course of any investigation. Given the number of CCTV cameras across the whole of the SWR network, it would not be practicable to have staff monitoring every camera 24 hours a day, and so the CCTV system cannot be used proactively to try to prevent criminal activity or other incidents.”

Source location

Response from South West Trains
Page 2 · response
Published 22 September 2022

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

Portchester’s low-risk classification means regular, predetermined Railway Community Officer patrols are not required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(c) Railway Community Officer patrols”

Source location

Response from South West Trains
Page 2 · response
Published 22 September 2022

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 automated security and welfare announcements, help points, emergency buttons and Samaritan posters are considered appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“23. The following types of security and welfare announcements are made at Portchester Station:”

Source location

Response from South West Trains
Page 3 · response
Published 22 September 2022

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026