PFD report

Sophie Louise Lyons · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Jun 2019•Manchester South

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
3

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. Lack of an effective, adequately funded and targeted multi-agency approach to car cruising
  2. Failure to coordinate a pan-Greater Manchester approach to car cruising
  3. Car cruising involving highly dangerous manoeuvres on public roads
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.3

  1. Action

    Agree a coordinated Greater Manchester approach to district councils' use and enforcement of Public Spaces Protection Orders.

    Stated by Greater Manchester Combined AuthorityStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 August 2019.
  2. Action

    Continue working with police to ensure access to necessary support for responding to illegal car-cruising activity.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 August 2019.
  3. Action

    Attend the next Roads Policing Intelligence Forum to support improved cooperation between police forces on car cruising.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 August 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    District councils, not the Mayor or GMCA, hold the powers to make and enforce Public Spaces Protection Orders.

    Stated by Greater Manchester Combined AuthorityRedirects 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

Lack of an effective, adequately funded and targeted multi-agency approach to car cruising

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard that car cruising had been an issue in Trafford Park for a number of years. The problem (and inherent risk to public safety) was one that both the Local Authority (Trafford MBC) and GMP were aware of. Attempts to tackle it had been ineffective. Car cruising involved highly dangerous manoeuvres being carried out on public roads whilst members of the public were using the roads in significant numbers. The inquest saw video footage that showed the events leading up to the death of Sophie. It was clear that an incident involving disastrous loss of control could have happened at any time that night whilst car cruising was taking place. In addition, the inquest heard that whilst on this occasion Sophie was the sole fatality it could easily have been the case that multiple lives were lost in the incident. One measure taken involved an application for a Public Spaces Protection Order. This had been a joint initiative but the implementation of enforcement meant that it was not effect. The inquest heard that to tackle car cruising successfully, an effective multi-agency adequately funded and targeted approach was required. In addition the inquest heard that in an area such as Greater Manchester with multiple Local Authorities and dense population, a pan Greater Manchester approach would be required to prevent not just further incidents in Trafford Park but across Greater Manchester and nationally. The risk being that looking at the problem of car cruising in isolation could result in it being moved on rather than being dealt with effectively. ”

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 coordinate a pan-Greater Manchester approach to car cruising

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard that car cruising had been an issue in Trafford Park for a number of years. The problem (and inherent risk to public safety) was one that both the Local Authority (Trafford MBC) and GMP were aware of. Attempts to tackle it had been ineffective. Car cruising involved highly dangerous manoeuvres being carried out on public roads whilst members of the public were using the roads in significant numbers. The inquest saw video footage that showed the events leading up to the death of Sophie. It was clear that an incident involving disastrous loss of control could have happened at any time that night whilst car cruising was taking place. In addition, the inquest heard that whilst on this occasion Sophie was the sole fatality it could easily have been the case that multiple lives were lost in the incident. One measure taken involved an application for a Public Spaces Protection Order. This had been a joint initiative but the implementation of enforcement meant that it was not effect. The inquest heard that to tackle car cruising successfully, an effective multi-agency adequately funded and targeted approach was required. In addition the inquest heard that in an area such as Greater Manchester with multiple Local Authorities and dense population, a pan Greater Manchester approach would be required to prevent not just further incidents in Trafford Park but across Greater Manchester and nationally. The risk being that looking at the problem of car cruising in isolation could result in it being moved on rather than being dealt with effectively. ”

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

Car cruising involving highly dangerous manoeuvres on public roads

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard that car cruising had been an issue in Trafford Park for a number of years. The problem (and inherent risk to public safety) was one that both the Local Authority (Trafford MBC) and GMP were aware of. Attempts to tackle it had been ineffective. Car cruising involved highly dangerous manoeuvres being carried out on public roads whilst members of the public were using the roads in significant numbers. The inquest saw video footage that showed the events leading up to the death of Sophie. It was clear that an incident involving disastrous loss of control could have happened at any time that night whilst car cruising was taking place. In addition, the inquest heard that whilst on this occasion Sophie was the sole fatality it could easily have been the case that multiple lives were lost in the incident. One measure taken involved an application for a Public Spaces Protection Order. This had been a joint initiative but the implementation of enforcement meant that it was not effect. The inquest heard that to tackle car cruising successfully, an effective multi-agency adequately funded and targeted approach was required. In addition the inquest heard that in an area such as Greater Manchester with multiple Local Authorities and dense population, a pan Greater Manchester approach would be required to prevent not just further incidents in Trafford Park but across Greater Manchester and nationally. The risk being that looking at the problem of car cruising in isolation could result in it being moved on rather than being dealt with effectively. ”

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

Ineffective enforcement measures against car cruising

Wider context from the report

“The inquest heard that car cruising had been an issue in Trafford Park for a number of years. The problem (and inherent risk to public safety) was one that both the Local Authority (Trafford MBC) and GMP were aware of. Attempts to tackle it had been ineffective. Car cruising involved highly dangerous manoeuvres being carried out on public roads whilst members of the public were using the roads in significant numbers. The inquest saw video footage that showed the events leading up to the death of Sophie. It was clear that an incident involving disastrous loss of control could have happened at any time that night whilst car cruising was taking place. In addition, the inquest heard that whilst on this occasion Sophie was the sole fatality it could easily have been the case that multiple lives were lost in the incident. One measure taken involved an application for a Public Spaces Protection Order. This had been a joint initiative but the implementation of enforcement meant that it was not effect. The inquest heard that to tackle car cruising successfully, an effective multi-agency adequately funded and targeted approach was required. In addition the inquest heard that in an area such as Greater Manchester with multiple Local Authorities and dense population, a pan Greater Manchester approach would be required to prevent not just further incidents in Trafford Park but across Greater Manchester and nationally. The risk being that looking at the problem of car cruising in isolation could result in it being moved on rather than being dealt with effectively. ”

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

Agree a coordinated Greater Manchester approach to district councils' use and enforcement of Public Spaces Protection Orders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Consideration was given to the use by the district councils of their powers to make and enforce Public Spaces Protection Orders and it was agreed that a coordinated approach across Greater Manchester was necessary.”

Source location

2019-0206-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-combined-authority-and-Transport-for-Greater-Manchester-1
Page 3 · response
Published 23 August 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

Continue working with police to ensure access to necessary support for responding to illegal car-cruising activity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“More broadly, the Home Office will continue to work closely with the police to ensure that they have access to necessary support to deal with car cruising so our response to illegal activity at these events improves and we help to prevent future deaths arising in similar circumstances to Ms Lyons.”

Source location

2019-0206-Response-from-the-Home-Office
Page 2 · response
Published 23 August 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

Attend the next Roads Policing Intelligence Forum to support improved cooperation between police forces on car cruising.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of a national approach, the police have recognised the need to work closer together on car cruising to prevent success in one area simply moving the problem to another. A national practitioners group has therefore been set up, bringing together car cruising leads from across the country to share best practice and discuss methods for tackling illegal activity at these events. The first national forum was hosted by Essex Police last year with Greater Manchester Police hosting a meeting this year. Reflecting the importance of this issue, the National Police Chiefs’ Council have also agreed to discuss car cruising at the next Roads Policing Intelligence Forum in October. This will provide the opportunity to facilitate better working between police forces to tackle car cruising and my officials have agreed to attend.”

Source location

2019-0206-Response-from-the-Home-Office
Page 2 · response
Published 23 August 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

District councils, not the Mayor or GMCA, hold the powers to make and enforce Public Spaces Protection Orders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the Mayor’s functions include holding the Chief Constable to account, the Chief Constable has operational independence and total discretion on decisions concerning the configuration and organisation of policing resources or whether not, to deploy police officers. The powers in relation to Public Spaces Protection Orders are vested solely in the district councils.”

Source location

2019-0206-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-combined-authority-and-Transport-for-Greater-Manchester-1
Page 3 · response
Published 23 August 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 Chief Constable, not the Mayor or GMCA, decides policing resource configuration and whether officers are deployed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the Mayor’s functions include holding the Chief Constable to account, the Chief Constable has operational independence and total discretion on decisions concerning the configuration and organisation of policing resources or whether not, to deploy police officers. The powers in relation to Public Spaces Protection Orders are vested solely in the district councils.”

Source location

2019-0206-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-combined-authority-and-Transport-for-Greater-Manchester-1
Page 3 · response
Published 23 August 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

Greater Manchester Combined Authority is responsible for responding to the local matters of concern raised in the report.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You also raised a number of local matters of concern in your report which, I understand, will be covered in the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s response.”

Source location

2019-0206-Response-from-the-Home-Office
Page 2 · response
Published 23 August 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

Police determine how and when to use enforcement options for car cruising as an operational matter under local policing plans.

Verbatim wording from the response

“PSPOs are one of a range of options and tactics which can be used to tackle car cruising. There are a number of public order and road traffic offences that individuals can be charged with and those driving recklessly or inappropriately can have their vehicles seized. As well as anti-social behaviour legislation, some forces have obtained court injunctions covering whole areas which carry a power of arrest for a breach. Although these injunctions have not stopped illegal activity at car cruising events, they have provided a valuable tool to reduce them with regular enforcement operations taking place using local Neighbourhood Officers, Operational Support Teams and drone support. How and when to use these enforcement options is an operational matter for the police to determine in line with local policing plans.”

Source location

2019-0206-Response-from-the-Home-Office
Page 1 · response
Published 23 August 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
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026