Alexander Robert EASTWOOD · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Mar 2025•Manchester West

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
7

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

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 raised7

  1. Lack of minimum standards for medical support at child contact-sport matches
  2. Lack of baseline safeguarding and risk-management standards for child contact-sport matches
  3. Failure to undertake welfare checks on child contact-sport participants
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to reliably monitor participants during organised sporting activitiesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable welfare-check processes for people whose health is of concern

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. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

    Ask Sport England to work with safeguarding and combat sport stakeholders on improving safety and welfare in martial arts.

  2. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

    Explore options to improve the safety and welfare of children in martial arts and report findings to the Department.

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

  1. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

    Direct regulation of sport does not fall within the government’s role or functions.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.

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

Lack of minimum standards for medical support at child contact-sport matches

Wider context from the report

“1. During the current course of investigation, it is apparent that there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation. 2. This is important, because no base line or minimum standards of what safeguarding or necessary risk management is set out for those who plan or organise an ‘official’ or ‘unofficial’ match where physical force may be used between or against a child participant. 3. Under current circumstance, arrangements for each, and every contact sport contest involving a child, is left to the judgement of an organiser who may have recourse to principles provided by a sports association, if the match is to meet official status. If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline of what minimum standards must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant. 4. This includes a. no minimum standard of what medical support may be required, b. maximum rounds or periods of rest c. welfare checks on participants being undertaken, d. no risk assessment and critical incident plan 5. In the current investigation, these concerns relate to the sport of Kick Boxing, but the identified issues appear to be of wider significance in terms of ‘contact ’ sports involving children. ”

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

Lack of baseline safeguarding and risk-management standards for child contact-sport matches

Wider context from the report

“1. During the current course of investigation, it is apparent that there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation. 2. This is important, because no base line or minimum standards of what safeguarding or necessary risk management is set out for those who plan or organise an ‘official’ or ‘unofficial’ match where physical force may be used between or against a child participant. 3. Under current circumstance, arrangements for each, and every contact sport contest involving a child, is left to the judgement of an organiser who may have recourse to principles provided by a sports association, if the match is to meet official status. If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline of what minimum standards must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant. 4. This includes a. no minimum standard of what medical support may be required, b. maximum rounds or periods of rest c. welfare checks on participants being undertaken, d. no risk assessment and critical incident plan 5. In the current investigation, these concerns relate to the sport of Kick Boxing, but the identified issues appear to be of wider significance in terms of ‘contact ’ sports involving children. ”

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 undertake welfare checks on child contact-sport participants

Wider context from the report

“1. During the current course of investigation, it is apparent that there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation. 2. This is important, because no base line or minimum standards of what safeguarding or necessary risk management is set out for those who plan or organise an ‘official’ or ‘unofficial’ match where physical force may be used between or against a child participant. 3. Under current circumstance, arrangements for each, and every contact sport contest involving a child, is left to the judgement of an organiser who may have recourse to principles provided by a sports association, if the match is to meet official status. If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline of what minimum standards must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant. 4. This includes a. no minimum standard of what medical support may be required, b. maximum rounds or periods of rest c. welfare checks on participants being undertaken, d. no risk assessment and critical incident plan 5. In the current investigation, these concerns relate to the sport of Kick Boxing, but the identified issues appear to be of wider significance in terms of ‘contact ’ sports involving children. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to reliably monitor participants during organised sporting activities; Unreliable welfare-check processes for people whose health is of concern.

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

Lack of risk assessment for child contact-sport matches

Wider context from the report

“1. During the current course of investigation, it is apparent that there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation. 2. This is important, because no base line or minimum standards of what safeguarding or necessary risk management is set out for those who plan or organise an ‘official’ or ‘unofficial’ match where physical force may be used between or against a child participant. 3. Under current circumstance, arrangements for each, and every contact sport contest involving a child, is left to the judgement of an organiser who may have recourse to principles provided by a sports association, if the match is to meet official status. If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline of what minimum standards must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant. 4. This includes a. no minimum standard of what medical support may be required, b. maximum rounds or periods of rest c. welfare checks on participants being undertaken, d. no risk assessment and critical incident plan 5. In the current investigation, these concerns relate to the sport of Kick Boxing, but the identified issues appear to be of wider significance in terms of ‘contact ’ sports involving children. ”

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 set maximum rounds or required periods of rest for child contact-sport matches

Wider context from the report

“1. During the current course of investigation, it is apparent that there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation. 2. This is important, because no base line or minimum standards of what safeguarding or necessary risk management is set out for those who plan or organise an ‘official’ or ‘unofficial’ match where physical force may be used between or against a child participant. 3. Under current circumstance, arrangements for each, and every contact sport contest involving a child, is left to the judgement of an organiser who may have recourse to principles provided by a sports association, if the match is to meet official status. If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline of what minimum standards must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant. 4. This includes a. no minimum standard of what medical support may be required, b. maximum rounds or periods of rest c. welfare checks on participants being undertaken, d. no risk assessment and critical incident plan 5. In the current investigation, these concerns relate to the sport of Kick Boxing, but the identified issues appear to be of wider significance in terms of ‘contact ’ sports involving children. ”

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

Lack of guidance and regulation for contact sports involving children

Wider context from the report

“1. During the current course of investigation, it is apparent that there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation. 2. This is important, because no base line or minimum standards of what safeguarding or necessary risk management is set out for those who plan or organise an ‘official’ or ‘unofficial’ match where physical force may be used between or against a child participant. 3. Under current circumstance, arrangements for each, and every contact sport contest involving a child, is left to the judgement of an organiser who may have recourse to principles provided by a sports association, if the match is to meet official status. If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline of what minimum standards must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant. 4. This includes a. no minimum standard of what medical support may be required, b. maximum rounds or periods of rest c. welfare checks on participants being undertaken, d. no risk assessment and critical incident plan 5. In the current investigation, these concerns relate to the sport of Kick Boxing, but the identified issues appear to be of wider significance in terms of ‘contact ’ sports involving children. ”

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

Lack of critical incident planning for child contact-sport matches

Wider context from the report

“1. During the current course of investigation, it is apparent that there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation. 2. This is important, because no base line or minimum standards of what safeguarding or necessary risk management is set out for those who plan or organise an ‘official’ or ‘unofficial’ match where physical force may be used between or against a child participant. 3. Under current circumstance, arrangements for each, and every contact sport contest involving a child, is left to the judgement of an organiser who may have recourse to principles provided by a sports association, if the match is to meet official status. If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline of what minimum standards must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant. 4. This includes a. no minimum standard of what medical support may be required, b. maximum rounds or periods of rest c. welfare checks on participants being undertaken, d. no risk assessment and critical incident plan 5. In the current investigation, these concerns relate to the sport of Kick Boxing, but the identified issues appear to be of wider significance in terms of ‘contact ’ sports involving children. ”

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

Ask Sport England to work with safeguarding and combat sport stakeholders on improving safety and welfare in martial arts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While resources are available to those who choose to use them, I have tasked my Department with exploring ways to urgently improve the safety and welfare of children in martial arts and ensure it is always a priority. I will also ask Sport England to work with the Martial Arts Safeguarding Group and other relevant combat sport stakeholders on this. I am particularly keen that we ensure that parents and children who are currently participating in competitions understand the difference between competitions that are regulated and those that aren’t. I would be happy to update you on progress once we have received and considered your final report. In the meantime, I have asked my officials to explore different options and report back to me.”

Source location

Response from Department For Culture, Media And Sport
Page 1 · response
Published 17 March 2025

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

Explore options to improve the safety and welfare of children in martial arts and report findings to the Department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“While resources are available to those who choose to use them, I have tasked my Department with exploring ways to urgently improve the safety and welfare of children in martial arts and ensure it is always a priority. I will also ask Sport England to work with the Martial Arts Safeguarding Group and other relevant combat sport stakeholders on this. I am particularly keen that we ensure that parents and children who are currently participating in competitions understand the difference between competitions that are regulated and those that aren’t. I would be happy to update you on progress once we have received and considered your final report. In the meantime, I have asked my officials to explore different options and report back to me.”

Source location

Response from Department For Culture, Media And Sport
Page 1 · response
Published 17 March 2025

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

Direct regulation of sport does not fall within the government’s role or functions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You raised a number of concerns about the current system and I am keen to consider how best to address them. I am mindful that the government does not, and should not, regulate sport directly. However, I am concerned that the current system, which allows individual clubs to decide whether to affiliate to a National Governing Body and their associated standards, does not offer sufficient protection to children and parents.”

Source location

Response from Department For Culture, Media And Sport
Page 1 · response
Published 17 March 2025

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