PFD report

Martin Ian Stubbs · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Oct 2024•West 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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
9

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 raised1

  1. Delays in concluding internal disciplinary proceedings
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable internal disciplinary proceedings
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.3

  1. Action

    Review gross-misconduct investigations annually to ensure they are conducted promptly and have sufficient resources.

    Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 October 2024.
  2. Action

    Meet quarterly with IOPC senior leaders to review investigation resources and welfare provisions.

    Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 October 2024.
  3. Action

    Review gross-misconduct investigations quarterly to assess whether they have sufficient resources.

    Stated by West Yorkshire PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 October 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

Delays in concluding internal disciplinary proceedings

Wider context from the report

“Mr Stubbs’ father (a former officer himself and still a civilian police employee) expressed his firm belief that the length of time he had been suspended from duty had played a significant part in his son’s decision to take his life. It is a concern that someone subject to an internal disciplinary process has a legitimate expectation that that process will be dealt with expeditiously in the interests of all parties, and that legitimate expectation was not met in Mr Stubbs’ case. Mr Stubbs’ family do not understand whether the delay in concluding the process reflects resource issues or an institutionalised practice of allowing such matters to drift without proactive management to bring them to a conclusion. Anecdotally, Mr Stubbs’ family are aware of other long outstanding internal disciplinary proceedings and fear other families may have to go through an experience similar to theirs. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable internal disciplinary proceedings.

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 gross-misconduct investigations annually to ensure they are conducted promptly and have sufficient resources.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following receipt of your Prevent Future Death Report, WYP has conducted a full review of the investigation and discussed the concerns you have raised with the IO. To address the concerns you have raised, WYP has implemented the following changes with immediate effect:”

Source location

Response from West Yorkshire Police
Page 3 · response
Published 30 October 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

Meet quarterly with IOPC senior leaders to review investigation resources and welfare provisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following receipt of your Prevent Future Death Report, WYP has conducted a full review of the investigation and discussed the concerns you have raised with the IO. To address the concerns you have raised, WYP has implemented the following changes with immediate effect:”

Source location

Response from West Yorkshire Police
Page 3 · response
Published 30 October 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

Review gross-misconduct investigations quarterly to assess whether they have sufficient resources.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following receipt of your Prevent Future Death Report, WYP has conducted a full review of the investigation and discussed the concerns you have raised with the IO. To address the concerns you have raised, WYP has implemented the following changes with immediate effect:”

Source location

Response from West Yorkshire Police
Page 3 · response
Published 30 October 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.6

  1. 1

    Carry out the Transformation Programme to improve operational delivery, investigation timeliness and service-user outcomes.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 October 2024.
  2. 2

    Assess inclusion of a welfare strategy template in the Operations Manual.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 October 2024.
  3. 3

    Circulate internal guidance and instructions to investigative staff on escalating and following up welfare concerns.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 October 2024.
  4. 4

    Engage with police forces to ensure investigated subjects receive necessary welfare support.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 October 2024.
  5. 5

    Strengthen organisational guidance on responding to welfare concerns about service users.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 October 2024.
  6. 6

    Continue improving the timeliness of investigations.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 30 October 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Existing welfare officers, Federation support, counselling, risk assessments and workplace adjustments are considered sufficient to support officers under investigation.

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

    Responsibility for investigated officers’ welfare and suspension decisions rests with their police force, which is best placed to provide support.

    Stated by Independent Office for Police ConductRedirects 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

Carry out the Transformation Programme to improve operational delivery, investigation timeliness and service-user outcomes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are currently undergoing a radical Transformation Programme, which is focused on improving our operational delivery and the service we provide to the public, police and our stakeholders. It will drive an increase in our productivity so that we can do more high-quality, timely investigations and reviews, and make service-user improvements across the police complaints system. Having reviewed the timeline for this particular investigation, we are satisfied that there were clear reasons for the length of time the investigation took, albeit we are committed to improving our timeliness, as outlined above.”

Source location

Response from IOPC
Page 3 · response
Published 30 October 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

Assess inclusion of a welfare strategy template in the Operations Manual.

Verbatim wording from the response

“- A welfare strategy template, the idea of which is to act as a prompt and an aide memoire for staff undertaking a welfare strategy. We are currently looking at including it (or a version of it) on the above page of the Operations Manual.”

Source location

Response from IOPC
Page 2 · response
Published 30 October 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

Circulate internal guidance and instructions to investigative staff on escalating and following up welfare concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the interim, we have circulated an internal communication to all investigative staff, to signpost them to the internal guidance already available to them. We have also explained that this guidance will be reviewed and may be updated, to focus on the need to improve our processes in this area and make it clear what should be done where we come across material suggestive of risk. Staff have also been told to seek legal advice and / or advice from our Safeguarding Team if they are ever unsure. But in any event and in all circumstances, to provide as much detail as possible to those best placed to deal with the concern/s for welfare, and to follow up to obtain confirmation of exactly what has been said and done, and escalated appropriately if there are any concerns about this. A copy of the communication (dated 7 June 2024) has also been provided with this letter.”

Source location

Response from IOPC
Page 2 · response
Published 30 October 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

Engage with police forces to ensure investigated subjects receive necessary welfare support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I write in response to the Prevent Future Death report dated 25 October 2024, following the Inquest into the death of PC Martin Stubbs. We were saddened to learn of the officer’s death and offer our condolences to his family and colleagues. We take the welfare of subject officers seriously and acknowledge the stress and worry that being under investigation brings. We are committed to continue to improve the timeliness of our investigations and that we will engage with forces to ensure that subjects receive the support they need.”

Source location

Response from IOPC
Page 1 · response
Published 30 October 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

Strengthen organisational guidance on responding to welfare concerns about service users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Notwithstanding the information already available for staff, the IOPC are aware there is a need for more robust organisational guidance on this. This will cover what needs to be done when welfare concerns are brought to the IOPC’s attention regarding any of our service users, to ensure that those who are best placed to deal with the concerns have all the information they need to properly discharge their duty. Our intention is therefore to strengthen the organisational guidance we already have in place.”

Source location

Response from IOPC
Page 2 · response
Published 30 October 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

Continue improving the timeliness of investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I write in response to the Prevent Future Death report dated 25 October 2024, following the Inquest into the death of PC Martin Stubbs. We were saddened to learn of the officer’s death and offer our condolences to his family and colleagues. We take the welfare of subject officers seriously and acknowledge the stress and worry that being under investigation brings. We are committed to continue to improve the timeliness of our investigations and that we will engage with forces to ensure that subjects receive the support they need.”

Source location

Response from IOPC
Page 1 · response
Published 30 October 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

Existing welfare officers, Federation support, counselling, risk assessments and workplace adjustments are considered sufficient to support officers under investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The above chronology (which is a summary only) demonstrates the serious and complex nature of the investigation. It is acknowledged that any officer under investigation will need support, and this is why each officer is supported by a trained and approved Welfare Officer. A Welfare Officer was appointed on 29th November 2022. The Police Federation provided support to PC Stubbs and arranged counselling for him. Risk assessments were conducted by his line manager and adjustments were made to support PC Stubbs. It is regrettable that the investigation did take 19 months, but it is important that serious allegations are properly and thoroughly investigated. As set out above, the decision that PC Stubbs remain suspended was made by a Chief Officer and reviewed every 28 days.”

Source location

Response from West Yorkshire Police
Page 2 · response
Published 30 October 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

Responsibility for investigated officers’ welfare and suspension decisions rests with their police force, which is best placed to provide support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The welfare of our service users is of the utmost importance to the IOPC. We encourage staff to take action and make the necessary referrals expeditiously, where they become aware of a risk of harm to service users. In relation to serving police officers under investigation, their welfare and wellbeing is a key consideration for our investigators. Decisions regarding investigative actions generally factor in the welfare of the subject officer. However, primary responsibility for welfare rests with the officer’s force as they are best placed and equipped to provide the necessary support. As a matter of law, decisions on suspension are made by the officer’s force and forces generally, as was the case here, will appoint a welfare officer to support the officer under investigation.”

Source location

Response from IOPC
Page 1 · response
Published 30 October 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026