PFD report

Alfred Sykes · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Jun 2019•Manchester South

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
2

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to adequately consider and act on missing-person sighting information
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable missing-person response
  2. Inadequate planning, staffing and coverage of searches for missing persons
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable missing-person response
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 high-risk missing-person searches daily and notify the Force Search Coordinator promptly of the circumstances.

    Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 August 2019.
  2. Action

    Add an annual refresher exercise on missing-person searches to PoISA/Search Manager continuous professional development, using recent force or national incidents.

    Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 August 2019.

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

  1. Position

    The 300-metre search radius and requirement for confirmed sightings were considered appropriate to avoid ad hoc searching while information remained unconfirmed.

    Stated by Greater Manchester 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 adequately consider and act on missing-person sighting information

Wider context from the report

“1. GMP were informed that Mr Sykes was missing at around 8.00pm on 7th February. He was treated as a high risk missing person from the outset; 2. At approximately 4.00am on 8th February a member of the public called in to report that he had seen and spoken to a gentleman of Alfred Sykes description at about 4pm on 7th February on Egerton Road asking for directions to Longmead Avenue. When the caller could not help him he then asked if there were any football fields nearby. The caller pointed him in the direction of the sports fields at Woodsmoor, at the end of Egerton Road, including St Georgian's Cricket Club. Alfred Sykes was seen by the caller speaking to other people further along Egerton Road, closer to the sports fields; 3. At about 8.00am two police officers, with no allocated tasks at that time, took it upon themselves to conduct a search of the sports fields. The above report had been mentioned at the morning briefing but there was no plan to carry out any search of the fields. It was apparently more than 300m from the spot where the caller spoke to Alfred Sykes. The two officers attended and walked a route around the fields which did not include all of the periphery. They reported a negative result. In my opinion that search was inadequate to report a negative result, as agreed by ████████ in her evidence; 4. On 11th February two members of the public (one of whom knew of Alfred Sykes) and who had heard he was missing also took it upon themselves to search the fields, finding him as above. My concern is that the report from the member of the public at 4.00am on 8th February of Alfred Sykes’ last sighting was given any or any adequate consideration and action, seemingly because it was more than 300m radius from ████████ However the significance of the sighting and the information was not lost on two police officers who on their own initiative looked around the playing fields. In evidence, ████████ advised that just two police officers for such a large area was insufficient. I agree. Had there been a greater number of officers deployed on the morning of 8th February to search the fields to which Alfred Sykes had been directed and was last seen walking towards, it is likely he would have been found that morning. The evidence is that Alfred Sykes would not have been found alive, in combination his frailties and the weather but in different circumstance (particularly the weather) the outcome might have been different for him and for others in the future. Further, earlier discovery would have; 1. lessened the anguish for the family; 2. saved resources in the continued search over the following 3 days. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable missing-person response.

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 planning, staffing and coverage of searches for missing persons

Wider context from the report

“1. GMP were informed that Mr Sykes was missing at around 8.00pm on 7th February. He was treated as a high risk missing person from the outset; 2. At approximately 4.00am on 8th February a member of the public called in to report that he had seen and spoken to a gentleman of Alfred Sykes description at about 4pm on 7th February on Egerton Road asking for directions to Longmead Avenue. When the caller could not help him he then asked if there were any football fields nearby. The caller pointed him in the direction of the sports fields at Woodsmoor, at the end of Egerton Road, including St Georgian's Cricket Club. Alfred Sykes was seen by the caller speaking to other people further along Egerton Road, closer to the sports fields; 3. At about 8.00am two police officers, with no allocated tasks at that time, took it upon themselves to conduct a search of the sports fields. The above report had been mentioned at the morning briefing but there was no plan to carry out any search of the fields. It was apparently more than 300m from the spot where the caller spoke to Alfred Sykes. The two officers attended and walked a route around the fields which did not include all of the periphery. They reported a negative result. In my opinion that search was inadequate to report a negative result, as agreed by ████████ in her evidence; 4. On 11th February two members of the public (one of whom knew of Alfred Sykes) and who had heard he was missing also took it upon themselves to search the fields, finding him as above. My concern is that the report from the member of the public at 4.00am on 8th February of Alfred Sykes’ last sighting was given any or any adequate consideration and action, seemingly because it was more than 300m radius from ████████ However the significance of the sighting and the information was not lost on two police officers who on their own initiative looked around the playing fields. In evidence, ████████ advised that just two police officers for such a large area was insufficient. I agree. Had there been a greater number of officers deployed on the morning of 8th February to search the fields to which Alfred Sykes had been directed and was last seen walking towards, it is likely he would have been found that morning. The evidence is that Alfred Sykes would not have been found alive, in combination his frailties and the weather but in different circumstance (particularly the weather) the outcome might have been different for him and for others in the future. Further, earlier discovery would have; 1. lessened the anguish for the family; 2. saved resources in the continued search over the following 3 days. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable missing-person response.

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 high-risk missing-person searches daily and notify the Force Search Coordinator promptly of the circumstances.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of this report, with immediate effect all high risk missing person searches being conducted by a PoISA from the Specialist Search Unit, will be reviewed by another officer on a daily basis and the PoISC (Force Search Coordinator) appraised of the circumstances at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location

2019-0201-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Police-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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

Add an annual refresher exercise on missing-person searches to PoISA/Search Manager continuous professional development, using recent force or national incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of this incident, the annual POISA/Search Manager CPD will now include refresher training by way of an exercise in respect of missing person search, using incidents that have occurred within the force or nationally over the previous twelve months. This will ensure that officers remain operationally competent and any training issues can be appropriately addressed.”

Source location

2019-0201-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Police-Redacted
Page 5 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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 300-metre search radius and requirement for confirmed sightings were considered appropriate to avoid ad hoc searching while information remained unconfirmed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As guidance to a reasonable, realistic and proportionate size of search area, a 300 meters radius around the PLS is recommended and nationally recognised in order to achieve a high level of confidence. A radius of 300 metres equates to a total search area of 283,239 Square meters (or 69.9 acres). The 300 metre radius will always be a guide and natural boundaries should be used such as main roads, motorways, railway lines, fences etc.”

Source location

2019-0201-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Police-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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.1

  1. 1

    The PoISA was responsible for deciding whether inaccessible fields should be searched, based on the facts presented.

    Stated by Greater Manchester PoliceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

The PoISA was responsible for deciding whether inaccessible fields should be searched, based on the facts presented.

Verbatim wording from the response

“required. If the fields were inaccessible at the material time, this would impact on the decision to search them but this would be a decision for the PoISA based on the facts presented.”

Source location

2019-0201-Response-from-Greater-Manchester-Police-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 23 August 2019

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