The ArgusWoman who died following 'interaction' with police officers in Brighton named as Kelly Pearson (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Woman who died following 'interaction' with police officers in Brighton named as Kelly Pearson

The Argus: Woman who died following 'interaction' with police officers in Brighton named as Kelly Pearson Woman who died following 'interaction' with police officers in Brighton named as Kelly Pearson

A woman who died following an ‘interaction’ with police has been named as Kelly Pearson.

Miss Pearson died following the incident in Lavender Street, Brighton.

She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed.

She was taken to Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, where she died a few days later.

Police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), are now investigating Sussex Police’s involvement in the case.

An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm in Lavender Street. Police state that during the incident the woman collapsed at the scene and officers carried out resuscitation on her before paramedics arrived and she was taken to hospital in a serious condition at around 5.45pm.

The woman died in the Royal Sussex County Hospital on February 20.

“A post-mortem is due to be carried out. Following a referral from Sussex Police we have decided to carry out an independent investigation.

It is understood that two plain-clothed Police Community Support Officers on foot and one police officer in a marked police vehicle were initially involved, and four further officers subsequently attended the incident.”

Pay tribute to Kelly. 

Email Anna Roberts

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:17pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Goldenwight says...

WTF is an "interaction"? How about republishing this with a more realistic headline "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers."

I mean, if it took seven of themm to deal with it must have been a pretty major incident- or perhaps the later five were just there to cover up the incompetence of the first two PCSOs. And since when do PCSOs work in plain clothes anyway? And WHY did they approach this woman?

"She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed. " "An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm" Maybe the Argus didn't bother to check the Police press handouts, but I did. Why do the Police report to the IPCC that the incident began some 20 minutes later than it apparently did? What time were paramedics called? What time did they respond? What attention was provided in the meantime?

Come on Argus, lets see a little reporting and a few intelligent questions here. We are, after all, talking about a woman's life?
WTF is an "interaction"? How about republishing this with a more realistic headline "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers." I mean, if it took seven of themm to deal with it must have been a pretty major incident- or perhaps the later five were just there to cover up the incompetence of the first two PCSOs. And since when do PCSOs work in plain clothes anyway? And WHY did they approach this woman? "She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed. " "An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm" Maybe the Argus didn't bother to check the Police press handouts, but I did. Why do the Police report to the IPCC that the incident began some 20 minutes later than it apparently did? What time were paramedics called? What time did they respond? What attention was provided in the meantime? Come on Argus, lets see a little reporting and a few intelligent questions here. We are, after all, talking about a woman's life? Goldenwight
  • Score: 21

3:22pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Discombobulated says...

I have a fair idea that if I punched a police man & ended up in court for it, it would not be described as an 'Interaction'.

Come on Sussex Police, once more, but this time with clarity.
I have a fair idea that if I punched a police man & ended up in court for it, it would not be described as an 'Interaction'. Come on Sussex Police, once more, but this time with clarity. Discombobulated
  • Score: 16

4:24pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Goldenwight says...

And let us not forget that this is the same Police farce who were described in Parliament recently as "having made a major error" in their dealings with a local MP by threatening him for use of his parliamentary priviledge.

In that context, I suppose, yet another person in Police custody (remember that the last one was only recently) is to be expected. Maybe we should ask a responsible journalist from outside the area to investigate.
And let us not forget that this is the same Police farce who were described in Parliament recently as "having made a major error" in their dealings with a local MP by threatening him for use of his parliamentary priviledge. In that context, I suppose, yet another person in Police custody (remember that the last one was only recently) is to be expected. Maybe we should ask a responsible journalist from outside the area to investigate. Goldenwight
  • Score: -12

6:47pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Ambo Guy says...

Goldenwight wrote:
WTF is an "interaction"? How about republishing this with a more realistic headline "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers."

I mean, if it took seven of themm to deal with it must have been a pretty major incident- or perhaps the later five were just there to cover up the incompetence of the first two PCSOs. And since when do PCSOs work in plain clothes anyway? And WHY did they approach this woman?

"She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed. " "An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm" Maybe the Argus didn't bother to check the Police press handouts, but I did. Why do the Police report to the IPCC that the incident began some 20 minutes later than it apparently did? What time were paramedics called? What time did they respond? What attention was provided in the meantime?

Come on Argus, lets see a little reporting and a few intelligent questions here. We are, after all, talking about a woman's life?
Well it seems like an open and shut case eh? Judge Goldenwight has spoken and it would appear has seen all the evidence or was there as he seems to know that the PCSOs were incompetent.

Ok so tell us the full details of the Police incompetence then as you seem to have made up your mind.
[quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: WTF is an "interaction"? How about republishing this with a more realistic headline "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers." I mean, if it took seven of themm to deal with it must have been a pretty major incident- or perhaps the later five were just there to cover up the incompetence of the first two PCSOs. And since when do PCSOs work in plain clothes anyway? And WHY did they approach this woman? "She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed. " "An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm" Maybe the Argus didn't bother to check the Police press handouts, but I did. Why do the Police report to the IPCC that the incident began some 20 minutes later than it apparently did? What time were paramedics called? What time did they respond? What attention was provided in the meantime? Come on Argus, lets see a little reporting and a few intelligent questions here. We are, after all, talking about a woman's life?[/p][/quote]Well it seems like an open and shut case eh? Judge Goldenwight has spoken and it would appear has seen all the evidence or was there as he seems to know that the PCSOs were incompetent. Ok so tell us the full details of the Police incompetence then as you seem to have made up your mind. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 7

6:52pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Rammit says...

Yep Judge Goldendick...I mean wright, sorry.

He or she clearly knows what's happened, no thought for the PCSO's that have tried to save the girls life...

Brilliant...well done Judge.
Yep Judge Goldendick...I mean wright, sorry. He or she clearly knows what's happened, no thought for the PCSO's that have tried to save the girls life... Brilliant...well done Judge. Rammit
  • Score: 7

8:10pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Levent says...

Goldenwight wrote:
WTF is an "interaction"? How about republishing this with a more realistic headline "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers."

I mean, if it took seven of themm to deal with it must have been a pretty major incident- or perhaps the later five were just there to cover up the incompetence of the first two PCSOs. And since when do PCSOs work in plain clothes anyway? And WHY did they approach this woman?

"She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed. " "An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm" Maybe the Argus didn't bother to check the Police press handouts, but I did. Why do the Police report to the IPCC that the incident began some 20 minutes later than it apparently did? What time were paramedics called? What time did they respond? What attention was provided in the meantime?

Come on Argus, lets see a little reporting and a few intelligent questions here. We are, after all, talking about a woman's life?
Good work Columbo!!
[quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: WTF is an "interaction"? How about republishing this with a more realistic headline "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers." I mean, if it took seven of themm to deal with it must have been a pretty major incident- or perhaps the later five were just there to cover up the incompetence of the first two PCSOs. And since when do PCSOs work in plain clothes anyway? And WHY did they approach this woman? "She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed. " "An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm" Maybe the Argus didn't bother to check the Police press handouts, but I did. Why do the Police report to the IPCC that the incident began some 20 minutes later than it apparently did? What time were paramedics called? What time did they respond? What attention was provided in the meantime? Come on Argus, lets see a little reporting and a few intelligent questions here. We are, after all, talking about a woman's life?[/p][/quote]Good work Columbo!! Levent
  • Score: 9

8:59pm Fri 7 Mar 14

emma_barnes says...

shall we just await the post mortem - could be anything from medical condition like a heart attack, assault, to swallowing something. Just wait.
shall we just await the post mortem - could be anything from medical condition like a heart attack, assault, to swallowing something. Just wait. emma_barnes
  • Score: 13

10:24pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Dr Wombleface says...

Discombobulated wrote:
I have a fair idea that if I punched a police man & ended up in court for it, it would not be described as an 'Interaction'.

Come on Sussex Police, once more, but this time with clarity.
And where in the article does it say that Sussex Police have used the word 'interaction'? Oh, it doesn't. Just more anti-police sensationalism by the Argus trying to make a seemingly scandalous story out of sad situation. My understanding is that the IPCC have to become involved if the Police had any 'interaction' with a person shortly prior to an incident which later results in their death. This is probably the reason for the investigation, but there is no suggestion that the tragic death of this lady was in any way related to the actions of any Sussex Police employee. It really is wrong that the Argus can make a situation out to be something it isn't without having knowledge of the actual facts. OK, they're not blaming the police outright, but when they publish a story with a headline like that, they know what conclusions people will draw. It's hardly trying to show the police in a positive light is it? How about reporting some of the good that Sussex Police do for a change? I'm sure there must be plenty.
[quote][p][bold]Discombobulated[/bold] wrote: I have a fair idea that if I punched a police man & ended up in court for it, it would not be described as an 'Interaction'. Come on Sussex Police, once more, but this time with clarity.[/p][/quote]And where in the article does it say that Sussex Police have used the word 'interaction'? Oh, it doesn't. Just more anti-police sensationalism by the Argus trying to make a seemingly scandalous story out of sad situation. My understanding is that the IPCC have to become involved if the Police had any 'interaction' with a person shortly prior to an incident which later results in their death. This is probably the reason for the investigation, but there is no suggestion that the tragic death of this lady was in any way related to the actions of any Sussex Police employee. It really is wrong that the Argus can make a situation out to be something it isn't without having knowledge of the actual facts. OK, they're not blaming the police outright, but when they publish a story with a headline like that, they know what conclusions people will draw. It's hardly trying to show the police in a positive light is it? How about reporting some of the good that Sussex Police do for a change? I'm sure there must be plenty. Dr Wombleface
  • Score: 20

11:05pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Discombobulated says...

Dr Wombleface wrote:
Discombobulated wrote:
I have a fair idea that if I punched a police man & ended up in court for it, it would not be described as an 'Interaction'.

Come on Sussex Police, once more, but this time with clarity.
And where in the article does it say that Sussex Police have used the word 'interaction'? Oh, it doesn't. Just more anti-police sensationalism by the Argus trying to make a seemingly scandalous story out of sad situation. My understanding is that the IPCC have to become involved if the Police had any 'interaction' with a person shortly prior to an incident which later results in their death. This is probably the reason for the investigation, but there is no suggestion that the tragic death of this lady was in any way related to the actions of any Sussex Police employee. It really is wrong that the Argus can make a situation out to be something it isn't without having knowledge of the actual facts. OK, they're not blaming the police outright, but when they publish a story with a headline like that, they know what conclusions people will draw. It's hardly trying to show the police in a positive light is it? How about reporting some of the good that Sussex Police do for a change? I'm sure there must be plenty.
Actually, Interaction is the exact terminology used by the IPCC as quoted by The Argus. Care to think again, Constable Savage?

http://www.ipcc.gov.
uk/news/ipcc-appeali
ng-witnesses-brighto
n-incident
[quote][p][bold]Dr Wombleface[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Discombobulated[/bold] wrote: I have a fair idea that if I punched a police man & ended up in court for it, it would not be described as an 'Interaction'. Come on Sussex Police, once more, but this time with clarity.[/p][/quote]And where in the article does it say that Sussex Police have used the word 'interaction'? Oh, it doesn't. Just more anti-police sensationalism by the Argus trying to make a seemingly scandalous story out of sad situation. My understanding is that the IPCC have to become involved if the Police had any 'interaction' with a person shortly prior to an incident which later results in their death. This is probably the reason for the investigation, but there is no suggestion that the tragic death of this lady was in any way related to the actions of any Sussex Police employee. It really is wrong that the Argus can make a situation out to be something it isn't without having knowledge of the actual facts. OK, they're not blaming the police outright, but when they publish a story with a headline like that, they know what conclusions people will draw. It's hardly trying to show the police in a positive light is it? How about reporting some of the good that Sussex Police do for a change? I'm sure there must be plenty.[/p][/quote]Actually, Interaction is the exact terminology used by the IPCC as quoted by The Argus. Care to think again, Constable Savage? http://www.ipcc.gov. uk/news/ipcc-appeali ng-witnesses-brighto n-incident Discombobulated
  • Score: -9

4:02am Sat 8 Mar 14

Dave At Home says...

Funny how you run a story like this not refer to her age. I am sure it was mentioned in previous articles, would not take much to check back on previous stories?
Funny how you run a story like this not refer to her age. I am sure it was mentioned in previous articles, would not take much to check back on previous stories? Dave At Home
  • Score: 0

4:25am Sat 8 Mar 14

DannyBoy79 says...

Goldenwight wrote:
WTF is an "interaction"? How about republishing this with a more realistic headline "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers."

I mean, if it took seven of themm to deal with it must have been a pretty major incident- or perhaps the later five were just there to cover up the incompetence of the first two PCSOs. And since when do PCSOs work in plain clothes anyway? And WHY did they approach this woman?

"She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed. " "An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm" Maybe the Argus didn't bother to check the Police press handouts, but I did. Why do the Police report to the IPCC that the incident began some 20 minutes later than it apparently did? What time were paramedics called? What time did they respond? What attention was provided in the meantime?

Come on Argus, lets see a little reporting and a few intelligent questions here. We are, after all, talking about a woman's life?
How is this a more realistic! "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers" when it clearly states two PSCO and one police officer. I often see my local PCSO around Kemp Town in plain cloths and believe me they do a great job! I saw this happen and it was not down to the incompatance of the police, the lady swallowed raps of drugs after being spotted by the officers.
[quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: WTF is an "interaction"? How about republishing this with a more realistic headline "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers." I mean, if it took seven of themm to deal with it must have been a pretty major incident- or perhaps the later five were just there to cover up the incompetence of the first two PCSOs. And since when do PCSOs work in plain clothes anyway? And WHY did they approach this woman? "She was stopped by a number of officers in the Kemp Town road around 4.30pm on February 17 when she collapsed. " "An IPCC statement said: “According to information from Sussex Police, the incident began at around 4.50pm" Maybe the Argus didn't bother to check the Police press handouts, but I did. Why do the Police report to the IPCC that the incident began some 20 minutes later than it apparently did? What time were paramedics called? What time did they respond? What attention was provided in the meantime? Come on Argus, lets see a little reporting and a few intelligent questions here. We are, after all, talking about a woman's life?[/p][/quote]How is this a more realistic! "Woman dies after being approached by SEVEN Police Officers" when it clearly states two PSCO and one police officer. I often see my local PCSO around Kemp Town in plain cloths and believe me they do a great job! I saw this happen and it was not down to the incompatance of the police, the lady swallowed raps of drugs after being spotted by the officers. DannyBoy79
  • Score: 13

7:03am Sat 8 Mar 14

Rammit says...

Danny boy,
There we go, an eye witness! Boom. Maybe Judge Goldendick will stay within his pants now.
I feel for the officers who had to deal with her, doesn't matter if they are PCSO's or PC's. It's tragic that she has died and it's more tragic that 'the rag that calls itself the Argus picks and chooses how it reports things.
Hang your head in shame Argus.....again.
Danny boy, There we go, an eye witness! Boom. Maybe Judge Goldendick will stay within his pants now. I feel for the officers who had to deal with her, doesn't matter if they are PCSO's or PC's. It's tragic that she has died and it's more tragic that 'the rag that calls itself the Argus picks and chooses how it reports things. Hang your head in shame Argus.....again. Rammit
  • Score: 17

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree