John Gogarty
PFD Report
Historic (No Identified Response)
Ref: 2019-0200
No published response · Over 2 years old
Response Status
Responses
0 of 2
56-Day Deadline
20 Aug 2019
Over 2 years old — no identified published response
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coroner’s Concerns
The MATTER OF CONCERN is as follows. –
Your Trust was solely concerned with the care of . During that care your patient was associating with who had a very considerable history and was under the supervision of the National Probation Service following a sentence for murder. Although original efforts were made to contact the Probation Service to pass on information, these came to nothing because insufficient details about the male were known. However, within a relatively short time further information to identify this male became apparent but there was no further follow up with the Probation Service.
No specific criticism is made of the member of staff involved at that time, it might very well be that many staff might have assumed that there was nothing to be gained. However, in reality, if the Probation Service had been aware of your patients background they would have at least had the opportunity to consider the conditions of the parole afresh, potentially putting in place further safeguards.
It is respectfully suggested that the lesson here is that small pieces of information properly shared on an inter-agency basis might well add up to a bigger picture for other organisations.
Your Trust was solely concerned with the care of . During that care your patient was associating with who had a very considerable history and was under the supervision of the National Probation Service following a sentence for murder. Although original efforts were made to contact the Probation Service to pass on information, these came to nothing because insufficient details about the male were known. However, within a relatively short time further information to identify this male became apparent but there was no further follow up with the Probation Service.
No specific criticism is made of the member of staff involved at that time, it might very well be that many staff might have assumed that there was nothing to be gained. However, in reality, if the Probation Service had been aware of your patients background they would have at least had the opportunity to consider the conditions of the parole afresh, potentially putting in place further safeguards.
It is respectfully suggested that the lesson here is that small pieces of information properly shared on an inter-agency basis might well add up to a bigger picture for other organisations.
Report Sections
Circumstances of the Death
The circumstances of the death are set out in some detail in the findings and conclusion previously supplied to the Interested Persons but a copy is attached hereto.
Copies Sent To
of Mr Gogarty. A copy will also be sent to National Probation Service
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Amend GLOS to allow claimants oral submissions at panel hearings
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Public protection planning
Post Office to engage in negotiations during HSSA appeal period
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Public protection planning
Clarify whether HCRS and OCS assessment processes differ
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Public protection planning
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.