PFD report

PAULS RICARDS KALNINS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Jul 2015•London (East)

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
2

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 of the Merlin database to present key risk information prominently and accessibly
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable Merlin safety-critical risk information
  2. Lack of current database training for communications officers
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

    Notify affected staff line managers of the requirement for Merlin refresher training.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 July 2015.
  2. Action

    Deliver mandatory Merlin refresher training covering warning flags, unflagged incident details, and compliance monitoring for all current MET CC communications staff.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 July 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    No Merlin database changes are intended because the recommended warning functionality already exists in the system.

    Stated by Metropolitan Police ServiceExisting 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

Failure of the Merlin database to present key risk information prominently and accessibly

Wider context from the report

“(1) The communications officer confirmed that he had worked in his role for 15 years, but had little need to obtain data from the Merlin database. Whilst he therefore had access to it, he was not familiar with it. He confirmed that he had last had training in 2011, in relation to the database. (2) The communications officer said that he did not know where to look for the required details. He explained that the database is complex to navigate. The front screen does not contain any key information relating to risk. (3) An investigation was carried out by the Directorate of Professional Standards and they found that the communications officer had accessed the correct pages of the database but had failed to see the relevant pieces of information. (4) The line manager for the communications officer concerned, confirmed that it would “100% assist if key risks come up automatically on the front screen of the Merlin database”. (5) She confirmed that the communications officers are under a lot of pressure when they provide information to officers on the ground; they do not need to access the Merlin database regularly and have to go through a lot of detail in the database. She agreed that refresher training for communications officers would also be useful. (6) The investigator from the Directorate of Professional Standards, ████████ also agreed that the Merlin database is a piece of software which could be improved and could be more user-friendly. He agreed that Merlin is an important database and it would be useful to have refresher training. (7) It was considered that the identification of the grade of risk (low, medium or high) on the front page, together with a brief explanation as to the type of risk posed, is likely to assist in prompting the communications officer to undertake a more detailed search of key parts of the database. ████████ suggested that the warning could be in red. Having heard all of the above evidence, I consider that if the key risks could be highlighted on the front screen of the Merlin database, this would greatly assist communications officers and reduce risk to vulnerable persons in the future. Mandatory refresher training for communications officers, may also reduce risk. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable Merlin safety-critical risk information.

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

Lack of current database training for communications officers

Wider context from the report

“(1) The communications officer confirmed that he had worked in his role for 15 years, but had little need to obtain data from the Merlin database. Whilst he therefore had access to it, he was not familiar with it. He confirmed that he had last had training in 2011, in relation to the database. (2) The communications officer said that he did not know where to look for the required details. He explained that the database is complex to navigate. The front screen does not contain any key information relating to risk. (3) An investigation was carried out by the Directorate of Professional Standards and they found that the communications officer had accessed the correct pages of the database but had failed to see the relevant pieces of information. (4) The line manager for the communications officer concerned, confirmed that it would “100% assist if key risks come up automatically on the front screen of the Merlin database”. (5) She confirmed that the communications officers are under a lot of pressure when they provide information to officers on the ground; they do not need to access the Merlin database regularly and have to go through a lot of detail in the database. She agreed that refresher training for communications officers would also be useful. (6) The investigator from the Directorate of Professional Standards, ████████ also agreed that the Merlin database is a piece of software which could be improved and could be more user-friendly. He agreed that Merlin is an important database and it would be useful to have refresher training. (7) It was considered that the identification of the grade of risk (low, medium or high) on the front page, together with a brief explanation as to the type of risk posed, is likely to assist in prompting the communications officer to undertake a more detailed search of key parts of the database. ████████ suggested that the warning could be in red. Having heard all of the above evidence, I consider that if the key risks could be highlighted on the front screen of the Merlin database, this would greatly assist communications officers and reduce risk to vulnerable persons in the future. Mandatory refresher training for communications officers, may also reduce risk. ”

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

Notify affected staff line managers of the requirement for Merlin refresher training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With this in mind and in direct response to this recommendation, Chief Inspector O’Herlihy contacted all line managers for the affected staff as set out below on the 12th August 2015. This was on the instructions of Operations Superintendent at MET CC ████████”

Source location

2015-0278-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 15 July 2015

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

Deliver mandatory Merlin refresher training covering warning flags, unflagged incident details, and compliance monitoring for all current MET CC communications staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to this area of concern, the Metropolitan Police Service does not intend to make changes to the Merlin database because the functionality identified already exists. However, the importance of this functionality will be part of the training that is set out below, with an intended completion date of 31 March 2016.”

Source location

2015-0278-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2015

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 Merlin database changes are intended because the recommended warning functionality already exists in the system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“████████ states that if information is correctly input onto the system in the first place, the suggested functionality is already present on the system, and would result in a red warning triangle being prominently visible on the top right of every page of the database entry. Clicking on this triangle takes one directly to the relevant warning text. An internal briefing document with screen shots taken from Mr Kalnins’ real Merlin record has been prepared to illustrate this, but as this contains sensitive personal data which should not be circulated to third parties without permission, it has not been included here. If you wish to have sight of this document, please advise, and we will facilitate this separately.”

Source location

2015-0278-Response-by-Metropolitan-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 15 July 2015

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