FAI DETERMINATION SUMMARIES

The Sheriff's full determination is available to read on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals website and is the only authoritative document.

Background

James Forbes was 37 years old at the time of his death and was the oldest of three siblings. On 14 and 15 of January 2024, he was detained against his will within flat 47 on the 12th floor of Elphinstone Court, Aberdeen.

He was subjected to repeated acts of violence there by Lee Charles Smith.

At approximately 1525 on 15 January 2024, in order to escape the flat, James Forbes jumped from the bedroom window, whereby he sustained fatal injuries. He was pronounced dead at the scene by paramedics at 1545.

Lee Charles Smith was subsequently convicted of the culpable homicide of James Forbes on 30 October 2024, after pleading guilty at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh.

Two members of the public made 999 calls at 1013 and 1016 hours on 15 January 2024, during which the callers (Gail Thomson and Lindsay Barrett) reported that they had heard a male shouting for help from, or from the vicinity of, Elphinstone Court.

Two police officers, PC William Bayliss and PC Maree Valentine, attended at about 1022 hours in response to these calls.

The shouting had stopped by that time and no further shouting was heard by those officers, or reported to the police.

PCs Bayliss and Valentine spoke with a number of members of the public in the vicinity and made enquiries on the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th floors of Elphinstone Court.

They did not attend flat 47, which was on the 12th floor, and they did not locate James Forbes. 

The officers left to attend to other duties at 1101 hours. No further police officers attended Elphinstone Court in relation to the reported shouting prior to the death of James Forbes that afternoon.

Findings and recommendations

Sheriff Principal Miller has made the following findings based on the evidence:

• James Alexander Robert Forbes was born on 19 November 1986 and was aged 37 at the time of his death.
• In terms of section 26(2)(a) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Etc (Scotland) Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”), Mr Forbes was pronounced dead at approximately 1545 hours on 15 January 2024 at Elphinstone Court, Aberdeen.  
• In terms of section 26(2)(b) of the 2016 Act, the fall resulting in the death of Mr Forbes occurred at approximately 1525 hours on 15 January 2024 at Elphinstone Court, Aberdeen.   
• In terms of section 26(2)(c) of the 2016 Act, the cause of Mr Forbes’s death was:

  1(a)      Multiple blunt force injuries

  1(b)      Fall from height

• In terms of section 26(2)(d) of the 2016 Act, the fall resulting in the death of Mr Forbes was caused when Mr Forbes, having been detained within flat 47 on the 12^th floor of Elphinstone Court, Aberdeen against his will and subjected to repeated acts of violence there by Lee Charles Smith on 14 and 15 January 2024, jumped from the bedroom window of the flat in order to escape, whereby he sustained fatal injuries on impact with the ground.

Sheriff Principal Miller identified four reasonable precautions in terms of section 26(2)(e) of the 2016 Act which, had they been taken, might realistically have prevented the death of Mr Forbes:

Firstly, Police Scotland service advisor Calum Scott could have accurately noted the information provided by witness Gail Thomson during a 999 call made by her at 1013 hours on 15 January 2024 with regard to the location, relative to the tower block to which she referred, of the man whose shouting she described during the call. A transcript of Ms Thomson’s call confirmed that she described the male as being “…six floors down…” or “…like the fifth or sixth floor down from the top…” of the block in question. The relevance of this is that Elphinstone Court has 18 floors and Mr Forbes was within flat 47 on the 12^th floor, six floors from the top. The police service advisor, Mr Scott, instead noted that the male described by Ms Thomson was “around 6-8 flats up.” The incorrectly noted information was transmitted to the local police division and informed the subsequent police enquiries.  

Secondly, an attempt could have been made by a member of Police Scotland personnel to contact Gail Thomson in order to confirm the information she had provided during her 999 call, prior to PCs William Bayliss and Maree Valentine, who were carrying out enquiries arising from Gail Thomson’s call, being instructed to stand down at about 1100 hours on 15 January 2024.

Thirdly, Sergeant Richard Arton, when he asked PCs Bayliss and Valentine prior to instructing them to stand down whether they had spoken to “the witnesses,” could have identified the witnesses to whom he was referring. The relevance of this is that sergeant Arton gave evidence that the police had only received two calls regarding this incident, that he wanted to know whether the officers had spoken to those callers, in case they could add any further information or provide any further clarification of the circumstances and that, had he realised that the officers had not spoken to one or other of those witnesses (Gail Thomson and Lindsay Barrett) at the scene, either sergeant Arton or a member of control room staff would have contacted that witness by phone, using the contact details from the STORM incident record.  Alternatively, he would have asked the officers at the scene whether they were in a position to telephone the witness.  In fact, neither PC Bayliss nor PC Valentine had spoken to Gail Thomson.

Fourthly, PCs Bayliss and Valentine could have acted upon the information which they received from their interaction with a group of workmen including witness James Mutch shortly before 1100 hours on 15 January 2024, to the effect that shouting which a member or members of the group had heard earlier that morning had come from the upper floors, high in Elphinstone Court.

In terms of section 26(2)(f) of the 2016 Act, no defects in any system of working contributed to the death of Mr Forbes or to the circumstances which resulted in his death.

In terms of section 26(2)(g) of the 2016 Act, the Sheriff Principal has identified three further facts which are relevant to the circumstances of the death of James Forbes:

• Lee Charles Smith was convicted of the culpable homicide of James Forbes, in the circumstances described in the indictment referred to at paragraph [17] of the determination.
• As set out at paragraphs [32] to [34] of the determination, a number of members of the public who heard James Forbes shouting for help on the morning of 15 January 2024 and who had the opportunity to call the police to report what they had heard and, in the case of some of those individuals, to direct the police to the flat from which the shouting had come, did not do so. 
• As noted at paragraph [67] of the determination, the Police Scotland service advisor who took the 999 call from the witness Lindsay Barrett misrecorded Ms Barrett’s reference to the property at numbers 34-48 Gordon’s Mills Crescent as a reference to numbers 34-38. This error had no impact on the course of subsequent police enquiries and played no active part in the sequence of events which resulted in the death of James Forbes. However, it is a second error by a service advisor in the recording of information reported in a 999 call concerning James Forbes that morning. 

The Sheriff Principal has made two recommendations for the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, which might realistically prevent other deaths in similar circumstances.

1. The Chief Constable should develop and introduce guidance for Police Scotland service advisors with the objective of minimising the scope for the misrecording of information reported by telephone by members of the public, for example by requiring service advisors, where the nature and circumstances of the call allow, to repeat potentially important information such as the location of an incident to the caller, so that the caller has an opportunity to correct any misunderstanding or misrecording of that information.
2. The Chief Constable should develop and introduce guidance to clarify: (a) the circumstances in which an attempt should be made to contact a person who has called the police to report a concern for person issue, in order to check and confirm the information which the caller reported, before bringing enquiries arising from the call to an end; and (b) who should be responsible for attempting to make such contact.

 The Sheriff's full determination is available to read on the Scottish Courts and Tribunals website.