A safeguarding review following the brutal murder of Birchwood teenager Brianna Ghey has concluded that her killer Scarlett Jenkinson was not seen as a serious risk.
Warrington Safeguarding Partnership (WSP) was involved with Scarlett Jenkinson before she murdered Brianna Ghey and was not aware of her “fascination with violent acts” and had “no reason to be concerned” about their contact.
Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe were jailed for life for the “brutal, planned and sadistic” killing of 16-year-old Brianna Ghey at Culcheth Linear Park in February 2023.
Scarlett Jenkinson, who was 15 at the time of the murder, had moved to Brianna’s school in November 2022 after spiking a younger pupil at her former school.
The independent safeguarding review found there had been “no reason known” to stop Jenkinson “mixing freely” with pupils after her move and nothing to suggest she was a “serious risk”.
Jenkinson and Ratcliffe were both found guilty of Brianna’s murder in December 2023 with a judge subsequently lifting reporting restrictions on them being named when they were sentenced two months later.
Brianna Ghey
A safeguarding review of contact between Jenkinson and Brianna Ghey was subsequently ordered, covering her interactions with support agencies in Warrington. It did not involve Ratcliffe, as he lived in neighbouring Wigan. Jenkinson had moved from Culcheth High School to Birchwood Community High School in November 2022 after she gave a 13-year-old a cannabis sweet, causing them to be ill.
The Child Safeguarding Practice Review (CSPR) was written tio conclude the effectiveness of services delivered to Scarlett.
Warrington Safeguarding Partnership (WSP) agreed to undertake the review using a learning model which engages frontline staff and their managers in reviewing cases. The approach focussed on why those involved acted as they did at the time, aiming to identify any systems issues which affected this case, which may impact in future on other children in Warrington.
Between November 2021 and March 2022, Scarlett had support during five appointments with a health care practitioner at School 1 regarding her emotional wellbeing. She also had support for her
mental and physical health from a clinician at the GP surgery (October 2022 and February 2023). Referrals were made to CAMHS in February 2022 and October 2022, resulting in mental health
practitioners completing initial assessments in March 2022 and February 2023. Most of the discussions regarding mental health and emotional wellbeing were about managing anxiety, low mood and assessing level of risk from this and self-harming (cutting arms and sometimes legs).
From the beginning of November 2022, when Scarlett was in year 11 and aged 15 years, she was offered a trial period at School 2 to avoid a permanent exclusion from School 1. This was because
Scarlett had given another child a cannabis edible without disclosing what it was. The police discussed the best course of action with school staff, given that the victim and her mother declined to make a complaint. Police made a decision of No Further Action to support interventions rather than prosecution. A youth service practitioner made a visit to Scarlett who declined support for substance misuse. In the two years prior to this incident the school had had several concerns about Scarlett possibly bringing cannabis to school without conclusive evidence. During the same period there were also two incidents involving alcohol in school. One of these was substantiated, and resulted in Scarlett receiving a two day suspension from school.
Towards the end of January 2023 School 2 began to have doubts about the likely success of the trial period. Scarlett had made a good start but she was not sustaining it; in particular her attendance had declined, and she had some negative behaviour points for things like punctuality and not handing in homework. There were no concerns about use of cannabis at School 2 until January 2023, when another pupil reported she had brought edibles to school. None were found during a search.
In mid-January 2023 Scarlett told a staff member at School 2 that she had self-harmed. This was the first occasion that School 2 became aware that Scarlett had previously self-harmed. During
February 2023 Scarlett began to describe hearing voices saying unkind things and putting her down rather than encouraging her to harm herself or others. An appointment for a full assessment by
CAMHS had been offered for February 2023, but the murder was committed before this had happened.
Subsequent to the murder it became apparent that there had been two previous unsuccessful attempts by Scarlett to murder Brianna, one at the end of January 2023, which involved inviting her
to the same park where she was later murdered. The other involved Scarlett attempting to poison her with over the counter medication, also in January 2023. Neither of these incidents were known to agencies until after the murder. Nor was the use Scarlett claimed in the trial to have made of the dark web to view torture and killing videos.
CONCLUSION
There were examples of good practice in this case. However, there is also some learning for the future benefit of other young people who are struggling with their emotional wellbeing or mental health and/or misusing substances and/or at risk of being excluded from school. There was some evidence of silo working. There were two occasions when parents should have been encouraged to consent to multi-agency information sharing and multi-agency working; these was the temporary exclusion from school, when the health care officer known to be involved due to Scarlett’s emotional health and when permanent exclusion was being considered. On the basis of the information known to practitioners individually or collectively a “managed move” between schools as an alternative to permanent exclusion was appropriate for Scarlett. There was also no reason known to practitioners to prevent Scarlett from mixing freely with another other pupils in school 2.
Scarlett Jenkinson under interview – Picture Cheshire Police
Scarlett was known to have some difficulties with peer relationships. Giving a cannabis edible to another child without them knowing what it was, was at best unkind, or worse a deliberate attempt to give someone what could be a frightening experience. This was not however behaviour at a level which could reasonably be expected to make practitioners suspect that Scarlett would go on to commit murder.
The death of Brianna Ghey was tragic and shocking. Whilst Scarlett had some vulnerabilities, before the murder she did not stand out from other children. Practitioners who knew her before then were not aware of anything that would have made them think that she was a serious risk to others. They did not know of Scarlett’s fascination with violent acts. They saw no reason to be concerned about any contact with Brianna that they knew about.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The individual agency reports have made single agency recommendations. Warrington Safeguarding Children Partnership has accepted these and will ensure their implementation is monitored.
To address the multi-agency learning, this CSPR identified that WSP should:
A) seek evidence from Warrington Borough Council that they have taken into account the learning from this CSPR when undertaking the evaluation of the local “Managed Moves” guidance
planned for September 2024
B) agree what impact information it requires from relevant stakeholders about Managed Moves, as part of its safeguarding performance monitoring framework 20
C) make recommendations to the Department of Education about what changes may be beneficial in the statutory guidance for Managed Moves, and that this should explicitly recognise the benefits of multi-agency involvement in the planning of them and that this should apply to all vulnerable children not just those who have a social worker.
D) identify how best to promote local initiatives to support parents, school communities and practitioners working with children to safeguard children when they are online. These need to include support for the most vulnerable groups of parents and children, especially those children who are not in school
E) seek evidence from the police that they have addressed their learning from this review about the need to make home visits to children who are suspected of administering a noxious substance
(aka spiking) or other serious drugs offences.
F) seek assurance from each agency involved in this review that single agency learning points have been identified and action has been/or is being taken to address and disseminate them.
A statement from the Warrington Safeguarding Partnership said:
“Today, we continue to think about Brianna.
This Child Safeguarding Practice Review report examines closely the actions of Scarlett and identifies important learning opportunities for all agencies. Compiling this report for publication has been a thorough process, led by an expert, independent reviewer.
While the report acknowledges that nobody could have foreseen the actions of Scarlett, the learning points in the report must, and will be, shared and embraced locally by all partners in Warrington.
We know that the report will provide little comfort to those who have been affected by this tragic case, but we equally hope that organisations across the country are able to draw on the report to identify any improvements they can make.
The Safeguarding Partnership will continue to work alongside its partners in Warrington to ensure that support is available to those who need it.”
*This review has been completed in relation to Scarlett as a child residing in Warrington and as a result of her actions. The review was conducted in discussion with the national child safeguarding practice review panel and informed by statutory guidance.
The full review can be read by CLICKING HERE
