Police decisions and actions examined alongside Right Care, Right Person approach – Derbyshire Constabulary, May 2025

East Midlands Ambulance Service called the police to report that they had received a call from a migrant helpline about an asylum seeker who said he wanted to harm himself and had threatened to stab other people. The man was at home and had described losing the keys to his property, locking himself inside.

The ambulance service reported that the helpline described the man as aggressive over the phone. They arranged to visit the man’s home due to the risk of the man taking his own life and had reported a wait time of four hours for an emergency ambulance.

The police call handler conducted a Threat, Harm, Risk, Investigation, Vulnerability, Engagement (THRIVE) assessment. They decided that police officers did not need to be sent to the man’s home, and the ambulance service could call again if there was any threat. The incident was sent to a police supervisor who reviewed this decision and subsequently closed the log.

The man left his property a short while later and fatally stabbed a member of the public. The man was charged with murder and pleaded guilty to the offence. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison in October 2025.

We received a conduct referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the decisions and actions of the police call handler and police supervisor and the suitability of the THRIVE assessment that was made. We also examined whether their decisions and actions were aligned with the force’s policies on Right Care, Right Person. This is an approach to make sure people who have health and/or social care needs get help from the right services.

We reviewed call transcripts and incident logs and obtained written statements from the call handler and supervisor. We considered local and national policies, procedures and guidance in our decision making.

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.

We found that the call handler assessed that the man was alone and had not made a threat against a specific person. There was no threat, imminent breach of the peace, or indication a crime had or was being committed. The call handler assessed that the man was experiencing mental ill health, carried out a THRIVE risk assessment and noted that the ambulance service was the most appropriate agency to visit the man’s home. Our evidence showed that the call handler conducted suitable relevant checks on the man and the property, as did the police supervisor.

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.