PFD report

Zahra Sharif Mohamed · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Feb 2025•Inner North London

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
4

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 raised4

  1. Reliance on encouraging voluntary return before applying for a warrant
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant procedures
  2. Risk of patients harming themselves or others before s135(2) warrant execution
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant procedures
  3. Delays in obtaining and executing s135(2) warrants
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.7

  1. Action

    Review police databases, conduct a risk assessment, and record and supervisor-ratify risks and control measures before executing section 135(2) warrants.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  2. Action

    Review the corporate section 135 warrant process and incorporate learning and matters raised in the prevention of future deaths report.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  3. Action

    Consider whether an immediate police response is required while a section 135(2) warrant application awaits the court’s decision.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 February 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Court listing timescales are outside the MPS’s remit, so it cannot comment on them.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Reliance on encouraging voluntary return before applying for a warrant

Wider context from the report

“(1) It was accepted that a s135(2) warrant should have been applied for on 4 October 2022. However, if an application had been submitted to the magistrates’ court that day, it is unlikely that the warrant would have been executed before Mrs Mohamed’s death. In evidence, I was informed by a number of mental health professionals that the time taken for a s135(2) warrant to be obtained from the magistrates’ court and executed by the police was in the region of 2 weeks. (2) The process for obtaining a warrant is that an application has to be made for a video hearing at either Uxbridge or Westminster Magistrates’ Courts. It could take several days for a hearing to be arranged as the courts consider applications from all 32 London Boroughs. Once the Magistrates issued a warrant, an appointment would then be arranged for the police to execute the warrant. (3) I was informed that a 2-week timescale for obtaining s135(2) warrants was still the case in the summer of 2024. (4) I also heard evidence that the mental health team could attend Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court in person to apply for a warrant in urgent cases but that they were actively discouraged from using this process by the court. (5) The court heard that the process and timescale for issuing and executing warrants had led to the hospital team adopting a practice of asking the community team to encourage a patient to return to hospital voluntarily before making an application for a warrant. (6) There is an ongoing risk that patients will harm themselves or others in the period before the warrant can be executed. This includes a risk of fatal harm. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant procedures.

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

Risk of patients harming themselves or others before s135(2) warrant execution

Wider context from the report

“(1) It was accepted that a s135(2) warrant should have been applied for on 4 October 2022. However, if an application had been submitted to the magistrates’ court that day, it is unlikely that the warrant would have been executed before Mrs Mohamed’s death. In evidence, I was informed by a number of mental health professionals that the time taken for a s135(2) warrant to be obtained from the magistrates’ court and executed by the police was in the region of 2 weeks. (2) The process for obtaining a warrant is that an application has to be made for a video hearing at either Uxbridge or Westminster Magistrates’ Courts. It could take several days for a hearing to be arranged as the courts consider applications from all 32 London Boroughs. Once the Magistrates issued a warrant, an appointment would then be arranged for the police to execute the warrant. (3) I was informed that a 2-week timescale for obtaining s135(2) warrants was still the case in the summer of 2024. (4) I also heard evidence that the mental health team could attend Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court in person to apply for a warrant in urgent cases but that they were actively discouraged from using this process by the court. (5) The court heard that the process and timescale for issuing and executing warrants had led to the hospital team adopting a practice of asking the community team to encourage a patient to return to hospital voluntarily before making an application for a warrant. (6) There is an ongoing risk that patients will harm themselves or others in the period before the warrant can be executed. This includes a risk of fatal harm. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Section 135 mental health warrant procedures.

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

Delays in obtaining and executing s135(2) warrants

Wider context from the report

“(1) It was accepted that a s135(2) warrant should have been applied for on 4 October 2022. However, if an application had been submitted to the magistrates’ court that day, it is unlikely that the warrant would have been executed before Mrs Mohamed’s death. In evidence, I was informed by a number of mental health professionals that the time taken for a s135(2) warrant to be obtained from the magistrates’ court and executed by the police was in the region of 2 weeks. (2) The process for obtaining a warrant is that an application has to be made for a video hearing at either Uxbridge or Westminster Magistrates’ Courts. It could take several days for a hearing to be arranged as the courts consider applications from all 32 London Boroughs. Once the Magistrates issued a warrant, an appointment would then be arranged for the police to execute the warrant. (3) I was informed that a 2-week timescale for obtaining s135(2) warrants was still the case in the summer of 2024. (4) I also heard evidence that the mental health team could attend Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court in person to apply for a warrant in urgent cases but that they were actively discouraged from using this process by the court. (5) The court heard that the process and timescale for issuing and executing warrants had led to the hospital team adopting a practice of asking the community team to encourage a patient to return to hospital voluntarily before making an application for a warrant. (6) There is an ongoing risk that patients will harm themselves or others in the period before the warrant can be executed. This includes a risk of fatal harm. ”

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

Discouragement of urgent in-person applications for s135(2) warrants

Wider context from the report

“(1) It was accepted that a s135(2) warrant should have been applied for on 4 October 2022. However, if an application had been submitted to the magistrates’ court that day, it is unlikely that the warrant would have been executed before Mrs Mohamed’s death. In evidence, I was informed by a number of mental health professionals that the time taken for a s135(2) warrant to be obtained from the magistrates’ court and executed by the police was in the region of 2 weeks. (2) The process for obtaining a warrant is that an application has to be made for a video hearing at either Uxbridge or Westminster Magistrates’ Courts. It could take several days for a hearing to be arranged as the courts consider applications from all 32 London Boroughs. Once the Magistrates issued a warrant, an appointment would then be arranged for the police to execute the warrant. (3) I was informed that a 2-week timescale for obtaining s135(2) warrants was still the case in the summer of 2024. (4) I also heard evidence that the mental health team could attend Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court in person to apply for a warrant in urgent cases but that they were actively discouraged from using this process by the court. (5) The court heard that the process and timescale for issuing and executing warrants had led to the hospital team adopting a practice of asking the community team to encourage a patient to return to hospital voluntarily before making an application for a warrant. (6) There is an ongoing risk that patients will harm themselves or others in the period before the warrant can be executed. This includes a risk of fatal harm. ”

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 police databases, conduct a risk assessment, and record and supervisor-ratify risks and control measures before executing section 135(2) warrants.

Verbatim wording from the response

“After a warrant is obtained, information held on police databases about the person concerned is reviewed and a risk assessment is conducted. This enables officers to make an informed decision as to the police resources required to execute the warrant and ensure the safety of attending officers, any healthcare professionals and the individual.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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 the corporate section 135 warrant process and incorporate learning and matters raised in the prevention of future deaths report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MPS corporate process to s.135 warrants is currently being reviewed and the matters raised in this PFD report and learning identified will be incorporated into this.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Consider whether an immediate police response is required while a section 135(2) warrant application awaits the court’s decision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“If a warrant appears to be the last option available, an application to the Magistrates’ Court will be made. If the application is made by an AMHP/duly authorised person a request for police attendance will be submitted.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Reiterate London magistrates’ court arrangements for routine, urgent and out-of-hours warrant applications to NHS colleagues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6) Immediately on receipt of this report and in response to exchanges between HMCTS and NHS colleagues, we have re-iterated the arrangements for applications to be made to magistrates’ courts in London whether routine, urgent or out of hours. A meeting to explore any concerns was arranged and held in July between senior HMCTS and NHS professionals. Continued communication of our arrangements will form part of our ongoing service and renewed commitment to partnership working to understand and resolve how serious misconceptions of service provision could have occurred amongst some AMHPs. We remain confident that our arrangements provide excellent access to AMHPs for urgent and emergency warrants.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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 practitioners with guidance on booking non-urgent and out-of-hours mental health warrant applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2) As above, had the case been considered urgent, established procedures exist. Guidance to practitioners describing the scheme for booking non-urgent and out of hours applications has been provided by HMCTS. Regular inter-agency meetings provide fora for discussion about service provision. No concerns about service provision have ever been raised with HMCTS by NHS colleagues. The warrant courts at Westminster and Uxbridge provide sufficient supply of hearings for non-urgent applications based on data analysis and reviews over time. All London magistrates’ courts are available at any time for urgent applications. A central team provides access to urgent applications on request. This service is used relatively frequently by AMHPs.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Maintain continued communication with partner agencies to clarify and resolve misconceptions about mental health warrant access.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6) Immediately on receipt of this report and in response to exchanges between HMCTS and NHS colleagues, we have re-iterated the arrangements for applications to be made to magistrates’ courts in London whether routine, urgent or out of hours. A meeting to explore any concerns was arranged and held in July between senior HMCTS and NHS professionals. Continued communication of our arrangements will form part of our ongoing service and renewed commitment to partnership working to understand and resolve how serious misconceptions of service provision could have occurred amongst some AMHPs. We remain confident that our arrangements provide excellent access to AMHPs for urgent and emergency warrants.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Operate the remote application and online self-service booking system for mental health warrants, with daily remote sessions and additional urgent access routes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Prior to the pandemic, a mental health practitioner who was applying for a mental health warrant could attend court and apply for the warrant. HMCTS operated (and still operates) an open-door policy for this category of priority one work. At the beginning of the pandemic there was a duty of care on HMCTS to protect court users and to embrace, wherever possible, remote ways of working. HMCTS swiftly responded and introduced a remote application system for mental health warrants, accompanied by an online booking system for applicants. The success of this system was such that once pandemic protection measures were removed applicants asked for the system to continue.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Court listing timescales are outside the MPS’s remit, so it cannot comment on them.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The MPS cannot comment on the length of time taken to receive a listing for an application for a s.135(2) warrant to be heard as this is a matter for the courts. However, the average time taken from application to execution is currently between 10 and 20 days.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

HMCTS disputes that a two-week wait for a warrant hearing slot applied in 2022 or through summer 2024.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3) HMCTS disputes the evidence presented to the Inquest that a 2-week timescale applied to obtaining a slot for a warrant hearing at the time in 2022 or up until summer 2024. Had HMCTS been joined as a party we would have had the opportunity to provide rebuttal evidence and positively confirm the arrangements as described above for urgent warrants, if a non-urgent slot was not available in the time required.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

HMCTS disputes that the reported two-week application-to-execution timeline included delay at the magistrates’ court application stage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“HMCTS does not accept the evidence presented that the timeline of 2 weeks for application to execution includes a delay at the magistrate court application stage of the process.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

HMCTS disputes evidence that applicants were discouraged from attending Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court to make urgent warrant applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4) As above, HMCTS has not been given the opportunity to provide our evidence on this point in the Inquest as an Interested Party. Our detailed internal review of service provision concludes our position, and we dispute the evidence presented about discouragement of applicants to Highbury Corner magistrates’ court. Our witnesses would have positively adduced evidence to the contrary.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 4 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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 urgent, out-of-hours, open-door and centralised booking arrangements provide sufficient access without applicants waiting several days for a hearing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Alongside the self-service online booking process, HMCTS retained and retains an open-door policy which is widely known and accepted practice and procedure. This process invites applicants to attend court, which provides immediate access to a court room, where the mental health warrant application will be listed. Applicants are encouraged to contact the centralised administration team who deal with such applications, in order that they can be directed to their local courthouse. However, should an applicant attend a local courthouse without contacting the centralised administration team, it remains the practice that the court will accommodate the applicant, given the nature and priority given to such applications.”

Source location

Response from HMCTS
Page 3 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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.2

  1. 1

    Run weekly Community Consultation Meetings with mental health and policing partners before section 135(2) warrant applications.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 February 2025.
  2. 2

    Build confirmation that pre-consultation has occurred into the online warrant application portal.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 February 2025.

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

Run weekly Community Consultation Meetings with mental health and policing partners before section 135(2) warrant applications.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Before a s.135(2) MHA warrant is applied for, a Community Consultation Meeting will take place with AMHPs and the local Basic Command Unit (BCU) mental health point of contact.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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

Build confirmation that pre-consultation has occurred into the online warrant application portal.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There must be agreement by all parties for the AMHP to continue to the warrant application stage and request police assistance through the on-line portal.”

Source location

Response from MPS
Page 2 · response
Published 25 February 2025

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