PFD report

Matthew MACKELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 May 2021•North West Kent

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
8

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 raised4

  1. Failure to cascade operational information
  2. Failure to identify, schedule, monitor and record individual training and updating
  3. Inadequate training on the use of location-detection software
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.6

  1. Action

    Record individual training attendance, identify non-attenders and schedule missed training within the five-week rotation.

    Stated by Kent PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 May 2021.
  2. Action

    Deliver the refreshed suicide training package to all FCR teams by 2 September 2021.

    Stated by Kent PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 May 2021.
  3. Action

    Disseminate enhanced mapping functionality through staff briefings and supervisor-led monthly one-to-one learning discussions.

    Stated by Kent PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 May 2021.

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

  1. Position

    Existing training identification, recording, rotation, monitoring and scheduling systems are sufficient to address the Coroner’s concerns.

    Stated by Kent 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

Failure to cascade operational information

Wider context from the report

“(1) In December 2019 a software update had been installed to a system in the Kent Force Control room which, if used, produced a much greater accuracy in detecting the location of mobile phone calls. There had been inadequate or no training on the use of the update which resulted in the system not being deployed to locate the deceased. The call from the deceased at 22.18 was therefore incorrectly downgraded as the area to search was regarded as too wide to be effective. The downgrade was incorrect because (a) the use of the software would have provided an accurate location and (b) the call should have been treated as a suicide call and not an abandoned 999 call. It is accepted that as a direct result of this incident the software system is now the default setting to detect locations. However, the evidence of those witnesses who were required to use the system raised a more general enquiry which identified gaps in or absence of effective training and the cascading of information. ”

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

Failure to identify, schedule, monitor and record individual training and updating

Wider context from the report

“(2) The totality of the evidence from several experienced operatives in the Force Control Room revealed gaps in their knowledge as to operating procedure in respect of the suicide policy, appropriate downgrading of calls, checking available patrols. Whilst it is accepted that following an IOPC report steps have been taken to review and improve procedures, it was apparent that there was an absence of an effective system to identify those that required training/updating and the keeping a record of specific training/updating received by individual operatives and the date it was undertaken. There did not appear to be a structured system in place to produce a regular training rotation which monitored and recorded individual satisfactory progress. Such a system would clearly identify what training/updating had been received thus identifying those who might otherwise be missed and when training/updating was scheduled to take place. ”

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

Inadequate training on the use of location-detection software

Wider context from the report

“(1) In December 2019 a software update had been installed to a system in the Kent Force Control room which, if used, produced a much greater accuracy in detecting the location of mobile phone calls. There had been inadequate or no training on the use of the update which resulted in the system not being deployed to locate the deceased. The call from the deceased at 22.18 was therefore incorrectly downgraded as the area to search was regarded as too wide to be effective. The downgrade was incorrect because (a) the use of the software would have provided an accurate location and (b) the call should have been treated as a suicide call and not an abandoned 999 call. It is accepted that as a direct result of this incident the software system is now the default setting to detect locations. However, the evidence of those witnesses who were required to use the system raised a more general enquiry which identified gaps in or absence of effective training and the cascading of information. ”

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

Gaps in knowledge of suicide policy, call downgrading and patrol-checking procedures

Wider context from the report

“(2) The totality of the evidence from several experienced operatives in the Force Control Room revealed gaps in their knowledge as to operating procedure in respect of the suicide policy, appropriate downgrading of calls, checking available patrols. Whilst it is accepted that following an IOPC report steps have been taken to review and improve procedures, it was apparent that there was an absence of an effective system to identify those that required training/updating and the keeping a record of specific training/updating received by individual operatives and the date it was undertaken. There did not appear to be a structured system in place to produce a regular training rotation which monitored and recorded individual satisfactory progress. Such a system would clearly identify what training/updating had been received thus identifying those who might otherwise be missed and when training/updating was scheduled to take place. ”

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

Record individual training attendance, identify non-attenders and schedule missed training within the five-week rotation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. A database is held to record which members of staff have attended the training and those that have not, with a view to capturing non-attenders through subsequent sessions within the 5-week rotation period. The Command duties teams schedule the training and identify those who miss their allotted sessions.”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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

Deliver the refreshed suicide training package to all FCR teams by 2 September 2021.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10. The 2020 suicide training package has been refreshed and expanded to include additional learning that arose from the evidence and conclusion at the Inquest into Matthew’s death, to which Kent Police paid very careful attention. This new suicide training package will be delivered to all FCR teams by 2nd September 2021.”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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

Disseminate enhanced mapping functionality through staff briefings and supervisor-led monthly one-to-one learning discussions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. A range of briefings were delivered highlighting the enhanced functionality following the death of Matthew Mackell. A briefing was sent to all members of staff with a clear direction for supervisors to ensure the learning was captured by staff through monthly 1-2-1 meetings with the staff they supervise.”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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

Deliver mandatory continuous professional development training to FCR teams through a scheduled five-week rotation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Every Thursday, a mandatory learning and development day is undertaken. On these learning and development days, specific Continuous Professional Development Training packages are delivered on a 5-week rotation to cover all FCR teams. Each package covers a specific theme such as suicide or firearms.”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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

Refresh and expand the suicide training package with learning from the inquest evidence and conclusion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“10. The 2020 suicide training package has been refreshed and expanded to include additional learning that arose from the evidence and conclusion at the Inquest into Matthew’s death, to which Kent Police paid very careful attention. This new suicide training package will be delivered to all FCR teams by 2nd September 2021.”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 3 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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 staff who miss the full rotation to complete online training and quality-assure their understanding individually.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Those who are unable to attend a session across the whole 5-week rotation period (which is minimal in number) are identified by the Command duties team via the database. These members of staff are required to self-serve the training package they missed through online learning (comprised of the slides, trainer notes and any other training materials used in the training package when it was delivered).”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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

Existing training identification, recording, rotation, monitoring and scheduling systems are sufficient to address the Coroner’s concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. With reference to the terms of the regulation 28 report, I trust that this is sufficient to reassure the Coroner that Kent Police has in place (i) an effective system to identify those that require training/updating and of the keeping a record of the specific training/updating received by individual operatives and the date it was undertaken; (ii) a structured system to produce a regular training rotation which monitored and recorded individual satisfactory progress; and (iii) a system which clearly identifies what training/updating had been received thus identifying those who might otherwise be missed and when training/updating was scheduled to take place.”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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 thematically similar CADs to quality-assure dissemination of mapping learning and report findings to the Command Superintendent.

    Stated by Kent PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 May 2021.
  2. 2

    Configure Northgate XC default settings to use the latest mapping functionality and improve abandoned-call location accuracy.

    Stated by Kent PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 May 2021.

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 thematically similar CADs to quality-assure dissemination of mapping learning and report findings to the Command Superintendent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“8. Quality Assurance officers within the Learning & Development team continue to ensure that this learning has been disseminated through thematically reviewing CADs of a similar nature. This is reported through to the Command Superintendent at the Daily Management Meeting.”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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

Configure Northgate XC default settings to use the latest mapping functionality and improve abandoned-call location accuracy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Northgate XC mapping system”

Source location

2021-0177-Response-from-Kent-Police_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 27 May 2021

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
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026