Fergus Paterson (Chief Superintendent, D&C Police) delivered the ‘Right Care Right Person’ report and discussed:

a)    ‘Right Care Right Person’ was a cross-government approach to ensure people in need received the most appropriate care, from individuals and agencies with the right skills, experience and training;

b)    The Police had been serving as a ‘helper to all’, detracting from their core police responsibilities: ‘prevent and investigate crime’; ‘keep the King’s peace’; ‘save Life and prevent serious harm and suffering when crime is involved’; ‘help other agencies when needed’;

c)    The majority of Police lacked advanced medical training and were of an equivalent level to a workplace first-aider. It was therefore not appropriate for them to attend patients who required specific medical care or specialist services;

d)    It was important that agencies with the right skills and expertise attended events such as welfare checks, suicidal ideation, self harm, emotional distress and medical emergencies, while the police attended risk based behaviour under A2/A3 of the Human Rights Act: Save life (Section 2 Human Rights Act) and prevent serious harm and suffering (Section 3) when crime is involved;

e)    The Police had strong links with mental health providers in Plymouth including Livewell Southwest. A Joint Response Unit had been established, comprising of a Police officer and a mental health professional to conduct joint attendances;

f)     In response to recognition of failings due to high demand and resource diversion, Devon and Cornwall Police had committed to ‘prevent and investigate crime (including in health and social care settings and supporting victims in associated professions)’;

g)    A toolkit had been developed for call handlers, based on legal principles:

                      i.    Police may choose to accept an Article 2 and 3 duty when a more appropriate agency (better knowledge, skills, training, equipment, legal basis) could discharge that duty;

                     ii.    Police will “share” Article 2 and 3 duty to save life and prevent serious harm when the more appropriate state agency is unable to;

                    iii.    Police must consider the circumstances carefully before agreeing to take on a “duty of care” for non-police duties.

h)    The Police could not force entry to a property for a welfare check alone. It was required that there was reasonable belief that the person was inside, and that entry was required to save ‘life and limb’;

i)     The changes were being introduced in a phased approach, and were overseen by a scrutiny panel:

                   i.    ‘Concern for Welfare’ had gone live in January 2024, resulting in 35% fewer attendances than the previous year;

                  ii.    ‘Absconders and Mental Health Act Absence Without Leave’ had gone live in June 2024 in collaboration with mental health partners and acute trusts, introducing necessary steps before Police action was required;

                 iii.     ‘Section 136 and voluntary attendees’ would go live by the end of 2024, providing acute trusts and the ambulance service an understanding of police capabilities, as well as defining the appropriate time/stage they should be called;

                 iv.    ‘Transport of patients’ was the final phase, which would ensure transport for those with mental illnesses was conducted solely in specialist medical vehicles.

j)     An escalation process and scrutiny panel had been established to ensure a coordinated, safe and appropriate transition through the Right Care Right Person initiative;

In response to questions, the Panel discussed:

k)    The important role of Community Support Officers and their training in phases one and two, as well as partnership working with health providers;

l)     The potential positive impacts of the scheme, allowing the Police to focus on crime and disorder (prevention & reaction), as well as providing the appropriate trained professionals for patient attendances;

m)  Concerns around the capacity of health agencies to fill the ‘gap’ created through the re-focussing of police responses. It was reported that there were scrutiny panels and safeguards in place to identify and address these gaps, although no gaps had yet been identified through evidence; 

n)    The requirement for ongoing assurance and partnership work to mitigate potential risks at the introduction of each new phase of the programme;

o)    The challenges of identifying the level of threat and risk to an individual for call handlers.

The Panel agreed to-

1.    Request an update on the progress and performance of the Right Care Right Person initiative at a later date to provide assurance and scrutiny of any risks and issues that emerge through the phased introduction;

2.    To note the report.