“At Mr Moody’s Inquest | heard that his family (who were present throughout events as his…”

The coroner’s concerns

This report was published as a scan, so its text was read automatically. Check the wording against the original before you quote it.

— At Mr Moody’s Inquest | heard that his family (who were present throughout events as his daughter and son-in-law own the Estate in which Mr and Mrs Moody had a cottage) initially called 999 and asked for the Police to attend. The 999 call-taker triaged the call as requiring the attendance of Ambulance Service and deemed this to be a matter that the Police would not attend. This resulted in the family having to redial 999 and ask for an alternative service; during which some level of screening questions were repeated. This caused delay in the family reaching an appropriate service to attend. | heard evidence from the Mental Health Lead for Hampshire Constabulary who explained that as the incident on the 19" April 2019 was occurring in the person’s home and, as such the Police have no power to intervene where a person is in their own home and in mental health crisis and/or threatening to harm themselves. The situation on the 19'" of April was distinguished from that which had happened the day before, on the 18¢% April, as the incident on the 18 had occurred in a public place and so, in that case, the police had a duty to attend. | heard further evidence that there is a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between Hampshire Police and the South Central Ambulance Service as to who is the primary response agency for persons making threats of suicidal ideation. Ultimately, the family were confused as to where help would come from and the call- handler will not transfer the call to a particular route/service unless the caller makes the decision as to which service they need. Despite there being a MOU between the agencies this does not appear to be something that the general public is aware of, and the task of making the general public aware of this is likely to be insurmountable and therefore it remains entirely foreseeable that future delays could occur because callers are unaware of which emergency service is the correct one to request in a situation where a person is suffering a mental health crisis episode and/or expressing suicidal ideation within the boundaries of their home. | heard further evidence regarding the existence of a different triage system, that operates in at least one area/jurisdiction of the country, but this only applies when a caller dials the 111 service; callers are given an option of accessing “Mental Health” services and this allows cails to be triaged through to an appropriately trained team/call- handler who can ask a set of wider diagnostic questions to understand and establish which agency, on the particular facts, should be the primary response service to that individual. In the situation of Mr Moody it transpired that it was actually a mixed response that was required; both the Police and Ambulance services. | am concerned that the current system of dealing with 999 calls in Hampshire gives rise to the potential for opportunities to be missed to triage the emergency call quickly and effectively, and to share information between agencies without the need to repeat the screening progress, and these factors may result in further deaths in the future.

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, 2019-0312

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