Recommendations - Cambridgeshire Constabulary, January 2021

​The IOPC recommends that Cambridgeshire Constabulary considers using an anonymised account of this case as a training scenario for custody staff at the Kings Lynn PIC.

As a shared facility this issue is likely to arise more frequently than in other situations so training on this topic would be helpful for the custody team to avoid a recurrence. The appellant and investigating officer have indicated support for this approach.

​The IOPC recommends that Cambridgeshire Constabulary provides additional guidance to assist officers when making judgements about use of s136 and whether any associated offences are serious. This should cover situations where pursuit of the offence may, or may not, take precedence over the mental health needs of a person leading to them being detained in custody rather than being taken to a health-based place of safety.

In this case the appellant had drunk a lot of alcohol and then driven a car into a tree. The appellant was found at the roadside well above the legal alcohol limit. The appellant was in the midst of a mental health crisis making statements that they had intended to drive their car into the river. They continued to state they would take their own life if the opportunity arose. The officers decided that the potential drink driving offence took precedence over the appellant’s mental health needs ie the offence was considered to be serious. The appellant was taken to custody to sober up to be interviewed later about the offence. The appellant was not violent. Eighteen hours later the appellant was taken, as a voluntary patient, to a mental health facility without having been interviewed.

The IOPC recommends that Cambridgeshire Constabulary considers working with local health boards to amend their inter-agency agreement to enable a mental health assessment made by Norfolk health care professionals to be accepted by Cambridgeshire health boards and vice versa.

The Kings Lynn PIC is a shared facility between Cambridgeshire and Norfolk forces. The appellant was a resident of Cambridgeshire and the PIC initially approached a mental health facility in Norfolk. They agreed an assessment and found a bed. However it was then identified that, as a Cambridgeshire resident, the appellant did not have a care pathway they could use so the appellant could not be admitted. This meant a new assessment was needed by a Cambridgeshire facility before the appellant could be admitted. This resulted in the appellant remaining in custody for a further 3 hours longer than would have otherwise been the case and for 18 hours in total.