Tyrone Lock · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On the 25th November 2015 I commenced an investigation into the death of Tyrone Lock, 18 years of age, who was found deceased in a pond at the Macdonald Hill Valley Hotel, Golf & Spa on the morning of Monday 23rd November 2015. The inquest, with a jury, commenced on the 3rd October 2016 and concluded on the 6th October 2016. The jury recorded a narrative conclusion identifying police failings contributing to Tyrone’s death.

Tyrone and 2 friends checked in to the Hill Valley Hotel on Friday 20th November 2015. During the night and early morning of Saturday 21st November 2015 there were disturbances which resulted in the police being called. On their arrival the police saw a male get out of and run away from a van which he had been driving. A request for a police helicopter was made in respect of that male, namely a suspected drink driver making off on foot with no aggravating features. The limited flying time available did not make a deployment viable. During this time Tyrone and his female friend were still inside the hotel and were in the main reception area as seen on the hotel CCTV. Following their contact with the male who had run away the officers then entered the hotel. At that time Tyrone and the female were inside a hotel lift. When they came out one officer primarily dealt with the female and the other sought to engage with Tyrone. Without being able to do so Tyrone ran out of the hotel wearing boxer shorts and socks only. It was cold night, approximately 4 degrees centigrade, it was windy. A police dog unit attempted to find Tyrone but without success. He had been classified by the police as an absconder, not as a vulnerable person and second request for a helicopter was not made. He was found 2 days later on the 23rd November 2015 in a pond between the 16th and 18th fairways.

(1) The jury concluded that Tyrone should have been assessed differently from the first male and should have been classified as a vulnerable person and not as a suspect that was absconding.

(2) The jury believed that a second request for a helicopter should have been issued and that it would have been deployed and that in this case there would have been a chance to find Tyrone in a survivable state.

(3) Collectively there was information available to the police from the OIS logs, what was said to them by the night manager and from their own observations that Tyrone’s departure could be described as “hallucinating, foaming/frothing at the mouth, spaced out on drugs, sweating, that he had ran out of the hotel wearing boxer shorts and socks only. It was very cold, 4 degrees, it was windy and he ran out into open ground with water courses with somebody out to get him and on the police log according to the night manager an ambulance probably would be a good idea.” It was on this evidence that the jury concluded that Tyrone should have been classified as a vulnerable person.

(4) On that information witnesses from the National Police Air Service (NPAS) confirmed that they would have classified Tyrone as a vulnerable person and would have made every effort to deploy a helicopter to the scene. NPAS further indicated that because one request in the same incident had met with a refusal that did not mean a second request would also be refused. Each request would be dealt with on its own merits. Here a second call would have been treated as a top priority job. NPAS would not be concerned with why someone was running away from the police, their concern would be, having run away, that was he at risk of harm.

(5) Contrary to the NPAS evidence the police officers concerned believed that, regardless of Tyrone’s status, a second call to NPAS would have met with the same result and there would be no point in making such a request. Further two duty sergeants involved on the Saturday and Monday mornings had different views as to what risk of harm meant. One thought it meant risk of suicide only, the other that it would extend to non-fatal or accidental harm.

(6) As NPAS serves all police forces in England and Wales they are included in this report so that:

a. They may liaise with West Mercia Police as to any lack of understanding as to what one may expect of the other.

b. To review whether any other police force may also have a similar lack of understanding.