‘It became clear I needed to review the investigation’

A senior officer who investigated Kent Police’s handling of Aaron Ritchie’s death concluded the force’s work was “inadequate”.

Jon Holl, then a detective inspector with the force, was tasked with dealing with a formal complaint lodged by the Ritchies.

He told coroner Christopher Morris: “It became clear that I needed to review the investigation because it was in my view completely inadequate.

“The first thing I wanted to do was gather together the papers, to review the statements and any reports to the coroner. It became clear that the information I was seeking was not in the possession of the police.”

Mr Holl said he would have wanted to have access to officers’ pocketbooks, incident records, photographs, statements of key officers and a list of medical staff who attended.

But Mr Holl, now a investigator at the Home Office, said: “But the police’s response was inadequate. There were things that should have been done which were not done.

“There were statements which were not taken as soon as possible, statements from potential key witnesses who were there at the time of Aaron’s death.”

Aaron’s mother Linda testified last Wednesday that her son had told her he was in danger and could not leave Prospect Farm. She believes the cocaine found in his system was put there by someone else.

Mr Holl went on: “I spoke at length with the family and I understand their frustrations. The family felt that their son was in danger and that caused me concern.

“However, I found no suggestion that he had been murdered. Clearly there were drugs in his system, but how they got there I cannot say. Was there third party involvement? I found no evidence of that.”

Kent Police confirmed an acting detective inspector involved in the investigation was given a written warning following a review by the force’s professional standards department.

It decided the officer had a case to answer in relation to a neglect of duty and a public disciplinary hearing was held in July last year.

The panel ruled that the officer’s actions, although not deliberately incorrect, amounted to misconduct as he had not followed the correct procedure in line with investigating sudden deaths.

‘But the police’s response was inadequate. There were things that should have been done which were not done’

Jon Holl