Executive Summary s8

Executive summary An investigation into West Midlands Police contact with offender Wesley Williams prior to the murders of Yvonne and Harry Walsh

Introduction 1. Wesley Williams was released from prison, on licence, in February 2013, after serving a sentence for wounding. He was subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), whereby the probation service, police and prison service, along with other stakeholders, manage the offender’s integration back into society, while managing the risk that the offender potentially poses. 2. Assessments are made as part of the MAPPA process, regarding what risks the offender poses to certain categories of person. The MAPPA panel’s assessment on 19 February 2013 decided that Wesley Williams was “high” risk to children. As part of Wesley Williams’ licence conditions, he was to inform his offender manager of any developing relationships. 3. The lead for managing Wesley Williams while he was on licence was the probation service. At the end of his licence period (14 April 2013) Wesley Williams was under no statutory control (not subject to licence conditions) and a decision was made by the MAPPA panel that he would still be subject to MAPPA arrangements, with the police service taking the lead for managing him. 4. On or around 30 April 2013, Wesley Williams confirmed to his police offender manager, Police Constable (PC) A, that he was in a relationship, but would not reveal who with. Wesley Williams also informed PC A that his partner had children, but would give no details. 5. On 28 May 2013, PC A received information from a third party about who Wesley Williams was in relationship with (i.e. Yvonne Walsh), and details of her children, which included their address. 6. PC A spoke with Wesley Williams on 28 and 31 May 2013. Again, Wesley Williams did not reveal who he was in a relationship with. PC A did not reveal or confirm with Wesley Williams the information they had received from the third party. PC A did not contact social services with the information they had in respect of the relationship. PC A gave Wesley Williams the opportunity to get his partner to contact the police herself. 7. On 31 May 2013, Yvonne Walsh and her son, Harry Walsh, were murdered at their home address in Chells Grove, Birmingham. Their bodies were discovered by police on 2 June 2013. 8. On 6 December 2013, Wesley Williams pleaded guilty to the murder of Yvonne and Harry Walsh. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

1 MAPPA 9. As MAPPA is a term that is associated with offender management and features throughout this summary, it would be beneficial to give a brief overview of this process. 10. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) is a mechanism to protect the public from sexual or violent offenders. There is a statutory requirement that the prison service, probation service and the police service are part of the arrangements, as well as “duty to co-operate” organisations, which can include social services and councils. 11. The MAPPA process is there to ensure that organisations like the police, probation service and prison service work in a co-ordinated manner in respect of public protection arrangements in relation to an offender. There is a national guidance document for the MAPPA process that details the responsibilities of organisations involved in the process. As part of this process, statutory agencies meet to discuss what risk the offender poses to certain persons or groups, and make arrangements to mitigate those risks. 12. In relation to an offender, specified violent offences under Schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 qualify for Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). Section 18 wounding, which Wesley Williams was convicted of in 2008, is a qualifying offence for these arrangements. 13. If an offender leaves prison on licence they will have a number of licence conditions, which are statutory controls, and breaches of those conditions can lead to an offender being recalled to prison. When a MAPPA offender is on licence, the lead organisation for managing the offender will be the probation service. Once an offender finishes his licence, it is possible to retain an offender under MAPPA arrangements, but unless the offender is under a civil order of some sort, then the offender will not be under any statutory controls. This means that there are no sanctions available if, as in this case, the offender is uncooperative. Nonetheless it remains the role of the agency managing the offender to seek relevant information and to use it to protect the public from the risks they may present.

Officers subject to investigation

14. Three officers were the subject of the IPCC investigation; PC A, who was the offender manager from the police force. Sergeant (Sgt) B, who was PC A’s immediate line manager and the sergeant for the offender management team; and Inspector C, who was responsible for that team of police offender managers.

15. In summary, the most significant allegations against Pc A, were as follows:

 That the officer did not make adequate enquiries after 30 April 2013 to establish Wesley Williams’ whereabouts, his relationship status, and whether there were any safeguarding issues.

 That the officer did not contact Wesley Williams’ ex-partner until a month after a MAPPA meeting and, when informed who his latest

2 partner was (Yvonne Walsh), did not contact Yvonne and establish if there were any safeguarding issues.

 Once Yvonne Walsh’s details were known to the police, they did not make a formal or informal contact with social services in relation to safeguarding Yvonne Walsh or her children.

 The officer did not use a “marker” system to inform police colleagues that a violent offender was living at an address, and the occupants may be at risk.

 The officer did not make a disclosure to Yvonne Walsh in respect of Wesley Williams’ background of violent offending, which is an option available under national MAPPA guidance.

 The officer did not carry out an effective risk assessment in relation to not disclosing Wesley Williams’ background at the earliest opportunity.

 The officer did not update the offender management system (VISOR).

16. In summary, the most significant allegations against Sgt B were as follows:

 The officer did not supervise PC A appropriately and ensure the officer completed the actions (contacting Wesley Williams’ previous partners and contacting Wales probation service) from the MAPPA meeting in the appropriate time.

 The officer did not prioritise staffing to ensure that appropriate enquiries were made with Yvonne Walsh to establish if there were any safeguarding issues.

 The officer did not direct PC A to contact social services once Yvonne Walsh’s details were known.

 The officer did not ensure a disclosure was made to Yvonne Walsh, about Wesley Williams’ previous offending.

 The officer did not carry out an effective risk assessment in relation to not disclosing Wesley Williams’ background at the earliest opportunity.

17. In summary, the most significant allegation against Inspector C was that:

 They did not ensure the correct processes were in place for updating the national offender management system (ViSOR).

Chronology

3 2008 Wesley Williams convicted of wounding and sentenced to five years imprisonment.

October 2010 Wesley Williams released from prison on licence. He resides in North Wales. He is given a number of licence conditions, which include declaring developing relationships.

7 April 2011 Wesley Williams recalled to prison for breach of his licence conditions – for not disclosing a developing relationship.

14 February 2013 Wesley Williams released from prison on licence until 14 April 2013. He is a MAPPA-managed offender. He has a licence condition to disclose developing relationships.

19 February 2013 MAPPA meeting and discussion include that Wesley was in a relationship with Ms J. At the meeting, risk is re-evaluated, as previously it was assessed by a different MAPPA panel. The West Midlands MAPPA panel increase Wesley’s risk in respect of children, from “medium” to “high”.

3 April 2013 Witness A reports Wesley Williams to West Mercia Police about malicious text messages.

4 April 2013 Wesley Williams moves to shared accommodation on Quinton Road West, Birmingham.

7 April 2013 Disclosure from staff at the Quinton Road West property to PC T that Wesley Williams may be at his girlfriend’s.

14 April 2013 Wesley Williams’ licence conditions end and he is assessed as a Category 3 MAPPA-managed offender. The police are now the lead agency for managing the offender.

14–30 April 2013 Wesley Williams does not take calls from PC A. Wesley Williams is not at his address when police visit.

30 April 2013 MAPPA meeting to discuss Wesley Williams. PC A is in attendance. Priority is to establish the whereabouts of Wesley Williams and contact his ex-partners.

On or around 30 April PC A speaks to Wesley Williams on the telephone. Wesley Williams discloses 2013 that he is in a relationship with someone who has children, but will not disclose who with.

9 May 2013 In an email exchange between PC A and social services, the officer informs them that they have spoken to Wesley Williams who disclosed that he is a relationship with someone who has children.

9 May 2013 Sergeant B puts a briefing note out to police officers asking staff to report any contact with Wesley Williams.

24 May 2013 Social services meet Wesley Williams. Wesley does not disclose the details of his partner, or her children.

28 May 2013 Social services telephone PC A to update him about the meeting of the 24 May 2013.

28 May 2013 PC A contacts Ms J, who informs them that the last person that she knows was in a relationship with Wesley Williams is Yvonne Walsh, and provides the officer with the name and address of Yvonne Walsh and her children.

4 28 May 2013 Ms J rings Yvonne Walsh, and leaves her an answer phone message that the police have rung her asking about Wesley.

28 May 2013 PC A checks Facebook: Yvonne Walsh has commented on Wesley Williams’s photo.

28 May 2013 PC A speaks to Wesley Williams on the phone, but does not disclose that they know who he is in a relationship with. PC A urges Wesley to pass on PC A’s details to his partner and to get them to contact the police.

31 May 2013 PC A speaks to Wesley Williams on the phone. Wesley says he will ask his partner to contact the police.

31 May–2 June 2013 Wesley Williams murders Yvonne and Harry Walsh.

Summary of the evidence 18. Prior to 2008, Wesley Williams was convicted for a number of violent offences which included violence against his partners. He has also previously been investigated for non-accidental injuries to a child, but was never charged in relation to this.

19. In 2008, Wesley Williams attacked a man with a hammer, causing him head injuries. Wesley was convicted of wounding with intent and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

20. In 2010, Wesley Williams was released from prison on licence. As he was convicted of a violent offence, he qualified as an offender under MAPPA. One of his licence conditions was to inform his probation officer of any developing relationships. At this time Wesley was defined as high risk to those he was in a relationship with, and medium risk to children.

21. While on licence, his offender manager from the probation service was made aware that Wesley Williams had access to a vehicle and checks of the vehicle suggested it was owned by a woman who had children. Wesley was living at the woman’s address, which was shared with her mother. The woman denied being in a relationship with Wesley. North Wales Police, along with social services, made a disclosure of his background to the woman. The following day, Wesley was returned to prison, in breach of his licence conditions.

22. In February 2013, Wesley Williams moved to the Birmingham area and was transferred from Wales Probation Trust to Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust. At West Midlands Police, PC A was the offender manager who took responsibility for Wesley in relation to police responsibilities, and a probation officer was also appointed. The probation service takes the lead in managing an offender while the offender is still on licence. One of Wesley Williams’ licence conditions was to reveal any developing relationships.

23. On his release from prison, Wesley Williams was taken to probation-approved

5 premises, which have probation staff residing at the address. A search of Wesley’s belongings was conducted on his arrival. This revealed communications with a woman, Ms J. He disclosed to the authorities that he was entering into a relationship with her.

24. A couple of days after Wesley Williams’ release, a MAPPA meeting took place. At this meeting he was deemed high risk to those he was in a relationship with and high risk to children. Wesley’s relationship with Ms J broke down after a couple of weeks.

25. On 7 April 2013, Wesley Williams was moved to private accommodation that had staff who assisted those who lived at the premises. On 8 and 9 April police officers went to the address but Wesley was not there. One of the staff informed an officer, PC T, that Wesley may be spending time with a girlfriend. Several days later, probation service spoke with Wesley, who denied he was in a relationship.

26. On 14 April 2013, Wesley Williams’ licence conditions ended, as his sentence from the 2008 offence was complete. However, prior to this date, it had been decided that he would remain under MAPPA as a Category 3 offender, and the police would manage him. This decision was made due to the short amount of time Wesley was on licence, upon his release from prison.

27. PC A visited Wesley Williams’ address on numerous occasions between 14 April and 30 April 2013. However, Wesley was not at his address or answering his phone.

28. At a MAPPA meeting held on 30 April 2013, PC A was given a number of actions in relation to Wesley Williams. He was tasked to establish Wesley’s whereabouts, and if there were any safeguarding issues. He was also to contact a number of Wesley’s ex-partners and Wales Probation Service.

29. After this meeting, and in or around 30 April, PC A had telephone contact with Wesley Williams, who informed him that he was in a relationship with someone who had children. The officer’s evidence is that Wesley did not provide any details of who his partner was.

30. PC A had contact with social services on 9 May 2013 and informed a social worker of Wesley Williams’ disclosure that he was in a relationship. On the same day, a police briefing was initiated by Sgt B that meant that, if Wesley came into contact with the police, the offender management team would be contacted.

31. On 28 May 2013, PC A contacted Ms J, who informed him that Wesley Williams had been in a relationship with Yvonne Walsh, who had children. She provided details of the children and an address for Yvonne. On the same day, PC A contacted Wesley and asked him about his relationship, but did not

6 reveal they had information to suggest he was in a relationship with Yvonne. The officer urged Wesley to get his partner to contact police. On the same day, the officer checked Facebook, which had a comment from Yvonne about Wesley.

32. Phone call evidence showed that Ms J contacted Yvonne and left a message that police had contacted her about Wesley Williams. Yvonne then rang Wesley, and in that call Wesley said that PC A had just rung him and she stated that she had had a call from Ms J. They discussed that police wanted contact with Yvonne. Wesley suggested that, if the officer rung her, she deny they were in a relationship.

33. MAPPA guidance details that disclosure of an offender’s offending history can take place, and this can be done by the offender in the presence of the authorities, or the authorities can undertake the disclosure, in certain circumstances. This is usually done to alert those in contact with the offender of the risks the offender poses and their history of offending.

34. In an interview with the IPCC, both PC A and Sgt B stated that they had agreed with each other to visit Yvonne Walsh the following week (the week after PC A spoke with Ms J). If Yvonne did not contact them then they would meet with Yvonne to make the disclosures or ensure she was aware of Wesley’s background information.

35. On 31 May, PC A contacted Wesley Williams by telephone and again urged Wesley to get his partner to contact police, otherwise they would have to make enquiries. Again, the officer did not reveal that they had suspicions that Wesley was in a relationship with Yvonne.

7 Findings 36. The IPCC investigation found that PC A did not place any markers on Yvonne Walsh’s address, indicating that Wesley Williams resided there. Also Sgt B and PC A did not record their decision not to visit Yvonne, nor make any disclosures to her, when they became aware of this information on 28 May 2013. Furthermore, the report found that PC A did not submit any social services referral, or informally contact social services about the information they received in relation to Yvonne and her children being in contact with a high risk offender.

37. The IPCC investigation found that it was likely that Yvonne Walsh had a broad knowledge of Wesley Williams’ offending due to information supplied by Ms J previously, and that Wesley was historically known to the family.

38. The IPCC investigation found that there were missed opportunities in relation to West Mercia’s contact with Witness A. Wesley was reported for malicious text messages while on licence and Witness A contacted social services. A Police National Computer (PNC) check would have revealed Wesley was a managed offender. No intelligence check was conducted. West Mercia Police have reviewed this matter. This investigation cannot surmise what would have happened if West Mercia Police established that Wesley was a MAPPA violent offender. The Domestic Homicide Review will address the issue of Witness A reporting matters to social services.

39. In relation to PC A’s conduct, the IPCC investigation, after analysing the evidence, found that, in the investigator’s opinion, PC A had a case to answer for misconduct in relation to :

 Failing to exercise their duties and responsibilities in relation to actions they were given at the MAPPA meeting on 30 April, a number of which were not completed.

 Failing to update a computer system (ViSOR) in relation to the officer’s interaction with Wesley Williams.

 Failing to conduct a risk assessment in relation to not making a disclosure to Yvonne Walsh.

40. In relation to PC A’s conduct, the IPCC investigation found that, in the investigator’s opinion, PC A had a case to answer for gross misconduct in relation to:

 Failing in their duties in relation to confirming Wesley Williams’ relationship with Yvonne Walsh and, as a consequence, failing to establish if there were safeguarding issues, make appropriate

8 disclosures, and failing to conduct any risk assessment.

 Failing in their duties in relation to making contact with social services, informally or formally, in relation to Yvonne Walsh and her children.

 Failing in their duties to make a disclosure as per national guidelines for MAPPA managed offenders.

41. In relation to Sgt B’s conduct, the IPCC investigation found, after analysing the evidence, that in the investigator’s opinion Sgt B had a case to answer for misconduct in relation to :

 Failing in their duties as a supervisor, in not ensuring PC A had completed all the actions that were set at the MAPPA meeting on 30 April 2013.

 Failing to ensure the disclosure process took place as soon as possible.

42. In relation to Sgt B’s conduct, the IPCC investigation found that, in the investigator’s opinion, Sgt B had a case to answer for gross misconduct in relation to:

 Failing in their duties by not ensuring PC A contacted social services in relation to Yvonne Walsh and her children.

 Failing in their duties by not ensuring a risk assessment took place.

Inspector C

43. The investigation found that Inspector C’s supervision was lacking in relation to a practice involving their staff, whereby a handwritten book was used to document staff’s contact with violent offenders. The IPCC investigator recommended that West Midlands Police consider unsatisfactory performance procedures in relation to Inspector C’s supervision.

West Midlands Police response to the IPCC report

44. West Midlands Police recommended that both PC A and Sgt B be subject to gross misconduct hearings. At subsequent proceedings held by West Midlands Police the panel found the gross misconduct allegations not proven. However, misconduct was found against both officers in respect of their failure to contact or visit Ms Walsh and evaluate the risk to her and her children; and also for not informing social services about the relationship. Additionally there was a misconduct finding against PC A for not making adequate and/or prompt enquiries to establish Mr Williams’s whereabouts. The panel imposed

9 no sanction for the misconduct they found proved.

45. West Midlands Police have taken into account the length of time that has passed since Inspector C was interviewed by the IPCC, and determined that they are no longer an Inspector in relation to violent offenders, and have suggested that a discussion take place with the officer in relation to the findings of the IPCC report.