PFD report

William Steven Helstrip · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Jan 2024•East Riding and Hull

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to preserve time-sensitive CCTV evidence relevant to suspect identification
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable police investigative evidence gathering
  2. Failure to adequately assess information relevant to suspicious circumstances and third-party involvement
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.2

  1. Action

    Review the sudden and unexpected death policy and amend it to address drug-related deaths and recordable drug deliveries.

    Stated by Humberside PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
  2. Action

    Refresh fast-track actions and Golden Hour Principles through continuing professional development for patrol constables and sergeants.

    Stated by Humberside PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 January 2024.

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

  1. Position

    The officer considered the family’s information and seized relevant packaging and invoices; the substances were not illegal when purchased.

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

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 preserve time-sensitive CCTV evidence relevant to suspect identification

Wider context from the report

“The Deceased’s parents informed the attending police officer that Mr Helstrip had been buying drugs from the “Dark Web” and that packages containing these drugs had been sent, recorded delivery, via Royal Mail to his premises. Despite this, the police investigation concluded that there were no suspicious circumstances or third-party involvement surrounding Mr Helstrip’s death and hence no criminal investigation took place. This was based on the attending officer’s impression, which did not appear to take into consideration the information about the sourcing and method of delivery of the drugs. Subsequently, Mr Helstrip’s parents contacted the then Chief Constable of Humberside Police, in 2023 informing him of their concerns about the lack of investigation on the part of the police. A senior investigating officer was then allocated to the case, who looked at the issue of illicit drugs being sent via Royal Mail, by recorded delivery, to see whether the vendor of these substances could be identified and help police with their inquiries. Evidence was heard from this detective, that whilst the investigation is still on-going, time sensitive evidence in the form of CCTV footage from the post office from whence the package was sent, is irretrievably lost, and that this has compromised the identification of the suspect. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable police investigative evidence gathering.

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 adequately assess information relevant to suspicious circumstances and third-party involvement

Wider context from the report

“The Deceased’s parents informed the attending police officer that Mr Helstrip had been buying drugs from the “Dark Web” and that packages containing these drugs had been sent, recorded delivery, via Royal Mail to his premises. Despite this, the police investigation concluded that there were no suspicious circumstances or third-party involvement surrounding Mr Helstrip’s death and hence no criminal investigation took place. This was based on the attending officer’s impression, which did not appear to take into consideration the information about the sourcing and method of delivery of the drugs. Subsequently, Mr Helstrip’s parents contacted the then Chief Constable of Humberside Police, in 2023 informing him of their concerns about the lack of investigation on the part of the police. A senior investigating officer was then allocated to the case, who looked at the issue of illicit drugs being sent via Royal Mail, by recorded delivery, to see whether the vendor of these substances could be identified and help police with their inquiries. Evidence was heard from this detective, that whilst the investigation is still on-going, time sensitive evidence in the form of CCTV footage from the post office from whence the package was sent, is irretrievably lost, and that this has compromised the identification of the suspect. ”

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

Review the sudden and unexpected death policy and amend it to address drug-related deaths and recordable drug deliveries.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Review of sudden and unexpected death policy – with an amendment regarding drug related deaths and advice given to follow lines of enquiry where a drug is believed to have been posted through a recordable means.”

Source location

Response from Humberside Police
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 2024

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 fast-track actions and Golden Hour Principles through continuing professional development for patrol constables and sergeants.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Fast-track actions and Golden Hour Principles to be refreshed during CPD sessions for Patrol PC’s and Sergeants. Officers need to be directed to conduct critical enquiries at the point of first attendance and not wait for a formal request to prevent evidence loss.”

Source location

Response from Humberside Police
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 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 officer considered the family’s information and seized relevant packaging and invoices; the substances were not illegal when purchased.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The investigation review found that the officer in the case (OIC) was cognisant of the information provided by Mr Helstrip’s family that it was possible Mr Helstrip had obtained drugs from the internet and in particular the dark web. The OIC acted upon this information as he seized packaging and invoices of the various drugs/supplements found on the day Mr Helstrip was discovered deceased. It is worth noting that the identification of the substances purchased online by Mr Helstrip prior to death were not at that time illegal, however since then legislation has changed and they would now be a controlled substance.”

Source location

Response from Humberside Police
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 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-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Brief inspectors on their responsibility for directing investigations and applying lessons from this investigation.

    Stated by Humberside PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
  2. 2

    Create an intranet resource explaining officers’ requirements for coroners’ enquiries.

    Stated by Humberside PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 January 2024.
  3. 3

    Review the coroners’ investigations process and formulate a policy for allocating and investigating coronial matters, including Detective Inspector oversight.

    Stated by Humberside PoliceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 25 January 2024.

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 inspectors on their responsibility for directing investigations and applying lessons from this investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Inspectors to be briefed regarding their responsibility around the direction of investigations and lessons learned from this investigation.”

Source location

Response from Humberside Police
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 2024

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

Create an intranet resource explaining officers’ requirements for coroners’ enquiries.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The investigation review identified a lack of knowledge and understanding by OICs in relation to Coroners enquiries and that fast-track actions may be conducted without waiting for a formal request from the Coroner to prevent evidence loss.”

Source location

Response from Humberside Police
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 2024

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

Review the coroners’ investigations process and formulate a policy for allocating and investigating coronial matters, including Detective Inspector oversight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. A review of the Coroners Investigations process and for a policy to be formulated regarding the allocation and further investigation of coronial matters investigations. This is to include oversight by the Detective Inspectors and if this period need to be extended to cover more than initial attendance.”

Source location

Response from Humberside Police
Page 2 · response
Published 25 January 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026