The Guardian
Case review concludes there is no evidence Yasser Alromisse located daughter’s safe house via accidental disclosures
Mary Shipstone with her mother, Lyndsey. Photograph: Family handout/PA
The safe house address of a seven-year-old girl murdered by her estranged father was accidentally sent to him by her mother’s solicitor, a serious case review has revealed.
Mary Shipstone was returning to the house from school with her mother when Yasser Alromisse shot her in the head on the doorstep before fatally shooting himself.
The review revealed that five months earlier Lyndsey Shipstone, who had fled with her daughter to escape domestic abuse and violence, reported to police that her solicitor had inadvertently disclosed their new address to Alromisse in legal papers.
There was also evidence or strong suspicion that details of their previous addresses or identities were inadvertently given to 46-year-old Alromisse by other bodies, including a bank and the Child Support Agency.
However, the serious case review concluded that no one could have predicted or prevented the killing, which took place in Northiam, near Rye, East Sussex, on 11 September 2014.
It said there was no evidence Alromisse located his daughter and estranged wife through the disclosures.
It was not certain whether he had received the information about the new address as he had moved house, or whether he noticed it in the correspondence, the review said. For some time after this incident he tried a variety of clandestine methods to find out his daughter’s exact address and establish her routine.
The criminal investigation into the girl’s shooting found that Alromisse had used “a variety of covert and illicit means” to try to trace Mary, referred to as Child P in the report.
The review identified that “given the existence of social media and very powerful internet search engines, it is increasingly difficult for families fleeing violence to rely on their whereabouts remaining secret”. It called for assurances from agencies that systems were in place surrounding information about vulnerable people that should not be revealed.
“It has not been possible to establish exactly when and how he [Alromisse] found out where Child P was living,” the 73-page report noted. “There is no evidence that any professional was aware of this activity, nor did he make any threat to harm Child P or give any indication that he might do so.
“The review has concluded that no professional working with the family could have prevented him acting as he did.”
The report also said Mary’s death was a “spite killing” that “was calculated to deprive the mother of her child while at the same time leaving her with a permanent memory of her death”.
Shipstone believed Alromisse killed their daughter because he feared the outcome of a new round of court hearings would end in him being denied contact, it added.
At an inquest last year, the East Sussex coroner Alan Craze said the “thoroughly despicable act of violence” had been “premeditated over a long period of time”. It heard Mary’s mother had carried her to neighbour’s house where they tried to revive the girl while waiting for emergency services. She was taken to King’s College hospital, London, but later died of her injuries.
A spokesman for East Sussex local safeguarding children board (LSCB) said it was a “tragic case” .
“After a thorough independent review, the LSCB concluded, as did the investigating police officers, that the father planned and carried out the killing in a secretive way, using the internet and a range of covert methods to trace the family and obtain the means to carry out the murder,” the spokesman said.
“There is no evidence that any professional involved with the family prior to these tragic events was aware of this activity. Based on the review, the LSCB concludes that no professional could have prevented him doing what he did.”
He added: “It is certainly true that on a couple of occasions information was inadvertently given to the father by a few organisations which might have revealed the whereabouts of the mother and the child.
“However, as we have detailed in the report, there is no evidence this information did actually allow him to track them down. In fact, it was a period of some six months after details had been disclosed to him before the mother raised concern, and in that time there is evidence the father had still been using the internet to try to trace them.
“What this has highlighted, however, and what we want all agencies to be mindful of, is that social media and powerful internet search engines make it increasingly difficult for families fleeing violence to rely on their whereabouts remaining secret. This needs to be considered as part of safety planning and guidance given to those at risk.”
