PFD report

Lesley Ann Armstrong · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Apr 2019•North Northumberland

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
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 raised1

  1. Failure to communicate completion of Police investigations to the Local Safeguarding Adults Board and care home owners
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    Investigation outcomes should normally be communicated directly to the suspect or legal representative by the investigating officer, not through an employer.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceRedirects 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 communicate completion of Police investigations to the Local Safeguarding Adults Board and care home owners

Wider context from the report

“It is recognised that employers have a duty of care to their employees to investigate allegations against them promptly and keep them reasonably informed about the progress of investigation of misconduct. On this occasion the employers Akari Care Limited could not properly inform Mrs Armstrong about the status of their investigation because they were not formally told when the Section 47 investigation by Northumbria Police had been discontinued. Northumbria Police acknowledged at the Inquest that there were procedural errors by two of their Officers, that the procedures themselves required improvement and that they had taken steps to address these. It was not clear that any practical steps had been taken to improve communication with the Local Safeguarding Adults Board or the owners of the Care Home both of whom needed to know when the Police investigations were completed so that the Safeguarding Board could if necessary progress an investigation under the Care Act 2014, and the Care Home could keep Mrs Armstrong informed about progress and her employment position. That lack of information or progress caused Mrs Armstrong to believe she was still under suspicion for an offence of assault. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

Open source report

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

Investigation outcomes should normally be communicated directly to the suspect or legal representative by the investigating officer, not through an employer.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The purpose of information sharing between agencies, particularly in the care context, is to safeguard care users. It is this purpose which potentially enables disclosure of information relating to allegations of criminal conduct to be disclosed to an employer. The purpose of such information sharing is not to enable the employer to keep its employee updated as to the progress of the criminal investigation against that employee. Disclosure for that reason would be unlawful, unless the employee provided his or her consent and if the employee provided such consent, there would of course be no need to notify the employer. If the employee requires an update as to progress then it is clearly most appropriate that contact should be sought directly with the police, or via the employee’s legal representative.”

Source location

2019-0136-Response-by-Northumbria-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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

Routine employer updates about criminal investigations are inappropriate and unlawful without the employee’s consent, subject to case-by-case disclosure decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Sharing of criminal conviction data, or of information relating to allegations of criminal conduct, is subject to the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (the Act). Such information is defined as “special category data” (analogous to sensitive personal data under the earlier Data Protection Act 1998). The legislation restricts the sharing of such information save in clearly defined circumstances.”

Source location

2019-0136-Response-by-Northumbria-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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

    Maintain a procedure reminding investigating officers to promptly inform suspects of investigation outcomes.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 June 2019.
  2. 2

    Deliver further training and guidance on voluntary attender processes.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 June 2019.

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

  1. 1

    The existing procedure reminding investigating officers to notify suspects promptly was considered fit for purpose, so no further action was necessary.

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

    There was no evidence that police knew or ought to have known the individual posed a risk of self-harm.

    Stated by Northumbria PoliceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 a procedure reminding investigating officers to promptly inform suspects of investigation outcomes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For the above reasons, I consider that information regarding the conclusion of a police investigation ought usually to be communicated directly to the suspect or their legal representative by the investigating officer, and not through any third party. It is the investigating officer who is usually best able to assess when and how such information should be communicated to the suspect and, if appropriate, any other interested parties. It is not appropriate that such updates should be given to employers routinely. Decisions to disclose information to employers can necessarily only be made on a case by case basis. Provision of information to employers as a “fail safe” mechanism, on the assumption that they will update the employee, cannot be appropriate and will be unlawful in the absence of the employee’s consent.”

Source location

2019-0136-Response-by-Northumbria-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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 further training and guidance on voluntary attender processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As the evidence given at the Inquest made clear, there already exists a system reminding investigating officers of the need to promptly inform suspects of the outcome of a police investigation. Whilst the Inquest heard evidence that since Mrs Armstrong’s death further training and guidance has been delivered (instigated by a national review of voluntary attender processes led by the College of Policing), the existing procedure was fit for purpose. The officers knew that Mrs Armstrong required an update but, due to individual errors which were explained at the Inquest, this unfortunately did not occur. As you are aware, the officers were dealt with appropriately under Force conduct procedures for their errors.”

Source location

2019-0136-Response-by-Northumbria-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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 existing procedure reminding investigating officers to notify suspects promptly was considered fit for purpose, so no further action was necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As the evidence given at the Inquest made clear, there already exists a system reminding investigating officers of the need to promptly inform suspects of the outcome of a police investigation. Whilst the Inquest heard evidence that since Mrs Armstrong’s death further training and guidance has been delivered (instigated by a national review of voluntary attender processes led by the College of Policing), the existing procedure was fit for purpose. The officers knew that Mrs Armstrong required an update but, due to individual errors which were explained at the Inquest, this unfortunately did not occur. As you are aware, the officers were dealt with appropriately under Force conduct procedures for their errors.”

Source location

2019-0136-Response-by-Northumbria-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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

There was no evidence that police knew or ought to have known the individual posed a risk of self-harm.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to Mrs Armstrong, no evidence was heard at the Inquest that Northumbria Police officers or staff knew or ought to have known that Mrs Armstrong would take her own life or otherwise injure herself. Whilst there was evidence that Mrs Armstrong was experiencing mental health difficulties during the investigation, this information was not passed to Northumbria Police.”

Source location

2019-0136-Response-by-Northumbria-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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