The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has been advised to apologise to the family of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry for failings identified by an Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation, into the way it handled missing persons reports about the sisters.
We found the level of service provided to their family and friends over the weekend following their disappearance was unacceptable.
As a result, an MPS inspector and a civilian staff member must undertake unsatisfactory performance procedures to address and improve their professional capabilities. A call handler will also receive management action after they referred to a missing person as a ‘suspect’ and appeared dismissive during a call with a friend of one of the sisters. The caller contacted the MPS for advice after a pair of glasses had been found close to the area where their bodies were subsequently found.
Between the evening of Saturday 6 June and Sunday 7 June last year (2020), family members and friends reported Nicole and Bibaa missing and informed the MPS this was completely out of character for them. They had not been seen since Friday, 5 June, when they attended Fryent Park, Wembley, to celebrate Ms Henry’s birthday.
Shortly before 9pm on 6 June the first call was made to the MPS from a friend of Ms Smallman, asking if the police had any information on her whereabouts. At 9pm another friend reported Ms Smallman missing to the MPS, after which a missing person investigation was started. A third call was made at 10.24pm reporting both women missing. Family and friends were advised police would deploy resources to conduct enquiries into their whereabouts.
However, a decision was taken by the duty inspector to close the police logs, and police resources were not deployed until mid-morning on 7 June. We found that the duty inspector’s decision was influenced by information from a family member regarding Ms Henry’s believed whereabouts, which was recorded on a police log by a civilian staff member working in the force control room. The information provided was not accurately recorded by the civilian staff member. Following on from the decision to close the police logs, the staff member did not update family members that police were no longer attending Ms Smallman’s home to carry out a room search.
A search by the sisters’ families and friends of the last known location where the sisters were together, led to the discovery of their bodies at 1.18pm on 7 June in Fryent Country Park.
We established that the duty inspector did not progress the missing person report for Ms Smallman and did not allocate actions to officers during the evening of 6 June. A missing person report was not created in respect of Ms Henry until 7 June, even though she was classified as missing on the police log. This prevented action being taken to find her, which was a breach of the MPS’ missing person policy.
We also found there was confusion around who had responsibility and oversight of the missing persons investigation between the initial risk assessment and when the next assessment would have been due 24 hours later. This led to inadequate record keeping on the missing persons report, which hampered officers beginning their shift on 7 June.
Our investigation explored whether the police response to reports the sisters were missing was affected by their ethnicity or where they lived. We questioned the officers about this, checked police radio transmissions for any relevant discussions and to identify if any stereotyped assumptions had been made or informed decision-making. We studied the officers’ previous records, and conducted comparator analysis to see if there were any indications of potential discrimination in the approach to handling and prioritising the missing persons reports. While failings were identified in the handling of the missing persons reports in this case, the evidence did not indicate that this was a result of stereotyping or biased assumptions based on the sisters’ race or where they lived.
Regional Director for London Sal Naseem said: “Once again my thoughts and sympathies are with the family and friends of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry.
“Their deaths caused unimaginable heartache, loss and grief, feelings which were heightened by the inadequate service the family and friends received from the Metropolitan Police when reporting the sisters missing.
“Had the MPS focused on progressing the missing persons investigation it may have prevented the further distress caused to Nicole and Bibaa’s loved ones, who made the harrowing discovery after organising their own search party.
“As well as identifying three individuals whose performance fell below the standards expected of them, this investigation also identified failings in the service provided, for which we have now advised the MPS to apologise to the family.
“It is vital that the force addresses these shortcomings and effects long-lasting change and improvement to help restore public confidence in the MPS.”
As a result of our investigation, we have recommended that the MPS reviews the processes and separate systems used by call handlers, and considers whether further training ought to be provided to ensure all terminology is correctly understood. Further learning recommendations have also been identified and are ongoing.
We concluded our investigation in July 2021 when we passed our investigation report and findings to the MPS.
An act of parliament that provides the core framework of police powers to combat crime and provide codes of practice for the exercise of these powers.
Leads and manages the development of the police service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The body that represents the interests of all police constables, sergeants, and inspectors.
Deals with someone’s inability or failure to perform to a satisfactory level, but without breaching the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
Focuses on putting an issue right and preventing it from happening again by encouraging those involved to reflect on their actions and learn. It is not a disciplinary process or a disciplinary outcome.
Department within a police force that deals with complaints and conduct matters.
Refers to lower-level misconduct or performance-related issues, which are dealt with in a proportionate and constructive manner.
This means doing what is appropriate in the circumstances, taking into account the facts and the context in which the complaint has been raised, within the framework of legislation and guidance.
The average is calculated using the individual results of the forces in that most similar force group.
An investigation carried out by IOPC staff.
Carried out by the police under their own direction and control. The IOPC sets the terms of reference and receives the investigation report when it is complete. Complainants have a right of appeal following a supervised investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
This act sets out how the police complaints system operates.
How a police force is run, for example policing standards or policing policy.
An investigation carried out by the police under the direction and control of the IOPC.
The organisation that is responsible for assessing how to deal with a complaint. For example – whether it can be handled locally or reaches the criteria for referral to the IOPC. The appropriate authority may be the chief officer of the police force or the PCC for the force. If a complaint investigation finds that someone has a case to answer for misconduct, the appropriate authority is responsible for arranging any misconduct proceedings. If you make a complaint, the appropriate authority for your case will contact you.
An intelligence-led agency with law enforcement powers, it is also responsible for reducing the harm that is caused to people and communities by serious organised crime.
Policing bodies include police and crime commissioners, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
Investigations carried out entirely by the police. Complainants have a right of appeal following a local investigation (unless it is an investigation into a direction and control matter).
IOPC guidance to the police service and police authorities on the handling of complaints.
A complaint or recordable conduct matter that doesn’t need to be referred to the IOPC, but where the seriousness or circumstances justifies referral.
Parameters within which an investigation is conducted.
A person is adversely affected if he or she suffers any form of loss or damage, distress or inconvenience, if he or she is put in danger or is otherwise unduly put at risk of being adversely affected.
This is where a manager deals with the way someone has behaved. It can include: showing the police officer or member of staff how their behaviour fell short of expectations set out in the Standards of Professional Behaviour; identifying expectations for future conduct; or addressing any underlying causes of misconduct.
This could be the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Common Council for the City of London, or the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A flexible process for dealing with complaints that can be adapted to the needs of the complainant. It may involve, for example, providing information and an explanation, an apology, or a meeting between the complainant and the officer involved.
A breach of standards of professional behaviour by police officers or staff so serious it could justify their dismissal.
A matter where no complaint has been received, but where there is an indication that a person serving with the police may have committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
Quarter 1 covers 1 April - 30 June
Quarter 2 covers 1 April - 30 September
Quarter 3 covers 1 April - 31 December
Quarter 4 covers the full financial year (1 April - 31 March).
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
Used to house anyone who has been detained.
Complainants have the right to appeal to the IOPC if a police force did not record their complaint or notify the correct police force if it was made originally to the wrong force.
The purpose of an investigation is to establish the facts behind a complaint, conduct matter, or DSI matter and reach conclusions. An investigator looks into matters and produces a report that sets out and analyses the evidence. There are three types of investigations: local, directed and independent.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
A person who makes a complaint about the conduct of someone serving with the police.
The ending of an ongoing investigation into a complaint, conduct matter or DSI matter. An investigation may only be discontinued if it meets one or more of the grounds for discontinuance set out in law.
List of officers and staff who have been dismissed from policing, or would have been if they had not retired or resigned.
The type of behaviour being complained about. A single complaint case can have one or many allegations attached.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
An independent judicial officer, the coroner enquires into deaths reported to him/her.
A breach of the Standards of Professional Behaviour that would justify at least a written warning.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
A record is made of a complaint, giving it formal status as a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002.
This is a format where information is written in plain English and short sentences.
The IOPC must be notified about specific types of complaint or incidents to be able to decide how they should be dealt with.
No further action may be taken with regard to a complaint if the complainant decides to retract their allegation(s).
Casework involves assessing appeals. Casework staff also have a role in overseeing the police complaints system to help ensure police forces handle complaints in the best possible way.
Disapplication means that a police force may handle a complaint in whatever way it thinks fit, including not dealing with it under complaints legislation. This may only happen in certain circumstances where the complaint fits one or more of the grounds for disapplication set out in law.
Conduct includes acts, omissions, statements and decisions (whether actual, alleged or inferred). For example: language used and the manner or tone of communications.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
You can request a review/appeal if you’re not satisfied with how your complaint has been handled.
