PFD report

Ozeilivo Andrew AKERELE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Nov 2016•Coventry

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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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.

Concerns raised6

  1. Failure to follow up a recommendation for a more thorough search
  2. Failure to ensure the Police Search Advisor is aware of recommendations for a more thorough search
    Part of recurring concern: Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical informationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable police search coordination and information
  3. Failure to search a disused graveyard near the last sighting at or about the time of disappearance
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.1

  1. Action

    Refer the case to the National Missing Persons Operational Group to consider working with POLSA on amending search-coordination guidance.

    Stated by Christopher JohnsonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 December 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The National Missing Persons Operational Group will consider amending guidance on coordinating, tasking and recording similar searches with POLSA involvement.

    Stated by Christopher JohnsonRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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 follow up a recommendation for a more thorough search

Wider context from the report

“(3) The recommendation by ████████ for a more thorough search was not followed up. ”

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

Failure to ensure the Police Search Advisor is aware of recommendations for a more thorough search

Wider context from the report

“(4)The Police Search Advisor was unaware of the recommendation for a more thorough search by ████████ ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical information; Unreliable police search coordination and 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

Failure to search a disused graveyard near the last sighting at or about the time of disappearance

Wider context from the report

“(2) failure to search the disused graveyard at or about the time of his disappearance. where Mr Akerele was eventually discovered 15 months later by children.- the graveyard was only a few metres away from the last sighting of him on CCTV on 31 January 2015. ”

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

Failure of the search to locate a missing person despite an intensive search near the last confirmed sighting

Wider context from the report

“(1) failure to find the body of Mr Akerele despite an intensive search when in fact his body was found very close to the last confirmed sighting of him. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable missing-person response.

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 ensure the Police Search Advisor is aware of the cursory nature of a graveyard search

Wider context from the report

“(5) The Police Search Advisor was unaware of the (cursory) nature of the search of the graveyard in February 2015 ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure of police operational communications to reliably share safety-critical information; Unreliable police search coordination and 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

Failure of the search team to locate a missing person when searching a defined graveyard area

Wider context from the report

“(2) failure of the search team to find Mr Akerele when they did eventually search the disused graveyard in approximately late February 2015 despite the graveyard being approximately 60m x 30m. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable missing-person response.

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

Refer the case to the National Missing Persons Operational Group to consider working with POLSA on amending search-coordination guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The case will now be referred to the National Missing Persons Operational Group to consider working with the Police Search Advisor (POLSA) to amend guidance around how a search is co-ordinated in similar cases; specifically providing clarity around the tasking of the search, what is being searched for and the accurate recording of search, completed with oversight by Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) and POLSA.”

Source location

2017-0337-Response-by-West-Midland-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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

The National Missing Persons Operational Group will consider amending guidance on coordinating, tasking and recording similar searches with POLSA involvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The case will now be referred to the National Missing Persons Operational Group to consider working with the Police Search Advisor (POLSA) to amend guidance around how a search is co-ordinated in similar cases; specifically providing clarity around the tasking of the search, what is being searched for and the accurate recording of search, completed with oversight by Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) and POLSA.”

Source location

2017-0337-Response-by-West-Midland-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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

The individual search decisions appeared reasonable, although a more comprehensive search strategy and recording process was needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the searching, it does appear that a more comprehensive search strategy and updates could have been compiled, with absolute clarity around who had searched what area, to what extent and at what time. The individual decisions by ████████ and ████████ appear reasonable, but a more comprehensive effort would have ensured that the relevant information that ████████ had accessed the land that ████████ thought inaccessible, and the relative limitations of the search that ████████ had carried out, would have been more apparent at an earlier stage. It also appears that an earlier invitation to the POLSA may have assisted in the tasking and recording of searches at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location

2017-0337-Response-by-West-Midland-Police
Page 1 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The professional standards review concluded that no further action would be taken regarding the officer’s conduct.

    Stated by Christopher JohnsonNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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

The professional standards review concluded that no further action would be taken regarding the officer’s conduct.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Appropriate Authority in our Professional Standards Department (PSD), ████████ has since reviewed the IOPC decision to assess whether the officer’s conduct is capable of amounting to gross misconduct or misconduct subject to s.23(6)(a)(i) Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The outcome of this review is that no further action will be taken.”

Source location

2017-0337-Response-by-West-Midland-Police
Page 1 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026