PFD report

Daniel-John VARNDELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Nov 2022•Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

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
2

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 raised2

  1. Failure to ensure that licence conditions requiring attendance with a specific practitioner are suitable and operational before release
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safe-release arrangements for high-risk offendersPart of recurring concern: Unreliable safety decisions to approve or change offender licence conditions
  2. Unilateral removal of licence conditions without consultation with MAPPA and mental health professionals
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety decisions to approve or change offender licence conditions
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

Failure to ensure that licence conditions requiring attendance with a specific practitioner are suitable and operational before release

Wider context from the report

“The MAPPA meeting (consisting of over 20 professionals due to the complexity of the release planning) decided that various Conditions should apply to Daniel-John Varndell's Licence as he posed such a high risk to himself and others. One of these was: "Attend all appointments arranged for him with a psychiatrist/psychologist/medical practitioner and co-operate fully with any care or treatment they recommend" This was for use with a specific named practitioner, who must have agreed to treat him and he should have consented to this prior to the condition being added so unless something had been set up prior to release this condition may not have been suitable. The condition was unilaterally removed by a probation officer possibly because consent was not in place or for another reason. The point is there was no discussion with MAPPA professionals or any mental health practitioner prior to removal notwithstanding that the Chair of MAPPA indicated that the conditions were appropriate and necessary. Whilst this may not have affected the outcome in the present sad case such unilateral removal of a Licence Condition could result in a future death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safe-release arrangements for high-risk offenders; Unreliable safety decisions to approve or change offender licence conditions.

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

Unilateral removal of licence conditions without consultation with MAPPA and mental health professionals

Wider context from the report

“The MAPPA meeting (consisting of over 20 professionals due to the complexity of the release planning) decided that various Conditions should apply to Daniel-John Varndell's Licence as he posed such a high risk to himself and others. One of these was: "Attend all appointments arranged for him with a psychiatrist/psychologist/medical practitioner and co-operate fully with any care or treatment they recommend" This was for use with a specific named practitioner, who must have agreed to treat him and he should have consented to this prior to the condition being added so unless something had been set up prior to release this condition may not have been suitable. The condition was unilaterally removed by a probation officer possibly because consent was not in place or for another reason. The point is there was no discussion with MAPPA professionals or any mental health practitioner prior to removal notwithstanding that the Chair of MAPPA indicated that the conditions were appropriate and necessary. Whilst this may not have affected the outcome in the present sad case such unilateral removal of a Licence Condition could result in a future death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety decisions to approve or change offender licence conditions.

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.