Police failed to respond to tragic mum's pleas, inquest told
Police failed to respond to pleas from a single mother who was tormented by youths because they believed she was "over-reacting'', an inquest heard today.
In her despair, Fiona Pilkington killed herself and her disabled daughter Francecca Hardwick by dousing their car in petrol and setting it alight in a lay-by.
The bodies of Ms Pilkington, 38, and her 18-year-old daughter, who had severe learning difficulties, were found in the family's Austin Maestro at the side of the A47 near Earl Shilton, in October 2007.
Ms Pilkington, her daughter and her 19-year-old son Anthony Hardwick, who has severe dyslexia, suffered more than 10 years of abuse from a 16-strong gang, who lived in their street in Barwell.
They would often pelt their home with eggs, flour and stones, while shouting insults at the children about their disabilities.
Ms Pilkington contacted police more than 30 times in the seven years before her death about her family's ordeal but officers failed to respond on many occasions because there were not enough resources.
Despite her son being locked in a shed at knifepoint, beaten with a metal bar and the gang shouting to her daughter to lift up her nightdress as she went to bed, no-one was ever prosecuted.
On the second day of an inquest at Loughborough Town Hall into the deaths of Ms Pilkington and Francecca, who was known as Frankie, the court heard officers considered her to be "over-reacting''.
The jury heard that when she complained in April 2007 about youths smoking in her front garden, an officer visited her but closed the incident log soon after.
Coroner Olivia Davison said: "They were walking up and down smoking. This woman we know is shy and timid and on occasions has been too scared to come out her house.
"So when the officer visits this woman, he listens to her and accepts her statements and she is considered as over-reacting.
"I would care if someone was in my front garden, whether they were smoking or not. Don't you think this is a massive invasion of her privacy and her rights as a human being to tranquility?''
Proceeding











Comments