A police ground search for Daniel did not start for five days

Daniel Heard, 26, disappeared from the Cedars Mental Health Unit in Exeter in February. His body was found several days later.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigated the case. No misconduct was found but it has made a series of recommendations.

They include a single officer running such inquiries rather than a team.

Delayed search

Mr Heard, from Tiverton, was diagnosed as schizophrenic at 17. He was an in-patient at the Cedars unit in Exeter when he slipped out on 24 February.

The hospital's missing patient procedure was activated but it was several days before his body was found by a walker the following Sunday beside the River Culm, near Cullompton. It is thought he probably died from hypothermia.

The police did not organise a full ground search until five days after he first disappeared.

Daniel's mother, Linda Kelly, said she believed police misinterpreted what his condition meant for them.

She said: "The core mistake was that they didn't realise how vulnerable he was. The emphasis was put on the concept that he was dangerous when he was actually very vulnerable.

Linda Kelly

"And there were too many people passing too many messages which became distorted."

The IPCC report made a series of criticisms of Devon and Cornwall Police.

It said the risk assessment process used for missing people was not considered "best practice" as it did not help evaluate the true risk of their vulnerability.

It said that, for efficiency, an individual officer should take charge of the inquiry, rather than a team; and the use of the police helicopter should be considered for such searches.

Devon and Cornwall Police said in a statement the force had already commissioned a review into the policies and practices adopted in relation to missing persons.

The force said: "We will study the report into Daniel Heard's death and include its recommendations into those new practices."

On the whole, the IPCC report says the police's ongoing supervision on the inquiry was appropriate and no misconduct was found.