Angeline Marie Phillips · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Dec 2022•Manchester West

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

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

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 raised2

  1. Failure of police officers to attend incidents within policy timescales
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable police incident dispatch and response under service demand
  2. Lack of policy controls preventing transfer of incident attendance responsibility to third-party agencies

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. Greater Manchester Police

    Operate the Greater Manchester Mental Health Urgent Triage pilot as a multi-agency service for triaging and directing eligible mental-health-related emergency calls.

  2. Greater Manchester Police

    Review the Incident Response Policy to address incident attendance and agency responsibility concerns.

  3. Greater Manchester Police

    Provide and maintain IRP and THRIVE training for FCC officers and staff through initial instruction, audits, briefings, and new-joiner programmes.

  4. Greater Manchester Police

    Implement the current Incident Response Policy incorporating THRIVE risk assessment for incident grading and response decisions.

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

  1. Greater Manchester Police

    Where another agency is better placed to respond, responsibility may transfer to that agency or proceed through a joint response.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. Greater Manchester Police

    A further review requiring police attendance at all incidents is unnecessary because the current IRP provides robust risk assessment and appropriate agency attendance.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 police officers to attend incidents within policy timescales

Wider context from the report

“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that: - a) The Greater Manchester Police Incident Response Policy governed the grading of an Incident in relation to priority and the response time to an Incident. b) In relation to the grading of the Incident relating to the Deceased, which was reported at 18.09 hours on the 29th of January 2021, the incident was graded correctly as a Grade 2 Priority Response with a response time of 1 hour but a police officer only attended more than 8 hours after the report of the Incident with the Incident having been referred to NWAS without a police officer attending. c) The Greater Manchester Police Incident Response Policy makes no reference of an option to refer the Incident to a 3rd Party, such as NWAS, but there is no specific reference in the Policy that the attendance must be by a police officer and that the responsibility to attend must not be passed to a 3rd party or any other agency. d) I am concerned that unless the Greater Manchester Police Incident Response Policy is reviewed police officers will not attend Incidents within the timescales referred to in the Policy and there will be an opportunity to pass the responsibility to 3rd party agencies, which may lead to a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police incident dispatch and response under service demand.

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 policy controls preventing transfer of incident attendance responsibility to third-party agencies

Wider context from the report

“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that: - a) The Greater Manchester Police Incident Response Policy governed the grading of an Incident in relation to priority and the response time to an Incident. b) In relation to the grading of the Incident relating to the Deceased, which was reported at 18.09 hours on the 29th of January 2021, the incident was graded correctly as a Grade 2 Priority Response with a response time of 1 hour but a police officer only attended more than 8 hours after the report of the Incident with the Incident having been referred to NWAS without a police officer attending. c) The Greater Manchester Police Incident Response Policy makes no reference of an option to refer the Incident to a 3rd Party, such as NWAS, but there is no specific reference in the Policy that the attendance must be by a police officer and that the responsibility to attend must not be passed to a 3rd party or any other agency. d) I am concerned that unless the Greater Manchester Police Incident Response Policy is reviewed police officers will not attend Incidents within the timescales referred to in the Policy and there will be an opportunity to pass the responsibility to 3rd party agencies, which may lead to a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. ”

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

Operate the Greater Manchester Mental Health Urgent Triage pilot as a multi-agency service for triaging and directing eligible mental-health-related emergency calls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Identifying the most appropriate agency to respond to an incident ensures that those in need receive the right support from those with the requisite skills at the right time. The desire to further improve the service to those in crisis has led to the design of the proposed Greater Manchester Mental Health Urgent Triage (M-HUT) team. A pilot scheme for M-HUT commenced in January 2023 and is ongoing.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

Review the Incident Response Policy to address incident attendance and agency responsibility concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

““A review of the Greater Manchester Police Incident Response Policy to consider specific reference in the policy that the attendance must be by a police officer and that the responsibility to attend must not be passed to a 3rd party or another agency””

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

Provide and maintain IRP and THRIVE training for FCC officers and staff through initial instruction, audits, briefings, and new-joiner programmes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Force-wide training on the IRP was provided to GMP officers and staff during its initial implementation, to ensure all of those who are required to follow the policy are clear about their responsibilities so that the appropriate grade is applied to each incident.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

Implement the current Incident Response Policy incorporating THRIVE risk assessment for incident grading and response decisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result, on 1st February 2022, GMP implemented the current IRP which incorporates the nationally recognised risk assessment approach to incident grading known as THRIVE (Threat, Harm, Risk, Investigation, Vulnerable and Engagement). The THRIVE process has been implemented since the tragic death of Ms Phillips and represents a significant change from the procedures that were in place at that time.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

Where another agency is better placed to respond, responsibility may transfer to that agency or proceed through a joint response.

Verbatim wording from the response

“GMP undertakes a THRIVE risk assessment for all incidents. The THRIVE assessment process informs the appropriate response. GMP will deploy to an incident where it has been identified that a police response is required. However, there are incidents where GMP is not the most appropriate agency to respond to, or lead on the response to, an incident. Where the THRIVE risk assessment identifies that the response may be better provided by another agency, GMP liaises with that agency to determine how the response will be progressed. This can lead to the other agency taking over the incident or, if appropriate, a joint response may follow. THRIVE risk assessments and the liaison and decision-making in relation to deployments are documented on police systems.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

A further review requiring police attendance at all incidents is unnecessary because the current IRP provides robust risk assessment and appropriate agency attendance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“GMP has reflected on the concerns raised within the Regulation 28 report and considers that a review of the IRP to direct police attendance at all incidents would not provide the best level of service to the public. The IRP has been reviewed in the period following Ms Phillips’ death. The system that is in place now provides a robust risk assessment process which results in attendance by the most appropriate agency.”

Source location

Response from Greater Manchester Police
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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