PFD report

Ben Alan Jukes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Jul 2017•Manchester City

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
2

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. Failure of army drug-testing to detect illicit drug use
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably detect illicit drug use
  2. Failure of drug testing to remain random and unannounced
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably detect illicit drug use
  3. Supply of heroin to homeless drug users
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

    Reiterate the need for absolute discretion to units when notifying them of compulsory drug-testing visits.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 December 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Education and deterrence through the existing drug misuse strategy are assessed as effective despite testing not detecting every instance of misuse.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceExisting 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 army drug-testing to detect illicit drug use

Wider context from the report

“1. Whatever drug-testing regime may have been operated by the army during the five year period failed to detect Captain Jukes' regular use of heroin and cocaine. More regular testing by the army in that period would have increased the likelihood of detection. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably detect illicit drug use.

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 of drug testing to remain random and unannounced

Wider context from the report

“3. It appears that on at least one occasion as set out above Captain Jukes was forewarned of a drug test. 4. Thus forewarned, Captain Jukes was easily able to evade the drug test which would as a near certainty have exposed him as a user of heroin and cocaine. 5. Unless drug testing is random and unannounced it will fail to detect illicit drug use among servicemen and women. Failure to detect illicit drug use increases the likelihood of further deaths as a result of the same. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably detect illicit drug use.

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

Supply of heroin to homeless drug users

Wider context from the report

“2. Captain Jukes' supply of heroin to homeless drug users in Manchester City centre exacerbated an already high risk of death among that group. More regular testing by the army in that period would have increased the likelihood of detection. ”

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

Reiterate the need for absolute discretion to units when notifying them of compulsory drug-testing visits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The initial notification of the visit will be made through the Adjutant, who is expected to notify the Commanding Officer. Prior notification is necessary to enable this core element of the unit command structure to plan the support required from the unit to facilitate the testing and to make contingencies for the disruption of unit activity that will occur as a result of testing. It will also enable the Adjutant to make an assessment of the number of personnel expected to be in barracks and thus available for testing at the time of the scheduled CDT visit. In doing so, the Commanding Officer and his immediate team will manage the information with the utmost discretion to avoid pre-warning anyone not required to know in advance. In future, the need for absolute discretion will be reiterated to units as part of their initial notification.”

Source location

2017-0335-Response-by-MOD
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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

Education and deterrence through the existing drug misuse strategy are assessed as effective despite testing not detecting every instance of misuse.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Army’s drug misuse strategy was revised in November 2016. It is based on three pillars: prevention through education, deterrence through testing, and regulation. Education begins from initial entry into military service, whether it be as an officer or a soldier. It is made quite clear through education to all Service Personnel that the misuse of controlled drugs is incompatible with military service. It is also made clear during this education that Service Personnel have a personal responsibility to adhere to these values and standards.”

Source location

2017-0335-Response-by-MOD
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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

Frequent testing sufficient to ensure detection of all drug misuse is impracticable because traces may leave the body before testing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is further acknowledged that CDT can only act as a deterrent – it cannot detect misuse at a time after the traces of misuse have left the body and are no longer detectable. It is therefore impracticable for the Army to test each soldier and officer frequently enough to ensure that all drugs misuse is always detected. Nonetheless, the combined effect of education and deterrence are assessed to have effect. The 2015/16 Crime Survey of England and Wales reports drug misuse across society to be at 8.4% or 1 in 12. While any misuse in the Army is unacceptable and strenuous efforts to reduce it continue, the level of misuse in the Army is reported at 0.7 – 0.9%.”

Source location

2017-0335-Response-by-MOD
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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

Advance notification of testing is necessary to plan operational support and manage disruption, although information is to be handled discreetly.

Verbatim wording from the response

“CDT visits are scheduled by the CDT team with unit notification usually made with as little as 24 hours’ notice. This period of notice will only be varied in exceptional circumstances, such as when security clearances for Northern Ireland are required or where there is a specific intelligence led need.”

Source location

2017-0335-Response-by-MOD
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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.1

  1. 1

    Revise the Army’s drug misuse strategy around prevention education, deterrence through testing and regulation.

    Stated by Ministry of DefenceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 December 2017.

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 the Army’s drug misuse strategy around prevention education, deterrence through testing and regulation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Army’s drug misuse strategy was revised in November 2016. It is based on three pillars: prevention through education, deterrence through testing, and regulation. Education begins from initial entry into military service, whether it be as an officer or a soldier. It is made quite clear through education to all Service Personnel that the misuse of controlled drugs is incompatible with military service. It is also made clear during this education that Service Personnel have a personal responsibility to adhere to these values and standards.”

Source location

2017-0335-Response-by-MOD
Page 3 · response
Published 2 December 2017

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