Skip to content
recurance

Daniel Coleman

25 Aug 2020 · Coroner M E Hassell · Inner North London

The coroner's concerns

  1. 1. unnoticed drug use and living on site

    “I heard evidence that neither Camden managers, who I was told visited the site frequently, nor First Response security officers, who were a constant presence, had noticed that Mr [name redacted] was living on site.”
  2. 2. inconsistent patrol frequency

    “The evidence from the two First Response night time security officers who came to court was inconsistent and concerning. One said that he always patrolled twice an hour. The other said that each officer patrolled once every two hours.”
  3. 3. failure to detect intruder presence

    “The security officers were emphatic that Mr [name redacted] could not have lived on the site, saying that if he had been living there they would have noticed, most especially by way of the intruder alarm, and they had not noticed.”
  4. 4. drug testing policy not implemented

    “I was told that a Camden drug and alcohol policy that had been in place for five months at the time of Mr [name redacted] death had not resulted in a single attempt at a drug test.”

Responses

  • Built with
  • NVIDIA Nemotron Nano, Super and Ultra
  • Nebius Token Factory inference
  • Qwen3 Embedding 8B on Token Factory
  • Tavily follow-up web search
  • Postgres and pgvector search
  • Next.js site

Source: Prevention of Future Deaths reports and responses published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary at judiciary.uk. Crown copyright, used under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Data updated 26 Oct 2026.

A link shows that a similar concern was raised again, not why. It is not a finding about any organisation or person. Methodology and responsible use · Report an error