AN appeal hearing into the conduct of the custody sergeant who checked Kelly Hartigan-Burns into a cell has been dismissed.

The hearing discussed the conduct of Jason Marsden, who was not present at the hearing, on December 3 and December 4, 2016, when Kelly, who grew up in Bolton, was brought to Greenbank Police station following an arrest for assault.

Speaking after the decision was made, Kelly’s mother, June Hartigan said: “I am just happy that it didn’t go through and that it still stands.

“His conduct was awful. I just can’t believe we have still been here after all this time.”

The panel of a tribunal held last year reached a finding of gross misconduct, stating Marsden had "lost control" while checking Kelly into custody - the dismissed appeal means that this conclusion still stands.

It was found Marsden, who retired before the initial hearing, would have been sacked if he were still a serving officer; this finding remains following today's appeal.

While in custody, former Canon Slade School student Kelly was placed under level two observation and attempted to take her life in the cells. She was taken to hospital and died shortly after.

Mr Marsden’s solicitor, Sarah Barlow, said custody sergeants at the time would be expecting there to be ‘protecting vulnerable people’ markers on Kelly’s profile, as they would auto-add after a call to police.

Despite eight call outs to Kelly with concern for welfare of her attempting her life or self-harming during the 12 months leading up to her death, just one marker was displayed, from British Transport Police from March 2016.

She said: “The expectation was that they [markers] should be [present] and that is what is expected when officers come into contact with a vulnerable person.

“Had they have been available, the assessment of risk may have been very different.”

It was also noted that evidence from a number of other custody sergeants is that ‘one marker in itself’ is that observation level may not increase.

Ms Barlow also noted the transport officers answered questions during check in about Kelly which did not create concern for Mr Marsden of her risk, despite the original call made to Kelly being a concern for welfare.

When Kelly presented in custody, she had been drinking earlier in the evening and Ms Barlow said this meant Mr Marsden decided to comply with a ‘six-hour rule’ before calling a medical health professional.

It has been argued however that due to the risk Kelly presented, this should have been overruled in this instance and a professional should have been called.

At the time, it had been accepted custody sergeants were of the understanding the ‘six-hour rule’ was used in all instances which led to Mr Marsden’s approach with Kelly – training completed in 2017 has corrected this assumption.

Representing Lancashire Constabulary, Charles Apthorne, argued there were a number of “clear breaches” by Mr Marsden during his short “unengaged” encounter with Kelly, saying he “cut corners”, “avoided responsibility” and there were “foreseeable consequences”.

Mr Apthorne said during the check-in process Mr Marsden had failed to engage with Kelly and put full stops in boxes to allow him to “undermine the system”.

Mr Marsden also replied ‘no’ in a question about whether Kelly had any medication with her, despite her bringing in mental health medication she had been prescribed.

Mr Apthorne referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which states an officer “should never make assumptions when assessing risk” and that it can be “particularly traumatic for some detainees and being in a cell can increase their vulnerability”.

Kelly was placed under level two care while in custody, however detainees with known risks should be kept under ‘close proximity supervision’ and if an officer was unsure about whether a person was a risk to themselves they should in the first instance call a health care professional.

Mr Apthorne also argued the combination of the marker and mental health medication should have raised an alarm for Mr Marsden and in fact answered a number of questions that should be asked while checking in a detainee including whether they ‘were on any medication’ and whether they had ‘any mental health concerns’.

Sara Fenoughty, head of the panel said: “The tribunal has come to its decision.

"None of the grants of appeal have been made out so the appeal is dismissed.”