PFD report

Narjit Gill · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Feb 2024•Coventry and Warwickshire

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
4

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
0

Described in 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 raised1

  1. Failure to remove an observed item from the home in response to continued suicidal ideation
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    Mental health services were the appropriate authority responsible for supporting Mr Gill after police involvement ended.

    Stated by Warwickshire PoliceRedirects 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

Failure to remove an observed item from the home in response to continued suicidal ideation

Wider context from the report

“(1) Failure to remove ████████ when it was seen on 3 May 2023 by mental health practitioners who visited Mr Gill at his home, in light of his continued expression of suicidal ideation. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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

Mental health services were the appropriate authority responsible for supporting Mr Gill after police involvement ended.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of the further attendance of police officers, the Access Hub were contacted again but refused to attend and further refused to make contact again with Mr Gill by telephone. They were advised that officers had correctly identified that they had no powers to act under section 136 of the Mental Health Act as Mr Gill was in his own home, and therefore a Mental Health Act assessment was requested, and the Access Hub agreed to attempt to contact the on-call AMHP. When police advised, they would need to leave Mr Gill’s property as they had no powers and could not do no more, the Access Hub agreed that a manager would review the case and take ownership.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire Police
Page 1 · response
Published 21 February 2024

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

The Trust is primarily responsible for addressing the concerns about failing to remove the ladder and noose from the garden.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The matters of concern raised are primarily for the Trust to address, and I note that the Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Partnership Trust (CWPT) has addressed your concern in detail in their response. CWPT has identified learning points in their internal learning review and have advised that they have recently updated information packs focussed on ‘Suicide Prevention: Red Flags’ and recommended their internal Risk Assessment Training.”

Source location

Response from Department of Health and Social Care
Page 1 · response
Published 21 February 2024

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Police officers appropriately engaged mental health services and made appropriate referrals throughout their involvement.

    Stated by Warwickshire PoliceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    Police could not use section 136 powers because Mr Gill was in his own home.

    Stated by Warwickshire PoliceUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Police officers appropriately engaged mental health services and made appropriate referrals throughout their involvement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having reviewed our records in this matter, we can see that Warwickshire Police officers attended Mr Gill’s home address on two occasions prior to his death, namely on 24 April 2023 and 25 April 2023. On each occasion, officers spoke with Mr Gill, attended with mental health professionals and/or liaised with them appropriately and on each occasion confirmed that Mental Health were engaged with him.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire Police
Page 1 · response
Published 21 February 2024

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

Police could not use section 136 powers because Mr Gill was in his own home.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of the further attendance of police officers, the Access Hub were contacted again but refused to attend and further refused to make contact again with Mr Gill by telephone. They were advised that officers had correctly identified that they had no powers to act under section 136 of the Mental Health Act as Mr Gill was in his own home, and therefore a Mental Health Act assessment was requested, and the Access Hub agreed to attempt to contact the on-call AMHP. When police advised, they would need to leave Mr Gill’s property as they had no powers and could not do no more, the Access Hub agreed that a manager would review the case and take ownership.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire Police
Page 1 · response
Published 21 February 2024

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
2/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026