PFD report

Samuel David Dickenson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 May 2025•Manchester West

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised7

  1. Lack of specific seller guidance and training on one-off online purchases for self-harm
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure substance vendors recognise suicide and self-harm misuse risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate frontline training to recognise and respond to suicide and self-harm risk
  2. Failure to evaluate small-quantity purchases for self-harm intent
    Part of recurring concern: Uncontrolled promotion and supply of substances for suicide
  3. Failure to detect distribution of vendor website details on suicide-method platforms
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls on access to online suicide-promoting content
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

    Engage online platforms to encourage voluntary removal of high-purity sodium nitrite listings.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 June 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Online suicide and self-harm forum regulation falls within DSIT’s responsibility under the Online Safety Act, working with Ofcom.

    Stated by Home OfficeRedirects 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 specific seller guidance and training on one-off online purchases for self-harm

Wider context from the report

“1. ████████ is a reportable poison as well as a reportable explosives precursor within the terms, meaning and effect of Part 4 of Schedule 1A of the Poisons Act 1972 with the consequence that: a. The Poisons Act 1972 sets out the legal obligations in relation to the sale, purchase, and use of these chemicals for suppliers, professional users and members of the public. b. The published Guidance (commenced in 2014 and updated in August 2024) does not give specific guidance or suggested training to sellers, particularly Sodium Nitrate/Nitrite acquired by members of the public, particularly over ‘online marketplaces’ in circumstances of the purchase on a ‘one off’ basis for the means of self-harming. c. Whilst there is a legal duty on persons selling this substance to report “suspicious” transactions within 24 hours to the Home Office, the purchase of small quantities is being presumed to be connected to the many legitimate uses of the substance (such as food preservation, fertilizer etc) rather than in fact, being evaluated as a member of the public seeking purchase of modest quantities used as their chosen means by which to end life. d. The current Home Office guidance and supporting video, leaflet and posters do not reference ████████ as a specific example of concern and focuses on the phenomenon of ‘malicious’ misuse and not deliberate misuse in the sense of suicide/self-harm. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure substance vendors recognise suicide and self-harm misuse risks; Inadequate frontline training to recognise and respond to suicide and self-harm risk.

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 evaluate small-quantity purchases for self-harm intent

Wider context from the report

“1. ████████ is a reportable poison as well as a reportable explosives precursor within the terms, meaning and effect of Part 4 of Schedule 1A of the Poisons Act 1972 with the consequence that: a. The Poisons Act 1972 sets out the legal obligations in relation to the sale, purchase, and use of these chemicals for suppliers, professional users and members of the public. b. The published Guidance (commenced in 2014 and updated in August 2024) does not give specific guidance or suggested training to sellers, particularly Sodium Nitrate/Nitrite acquired by members of the public, particularly over ‘online marketplaces’ in circumstances of the purchase on a ‘one off’ basis for the means of self-harming. c. Whilst there is a legal duty on persons selling this substance to report “suspicious” transactions within 24 hours to the Home Office, the purchase of small quantities is being presumed to be connected to the many legitimate uses of the substance (such as food preservation, fertilizer etc) rather than in fact, being evaluated as a member of the public seeking purchase of modest quantities used as their chosen means by which to end life. d. The current Home Office guidance and supporting video, leaflet and posters do not reference ████████ as a specific example of concern and focuses on the phenomenon of ‘malicious’ misuse and not deliberate misuse in the sense of suicide/self-harm. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Uncontrolled promotion and supply of substances for suicide.

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 detect distribution of vendor website details on suicide-method platforms

Wider context from the report

“2. The police investigation into one UK based source of supply revealed in 247 cases separate supplies of 500 grams of less of ████████ to customers in the UK and Europe, police established that 85 of these individuals who were traceable had either died as the consequence of self-ingestion of the substance, or had purchased it with a view to having the means to use this method to end their life in circumstances where: a. the vendors of the ████████ were not aware of this potential misuse of the substance. b. the small quantities being purchased had been incorrectly evaluated to be an increase in individuals pursuing recreational home-curing/food preservations as a hobby, being an artefact of ‘lockdown’ living following the COVID national pandemic emergency. c. Vendors were unaware that their website/details were being distributed as part of internet information platforms designed to aid, abet or promote suicide methods. d. From the specific example of 247 supplies in a 12 month period, police established that 45 purchasers were confirmed as deceased (these deaths were in relation to supplies to UK customers and purchasers from abroad) and only 15 purchases were confirmed to have taken place for legitimate purposes (meat curing etc.). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls on access to online suicide-promoting content.

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

Public access to websites providing suicide-poison access, administration and sourcing information

Wider context from the report

“3. The police investigation revealed the ability of members of the public to access a number of websites, primarily created in the USA, Canada and Mexico that promoted information as to how to access: a. Poisons that could bring about death b. How, in what way and with what other necessary preparations (in particular -antiemetic medications) the poisons should be administered. c. Sourcing such poisons/chemicals/medications in the UK and abroad. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls on access to online suicide-promoting content.

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 vendor awareness of potential self-harm misuse

Wider context from the report

“2. The police investigation into one UK based source of supply revealed in 247 cases separate supplies of 500 grams of less of ████████ to customers in the UK and Europe, police established that 85 of these individuals who were traceable had either died as the consequence of self-ingestion of the substance, or had purchased it with a view to having the means to use this method to end their life in circumstances where: a. the vendors of the ████████ were not aware of this potential misuse of the substance. b. the small quantities being purchased had been incorrectly evaluated to be an increase in individuals pursuing recreational home-curing/food preservations as a hobby, being an artefact of ‘lockdown’ living following the COVID national pandemic emergency. c. Vendors were unaware that their website/details were being distributed as part of internet information platforms designed to aid, abet or promote suicide methods. d. From the specific example of 247 supplies in a 12 month period, police established that 45 purchasers were confirmed as deceased (these deaths were in relation to supplies to UK customers and purchasers from abroad) and only 15 purchases were confirmed to have taken place for legitimate purposes (meat curing etc.). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure substance vendors recognise suicide and self-harm misuse risks.

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

Incorrect evaluation of small-quantity purchases as recreational home-curing purchases

Wider context from the report

“2. The police investigation into one UK based source of supply revealed in 247 cases separate supplies of 500 grams of less of ████████ to customers in the UK and Europe, police established that 85 of these individuals who were traceable had either died as the consequence of self-ingestion of the substance, or had purchased it with a view to having the means to use this method to end their life in circumstances where: a. the vendors of the ████████ were not aware of this potential misuse of the substance. b. the small quantities being purchased had been incorrectly evaluated to be an increase in individuals pursuing recreational home-curing/food preservations as a hobby, being an artefact of ‘lockdown’ living following the COVID national pandemic emergency. c. Vendors were unaware that their website/details were being distributed as part of internet information platforms designed to aid, abet or promote suicide methods. d. From the specific example of 247 supplies in a 12 month period, police established that 45 purchasers were confirmed as deceased (these deaths were in relation to supplies to UK customers and purchasers from abroad) and only 15 purchases were confirmed to have taken place for legitimate purposes (meat curing etc.). ”

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

Home Office guidance materials failing to address deliberate suicide and self-harm misuse

Wider context from the report

“1. ████████ is a reportable poison as well as a reportable explosives precursor within the terms, meaning and effect of Part 4 of Schedule 1A of the Poisons Act 1972 with the consequence that: a. The Poisons Act 1972 sets out the legal obligations in relation to the sale, purchase, and use of these chemicals for suppliers, professional users and members of the public. b. The published Guidance (commenced in 2014 and updated in August 2024) does not give specific guidance or suggested training to sellers, particularly Sodium Nitrate/Nitrite acquired by members of the public, particularly over ‘online marketplaces’ in circumstances of the purchase on a ‘one off’ basis for the means of self-harming. c. Whilst there is a legal duty on persons selling this substance to report “suspicious” transactions within 24 hours to the Home Office, the purchase of small quantities is being presumed to be connected to the many legitimate uses of the substance (such as food preservation, fertilizer etc) rather than in fact, being evaluated as a member of the public seeking purchase of modest quantities used as their chosen means by which to end life. d. The current Home Office guidance and supporting video, leaflet and posters do not reference ████████ as a specific example of concern and focuses on the phenomenon of ‘malicious’ misuse and not deliberate misuse in the sense of suicide/self-harm. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure substance vendors recognise suicide and self-harm misuse risks.

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

Engage online platforms to encourage voluntary removal of high-purity sodium nitrite listings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While sodium nitrite remains widely used for legitimate purposes (e.g., food curing, industrial applications), retailers in Great Britain are legally obliged to report suspicious transactions under the Poisons Act 1972. Border Force officers have been issued guidance on identifying and intercepting consignments suspected for self-harm use. The Home Office also engages with online platforms to encourage voluntary removal of listings for high purity sodium nitrite.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 2 · response
Published 4 June 2025

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

Online suicide and self-harm forum regulation falls within DSIT’s responsibility under the Online Safety Act, working with Ofcom.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Finally, I understand the troubling concerns you have raised about the pro-suicide forums. DSIT, as the department responsible for the Online Safety Act, is committed to working with Ofcom and bereaved families. This partnership aims to ensure the Act protects all users from illegal suicide and self-harm content and shields children from harmful material that does not meet the criminal threshold.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 4 June 2025

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.3

  1. 1

    Continue considering further legislative and non-legislative measures in light of emerging evidence and trends.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 June 2025.
  2. 2

    Assess with DHSC and stakeholders whether additional regulation under the Poisons Act would be effective, proportionate and appropriately led.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 June 2025.
  3. 3

    Issue Border Force guidance on identifying and intercepting consignments of sodium nitrite suspected for self-harm use.

    Stated by Home OfficeStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 June 2025.

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 considering further legislative and non-legislative measures in light of emerging evidence and trends.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you again for sharing these reports. I have asked my officials to continue considering further measures, legislative and nonlegislative, in light of emerging evidence and trends.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 3 · response
Published 4 June 2025

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

Assess with DHSC and stakeholders whether additional regulation under the Poisons Act would be effective, proportionate and appropriately led.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Homeland Security Group oversee the Poisons Act for counter-terrorism purposes and works closely with other government departments in recognition that the legislation may also support wider public safety issues, including suicide prevention. My officials are working collaboratively with DHSC to assess whether, and how, the Poisons Act could play a meaningful role in reducing harm in this context. More generally, the Home Office keeps legislation under regular review to ensure it remains proportionate, evidence-based, and aligned with national security and public safety objectives.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 2 · response
Published 4 June 2025

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

Issue Border Force guidance on identifying and intercepting consignments of sodium nitrite suspected for self-harm use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While sodium nitrite remains widely used for legitimate purposes (e.g., food curing, industrial applications), retailers in Great Britain are legally obliged to report suspicious transactions under the Poisons Act 1972. Border Force officers have been issued guidance on identifying and intercepting consignments suspected for self-harm use. The Home Office also engages with online platforms to encourage voluntary removal of listings for high purity sodium nitrite.”

Source location

Response from Home Office
Page 2 · response
Published 4 June 2025

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