(1) The inquest heard that when Mr. Thompson’s partner reported him missing to the police, she was repeatedly asked (by both the 999 call handler and the attending police officers) whether he had demonstrated any ‘suicidal ideation’. It was clear that she did not fully understand what that meant, and as a result information which would have been relevant to the consideration of the level of risk presented by Mr. Thompson going missing was not recorded by the police.

(2) Furthermore, I heard evidence that the term ‘suicidal ideation’ was still being widely used by the constabulary when asking questions of members of the public who were reporting missing persons, and I am concerned that a member of the public may not understand what is being asked of them and may not therefore respond appropriately.

(3) During the course of the inquest I heard evidence from 5 police officers and 2 members of police staff. When asked what their understanding of the term ‘suicidal ideation’ was, their answers were vague and inconsistent. There therefore appears to be a lack of understanding by those employed by the police as to what the term means, creating a danger that the risk posed by a missing person is not fully appreciated by staff responding to a missing person report.