CASE STUDY 1: Police response to a report of a missing person

This case was locally investigated by the force. The IOPC reviewed the investigation to decide whether there was an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify disciplinary proceedings.

A key worker at a drug support service, Mr A, contacted the police to report a service user, Mr B, as missing. He explained that Mr B had not been seen for a week and that he had frequent thoughts about suicide.

The call handler recorded that the risk to Mr B was unknown and that his whereabouts were also unknown. They advised Mr A to check Mr B’s home address and to call the ambulance service as he had concerns about Mr B’s mental health. This appeared to have followed the principles of Right Care, Right Person (RCRP).In reaching this decision no consideration was given to recording Mr B as a missing person.

Inspector C, who was temporarily acting up in this role, updated the incident log with an entry stating that “unless there was a significant and immediate risk of harm”, Mr B would not be treated as a missing person, as he was an adult and entitled to a private life.

About 90 minutes later, Mr A’s manager, Mr D, contacted the police to report Mr B missing. He explained that Mr B was addicted to heroin, had not collected his methadone and that his phone was switched off. Mr D stated that this was out of character for Mr B. He also confirmed that someone had checked Mr B's home address and that there was no answer. Mr D explained that Mr B had poor mental health and had been suicidal in the past. He confirmed that Mr B was last seen three days ago.

Inspector C updated the log to state that there was nothing to suggest that Mr B was at immediate risk of serious harm and that Mr B did not meet the criteria for a missing person. They did not undertake a further risk assessment based on this new information. It appears RCRP principles were again applied. In the meantime, Inspector C tasked police staff to speak to Mr D, who was unable to provide any more information about Mr B.

College of Policing Major investigation and public protection Authorised Professional Practice: Missing persons

The College of Policing defines a missing person as follows:
“Anyone whose whereabouts cannot be established will be considered as missing until located, and their well-being or otherwise confirmed.”

More information:
www.college.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-protection/missing-persons/missing-persons

The following day, police were informed that Mr B was found dead at his home.

The IOPC review noted that in the second call to police, it was confirmed that Mr B’s home address had been checked, and that Mr D had reported him missing. It found that at this point, Inspector C had misinterpreted the RCRP policy and had used it, when they should have used the missing persons guidance to decide what action the police should take.

The IOPC review also stated that because Inspector C had tasked police staff to conduct further enquiries, this created a duty of care on behalf of the police. It explained that Mr B should have been recorded as a missing person.

The review obtained confirmation from an RCRP lead at the force, that RCRP principles should not be used to help determine whether a person is missing.

Right Care, Right Person (RCRP):

Right Care, Right Person is an approach designed to ensure that people who have health and/or social care needs, are responded to by the right person, with the right skills, training, and experience to best meet their needs.

RCRP uses a threshold to assist police in making decisions about when it is appropriate for them to respond to incidents…. The threshold for a police response to a mental health-related incident is:

to investigate a crime that has occurred or is occurring; or
to protect people, when there is a real and immediate risk to the life of a person, or of a person being subject to or at risk of serious harm.

More information:

www.college.police.uk/guidance/right-care-right-person-toolkit

Key questions for managers, policy makers and trainers:

How does your force make it clear that RCRP shouldn't be applied in missing person incidents?
How does supervision ensure frontline officers and staff apply the correct policy?
What measures are in place to ensure a missing person investigation is triggered at the correct point?

Key questions for police officers and staff:

Do you understand the difference between the RCRP and missing persons policies, and when to apply each policy?
How do you escalate concerns if you believe a case has been misclassified?
What tools or resources (e.g., flowcharts, checklists) are available to help you make the right decision about the police response to an incident?
How do you continue to assess risk and the application of RCRP throughout an ongoing incident?

Learning recommendations and action taken:

Following evidence that there was some confusion with the application of RCRP in relation to missing person cases, the IOPC issued two national learning recommendations to the College of Policing and National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC). It asked the national RCRP team to clarify the framework’s scope in relation to missing persons, ensuring it is not misapplied to police deployment decisions. It also recommended that call handers are clear and transparent in their communication where the police will not attend.

Outcomes for the officers and staff involved:
There was no indication that any person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner which would justify the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
During an informal debrief, it was clarified with Inspector C that RCRP principles should not inform decision-making in missing person’s reports.

A minimum policing standard?

Ben Bradford discusses recent work on developing a ‘Minimum Policing Standard’.

Public trust in the police in England and Wales has fallen markedly in recent years. This trend has many sources and consequences, but a central issue seems to be a sense of dislocation and distance. Many people feel that police are no longer present, active, and engaged in their communities, and that the service does not deliver appropriate outputs or outcomes.

What is the service police are meant to deliver, though? What do people think police are for? Research conducted by the Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre has probed these questions. Instead of assuming we know what people believe are the primary functions and goals of police – most obviously ‘fighting crime’ – we ran a series of focus groups that allowed participants to develop and present their own views on the role and purpose of police.

We asked what, under normal circumstances, was the minimum standard of service delivery people expected from police in their neighbourhoods or communities. This included ‘neighbourhood policing,’ traditionally defined, but also elements such as online crime and domestic abuse.

The focus groups were tasked with generating a list of essential activities and behaviours that all participants could agree on. They established three domains of activity: Response, the way police respond to crimes, calls for service and other stimuli; Behaviour and Treatment, the way officers and organisations interact with the public; and Presence & Engagement, the extent to which police are visible and involved in neighbourhoods and communities.

While dealing with crime and disorder was seen as central to the police role, most striking was participants’ concerns with the conduct of policing. They focused on the behaviour of police, and on relationships with the public. The Behaviour and Treatment domain included, for example, criteria such as building trust and relationships with the community, treating people with dignity and respect, and being role models of good behaviour. The Presence and Engagement domain included greater police presence, physical police stations and known local officers, and responsiveness to the community.

Concerns with the conduct of policing were also evident in a definition of what local policing is and should be that was drawn up by participants. This included criteria such as being available at any time, being visible, having good communication with the public, and being respectful and empathetic. Participants felt local police should respond to incidents in a proportionate and appropriate manner, investigate and solve crimes while providing adequate follow-up, engage in crime prevention, and engage meaningfully ‘with all peoples in the community’ in ways that foster ongoing communication and collaboration.

Building on the focus groups, we issued a nationally representative survey in November 2023 that included questions probing whether respondents felt police were meeting the standards set out by the focus groups. In general, they did not. Among the 18 indicators included in the survey in only two areas, both from the Behaviour and Treatment domain, did more than 50% of people agree police were meeting the criteria set out. These were ‘behave in a professional manner’ (62%), and ‘treat people with respect’ (51%).

Perceptions of whether police were achieving the standards developed by the focus groups correlated strongly with measures of overall confidence, trust and legitimacy, with the Behaviour and Treatment domain usually the most important factor. Whether or not police appeared to be delivering an adequate level of service and behaviour, as these were defined by the focus groups, was an important factor underpinning public trust and confidence.

These findings correspond closely with data collected by the IOPC. For example, its police complaint statistics show that in 2023/24 53% of allegations related to the delivery of duties and service, which includes concerns about the general level of service, the provision of information, and so on. A lack of courtesy and respect also feature strongly as issues in complaints, including in cases involving racial discrimination. Similarly, the IOPC public perceptions tracker 2024/25 reported that among the one fifth of people who thought their local police were better than the police overall, factors such as being present in the community, responsiveness, and good communication seemed important in explaining this local success.

There is often an assumption that public trust will flow from policing that generates positive outcomes in relation to priority crime types and, in general, demonstrates ‘effectiveness’ in fighting and preventing crime. However, when we asked people what they really want from policing as a public service we found that while dealing with crime certainly figured, as or more important was the way in which policing is conducted and the relationships between police officers, organisations, and the communities they serve.

We need to develop better ways of understanding, measuring, and responding to the process-based and relational values of responsiveness, fairness, respect, and engagement that seem most important to public trust. People believe that demonstrating and living up to these values is central to the mission and purpose of the police. Expanding the meaning of success in policing to include such criteria, and actively working towards them, may help halt and reverse the recent decline in police-public relations.

For more on this research, please visit: https://vulnerabilitypolicing.org.uk/publications/

Ben Bradford is Professor of Global City Policing at University College London and a member of the Vulnerability & Policing Futures Research Centre