The Full up to date Story
Ricki's Story & and how he was let down by those who are supposed to help and protect us.
In March 2023 South Yorkshire Police(SYP) introduced the Right Care Right Person Policy(RCRP) on the understanding under the National Partnership Agreement that all other agencies are onboard.
May 15th 2023 Mrs Della Redmile(Ricki's Mother) made a call to SYP over the welfare of her son Ricki Gillatt(36) she stated that she had had no contact for a week from him and was worried as he had Mental Health problems and alcohol issues and was on new medication and had a history of self harm, now on that call she was informed that under the RCRP policy, checking on vulnerable and people with mental health problems is not a police matter, its a NHS matter Now, she was then advised to call the NHS. She did what she was instructed to do and called the NHS.
She contacted the NHS and on myself later listening to her call, three time she told the NHS call handler that the police had instructed her to call them, she advised the call handler that Ricki had drink problem and was on antidepressants and she was concerned for his welfare. The call handler told Mrs Redmile that doing welfare checks was a police matter and not the NHS. She was then told to call the police back and tell them that the NHS was unable to contact Ricki and to get the police to treat Ricki as a missing person. Now the NHS response to their investigation stated that the reason they would not attend was that Mrs Redmile failed to tell them of Ricki's Mental Heath and also previous Self Harm attempts, now anyone who's on antidepressants I'm guessing has Mental Health problems but they ignore that.
At 21:57 hrs Mrs Redmile under the instruction of the NHS called the police back, she informed the police of what the NHS had said but like the NHS no one would do anything. The police asked why Mrs Redmile had not gone to Ricki's address, her reply was it would take her over 3 hours by bus to get there(she lives in Doncaster 41 miles away) The police then asked why wouldn't she get a taxi over. This response is disgusting, expecting a concerned mother to travel 41 miles at that time of night just to knock on her son's door, plus when the police said that they said if she does get to the address and is still concerned then to call the NHS back(which if it wasn't a serious matter would be funny considering the NHS had already refused to help.
On the point the police made about her contacting her other two son's who were working, one son Callum is not allowed his phone on at work, and the other son Nathan is never easy to get hold of. So the police refused to help as they state his mother “has not made reasonable enquires at Ricki's address to see if he's at home or not, so they did nothing.
But the Police and NHS under the National Partnership Agreement should have done something, but they let Rick and his Family down.
Now in the outcome letter from SYP over Mrs Redmile's complaint, the police state reason for not being able if they had attended to break in was down to a case in 2010 SYED v DPP, below is a brief version of that case
Syed v DPP was a 2010 case that established that the police cannot enter a property by force without a warrant to perform a welfare check:
Background
The case involved the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which gives the police the power to enter a property by force without a warrant if they believe someone's life is in danger or serious damage to property is likely to occur.
Decision
The court ruled that the police did not act in accordance with their duty by entering the property without a warrant. The court also ruled that the police's entry was not justified by a concern for the welfare of someone in the property.
Significance
The case established that the threshold for police entry under s17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is high and literal. The police cannot enter a property to check on occupants following reports of a disturbance.
“Could a court properly conclude that police officers had been acting in the execution of their duty when they purported to exercise their powers under section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to use force to enter premises without a warrant when:-
A. They had received information from an operator stating that a report had been made that a verbal argument had taken place at [the premises];
B. The caller did not disclose that any of the occupants had been injured or harmed in any way ;
C. The occupants showed no physical sign of injury;
D. The occupants made no complaint of having sustained a physical injury;
E. The occupants made no suggestion that any other person had caused or sustained physical injury at the premises;
F. There was no visible sign of damage having been caused at the property;
G. The occupants made no complaint of damage having been caused at the property;
H. The occupants made no complaint of damage having been caused at the property;
I. The occupants did not disclose that any criminal offence had been committed at the property;
J. The defendant explained to the officers that he had simply had a verbal argument with his brother ;
K. This was not contradicted by the other occupants of the address;
L. The officers had no information to suggest that this was not the case.”
None of which applied in Ricki's case, the only reports the police had were for Rick's welfare, the police failed to check whether 1, he was in the premises and 2, on his safety as if he was in the premises if he was conscious , and alive or a missing person. None of which they did. But still the police did nothing.
Then the police try and use Article 2 of the ECHR Act
The scope of the positive obligations of the State
The Court has found the positive obligation under Article 2 to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction to apply in the context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], 2014, § 130). 12. Thus, the Court has found positive
Persons with mental disabilities are considered to constitute a particularly vulnerable group who require protection from self-harm.
The police and NHS were told of his health problems and that he was high risk, SYP and NHS had previous dealing with Ricki in the past, one occasion where Ricki jumped out of a first floor window on to a concrete patio, breaking his foot to avoid police. Plus other instances where the police attended over the years.
May 18th 2023, a neighbour called the police as they were concerned over Ricki's welfare, yet again they were told it's not a police matter and to call the NHS, but as the neighbour was not that overly concerned decided not to call the NHS (even if she had they mostly likely would not have helped).
May 20th 2023, On receipt of a text message from Ricki's brother Callum who informed me that he was outside Rick's address Banging and Knocking on Ricki's door and not knowing what to do. I decided to call the police, When the call was answered I informed them that I wanted to report Ricki missing and all I was asked was how old Ricki was before I was told there was a 50 Minute queue and I can be put in the queue and there is an option in the queue to leave your details for a callback without loosing your place in the queue, so I did. Turned out this person was not a police call handler but an operator who is not trained in making decisions, the operator's are used when the call volumes are high. The problem with this is that under the new policy the call handlers are trained in deciding if its a police matter or NHS, but the operators are not trained, which mean that depending on when you call you will get a difference response, which can lead to a life or death situation, 80 Minutes later I get a call back , I explained everything again, Mental Health, self harm past attempts, mobility problem and alcohol problems. I was told that since late last year(in fact was 2 months earlier) they have been running the new policy Right Care Right Person and they then decided it was not a police matter and I need to call NHS 111 and request an ambulance to attend Ricki's address so I then said what happens if like his brother gets no answer, they replied if in that case then the ambulance crew would have to call the Fire service to attend and brake in(which I'm finding it hard under the law that apart from a fire or suspected fire the Fire service have no other powers of entry unlike the policy who's powers was designed for this purpose .
I then called NHS 111 and said what the police had told me to say, and I was met with a response that lead me to understand that the NHS had no clue what I was talking about when it came to the RCRP policy, now since this call I have heard the Unredacted version of the call and also the conversations while I was on hold between the call handler and an advisor, at one point the call handlers says” I don't know what to do with the call”, to the advisor and the advisor saying” Why has he called us”.to the call handler, which clearly show they knew nothing about this new policy, finally after 47minutes conversation with 2 other people , a Clinician and a Senior Clinician the agreed to send an ambulance , the call ended, then13 minutes after the call ended it was updated to the Ambulance control room and assigned a level 3 (3 hour response), Approx 3 hours later the ambulance attended Ricki's address and as predicted there was no answer, so fire service attended and gained entry and Ricki was found dead on the sofa.
Then the police attended as there was a body, so much for saving police time ?.
Now as I didn't have a good relationship with Ricki's mother, we did not communicate after me and Ricki split, so at that time knew nothing of her calls on May 15th 2023.
Fast forward to May 27th 2024 at the coroner's inquest, also until then we were unaware Ricki had died before the date he was found May 20th 2023.
At the inquest I asked for Article 2 of the ECHR as I believed that due to the nearly 6 hours delay on the dated Ricki was found by the Police and Ambulance Service's as I believed that if they had acted faster he would still be alive and I held them responsible, that was denied as the coroner informed us all that Ricki had not died on the 20th May 2023 but before that, even though they could not conclude his cause of death or date.
After the inquest had finished, that evening I went through the bundle of documents (Coroner's Bundle) statements and reports that we received at the inquest. I then discovered the Chief Inspector Kent's statement when she talks about Ricki's mother's call 5 days before his body was found which was only 3 day's since I last spoke to Ricki .
Now the question arises why did the Coroner at the inquest only mention My call on the 20th May 2023 and the neighbour's call on the 18h May 2023, but not his mother's call on 20th may 2023.
And why knowing that, did she decide that Article 2 was not right if she knew there was a high chance that if the Police and Ambulance service had bothered to attend on her call on May 15th 2023 then he might still be alive?.
Prior to the inquest, the local news run this story, and the police stated that even on the date Ricki's body was found if they had responded quicker it “Ultimately would not have changed the outcome”.
But they, the Police the NHS and even the Coroner (unlike me)knew that a call had been made 5 days before where neither services helped, so in other words if they kept it quiet about the call 5 days before then they think they are off the hook. So if they had attended 5 days before then there is a high chance the Outcome would have been different, but they chose to keep quiet about that.
A further question arises as well, why up until I read the Coroner's bundle wasn't I made aware of his mothers call, with my investigation's with the police and ambulance Service, as in the police case they informed me about the neighbours call, and in the case of the Ambulance service they only mentioned my call.
But the Police,Ambulance Service and the Coroner all failed to mention his mother's call which in my opinion was the call if they had bothered to attend would have saved his life, which means that Article 2 would be used as both the Police and Ambulance service failed in saving Ricki's life.
So it makes you think this information was hidden for a reason.
In August 2023 I put a information request for copies of my call to the police and ambulance service for my calls to them on May 20th 2023,now after a few months I received the audio of my calls to NHS 111 that day but now some 14 months on and chasing I'm still waiting on my police calls.
The National Partnership Agreement that was signed by the police, ambulance service and fire service states.
Many forces across England are beginning to adopt the RCRP approach. To successfully adopt the approach, strong partnerships need to be formed between police forces, health bodies and local authorities to identify how to implement this approach in a way that best meets the needs of the local population and the shared aims of the agencies involved.
Its goes on to say
This means the approach to RCRP implementation for people with mental health needs should be planned and developed jointly through cross-agency partnerships before changes to responses are introduced.
Now this policy was implemented by South Yorkshire Police in March 2023.and to this day the current view of the Ambulance Service is below
After the outcome of Ricki's mother's complaint to the Yorkshire NHS Trust there response to the RCRP Policy as of October 2024 is:-
South Yorkshire Police have a policy which they have implemented. This is not a Trust policy and was not initiated or implemented by the Trust.
So at this moment in time if you like Ricki's mother calls the Police or NHS 111 you will get the same response as she did , NO ONE WILL HELP YOU.
Now The previous caseworker at my Mp's office my MP being The Minister of State for Security, all she managed to do in 16 months was to send a letter to the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police and as I have no copy, and was only given a brief reading over the phone, but in other words the police say they did nothing wrong. The caseworker even told me that Ricki's case was one of the MP's top 3 case lol.
New Caseworker For My MP Dan Jarvis Minister Of State For Security
When they took over , I really thought we would get answer's Main one being why is this practice allowed to go on when it will cost lives just to save time for the police, even though in Ricki's case in the end still attending due to a body , so no time saved there.
Yes I had a nice meeting and then them, they had a meeting with the police where you put my findings from the Ambulance service to them showing that the RCRP policy is not being run by the NHS 111 service and you said they looked surprised. But why are South Yorkshire Police having a policy which they have implemented. This is not a Trust policy and was not initiated or implemented by the Trust. What are they going to do about it? Nothing I'm guessing. Then my caseworker writes to the police and crime commissioner and they are awaiting a response.
Now I thought that they might enlighten me , I thought as Minister not just an MP he would just be able to pick up a phone and ask for answers, all this just wastes time and possibly costs lives, we all know what the police are doing is wrong but no one seams bothered apart from me in stopping them. And like I said its not just South Yorkshire Police who are doing this, It's all over the country.
As a minister he has power to get this stopped and ask question as to why this is allowed to carry on, and I'm guessing the polite way of doing things is now over, and a more stronger way of doing this needs to happen , as this is lives we are talking about.
Dan Jarvis MP and Minister Of State for Security has direct contact with the Home secretary and the Health secretary, who are responsible for this policy, that the previous government allowed to happen in such a callus way, making the most vulnerable in our society expendable. This need to be exposed to the top people in government and paused until its fit for purpose.
The people who are paid and swore an oath to protect you are not doing it.
Like in Ricki's mothers call, She called both the Police and NHS for help and under the old way someone would have responded but under this new policy , the police say its not their problem but the NHS and the NHS saying its a police matter and not their problem. So in the end no one helps and both think they have done nothing wrong.
And the Government are knowingly allowing this to happen across the country. Vulnerable people are just second class citizens to them.
A few weeks ago in response to the Polices outcome letter to Ricki's mother's complaint, again where they say they did nothing wrong by doing nothing, I replied back with a list of point they failed to address, it looks like that response I made has fallen on deaf ears as Ive not even had an acknowledgement from them so I will end up putting it through as another complaint.
So as it stands now is when you have concerns for a Vulnerable second class citizen who has mental health problems, you are expected to call the NHS who as we all know are not running this policy, they them unless like me stand my ground they will say “Its a police matter not a NHS problem”, you then call the police who say its a matter for the NHS and refuse to help, and in the end someone dies.
Where is the protection this policy is supposed to afford the vulnerable and mental health people in our society?? . All its designed for is to help the police pass the buck over to the already over stretched NHS who has not either the technology or the staff to work this policy.
But it's allowed to go on as the public are unaware of its failing , but I made a promise and with my last breath on this planet, I will get this exposed as the fraud it is and all the people that allowed it to continue by turning a blind eye.
The police can say what ever they like by pretending that on their side this policy is working, but when you clearly have in writing from the NHS that they are not running this policy. Who would you believe after knowing what you know about Ricki's case.
The policy was supposed to save lives but when you have all parties covering their own tracks by blaming the other side , people are going to die. I just hope they can sleep at night, as I know I struggle.
The NHS have no powers of entry
The fire service have a very limited powers to enter a property.
The police have Section 17 of PACE, but after Syed v DPP they choose to interpret it in a way that only suits them. But ultimately they have More powers of entry than any of the other services but choose to hide behind a case that is nothing to do with performing a welfare check on vulnerable person's.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-66377683
This needs to stop, people are dying and the clock is still ticking
Most who people who have had a similar story have just accepted what the Police, NHS are saying and not question it unlike me , over the last 16 months I have found out that this policy was jumped on by the policy who saw it as a way of freeing up time by passing it over to the NHS who are not running it, and this is allowed to go on unchecked. But why is that.
The Police are aware that the NHS are not running this but the only reaction is “Surprise” and little else.
The NHS are not running this policy
Now like the previous government , they know this is not working but refuse to do anything, Local or National about it
So I will continue to fight.
The Yorkshire NHS Trust Stated the only reason after me having to begging and arguing with them to send an ambulance that day was in my 47 minute call to them I informed them that Ricki had Mental Health problem and a history of self harm, and the reason they didn't act 5 days before was that Ricki's mother only told them that he was on Antidepressants, has an alcohol problem and was on new medication, me not being medically trained but being on antidepressants is a red flag for having mental health problem !but they chose to ignore that Red Flag and refused to help.
This needs to stop, people are dying and the clock is still ticking
Most who people who have had a similar story have just accepted what the Police, NHS are saying and not question it unlike me , over the last 16 months I have found out that this policy was jumped on by the police who saw it as a way of freeing up time by passing it over to the NHS who are not running it, and this is allowed to go on unchecked. But why is that.
The South Yorkshire Police are aware that the NHS are not running this but the only reaction is “Surprise” and little else.
The NHS are not running this policy
Now like the previous government , they know this is not working but refuse to do anything, Local or National about it
So I will continue to fight.
Shame on the Police and shame on the Yorkshire Trust.