PFD report

Deborah Jane Cooper · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Jul 2024•Wiltshire and Swindon

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
1

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 raised3

  1. Exclusion of provider content from online safety legislation when Amazon UK directly offers suicide-instruction publications through its own marketplace
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls on access to online suicide-promoting content
  2. Failure of criminal penalties to substantively dissuade limited companies from marketing suicide-instruction publications
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls on access to online suicide-promoting content
  3. Direct marketing and supply of a publication providing instructions and advice on methods of ending one's life
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

    There is no legislative sentencing gap because the Crown Court can impose a fine on a company convicted under the Suicide Act 1961.

    Stated by Department for Science, Innovation and TechnologyDisputes 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

Exclusion of provider content from online safety legislation when Amazon UK directly offers suicide-instruction publications through its own marketplace

Wider context from the report

“There are 2 issues that are of concern to me both of which leave me with the concern that there appears to be nothing in the legislative arsenal to substantively dissuade Amazon UK from marketing this publication to members of the public and children, if supplied direct from their warehouse. Those concerns are based on :- a. whilst there may be an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 as amended by the Coroners’ and Justice Act 2009 to include a limited company the penalty for such an offence was not changed and it remains as imprisonment, and you cannot imprison a limited company; b. Having regard to the response from Ofcom (copy attached for ease of reference), they have made it clear in paragraph 4 that where “Amazon UK itself directly offers a product for sale via its own marketplace, that will be provider content (which is not in scope of the OSA) ….. I have additionally enclosed with this letter a copy taken today from the Amazon website which clearly shows that Amazon UK are directly offering this particular book for sale via its own marketplace. There therefore seems to be a significant gap in the legislation to stop material like this being directly marketed by an organisation, in this case by Amazon UK, utilising its own marketplace. I fully acknowledge that if Amazon were marketing this on behalf of a third party seller, then that would be covered by the online safety legislation but that does not appear to be the case here and this book is being provided directly by the Amazon UK Warehouse. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls on access to online suicide-promoting content.

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 criminal penalties to substantively dissuade limited companies from marketing suicide-instruction publications

Wider context from the report

“There are 2 issues that are of concern to me both of which leave me with the concern that there appears to be nothing in the legislative arsenal to substantively dissuade Amazon UK from marketing this publication to members of the public and children, if supplied direct from their warehouse. Those concerns are based on :- a. whilst there may be an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 as amended by the Coroners’ and Justice Act 2009 to include a limited company the penalty for such an offence was not changed and it remains as imprisonment, and you cannot imprison a limited company; b. Having regard to the response from Ofcom (copy attached for ease of reference), they have made it clear in paragraph 4 that where “Amazon UK itself directly offers a product for sale via its own marketplace, that will be provider content (which is not in scope of the OSA) ….. I have additionally enclosed with this letter a copy taken today from the Amazon website which clearly shows that Amazon UK are directly offering this particular book for sale via its own marketplace. There therefore seems to be a significant gap in the legislation to stop material like this being directly marketed by an organisation, in this case by Amazon UK, utilising its own marketplace. I fully acknowledge that if Amazon were marketing this on behalf of a third party seller, then that would be covered by the online safety legislation but that does not appear to be the case here and this book is being provided directly by the Amazon UK Warehouse. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls on access to online suicide-promoting content.

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

Direct marketing and supply of a publication providing instructions and advice on methods of ending one's life

Wider context from the report

“I indicated earlier in my first Regulation 28 Report that I felt that duty had arisen in this case when I discovered the same publication that I believe was used by Deborah to provide instructions as to how to put a ████████ generator together with a view to ending her life, that such a book is also freely available on the open market on Amazon.co.uk website and supplied directly by Amazon UK. I was concerned that the marketing and supply of such a book giving such clear instructions and advice as regards different methods for an individual to end one's life is of the utmost concern as is the regulation as regards the supply of such publications whose sole purpose is to provide information to those contemplating on ending their lives. ”

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

There is no legislative sentencing gap because the Crown Court can impose a fine on a company convicted under the Suicide Act 1961.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Now I will address the two specific issues you raise in your letter, the first of which sets out your concern that a limited company cannot be imprisoned under the Suicide Act 1961 as amended by the Coroners’ and Justice Act 2009. Whilst the Suicide Act 1961 does not itself provide for a penalty other than imprisonment, under section 120 of the Sentencing Act 2020 the Crown Court has a general power to impose a fine on an offender convicted on indictment so there is no legislative gap in terms of sentencing if a company were to be convicted of an offence under the 1961 Act. The Suicide Act 1961 falls within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, should you have any further questions on this.”

Source location

Response from Science Innovation and Technology
Page 1 · response
Published 1 August 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 Online Safety Act does not prevent adults accessing legal suicide and self-harm content because some content may provide support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Online Safety Act does not prevent adult users from accessing legal suicide and self-harm content, regardless of whether it is user generated content or provider content. In some cases, such content may be trying to provide support to those in need and this is therefore a complicated area to regulate. To be clear, I am not saying that ████████ is such a book.”

Source location

Response from Science Innovation and Technology
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 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.1

  1. 1

    Work closely with Ofcom to implement Online Safety Act child-safety duties as quickly and effectively as possible.

    Stated by Department for Science, Innovation and TechnologyStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 August 2024.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Enforcement of existing offences is assigned to the police and Crown Prosecution Service, with courts deciding whether an offence occurred.

    Stated by Department for Science, Innovation and TechnologyRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Work closely with Ofcom to implement Online Safety Act child-safety duties as quickly and effectively as possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Under the Act, regulated search services must minimise the risk of children encountering (in search results or directly by clicking on them) ‘primary priority content’ which encourages or provides instructions for suicide or self-harm, even where it is legal. This would involve such content on an online marketplace, and if such search results included content – related to a book – which itself encouraged or provided instructions for suicide, or a search result led directly to a digital copy of a book which did so, the risk of children encountering this content would have to be minimised by the search service. The government is working closely with Ofcom to ensure these duties are implemented as quickly and effectively as possible.”

Source location

Response from Science Innovation and Technology
Page 1 · response
Published 1 August 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

Enforcement of existing offences is assigned to the police and Crown Prosecution Service, with courts deciding whether an offence occurred.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The issue therefore is whether the authors or distributors of ████████ or similar books are committing an offence. However, the enforcement of existing offences is not for the government, but for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and it is ultimately for the courts to decide if an offence has been committed.”

Source location

Response from Science Innovation and Technology
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026