Minute Book, home
Coroner’s reportPrevention of future deaths · 2025-0262

“relate to the arrangements made around Callum’s discharge and, in particular, safety…”

Dated 29 May 2025, from the coroner for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Sent to 1 organisation or person.

A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.

Read the full report on judiciary.uk

How this works

The 56-day response deadline

All responses published

Replies were due by 24 Jul 2025.

Organisations that receive a report must reply to the coroner within 56 days, saying what they will do or why they will do nothing. We show whether a response is published on judiciary.uk; a reply may have been sent and not yet published.

  1. Report dated29 May 2025
  2. Deadline24 Jul 2025
  3. Published on judiciary.uk9 Jun 2025
  4. Today23 Oct 2026

Watch this report

We’ll email you when a response is published on judiciary.uk, or when the 56 days to reply end with none published there yet. Free, and you can stop with one click.

Next we ask your name, then send a link to confirm and create your free account. Already have an account? Sign in

Responses from each recipient

Responses from each recipient
Sent toResponse
NHS Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Integrated Care BoardNamed in the report as “NHS Cornwall and Isles of Scilly ICB”Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in June 2025.

The coroner’s concerns

relate to the arrangements made around Callum’s discharge and, in particular, safety planning. 1) It was accepted in evidence that, owing to the decisions made by Callum, there were only limited options available to the clinicians. Of note, an offer to have personal follow-up by one of the clinicians involved in the assessment through the HTT was rejected. Additionally, the possibility of prescribing additional Diazepam was correctly discounted once it became evident Callum was already sourcing illicitly more than could be prescribed safely. 2) Callum refused permission for his mother (described as his rock) to be informed of his imminent discharge. On her evidence, she 2 Information Classification: CONTROLLED had been (wrongly) advised by police that her son would be detained and was safe. There was no evidence that this decision by Callum was explored or tested by the clinicians – instead it simply appeared to have been accepted by the clinicians without further enquiry. The independent expert was of the view that in a situation like this, where the assessing team had very few ‘levers’ available to it, Callum’s mother was potentially one that could and should have been explored further. It was noted that GMC guidance allows for further enquiry, specifically that 58. If an adult patient who has capacity to make the decision refuses to consent to information being disclosed that you consider necessary for their protection, you should explore their reasons for this. It may be appropriate to encourage the patient to consent to the disclosure and to warn them of the risks of refusing to consent. It was noted that the Nearest Relative’s details appeared not to have been completed on the MH 1. Again, this is a matter that has been brought to the attention of those responsible for the AMHP.

An extract. Read the full report, including the circumstances of the death, on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website.

Source
judiciary.uk, Prevention of Future Deaths reports, 2025-0262
Added to Minute Book
8 Oct 2026
Reuse
We show short extracts and link to the original. We don’t host the full report.

Something wrong, such as a date or who it was sent to? Report a mistake

Is this report about someone close to you? You can ask us to remove names from our pages.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, judiciary.uk. Open Government Licence v3.0

Ask about this report

AI

Summaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.

Sign in to use