Investigation into the police response a woman received after reporting concerns for her safety – Sussex Police, July 2024
A woman called 999 to report that her ex-partner was trying to get inside her home, causing damage to her property, and threatening to kill her. The call was graded as grade one and passed to the control room to despatch police officers. Grade one is an emergency requiring an immediate response.
The control room reviewed computer records which showed a history of domestic abuse relating to the woman and her ex-partner. Other relevant information included warning markers for dogs and weapons, and that the ex-partner was wanted by the police for assaulting emergency workers.
The control room advised the woman to find somewhere safe and to stay on the phone. They told her to put a barrier between herself and her ex-partner if she could.
The woman updated the contact officer that her ex-partner was walking away from her home. She gave details of his location and a description of him. The contact officer informed the woman that officers were on their way with blue lights and the phone call ended. The call was downgraded to grade two following communications between the contact officer and a duty sergeant.
The woman called 999 again to report that her ex-partner had returned. Her ex-partner entered her home and violently attacked her while on the phone to the contact officer. She suffered serious injuries.
The woman’s ex-partner was later arrested for assault and causing grievous bodily harm. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison. He also received a 10 year restraining order.
The woman complained to the force that if the police had responded to her first call, the assault would not have happened, and she would have been spared the violent attack and mental anguish. She complained that she was told help was on its way, with officers using their blue lights. She complained that she was not told that officers were no longer coming, and had she known this, she would have left her home and found somewhere safe.
We received a complaint referral from the force in July 2024 and decided to independently investigate the police response following their initial contact with the woman, including whether the decisions and actions taken by police personnel were appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances. We considered whether the police acted in accordance with relevant legislation, local and national policy, guidance, procedures and training.
We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.
However, we found the way in which this incident was handled put the woman at greater risk, which led to her sustaining injuries. We recommended that a chief officer from Sussex Police should apologise to the woman and hold a service improvement meeting with her and other suitable attendees to explore changes or improvements that could be made. The force agreed with this recommendation.
We also found shortcomings with regards to the performance of the duty sergeant. They were not clear about roles and responsibilities, especially in terms of re-grading incidents. While we found the re-grade in this case to be reasonable, the duty sergeant did not have a clear understanding of the policy or guidance.
The woman was not contacted by any officer or staff member after the re-grade to inform her that the police would not arrive imminently, nor was it documented why she had not been contacted. We found the call despatcher failed to follow policy, guidance and training in this area.
We recommended that the duty sergeant and call despatcher would both benefit from the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process allows officers to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better.
We recommended this should cover learning regarding the THRIVE model (used to assess the right initial response to a call), internal and external communications, and being clear around who has command of incidents, especially in a domestic abuse context. We also agreed with the force’s view that the duty sergeant should use the RPRP to address why they did not want to send a single-crewed woman to the incident, and how this was inappropriate in the circumstances.
We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.
We did not identify any organisational learning in this case.