“(brief summary of matters of concern) The rider of Neglect attaches to the actions of the…”
Dated 11 Jul 2025, from the coroner for West Yorkshire (Western). Sent to 3 organisations or people.
A coroner wrote this report after an inquest, to warn the organisations below about a risk of further deaths.
The 56-day response deadline
Deadline passedReplies were due by 5 Sep 2025. A reply may have been sent and not yet published.
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.
- Report dated11 Jul 2025
- Deadline5 Sep 2025
- Published on judiciary.uk17 Jul 2025
- 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.
Responses from each recipient
| Sent to | Response |
|---|---|
| Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust | Response publishedPublished on judiciary.uk in July 2025. |
| CQC North | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 5 Sep 2025. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
| NHS England | Deadline passedNo response published on judiciary.uk so far. The 56-day deadline was 5 Sep 2025. A reply may have been sent and not yet published. |
The coroner’s concerns
(brief summary of matters of concern) The rider of Neglect attaches to the actions of the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust (‘the Trust’). It relates to the lack of adjustments, that were identified as being required to treat Myles safely in the context of his Learning Disabilities (‘LD’) and Autism notably during his admission 20-25 October 2022. It is true that evidence from Trust witnesses has been sufficient to demonstrate that the Trust is aware of the issues arising in this case at least in terms of training and professional input. It has an ongoing programme of training in relation to Learning Disabilities and Autism in clinical care and they have people in post enhancing Learning Disability provision. The crux of the remaining concern is in relation to auditing the impact of all of this in terms of auditing the outcome of this work. To be fair, Trust evidence was that there is now auditing of mental capacity assessments and there is dedicated nursing leadership walkaround of all wards auditing LD and autism policies being applied. However, there is this remaining evidential reality: much of what is now in place was already in place in 2022 – not least key personnel who gave evidence at the Inquest, but also VIP passports, training and all the underlying regulatory underpinning. But in Myles’s case it simply had no impact whatsoever. One witness’s own Regulation 28 – After Inquest Document Template Updated 30/07/2021 ‘spot-on’ entries in the EPR on 21 October were just were not acted upon by colleagues and had zero effect when she went on leave thereafter. Clinicians were applying Mental Capacity Act principle 1 but not 2. ‘Culturally’ speaking, that one obtaining in secondary care after the witness went on leave seems to have been stuck in another era. So, the question is - how it is proposed to ensure full compliance with best practice and by when?
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, 2025-0357
- 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
AISummaries and questions, with page references. Pro and above.
Sign in to use