PFD report

Shaun Elliott · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 31 Jan 2014•Buckinghamshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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 raised4

  1. Lack of clarity in the high-risk definition for missing persons
  2. Failure to provide effective family liaison during missing person enquiries
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable missing-person response
  3. Failure to apply the high-risk definition appropriately in missing person assessments
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable missing-person response
Responses linked to these concerns

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

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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 clarity in the high-risk definition for missing persons

Wider context from the report

“(4).Application of definition of “ High Risk” in the context of missing persons. Shaun was assessed as medium risk until 21:00 hours on 10th July. At that time a Chief Inspector had reviewed the information on the database and applied an “enlarged” interpretation of the high risk definition. The evidence revealed that up to that time officers (Sergeants and Inspectors) considered that “High” risk could not apply in the absence of evidence of “Immediate” risk. The Jury concluded that the case should have been categorised as high risk on Saturday 9th July. These definitions are used nationally and are potentially part of our review. The concerns arising are around whether the definition could ( for example) be annotated or commented on to clarify when a less literal interpretation can be applied). ”

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 provide effective family liaison during missing person enquiries

Wider context from the report

“(3)Family Liaison. Shaun’s family expressed a number of concerns and frustrations in this regard. However relevant to this report specific benefits could be derived from effective family liaison. Namely the family as a source of information together with the potential information sharing and cross referencing. ”

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 apply the high-risk definition appropriately in missing person assessments

Wider context from the report

“(4).Application of definition of “ High Risk” in the context of missing persons. Shaun was assessed as medium risk until 21:00 hours on 10th July. At that time a Chief Inspector had reviewed the information on the database and applied an “enlarged” interpretation of the high risk definition. The evidence revealed that up to that time officers (Sergeants and Inspectors) considered that “High” risk could not apply in the absence of evidence of “Immediate” risk. The Jury concluded that the case should have been categorised as high risk on Saturday 9th July. These definitions are used nationally and are potentially part of our review. The concerns arising are around whether the definition could ( for example) be annotated or commented on to clarify when a less literal interpretation can be applied). ”

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

Lack of missing person coordinator coverage at weekends

Wider context from the report

“(2) The evidence revealed that a missing person coordinator was in post but not on duty at weekends. It was apparent from the evidence that an appropriately experienced coordinator will have the time and know-how to examine cases in fine detail. The officers directly responsible for the enquiry may have many other calls on their time. The IPCC report recommended there be cover 7 days a week. A senior police officer reported that this was under review and that other police forces were being contacted to see how they were addressing the issue. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable missing-person response.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.