Lincolnshire Police custody sergeant says Daniela Espirito Santo’s abuser’s bail decision might have changed with full information
A custody sergeant has admitted that he might have reconsidered bail for a domestic abuser if he had been aware of previous allegations of abuse.
Sgt Pete Andrews said there was “nothing to suggest” Julio Jesus would breach his bail conditions after he was arrested for assaulting Grantham mother Daniela Espírito Santo on April 8, 2020.
A jury inquest into Daniela’s death from an acute deterioration of an existing heart condition later that day reconvened for the fifth day at the Myle Cross Centre in Lincoln today (Monday, October 7).
Following his release from custody, Mr Jesus broke his bail conditions and returned to Daniela’s Chestnut Grove flat. Daniela later called the police to report a further assault, but was told to call 101 because Mr Jesus had left, despite critical markers on the system denoting her as high priority.
She died while on hold to police operators in the early hours of April 9.
The jury was shown CCTV footage from 5.53pm on April 8, which showed Mr Jesus in a T-shirt and trousers getting his coat and shoes and being bailed to return to the station on April 29 at 3pm. He was also told he could have his phone back.
Sgt Andrews told him that as part of his bail conditions, he would not be allowed to return to Chestnut Grove.
The National Domestic Violence Helpline is a 24hr Freephone available on 0808 2000 247 operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
“But I’m a delivery driver,” Mr Jesus was heard to say, explaining to the custody sergeant that he might have to deliver there.
“OK, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do, I’ll change it so you can’t go to [the house number in Chestnut Grove],” said Sgt Andrews.
“Under no circumstances are you to go to that address,” he said, adding that the second condition would be not to contact Daniela except through a third party to arrange childcare for the couple’s two children.
Mr Jesus was arrested at 12.10pm, arrived at the station at 12.16pm, and his detention was authorised at 12.22pm. He went for an interview at 4.56pm, returned at 5.30pm, and was released shortly before 6pm.
Sgt Andrews, whose roles and responsibilities include checking on inmates, said Mr Jesus was “calm and compliant”, noting, however, that he could “hear him crying” in his cell.
Officers had previously said it was “highly likely” he would have made bail.
Sgt Andrews said that at the time, he was only aware of the two charges of common assault that Mr Jesus faced.
“The officer had given no concerns about Mr Jesus other than him being a bit upset,” said Sgt Andrews.
“There was nothing negative in his risk assessment to suggest he was going to breach his bail conditions.”
He said Mr Jesus was remorseful, it was a summary-only offence, he had admitted to it, and he had never been in trouble with the police before.
“Based on that, I didn’t believe he was likely to get a custodial sentence,” said Sgt Andrews.
He explained that bail was changed because it would have had a detrimental effect on Mr Jesus’ employment.
However, when questioned about the history of assault reports on the system, including a suggestion in Daniela’s DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment) report from the day that a case might be made for an additional charge of controlling and coercive behaviour, Sgt Andrews said he had been unaware of the information.
He noted that custody officers were required to stay independent when making bail decisions and only go from the information they had been supplied.
He said he would have pushed for further enquiries from officers if he had been aware and said it would have affected his decision-making.
He said Mr Jesus would have stayed in custody for longer while further investigations were carried out.
It was also pointed out that when Mr Jesus was clocked into custody, he had told the previous sergeant that his occupation was a warehouse operative.
Sgt Andrews acknowledged he could have checked the system, but said there was also a possibility Mr Jesus had multiple jobs.
He said that based on the information he had been given: “I had no reason to doubt him.”
He said he was “surprised” by comments from previous officers, including PC Duggan, who said he was “stupefied” that no police escort was arranged to collect Mr Jesus’ belongings.
Sgt Andrews said responsibility for escorts or notifying custody of the need for them was on the officer in charge of the investigation, as well as the offender raising it as an issue.
He said he was unaware Mr Jesus’ car had been left within 250 metres of the Chestnut Grove property when he was arrested on Shaw Road earlier that day.
He knew that Mr Jesus had a habit of living out of his car for extended periods and had also been told he would go stay with his sister.
However, he said if he had been made aware of the need for Mr Jesus to go to the property to collect his belongings, he “would have asked former PC Mark Duggan to put” arrangements in place.
He added that nine out of 10 times, an offender would also raise it as an issue.
Sgt Andrews will appear again before the inquest tomorrow (Tuesday) to answer questions from family counsel, police and IOPC representatives, and the jury.
The inquest on Monday also heard from retired Detective Sergeant Simon Mason, who was the supervisor overseeing Mr Jesus’ investigation by PC Duggan on April 8.
Mr Mason told the jury how he had delegated an action plan to his subordinates after looking over the initial incident notes.
This included researching the parties involved, getting hold of the control room call, confiscating and examining Mr Jesus’ mobile phone, examining photos of injuries, and directing house-to-house enquiries.
Asked why he had not researched more deeply into the incident and past police reports, he said it was his officers’ duty to carry out their investigations and report to him.
He said he could not remember being aware of the past incidents but acknowledged that, had he been, it would have been a cause for concern and potentially be evidence of a pattern of offending.
He said he would not have been happy to discover if his officers had not gone into the depth of research required.
He also told the jury he was out of the office for a number of hours that afternoon after allocating the incident, returning shortly before 5.20pm.
He also told the jury he did not discuss Mr Jesus’ release on bail with his subordinates.
He added that if the decision had already been made before he returned or was aware of it, “I wasn’t going to second-guess what other supervisors had already said”.
Mr Mason expected that PC Duggan would have actioned a further investigation of controlling and coercive behaviour.
This had not been added to Mr Jesus’ charge sheet on his release on bail but may have been due to be added the next day.
Due to Daniela’s death, officers involved with the incident were taken off the case the next day and told not to touch any reports or evidence due to an internal investigation.
Mr Mason firmly placed responsibility for the investigation in PC Duggan’s court.
South Lincolnshire coroner Paul Smith summarised it by saying: “PC Duggan has said he didn’t know about them, telling us ‘I wish I had’... your evidence is ‘well, you should have done,’” to which Mr Mason replied, “yes”.
The inquest continues.
