← Back to the chain

Recurance · prevention of future deaths reports

Pre-inquest brief

Inadequate CAWN risk assessment for young persons

Organisation: Home Office · Generated: 27 Oct 2026

Recurance · recurance.com/chains/8cb278c0140c26ce

The earlier warning

Dane Pearson · 14 Jan 2019 · Alison Mutch, Manchester (South)

“In issuing, the CAWN there was no evidence that his known vulnerability had been taken into account. A risk assessment had not been carried out.”

judiciary.uk/prevention-of-future-death-reports/dane-pearson

What was promised

Stated action 1 · response to Dane Pearson (14 Jan 2019) · stated timescale: none stated

“The College is about to release updated APP on issuing CAWNs and this will reflect the need to carry outa risk assessment. There”

judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-0056-Responses.pdf

Stated action 2 · response to Dane Pearson (14 Jan 2019) · stated timescale: none stated

“contained in College Investigations APP will be updated to reflect the requirement to keep both victims and suspects updated on progress of cases, including informing a suspect when an investigation about them has been concluded.”

judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-0056-Responses.pdf

What recurred

  • 1 May 2026 · Natasha Hill · Julian Morris · Closely related · confidence 0.70 (moderate)

The clearest link, quoted from both reports:

Earlier · Dane Pearson · 14 Jan 2019

“In issuing, the CAWN there was no evidence that his known vulnerability had been taken into account. A risk assessment had not been carried out.”

Later · Natasha Hill · 1 May 2026

“Thought should be given to the creation of a young person's protection by way of creation of an extension to the CAWN for the young person, against the adult creating that safeguarding risk e.g. young person's abuse warning notice.”

What happened next

No web check of the stated actions has been published for this chain.

Every quote is verified word for word against the original report on judiciary.uk. A link shows that a similar concern was raised again, not why. It is not a finding about any organisation or person.

Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, Open Government Licence v3.0.