Death of Derbyshire computer engineer, 29, suffering from mental health issues could not have been prevented by police

An inquest has found that police could not have averted the death of a Derbyshire man earlier this year.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

Peter Hugill, 29, died at his home address of 33 Quenby Lane, Ripley on February 21 2022.

During an inquest held today (Tuesday, September 6) at Chesterfield Coroner’s Court, area coroner Peter Nieto said that Peter, who worked as a computerised numerical control engineer, was suffering from mental health issues.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In January 2021, Peter told his GP at the Jessop Medical Centre in Ripley that he was anxious and depressed, after which he began counselling and was prescribed antidepressants.

The inquest at Chesterfield Coroner’s Court found that Peter’s death could not have been averted.The inquest at Chesterfield Coroner’s Court found that Peter’s death could not have been averted.
The inquest at Chesterfield Coroner’s Court found that Peter’s death could not have been averted.

During a review in February 2022, Peter reported again that he had been suffering from depression, with a low mood that had been triggered by stress at work. He said he was feeling lonely and bored, as well as struggling to see any positives.

Peter also mentioned that he was sleeping poorly, after which he was prescribed sleeping pills and given details for counselling services and crisis helplines. He was told to contact his GP again if improved sleep did not boost his mood, or if he began to feel worse. At this stage, Peter did not tell his GP that we was expericing any suicidal thoughts, or that he was considering self-harm.

A counsellor from Talking Mental Health Derbyshire confirmed that, during eight treatment sessions of counselling, Peter did not express any suicidal thoughts, discuss any historic suicide attempts, or any instances of self-harm or neglect.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

On February 19 2022, Peter was interviewed by Nottinghamshire Police in relation that what the coroner described as “serious sexual allegations made by a woman he met via a dating app.”

Peter was voluntarily interviewed at Mansfield Police Station, during which he stated that his sexual encounter with this woman was consensual. Peter’s solicitor said that he had advised officers he was feeling depressed after the break-up of his relationship with the woman who had made the allegations against him.

The coroner said that, according to Nottinghamshire Police’s suicide prevention policy, officers are required to complete a welfare check after interviews relating to sexual offences within 24 hours – given the increased risk of self-harm. If the suspect resides outside of the force area, as Peter did, this should be raised so that their counterparts can establish the risk and undertake a welfare check.

An internal investigation found that, while Peter had mentioned mental health issues during his interview, no such follow-up check was made. A risk assessment form, which should be completed after the interview, was also not attached to Peter’s file.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Trainee detective constable Armstrong, who interviewed Peter, said that she had conducted a verbal assessment during the interview, with Peter confirming that he was fine. Peter was given a leaflet with information and relevant organisations were signposted to him – and Peter’s solicitor confirmed that the interviewing officers were supportive, raising no concerns over their conduct.

DC Armstrong did not update Peter’s file with this information until seven days after the interview, despite working on February 19, 20 and 21 – by which point he had passed away.

She told the officer conducting the internal investigation that this was due to the volume of prisoners at the station over the weekend.

The investigating officer concluded that DC Armstrong did not follow force policy, despite her verbal assessment of Peter.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Their statement, read by the coroner, said: “I understand that other operational requirements may have impacted this, but on this occasion, seven days is not an acceptable time to update the system.”

DC Armstrong was also checked on how she dealt with three other cases, and did not adhere to force policy in these instances. The investigating officer said that, although a trainee detective, it is reasonable to expect these forms to be completed.

They added that, as well as highlighting the force’s suicide prevention and risk assessment policies to all staff, individual learning was also needed for DC Armstrong.

Peter was found unresponsive in his shower by his mother Amanda’s partner. When ambulance crews arrived, there were no respirations or pulse, and Peter was pronounced dead at the scene.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A post-mortem examination found that Peter’s primary cause of death was exsanguination – or severe loss of blood.

The pathologist also listed a secondary cause of death as asphyxia due to hanging.

In his conclusion, the coroner said: “It must be the case that Peter was anxious about the police interview two days prior to his death. He expressed this when he was interviewed, and he was a man who had not been in trouble with police previously – it must be the case that this was playing on his mind.

“Peter was suffering from poor mental health around that time – there had been an episode in 2021 where he was experiencing anxiety and depression, and he again noted depression in February 2022.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Not only was Peter anxious about the police interview, but he was also suffering from a degree of depression.”

He added that, while a welfare check should have been completed within 24 hours of Peter’s police interview, he could not state that this would have prevented his death.

“It is indisputable, and has been acknowledged by the police, that the 24 hour welfare check should have happened, to talk to Peter and see how he was.

“It can’t be said what Peter’s response would have been to the check. Peter gave no forewarning or indication to anyone, including those very close to him, that he was contemplating self-harm or taking his own life.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“I cannot say that had this been carried out, it is probable that his death could have been avoided – there simply isn’t the evidence to say that.”

The coroner concluded that, given the nature of Peter’s serious injuries, his death was a deliberate act. He also said that Peter would have understood that, in inflicting these injuries, it was likely that his death would follow. Peter’s primary cause of death was recorded as exsanguination, with a secondary cause of asphyxia, and his death was ruled as suicide.