Suffolk custody handovers still unsafe despite HMICFRS warning

HMICFRS’s PEEL 2025–27 assessment, published today, found the constabulary was relying on a remote written handover between outgoing and incoming custody officers, rather than the in-person exchange required under Authorised Professional Practice (APP).

When inspectors raised the issue mid-inspection, the force introduced a video-recorded workaround, in which the outgoing officer reads their written handover into a recording for incoming staff to play back.

Inspectors found this still did not allow for the in-person clarification and risk discussion needed to safeguard detainees, and said the underlying risk “hasn’t been sufficiently mitigated and still remains.” A 12-hour shift pattern introduced for custody personnel has further reduced the capacity for a safe, APP-compliant handover, the report found.

During suite observations, inspectors saw instances where risk information was missed during handover. Suffolk Constabulary has been given three months to introduce an in-person handover process and a quality assurance regime to check it is working.

The report also raises broader concerns about custody governance and culture. Personnel told inspectors that a lack of strong leadership had allowed poor behaviours to persist in the suites, with younger and female arresting officers reporting worse experiences, concerns senior leaders were said to be unaware of.

Use-of-force paperwork was also found to be significantly incomplete: inspectors requested records for 59 incidents identified through custody reviews but received only 23, meaning the force could not be assured that force used on detainees was necessary, justified and proportionate in every case. Three incidents, two of which involved children, saw detainees held in restraints for what inspectors judged excessive periods, without adequate supervision or recording to justify the continued use of force.

Detention reviews were also found to be inconsistently compliant with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, with reviewing officers not always recording whether they had considered the needs of children or vulnerable adults, and some “sleeping reviews” carried out while detainees were, in fact, awake.

The custody findings sit within a wider inspection that graded Suffolk good in one of nine assessed areas, adequate in three, requires improvement in three, and inadequate in two: safeguarding and custody. HMICFRS also issued an accelerated cause of concern in May over a backlog of more than 500 Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme applications, which the force’s own risk register had classified as “tolerated” rather than acted upon.

HM Inspector of Constabulary Roy Wilsher OBE QFSM said the force had “acted straight away” on the domestic abuse backlog findings, but that he remained concerned about “custody handovers and leadership behaviours” alongside the constabulary’s “strategic understanding and tolerance of risk.”

Responding to the report, Suffolk’s Chief Constable Mark Webster said the force was “reviewing its current processes and developing changes” to custody handovers “to ensure they fully meet national expectations.” He said the constabulary had cleared its historic Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme backlog and introduced strengthened processes, guidance, supervision and oversight since HMICFRS’s concerns were raised, adding: “Safeguarding remains our highest priority.”