Case 2.5 | Bulletin – Command and Control
Published June 2009
For archived bulletins, learning reports and related background
documents please visit www.learningthelessons.org.uk
Email | learning@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
This document is classified as NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED in accordance with the IPCC’s protective marking scheme
Searching for a missing person
Request for the search of a vulnerable missing person raising issues about:
• Logging on Compact
• Liaison with the family
• Handovers
• Interface between Command and Control/Compact systems
Overview of incident
Mr M, a man of 40, was depressed because of the breakdown of a relationship and financial
difficulties. His mother, Mrs N, had arranged to collect him one Sunday in spring 2008 for a St
Patrick’s Day celebration but, although his car and bike were at his home address, his
neighbours had not seen him since the previous day and his mobile phone was switched off.
Mrs N, called the police because he did not normally let her down and she was worried about
his mental state; he had tried to kill himself on two occasions and had talked about suicide
since.
The call handler checked for incidents in the area of his home and created an incident log but
did not log the call in ‘Compact’, the system used to manage investigations of missing persons
cases. She told Mrs N that police would go to her son’s address and force entry if they
believed he was there and suggested Mrs N went to her son’s home and waited for the police.
While they were waiting for the police to arrive Mrs N and Mr M’s father got into the house and
discovered Mr M was not there. Once the police arrived it was agreed by both officers and Mr
M’s parents that it was not appropriate at that stage to create a missing person report but, if Mr
M had not made contact by the following day, the parents should contact the police again to
report him missing.
The following day, around 10pm, Mrs N told the police her son had failed to turn up for work that
day and she wanted to report him as missing. The call handler created a new incident and
created a log in Compact. Mr M was assessed as a high risk missing person and the incident
was graded level 2. As Mrs N lived across the boundary of the Force area, the neighbouring
force was asked by fax to take further details from her at home.
A few hours later Mrs N contacted the Force control room for an update and was told that
officers had checked the house and there appeared to be no change from the previous day.
Mrs N then gave the call handler contact details for her son’s friend, who she thought might
have been with him the Saturday before he went missing. The police spoke to the friend’s
mother and were able to confirm he was. Mrs N also told the call handler that her son had
earmarked a tree to hang himself from when he spoke about suicide, so officers searched this
wooded area, but the search was limited as it was dark. On handover the incoming duty
inspector was told by the nights inspector that there was ‘nothing to hand over’ and he only
discovered the missing person report when he logged onto Compact the next morning.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 1 of 3
That day, officers visited the house of Mr M’s friend again and established through his mother
that, when Mr M left the house, he had staggered down the stairs in a drunken state. Mrs N
also spoke to the friend’s mother who told her Mr M had had no idea how to get home that night
but assured her he would have found his way though it was bad weather. Mrs N concluded
that, given his drunken state and the bad weather, her son must have got lost on his way home
and, as it was dark by this stage, rang the police to ask for a police car with search lights to be
sent to the area where she thought he would have gone missing.
A police helicopter, officers on foot and a police dog were used to search the area but nothing
was found. (The Command and Control computer system was needed to resource and manage
this search.) Police then stopped the search. The email handovers that had taken place
between duty inspectors up to that point lacked a sense of urgency, which led the inspector
then on duty to conclude that the position should be assessed in daylight. Early the next
morning Mrs N contacted the police to ask about the progress of the search but it had not yet
restarted. The family had been conducting their own search since 6.30am.
Police were about to start searching again when they received a call from a friend of the family
who told them that Mr M’s body had been found in a ditch, 150 yards from where they had been
standing during the search the previous evening.
In the course of their contact with Mrs N, the police several times gave her inaccurate
information when she rang to ask about the progress being made – on one occasion she was
told an update was awaited from an officer who was on rest days and no longer involved in the
case. She was also told several times that the duty sergeant would call her back but she
always had to call back to request updates and information.
Type of investigation
Managed
Recommendations
Local recommendations
1.
The first time Mrs N called and told the police of her concern for Mr M’s welfare, as his
whereabouts were unknown a missing person report should have been immediately
created in Compact, thereby allowing the investigation to start.
2.
There was lack of ownership of communication between the Force and Mrs N. The Force
Missing and Found Person Policy clearly puts the onus on the Divisional Duty Inspector to
directly manage all ‘high risk’ missing person investigations. This is the person best placed
to provide continuity of contact with the family where required.
3.
A lack of sufficient updates from the relevant Duty Inspectors meant any sense of urgency
over the daylight search was lost. There was also a lack of detail in handovers between
supervisors and managers. There is no evidence to suggest this had an impact on Mr M’s
death but it did have an impact on the family and their perception of the force. Duty
Inspectors should update Compact before the end of their shift.
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 2 of 3
4.
During the investigation both the Command and Control system and Compact were being
used. But Force Policy stated that once Compact was in use all information should be
added to that. The fact that Compact was not properly updated may have contributed to
the problems with keeping Mrs N informed of progress. Though it is recognised that in
some cases the Command and Control system is required as well as Compact in these
circumstances there should be an electronic interface between the two.
Force response
The Force’s missing person champion has updated training to reflect learning arising from this
case.
The Chief Constable has instigated a thematic review to examine the Force’s handling of
missing person incidents to identify examples of good practice and opportunities for
organisational learning.
If you need more information about this case, please email learning@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
© Independent Police Complaints Commission. All Rights Reserved.
Page 3 of 3