MPS investigation examined after LGBTQ+ community raises concerns – Metropolitan Police Service, April 2022
In April 2022, a man was found unresponsive on the street by a member of the public. They performed CPR on the man until an ambulance arrived. The man was taken to hospital but sadly died.
A detective sergeant was notified about the incident and requested assistance from another officer, who was sent to the scene. The officer did not see anything suspicious at the scene and noted that the man was known for drug use.
Officers made CCTV and house-to-house enquiries. A police helicopter was requested to fly over the area in case there were other people who had collapsed in the street and had not yet been found; however this did not happen.
The man had identification on him, but it was unclear what was done to establish the circumstances which led to him being in an area that he did not know or frequent. The detective sergeant later said that they were not told about items that were found at the scene, such as a bottle of unidentified liquid, and blood on the man’s jacket.
The detective sergeant concluded that the man’s death was not suspicious and that the crime scene should be closed. The man’s death and other investigative actions were left with emergency response and patrol team officers. The rationale for this decision was not recorded. The pathologist found that the man had died from a fatal drug overdose.
The man’s next of kin was told that no investigation was going to be carried out into the man’s death as it was not suspicious. The coroner later raised concerns about this decision, and the man’s next of kin complained that the police had failed to properly investigate the man’s death and had treated the man differently once his sexuality was identified.
A lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Independent Advisory Group (IAG) also raised concerns about the man’s death, its circumstances, and past learning arising from a police investigation into murders committed in a neighbouring borough by Stephen Port, a convicted serial rapist and murderer.
The force formally recorded the complaints and began its own investigation into them. In October 2023, we received a complaint referral from the force based on continued community concerns raised by the IAG, complaints made by the man’s next of kin, further enquiries raised by the coroner, and parallels with the investigation into Stephen Port and whether lessons had been learned.
In November 2023, we decided to independently investigate the complaints made by the man’s next of kin regarding the police response to the man’s death. We examined the actions and decisions of police officers in the immediate aftermath of the man’s death and the investigation that followed, and whether the police were impacted or influenced by the man’s sexual orientation.
Our investigators took statements from and interviewed officers and paramedics involved in the incident, including the detective sergeant. We examined body worn video footage, handwritten notes and emails, and transcripts of calls. We also reviewed police records and logs.
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 man’s sexuality influenced elements of the investigation in an appropriate way, and there was some awareness of learning arising from the Stephen Port murders. We also found that concerns raised by the man’s next of kin were appropriately passed on to others to consider, and officers tried to explain why enquiries were not being progressed.
However, some lines of enquiry were not pursued and there were delays in the progression of the case. These were based on a combination of poor communication and record keeping, a lack of investigative mindset, insufficiently clear supervisory oversight, duplication of work and insufficient resourcing.
Our evidence indicates that the police made reasonable efforts, based on what information they had, to identify the next of kin. However, it was unacceptable that they were not identified and contacted by the police and that they only found out about the man’s death through the hospital.
We recommended that the force apologise for the handling of the investigation, including how the next of kin was treated, the level and quality of engagement, and for failing to adequately consider and progress the relevant lines of enquiry the next of kin suggested at an early stage in the investigation.
We recommended that the detective sergeant would 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 they reflect on why the circumstances of this case were viewed as having similarities to the Stephen Port murders, and that the MPS’ response to this impacted on public confidence in policing, especially within the LBGTQ+ community.
We also recommended other officers use RPRP to make sure roles and responsibilities are understood when work is shared, and the importance of debriefs, handovers and accurate record keeping.
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 find any learning in addition to that already highlighted following the Stephen Port murders and subsequent inspection of the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to the murders by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services in 2023.
We noted concerns about whether appropriate arrangements were in place to enable and support the detective sergeant to effectively carry out their role while not being able to attend scenes. This needs further exploration with the force to assess whether recommendations are appropriate.