PFD report

Ryan Patrick BOYLE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Jun 2014•Surrey

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
10

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 raised3

  1. Lack of an efficient and effective pursuit notification system for Force Control Room staff
  2. Insufficient training and retraining of force control operators and personnel likely to deal with police pursuits
  3. Insufficient continuous staffing of the Force desk for dealing with police pursuits
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.8

  1. Action

    Install a Call Supervisor alert button on FCR operator terminals to notify Ops 1 and Ops 2 of incidents requiring attention.

    Stated by Surrey PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2014.
  2. Action

    Provide FCR staffing-pool officers with current training materials and require receipt and understanding confirmation.

    Stated by Surrey PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2014.
  3. Action

    Require FCR staffing-pool constables to complete FCR training days alongside permanent FCR staff.

    Stated by Surrey PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 June 2014.

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

  1. Position

    Shouting remains the most effective incident alert, with the button as an additional safeguard.

    Stated by Surrey PoliceExisting 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

Lack of an efficient and effective pursuit notification system for Force Control Room staff

Wider context from the report

“2. Action is required to ensure that there is an efficient and effective notification system (beyond the current practice of shouting) for controllers to notify supervisors and/or other members of Force Control Room staff that a pursuit has commenced. ”

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

Insufficient training and retraining of force control operators and personnel likely to deal with police pursuits

Wider context from the report

“1. Action is required to ensure that ALL force control operators and those likely to deal with a police pursuit are sufficiently trained and/or re-trained so that they understand their responsibilities, powers and obligations under force policy when dealing with a pursuit. ”

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

Insufficient continuous staffing of the Force desk for dealing with police pursuits

Wider context from the report

“3. Action is required to ensure that a minimum of two persons are monitoring the ‘Force desk’ at all times so as to allow effective dealing with any pursuits that might arise. ”

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

Install a Call Supervisor alert button on FCR operator terminals to notify Ops 1 and Ops 2 of incidents requiring attention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A “Call Supervisor” button has been installed at the top of radio channel management screen on all FCR operator terminals. If the operator presses this button then a corresponding alert button flashes up on the Ops 1 and Ops 2 terminals. This alerts Ops 1 and Ops 2 that there is an incident occurring within the FCR (such as pursuits/firearms) that requires their immediate attention and intervention.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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 FCR staffing-pool officers with current training materials and require receipt and understanding confirmation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the meantime all members of the pool:”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Require FCR staffing-pool constables to complete FCR training days alongside permanent FCR staff.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When addressing staffing shortfalls in the FCR, the Force uses police constables who have previous FCR experience. All constables who are in the pool of officers which can be drawn upon as an FCR staffing resource will be required to complete the FCR training days along with full-time members of FCR staff. Action has been taken to schedule training for these individuals in the next training cycle in September/October 2014 and thereafter on an annual basis.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Revise and update FCR pursuit and TPAC refresher training materials covering staff responsibilities, powers and obligations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The FCR Pursuit and TPAC Refresher 2014 have been fully revised and updated (June 2014) to ensure that the Force’s training materials are up-to-date and clear on”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Brief staff that two people must continuously monitor the Force Channel and require Ops 2 to provide cover when necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All FCR staff and supervisors have been briefed that two people must physically monitor the Force Channel at all times. The practical arrangements for putting this into effect have been notified to all staff, including that if necessary Ops 2 must step in to monitor the Force Channel.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 4 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Instruct FCR staff to use the alert button and verbal notification together, and obtain supervisor acknowledgement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Force has consulted with the FCR Inspectors/Chief Inspectors in Hampshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorset, Thames Valley, Sussex and Kent Constabularies, as well as the Metropolitan Police to investigate best practice in the FCRs of other forces. After detailed consideration Surrey Police remains of the view that the single most effective means of alerting Ops 1 and Ops 2 to an incident requiring their attention (e.g. firearms/pursuits) is by shouting to them. Clearly, this method is effective even when the Ops 1 is not in physical sight of their terminal and acts as an additional safeguard over and above the alert button that has now been installed. Therefore all FCR staff have been instructed that if/when they need to alert Ops 1 or 2 to an incident they should always shout to them, but that they should also press the “Call Supervisor” button as well as a means of attracting attention.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 4 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Give each FCR staffing-pool officer an Ops 2 one-to-one training session and record completion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• will, on their next shift in the FCR, be given a one-to-one session by the Ops 2 on duty who will take them through the training materials and check their understanding of the contents of the training materials. Records will be kept to note that this has been completed.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Draft a standing operating procedure defining Ops 2 responsibility for Force Channel cover when an operator leaves the desk temporarily.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A standing operating procedure has been drafted setting out the responsibilities of Ops 2 for providing cover for the Force Channel where one of the operators has temporarily left the Force Desk.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 4 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Shouting remains the most effective incident alert, with the button as an additional safeguard.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Force has consulted with the FCR Inspectors/Chief Inspectors in Hampshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorset, Thames Valley, Sussex and Kent Constabularies, as well as the Metropolitan Police to investigate best practice in the FCRs of other forces. After detailed consideration Surrey Police remains of the view that the single most effective means of alerting Ops 1 and Ops 2 to an incident requiring their attention (e.g. firearms/pursuits) is by shouting to them. Clearly, this method is effective even when the Ops 1 is not in physical sight of their terminal and acts as an additional safeguard over and above the alert button that has now been installed. Therefore all FCR staff have been instructed that if/when they need to alert Ops 1 or 2 to an incident they should always shout to them, but that they should also press the “Call Supervisor” button as well as a means of attracting attention.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 4 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

    Review and amend Surrey’s pursuit-management guidance to align with national and Sussex Police policy.

    Stated by Surrey PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2014.
  2. 2

    Formalize collaborative pursuit-policy arrangements with Sussex Police under a statutory agreement.

    Stated by Surrey PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2014.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Only Ops 1 and Ops 2 should authorise pursuits because allowing operators increases inconsistency risk unacceptably.

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

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 and amend Surrey’s pursuit-management guidance to align with national and Sussex Police policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Surrey Police Guidance on Pursuit Management has therefore been reviewed to ensure that it is fully consistent with the Association of Chief Police Officers Guidance on the Management of Police Pursuits, as well as Sussex Police Pursuit Policy. Where necessary, minor amendments have been made to ensure complete consistency, with one exception regarding the authorisation of pursuits that I outline below.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Formalize collaborative pursuit-policy arrangements with Sussex Police under a statutory agreement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since the tragic case of Ryan Boyle Surrey Police have entered into collaborative working arrangements with Sussex Police which is now formalised through a s.22A Police Act 1996 agreement in pursuance of s.23 Police Act 1996. This effectively requires the lead Force to set future policy on behalf of both. In the case of pursuits this is the responsibility of Sussex as the Lead Force Operations and Road Policing.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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

Only Ops 1 and Ops 2 should authorise pursuits because allowing operators increases inconsistency risk unacceptably.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following consultation with Superintendent ███████ Road Policing Operational Command, Chief Inspector ███████ Surrey Police Communications Department and Chief Inspector ███████ Sussex Police Communications Department regarding Tactical Pursuit and Containment (“TPAC”) policy and training it has been agreed that in Surrey only Ops 1 and Ops 2 will authorise a pursuit. Whilst this is inconsistent with national (ACPO) policy which permits control room operators to “authorise a pursuit where a supervisor is not immediately available” it is the considered view of Superintendent ███████, Chief Inspector ███████ and Chief Inspector ███████ that permitting and/or requiring control room operators to authorise pursuits would not be operationally desirable because expanding the number of people who can authorise a pursuit increases the risk of inconsistency to an unacceptable degree.”

Source location

2014-0263-Response-by-Surrey-Police
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2014

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