Police actions and decisions examined over concerns raised by neighbours – Gloucestershire Constabulary, October 2021

A man and his family had lived in their home since 2007. There had been conflict between the man and his neighbours throughout the time he lived at the address, some of which had been reported to the police.

The man had been convicted in 2018 of the harassment of a neighbour, after which there was a period of relative calm. However, the police were frequently notified of incidents concerning the man and his neighbours towards the end of 2020 and throughout 2021. The number of incidents reported during this time had escalated, particularly regarding the man’s next-door neighbours.

By the summer of 2021, proceedings were underway in relation to the harassment of another neighbour. Steps were also taken to issue an injunction against the man and to evict the man’s family from their home.

The man then spent some time abroad, before returning home. On his return, the man attacked and killed his next-door neighbour with a knife outside his home. He also injured his next-door neighbours’ partner and another resident on the road. He was restrained and arrested by police officers.

We received a death or serious injury referral from the force in October 2021 and decided to independently investigate how the police dealt with the concerns raised by the man’s neighbours.

We also received additional referrals following complaints made by the next-door neighbour’s partner on behalf of herself and the family of the man who died, as well as two other neighbours.

We investigated the actions and decisions taken by the police, including whether appropriate consideration was given to previous incidents when assessing the risk the man posed to his neighbours, and if the police took appropriate action after allegations were made against the man.

We considered whether the complaints reported to the police about the man’s conduct were handled in line with local and national guidance, and whether the police communicated effectively with everyone involved in the investigation. We also examined the police response to the report that the next-door neighbour had been stabbed.

Our investigators gathered significant documentary evidence which showed the extent of police contact during their investigation, including incident logs, emails between police officers, and crime reports. We obtained numerous statements and written accounts and conducted interviews with several officers. We examined the performance of 17 police officers who had contact with the man over the time period we investigated.

We concluded that the actions of Gloucestershire Constabulary officers did not directly cause or contribute to the man’s death, and there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence. However, we did find that three officers had behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings.

These three officers had a case to answer for misconduct. One for not arresting the man after he displayed aggressive behaviour and made threats of violence. Another officer for failing to take positive action in response to the man’s behaviour, and the third officer for failing to oversee the investigation, decision making and actions of their colleague.

We shared our report with the force, who agreed. We decided that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against the officers and that they should take the form of a misconduct meeting.

One officer retired from the force and did not engage with misconduct proceedings. The misconduct meetings for the other two officers concluded in May 2025.

Misconduct was proven in seven of 11 allegations made against one officer. The officer was found to have breached the police standards of professional behaviour for duties and responsibilities. These amounted to a finding of misconduct and the officer was given a written warning.

Misconduct was proven in two of four allegations made against the other officer and the officer was also given a written warning. Another allegation was proven and dealt with using the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process allows officers to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better.

We also recommended that four other officers would benefit from RPRP. We found there was no case to answer for the other 10 officers.

The man was found guilty of murder in 2022 for his neighbour’s death. He admitted the attempted murder of the other neighbour and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to the dead man’s partner.

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 made eight recommendations which can be found here: Recommendations - Gloucestershire Constabulary, March 2025 | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)