Lessons must be learned from the violent killing of a nine-year-old Bradford boy by his mentally-ill older brother, a detailed review of the tragedy has concluded.

Jack Taylor was fatally stabbed in a sustained attack in February last year by his 21-year-old brother Daniel Taylor, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

And, although Jack’s death could not have been predicted by health workers, there was “little doubt” that Daniel Taylor’s psychotic illness and lifestyle presented a “significant risk of harm” to his family, a Serious Case Review has found.

The Taylor family was receiving care from several health and social care agencies and “significant miscommunication” occurred between the agencies about the overall impact of the family’s circumstances, according to the review, commissioned by Bradford Safeguarding Children Board.

In setting out a lengthy list of recommendations, Professor Nick Frost, the board’s independent chairman, said: “Clearly, all the services have lessons to learn from the way that they worked together, and the way in which they worked with the family.”

An executive summary of the Serious Case Review, published yesterday in which Jack Taylor is referred to as ‘Child J’, gives considerable detail of the events on the day that he was killed and about the work of services with him and his family from 1995 onwards.

The report states that Daniel Taylor had been detained between May and August, 2009 as an in-patient in Lynfield Mount psychiatric hospital.

Following his discharge from hospital he returned to live with his family in Wibsey and the Early Intervention in Psychosis Team from Bradford and Airedale Community Health Services was responsible for his care and treatment.

A community psychiatric nurse from the team visited Daniel on the day he carried out the attack, at the request of his family, and found he did not pose a risk.

A GP also saw Daniel on the same day and concluded he appeared “calm”, but only a few hours later he savagely attacked Jack.

Contact with health and social care agencies from 1995 to 2010 was largely concerned with responding to Daniel’s “disturbed and challenging behaviour” at home and school, and later his offending behaviour and mental health problems.

Information includes how, when Jack was a baby, his mother reported to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services that he was being “tormented” by his older brother.

It details how Daniel’s use of skunk cannabis and alcohol caused significant concern and how police had to attend the family home on several occasions because of domestic violence.

It tells how the family became increasingly concerned about Daniel’s mental health and how he was not taking his medication.

Prof Frost said: “The report makes it clear that while communication and co-operation between agencies could have been improved, agencies working with the family were not in a position to predict the attack upon Child J.

“As the executive summary states, previous evidence of the child’s brother’s propensity to violence could not have led mental health workers to anticipate the nature of his attack on his younger brother."

  • Read the full story in Tuesday's T&A