Press releases 2008

Today the Ministry of Justice and Department for Children, Schools and Families’ ‘Independent Review of Restraint in Secure Juvenile Settings’ is published alongside the government’s response.

Carol Pounder, mother of Adam Rickwood who died aged 14 in Hassockfield Secure Training Centre (STCSecure Training Centre) in 2004 following the use of restraint, said:

“I am disgusted that force is still being allowed to be used. At home parents are not allowed to use any kind of force against their children. Why are children in custody treated differently?”

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST said:

“We are bitterly disappointed that the findings of this review endorse the use of painful restraint even though two children died following its use. This is despite clear objections raised by the UN, the Council of Europe, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Children’s Commissioner for England.

Whilst we welcome any measures that aim to reduce the use of restraint, we question why the review took place within a framework that accepts state-sanctioned violence against children as part of the culture of these institutions. This was an opportunity to make a real difference to safeguarding the human rights of children in custody. Instead we have yet another report that outlines little more than what was already known at the conclusion of the inquests into the deaths of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood some18 months ago. Surely we can think of a better solution than hurting children in order to manage them?

How can we have confidence in the government’s commitment to meaningful change when at the time the restraint review was delivered to Ministers in July 2008 they were trying to overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal that the existing rules on restraint were unlawful and exposed children to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment. Neither the restraint review nor the government’s response make any reference to this whatsoever.

INQUEST believes that there should be a broader public inquiry into the response to children in conflict with the law. It could examine the harmful consequences of custody and whether it is appropriate to place increasing numbers of children into institutions that cannot cope with their complex needs. That the government continues to resist such an inquiry, whose motivation would be protecting the human rights of children, is shameful.”

Notes to editors:

•  The review of restraint techniques was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Children, Schools and Families after the inquests into the deaths of Adam Rickwood and Gareth Myatt revealed high levels of physical restraint were being used against children across the penal estate.

•  Gareth Myatt, 148cm/4 feet 10 in tall and weighing 42kg/6½ stone , died at the privately-run Rainsbrook STCSecure Training Centre in 2004 following restraint by three adult officers. The incident began with Gareth’s refusal to clean a toaster. The officers used the Seated Double Embrace hold on him , part of an inadequately-tested system of restraint used on children called Physical Care in Custody (PCC). The inquest jury found that the Home Office and Youth Justice Board’s failure to test this system medically and their inadequate safety assessment of it caused or contributed to Gareth’s death. In a detailed article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried outArticle 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out narrative verdictA form of verdict letting a jury give a longer explanation of what they think are the main or important issues. , the inquest jury found that Gareth’s death was caused or contributed to by: inadequate assessment of the safety of the restraint system used on children in STCs; failure to undertake medical review of the system; the failure by the YJB to depute anyone with managerial responsibility for PCC; the inadequacy of the YJB’s response to the National Children’s Bureau recommendation that there was an urgent need for the medical review of PCC; the YJB’s inadequate response to information that children were vomiting and having difficulties breathing during restraint; the inadequate monitoring of PCC by the YJB.

INQUEST’s submission to the Restraint Review ( PDF)

Report of the independent review of the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings

The government’s response to the Restraint Review ( PDF)

Press release on Gareth Myatt inquest verdict ( PDF)

Press release on Adam Rickwood inquest verdict ( PDF)

Press release in response to coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s rule 43 recommendations after Gareth Myatt’s inquest ( PDF)

Gareth Myatt inquest – coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s rule 43 recommendations ( PDF)

Press release on court of appeal judgment on STCSecure Training Centre Rules change ( PDF)

INQUEST’s report In The Care of the State? Child Deaths in Penal Custody in England & Wales

STATEMENT ON THE VERDICT OF THE INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES Deborah Coles , Co-Director of INQUEST, said:

“Nothing is more serious in a democracy than the deliberate use of lethal force by the state and it should be subject to the most rigorous and transparent public scrutiny . Despite the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s attempt to undermine and frustrate the vital democratic role of this inquest jury by restricting their options they have returned a damning verdict rejecting the police version of events, the lawfulness of the shooting and the policies and procedures within which they were operating.

Respect for human rights and the rule of law are essential in a free and democratic society. This is critical when faced with the challenge of terrorism. The death of an innocent man and the failure to hold police to account exposes a culture of impunity. It throws into disrepute the current investigatory mechanisms that follow the use of lethal force by the state. This is a worrying trend in the context of the recent attempt by the government to curtail independent investigations with proposals for non-jury , secret inquests into some contentious deaths. Proposals to reform the inquest system will be included in the forthcoming Coroners and Justice Bill but will not address the fundamental issues raised by this inquest. ”

The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes returned an open verdict.

The coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. also asked the jury to answer a number of key questions.

•  “Did firearms officer C12 shout armed police?” ANSWER: NO

•  “Did Mr de Menezes stand up from his seat before he was grabbed in a bear hug by officer Ivor?” ANSWER: YES

•  “Did Mr de Menezes move towards C12 before he was grabbed in a bear hug by Ivor?” ANSWER: NO

•  Do you consider that any of the following factors caused or contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes;

•  “The pressure on police after the suicide attacks in July 2005.” ANSWER: CANNOT DECIDE

•  “A failure to obtain and provide better photographic images of failed bomber Hussain Osman to surveillance officers.” ANSWER: YES

•  “A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached public transport.” ANSWER: YES

•  “The general difficulty in providing identification of the man under surveillance in the time available.” ANSWER: NO

•  “The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion.” ANSWER: NO

•  “The fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding identification were not accurately communicated to the command team and firearms officers.” ANSWER: YES

•  “The fact that the position of the cars containing the firearms officers was not accurately known by the command team as firearms teams were approaching Stockwell Tube.” ANSWER: YES

•  “Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams on the ground.” ANSWER: YES

•  “Failure to conclude at the time that surveillance officers could have been used to carry out the stop on Mr de Menezes at Stockwell.” ANSWER: YES

Notes to editors:

1. INQUEST is the only non-governmental organisation in England and Wales that works directly with the families of those who die in custody. It provides an independent free legal and advice service to bereaved people on inquest procedures and their rights in the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s courts and conducts policy, parliamentary and research work on the issues arising.
2. INQUEST has long campaigned for fundamental reform of the inquest system which is currently in crisis and failing bereaved families. We note that the proposed Coroners and Justice Bill revealed in last week’s Queen’s Speech would do little to affect a case such as this.
3. After extensive campaigning by INQUEST proposals for secret inquests were removed from the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 and are now expected to be reintroduced in the Coroners and Justice Bill 2009 which will be published shortly.
4. Up to date comments and response on the inquest proceedings from the Menezes family are available from the family campaign blog www.inquest.justice4jean.org
5. Official Stockwell inquest website

INQUEST WELCOMES CORONERS AND JUSTICE BILL INQUEST welcomes the inclusion of a Coroners and Justice Bill in the Queen’s Speech.

INQUEST has been campaigning for over 25 years for reform of the inquest system. Our work on contentious deaths and their investigation has highlighted a system in crisis and one which is currently failing bereaved families. For democratic accountability it is crucial that the inquest system works as it is usually the only public forum in which contentious deaths such as accidents, deaths at work, deaths of military personnel or deaths in custody are subjected to public scrutiny.

Helen Shaw , Co-Director of INQUEST, said:

“ Reform of the inquest system has been long overdue and we welcome this Bill as an opportunity to tackle some of the serious problems facing the inquest system. It is a system beset with delay, inconsistency and is currently not fit for purpose. We hope that parliament will ensure that all measures included in this Bill comply with human rights legislation and provide for families full participation in what it often the only mechanism for public scrutiny of contentious deaths.“

Notes to editors:

1) A detailed briefing on the need for coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s reform can be found on INQUEST’s website.

GOVERNMENT MUST HONOUR PROMISE TO ALLOW POLICE SHOOTING INQUEST TO PROCEED
On Monday 24 November the Counter Terrorism Bill returns to the House of Lords to once more discuss amending the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to allow the inquest into the police shooting of Azelle Rodney to proceed. INQUEST urges the government to honour its promise of November 2007 to Azelle’s bereaved family that action would be taken and accept an amendment to RIPA to allow intercept material to be used at inquests in narrowly defined circumstances.

Last week the Lords successfully introduced an amendment which would allow the use of intercept material at inquests on the proviso that a High CourtThe highest civil court where cases may be heard for the first time. It also hears appeals and conducts judicial reviews, and supervises magistrates and crown courts. judge makes the decision and on the basis that the evidence is central to ascertaining how a person came to die. This would have brought the treatment of intercept material at inquests broadly in line with the way it is treated in criminal proceedingsA prosecution for a crime which arises for example from the circumstances of a death..

The government rejected the proposals on Wednesday 19 November, despite promising Azelle’s family as far back as November 2007 that they would find a solution to allow the inquest into his death to proceed. With the Bill returning to the Lords next week, INQUEST urges the government to reconsider its position.

Helen Shaw , Co-Director of INQUEST, said:

“Police shootings raise important issues of state power and accountability and should be subject to particularly close public scrutiny in a free and democratic society. The need for a prompt inquest into the death of Azelle Rodney is important not only for his family but also for the wider public interest. Azelle’s family have been left in the invidious position of not knowing when or if at all they can have an inquest into their son’s death a result of a legal lacuna which could easily be resolved. We urge the government to support moves to ensure that RIPA is amended so that this inquest can take place”

Daniel Machover , solicitor for Azelle’s mother, Susan Alexander, said:

“Peers and MPs must champion Susan Alexander’s case. It is the very least she deserves. The government claims that a jury and Susan cannot be trusted to see intercept material, because it will put future intercept operations at risk, but this is wrong and scaremongering as juries can be vetted and they and Susan can sign agreements that prevent any risk of that kind – if parliamentarians understand that and vote on the proposed change to RIPA according to their conscience then they can ensure the government’s promise to Susan is kept.”

Notes to editors:

1) INQUEST’s briefing for the Lords on the need for RIPA to be amended and its implications can be found here .

2) Azelle Rodney in died in April 2005 during a police operation in north London in which he was shot seven times. In 2007 the family was told by the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. that the full inquest could not be held because large portions of the police officers’ statements had been crossed out under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), which covers information obtained from covert surveillance devices such as telephone taps or bugs. The inquest has been put on hold until the issue is resolved.

CATALOGUE OF FAILINGS BY POLICE AND MEDICAL STAFF CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEATH OF DANGEROUSLY ILL MAN

The jury at the inquest relating to Mark Camm, who died in June 2004 having been held at Wood Street police station in Wakefield, today catalogued a shocking series of failings on behalf of all those who dealt with him – failings which contributed to his death.

Mark Camm was arrested on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly and subsequently spent more than 24 hours in a police cell. He was unable to speak, spent most of his time in custody motionless, showed difficulty in walking and ultimately collapsed on his cell floor. Police actions were influenced throughout by incorrect assumptions about Mark. When he was finally taken to Pinderfields Hospital A&E, it was a further 13 hours before he was diagnosed as having a life-threatening brain condition. Mark died on 29 June 2004 in Leeds General Infirmary.

Disturbing CCTV and audio footage of Mark’s time in police custody revealed what the jury described as “wholly inappropriate banter”, which itself shifted attention away from his deteriorating condition. One expert medical witness commented that Mark’s dog, who had been with him on arrest, appeared to have received better care than Mark.

The jury’s conclusions detailed in a damning seven page narrative verdictA form of verdict letting a jury give a longer explanation of what they think are the main or important issues. included:

• Mark was wrongly identified as being drunk and disorderly and as refusing to speak.
• Police policy requiring detailed checks on vulnerable prisoners were not “adhered to at any time” resulting in many lost opportunities to check on Mark’s condition.
• Dishonest entries were made in the custody record.
• “The medical treatment Mark received by the Forensic Medical Examiners service deprived him of a realistic opportunity of a meaningful recovery.”
• A wholly inadequate assessment was made at A&E which could have otherwise allowed Mark an opportunity for suitable treatment.

HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for West Yorkshire (Eastern District), David Hinchliff, made a rule 43 report recommending that the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police hold a full review of all the relevant CCTV and audio evidence and undertake a wide-ranging inspection of custody arrangements to determine if they are fit for purpose.

Mark’s family spoke after the inquest:

“Everybody failed Mark: whether police officers, doctors called to Wood Street police station, Wakefield, or doctors and nurses at the Accident and Emergency Department of Pinderfields Hospital.

Mark lost a chance of survival. But even if he had ultimately died in any event, his sisters lost the chance to be with him while he was still conscious, to reassure him, to remind him of how much his family loved him.

We thank Humberside Police for a tireless and painstaking investigation into the conduct of those who were responsible for Mark’s care, and who let him down. We hope that lessons have been learned. But we fear that there will always be a lack of transparency and a culture of acceptance where corners are cut. Mandatory provisions for the care of prisoners were ignored when Mark was in custody, and records deliberately falsified. As 25 hours ticked by, and Mark remained speechless in a cell, his chances of survival ebbed away.

We will always be indebted to our solicitor, Ruth Bundey, for the tenacity with which she has represented Mark’s interests.”

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST, said:

“The treatment that Mark Camm received was frankly shameful. The jury have detailed a litany of incompetence, prejudice and appalling practice by professional after professional. This case highlights INQUEST’s ongoing concerns about the treatment of vulnerable detainees in police custody and we will be working with the family to ensure those responsible are held to account.”

TENTH UNITED FRIENDS AND FAMILIES CAMPAIGN REMEMBRANCE PROCESSION ON SATURDAY 25 OCTOBER

Saturday 25 October 2008. Assemble 1pm at Trafalgar Square. Then march to Downing Street and on to Parliament Square.

On Saturday 25 October some of the families INQUEST works with will gather to march in remembrance of their loved ones who have died in custody. Brought together by the United Friends and Families Campaign (UFFC), the families will march to Downing Street before continuing on to Parliament Square.

The UFFC is a coalition of relatives and friends of those who have died following contact with the police, in prison and in psychiatric detention. Since the first procession in 1999 relatives and friends have demanded the government act to prevent further deaths in custody, but every year more and more new families join the event.

INQUEST WELCOMES GOVERNMENT CLIMBDOWN ON ‘SECRET INQUEST’ PROPOSALS IN COUNTER TERRORISM BILL

Today the government signalled its intention to remove clauses 77, 78, 79 & 81 of the Counter Terrorism Bill that would have given the Secretary of State power to intervene in inquests where sensitive information is involved. It was proposed that such inquests would take place without juries, partly in private, with government-appointed coroners and counsel overseeing the evidence. This would have excluded bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process in breach of article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried outArticle 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human RightsThe ECHRThe European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention. is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights ActThe Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament that incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention..

INQUEST has campaigned vigorously on this issue since it was announced without any prior consultation or debate in January 2008 and last week held a cross-party parliamentary briefing meeting on the proposals.

Deaths in custody and those involving issues of national security raise important issues of state power and accountability and should be subject to particularly close public scrutiny in a free and democratic society. We urge the government to ensure that a Coroners Bill is included in the Queen’s Speech to enable the necessary root and branch reform of the inquest system to take place.

Notes to editors:

1) Lord West of Spithead, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Security and Counter-terrorism) and Government Spokesperson, Home Office added his name to the amendments already tabled to say “the above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause77 (78, 79 & 81) stand part of the Bill.”

2) INQUEST is the only non-governmental organisation in England and Wales that works directly with the families of those who die in custody. It provides an independent free legal and advice service to bereaved people on inquest procedures and their rights in the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s courts and conducts policy work on the issues arising.

3) INQUEST is campaigning to ensure that the Coroners Bill is included in the Queen’s Speech in December. Without fundamental reform the inquest system will continue to be hampered by delay, inconsistency of approach and lack of resources and be unable to fulfil its vital function of preventing unnecessary deaths.

The government must also make changes to ensure that bereaved families can participate effectively in inquest hearings by having equal access, alongside the police and Prison Service, to non means-tested public fundingPublic means-tested financial assistance for representation during legal proceedings. It is not available for representation at most inquests. The Lord ChancellorThe cabinet minister in the government responsible for the effective running of the legal system in England and Wales. can grant it in exceptional cases. for their legal representation.

INQUEST INTO DEATH OF DANGEROUSLY ILL MAN FOLLOWING DETENTION AT WAKEFIELD POLICE STATION
10am Monday 6 October 2008
Sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for West Yorkshire (Eastern District), David Hinchliff
at The Old Restaurant, Town Hall, Wood Street, Wakefield, WF1 2HQ

The inquest into the death of 43 year old Mark Camm, who died at Leeds General Infirmary on 29 June 2004 after collapsing in Wood Street Police station, Wakefield, opens on Monday 6 October. The inquest, which will examine the role of both the police and hospital in Mr Camm’s treatment, is expected to last seven weeks.

Mark Camm was arrested on 17 June 2004 on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly and kept in a cell at Wood Street Police station for 25 hours. He was unable to speak, spent most of his time in custody motionless, began to show difficulty in walking and ultimately fell from his cell bed to the floor where he remained curled up in a ball. Mark was taken to Pinderfields hospital at 14.00 on 18 June. However, he was not transferred to a medical unit from A&E for 13 hours and it was not until the day after he was admitted that he was diagnosed with a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage. Mark died in Leeds General Infirmary on 29 June when active life support was withdrawn with the agreement of his family.

Mark’s sisters Michelle and Melony will be represented at the hearing into his death by Ruth Bundey of Harrison Bundey, Leeds, a member of the INQUEST Lawyers Group. They will be seeking answers to a number of questions including:

• Why Mark was kept in a police cell for 25 hours purely on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly.
• Why Mark was not treated as a medical emergency despite physical symptoms and other worrying signs being present.
• Whether police had followed their own guidance for checking on the wellbeing of prisoners they believe to be intoxicated, and whether the custody record was accurately completed.
• Whether negative judgments by police about Mark, including a belief that he was refusing to speak as some sort of protest, may have affected the care they gave him.
• Whether the care given to Mark by the A&E department at Pinderfields hospital was adequate, and if not, whether it could have contributed to his death.

INQUEST INTO DEATH OF VULNERABLE PRISONER IN HMP SWANSEA BEGINS
10am Monday 6 October 2008
Sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. Philip Rogers,
6, 7 and 9 October at The Guildhall, Swansea, SA1 4PE and
13, 14 and 15 October at Swansea Council Offices, Penllergaer, SA4

The inquest into the death of Jason Thompson, a 26 year old man who was found hanged in HMP Swansea on 1 November 2004 will start on Monday 6 October 2008 and is expected to last a total of six days. Jason’s family has waited nearly four years for the inquest into his death.

On 4 October 2004 Jason was remanded to Swansea prison on charges of criminal damage. At the time of his arrest and whilst in police custody Jason exhibited disturbed and suicidal behaviour and was subsequently placed on a self harm monitoring form (F2052SH) on his arrival at the prison. Jason’s behaviour remained extremely disturbed and between 5 and 18 October he made six self harm attempts, all of which involved him tying a ligature around his neck. On the morning of 1 November Jason was discovered suspended by a bed sheet from the window bars of his cell.

The family hopes the inquest will examine:

• management of the F2052SH self harm monitoring procedure including the decision to close the form on 21 October;
• the adequacy of communication between prison officers and healthcare professionals, relating to the risk Jason posed to himself;
• whether staff perceived Jason as petulant and manipulative and how this might have affected his care;
• whether Jason was provided suitable support given his evident problems;
• why the family were not notified following Jason’s self harm attempts.

Dorothy Thomas, Jason’s mother, commented:

“The four years since Jason’s death have been a terrible ordeal for all the family. We believe that Jason needed professional help and we tried to get this help for Jason before he was remanded to Swansea. We have many questions about the care he received in prison, which we hope will be answered at the inquest.”

Mr Thompson’s family will be represented at the inquest by INQUEST Lawyers Group members Hannah Chambers (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors) and barrister Adam Straw (Took’s Court Chambers)

INQUIRY OPENS INTO DEATH OF BERNARD ‘SONNY’ LODGE IN HMP MANCHESTER

On Monday a public inquiry opens into the self-inflicted death of Bernard ‘Sonny’ Lodge who died on 28 February 1998 at HMP Manchester. It is expected to last approximately two weeks.

Public hearings start at 10am, 30 September 2008 at the Civil Justice Centre, Manchester M60 9DJ.

Sonny’s family have long been calling for an appropriate inquiry into his death. Following his death, the Prison Service set up an internal investigation into the tragedy. This did not involve the family at all and the report was not disclosed to them or published in any form. In 2001 the inquest took place in front of HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. Leonard Gorodkin and a jury. It was highly controversial as the jury were not allowed to return a verdict other than ‘killed himself’, ‘accident’ or ‘open’. One juror refused to sign the Form of Inquisition which records the verdict and stormed out of court, and several jurors complained to the news media and family that they had been gagged.

Since the inquest, lawyers representing the family have bought judicial reviewA type of court proceeding in which a High Court judge or judges reviews the lawfulness of the way a decision was made or and action was taken by a public body or official such as a coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.. proceedings asserting that the inquest was not conducted in accordance with the requirements of article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried outArticle 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human RightsThe ECHRThe European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention. is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights ActThe Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament that incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention.. After a landmark judgment, the family have been awarded this new inquiry.

The family hope this inquiry will examine:

• Evidence of victimisation, bullying and assault by prison officers.
• Evidence of a lack of proper record keeping at two prisons.
• Failure of prison system to provide information as to self-harm risk to key decision-makers.
• Failure of prison doctor to check medical records before allowing deceased to be located alone in a punishment cell.
• Failures to operate existing suicide prevention policies and failures to take heed of clear warning signs from the family and from Sonny himself.

The public hearings will examine a number of witnesses. The inquiry is chaired by Barbara Stow, who was formerly an Assistant Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. She will then write a final report which will become a public document.

The Inquiry website is here.

The family are being represented at the Inquiry by Pete Weatherby (counsel) of Garden Court North Chambers, Manchester, and Robert Lizar, solicitor, Manchester.

INQUEST STATEMENT FOR THE OPENING OF THE INQUEST INTO DEATH OF JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES

INQUEST has been working with lawyers representing the family of Jean Charles de Menezes and supporting the family campaign since his tragic shooting in July 2005. A detailed briefing on the case is available on the family campaign website.

Since Jean Charles’ death, INQUEST has raised specific areas of concern in relation to his shooting. These include:

• The operational and intelligence failings that led to the shooting;
• Operation Kratos – the new ‘shoot to kill’ policy and its introduction without parliamentary scrutiny or public debate;
• The lawfulness of the shooting;
• The role of the IPCC in investigating the death;
• The misinformation and lies that were allowed to circulate in public about Jean Charles’ behaviour and demeanour;
• The failure for appropriate criminal charges to have been brought.

INQUEST will be closely monitoring the inquest into Jean Charles’ death to ensure it complies with minimum human rights standards as set out in leading case law and article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried outArticle 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human RightsThe ECHRThe European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention. is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights ActThe Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament that incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention. (as incorporated in the Human Rights ActThe Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament that incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. 1998). We share the concerns of the family campaign about the blanket anonymity awarded to police officers, the facilities for the public to participate in the inquest and the necessity for key operational documents such as Operation Kratos to be scrutinised publicly.

Deaths in custody have been a source of tremendous pain and anger amongst Londoners and has resulted in the relationship between the Metropolitan Police and the community they serve being frequently under severe strain. Public confidence in the police – essential if they are to carry out the job that we need them to do – must not be undermined by any suggestion that the rule of law should not apply to the police. Therefore it is imperative that the inquest fulfils it role to allay suspicions and rumours surrounding the shooting and for an open and transparent investigation to take place.

Police Shootings – 1997 to date

INQUEST has major concerns about the number of fatal shootings by police and the procedures for holding the police to account which serve neither the public interest nor the families of the deceased. A disturbing number of these deaths could and should have been avoided. INQUEST believes that the seriousness of this case warrants a fully independent public inquiry into the death and the wider issues it raises. INQUEST has raised its concerns about the case with government Ministers, MPs and human rights organisations.

Most recently INQUEST monitored the cases of Mark Saunders and Dayniel Tucker, who were shot dead by police officers within the last 12 months. Concerns have been raised in the High CourtThe highest civil court where cases may be heard for the first time. It also hears appeals and conducts judicial reviews, and supervises magistrates and crown courts. about the way in which the investigations into their deaths are conducted. This related to the disclosure of information to families during an IPCC investigation and the practice of police officers conferring before making their statements. Judgment is expected in October 2008.

Since 1997 there have been 30 fatal police shootings in England & Wales, 13 by Metropolitan police officers. Six of the Metropolitan police shootings have been of men from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities – representing a significantly disproportionate 46% of shootings. Jean Charles de Menezes’ death raises serious questions about the disproportionate number of young BME men who die following the use of force by police.

NOTES:

Official Stockwell inquest wesbite

CRITICAL VERDICT AT INQUEST INTO DEATH OF STEPHEN BROWN IN HMP DONCASTER

An inquest jury sitting at Doncaster Magistrates Court has today exposed a litany of serious failings at the privately-run Doncaster prison, regarding the care of 23 year old Stephen Brown who died as a result of streptococcal septicaemia at Doncaster Royal Infirmary on 19 March 2003, less than a week after arriving at the prison.

During the month-long inquest, distressing evidence was heard about Stephen’s appalling medical and physical condition on arrival at the hospital. Evidence was heard from several other prisoners that they had repeatedly told nursing staff that Stephen was not simply suffering from the effects of drug withdrawal and that they were worried about his deteriorating health. Despite this information and concerns being raised by a prison officer, nursing staff failed to undertake basic assessments, including taking temperature and pulse. Stephen was only transferred to hospital after he suffered a cardiac arrest. Nursing staff at Doncaster Royal Infirmary described being shocked by Stephen’s appearance on arrival at the hospital, with one experienced nurse saying that she had never seen someone in this condition in 20 years of practice.

Stephen was chained to a prison officer in the hospital until the last minutes of his life although he was unable to move and evidently critically ill. The jury upheld the family’s assertions that they had repeatedly asked for handcuffs to be removed from Stephen as he lay dying in hospital, but this had been refused as it was “not prison policy”.

Stephen’s family, who have waited five years for this inquest, said:

“What we have heard at Stephen’s inquest over the last four weeks is that the prison failed absolutely in its duty of care to our lovely son. Our son had his problems, but we believed he would be safe when he was in prison. Instead he was left to die in squalor and pain. He did not deserve that, nobody does.”

Philippa Matthews of Howells Solicitors, said:

“Stephen Brown died just over five years ago. We heard at the inquest that Doncaster prison have implemented changes since Stephen’s death. Let’s hope that the changes that we have been told of mean that these tragic circumstances are never repeated.”

Sian Griffiths, Casework Service Manager at INQUEST, said:

“The treatment of Stephen Brown in Doncaster prison was degrading and inhumane. The failure by the prison to provide even the most basic nursing care to this critically ill man clearly shocked hospital staff and represents a completely unacceptable failure in the state’s duty of care.”

Stephen Brown’s family was represented by INQUEST Lawyers Group members barrister Leslie Thomas of Garden Court Chambers instructed by Philippa Matthews of Howells Solicitors, Sheffield.

NOTE:
The jury returned a narrative verdictA form of verdict letting a jury give a longer explanation of what they think are the main or important issues. in the form of answers to 14 questions, which we have reflected in this press release.

RESTRAINT OF CHILDREN IN PRISON HELD TO BE UNLAWFUL

The Court of Appeal has today held that the rules currently in force allowing children in custody to be restrained for reasons of “good order and discipline” are unlawful and must be quashed. The challenge was made in relation to amendments to the Secure Training Centre Rules which were brought into force in July 2007.

The concern about the Rules stemmed in part from the deaths of Gareth Myatt – who died whilst being restrained by staff at Rainsbrook STCSecure Training Centre – and Adam Rickwood – who hanged himself in Hassockfield STCSecure Training Centre – after having been restrained. These cases raised concern about the legality of the use of force in STCs and resulted in the amendments being made back in July 2007. There was widespread concern at the time that the amendments were brought in to greatly widen the circumstances in which children could be restrained, and to legalise conduct by officers which up to that date had been prohibited.

In a test case funded by the Legal Services CommissionThe organisation responsible for providing Public Funds for legal work. (LSC) it was submitted on behalf of the claimant – a child who had been held in a STCSecure Training Centre – that the rules had been introduced without proper consultation, without conducting a race equality impact assessment, and that they breached articles 3 & 8 of the European Convention on Human RightsThe ECHRThe European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention. is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights ActThe Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament that incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention.. The case was supported by the Children’s Commissioner and a wide-ranging coalition of other organisations, including the NSPCC, INQUEST and the Children’s Rights Alliance.

In a decision made earlier this year the Administrative Court found that the amendments were introduced unlawfully due to the failure to properly consult and to carry out a race equality assessment but refused to quash the Rules. Today the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Rules should be quashed, not only due to the failure to consult but also because the changes breached articles 3 and 8.

In a highly critical judgment given on behalf of the Court, Lord Justice Buxton stated that Secretary of State had “surprisingly” not appreciated that the Rules did change the policy concerning the use of restraint quite significantly. This in turn led to a series of failings in relation to the appropriate consultations that should have taken place. He paints a picture of a youth custody system that is inconsistent and incoherent, with worrying difference of opinion between key players:

“…there is a history in the life of STCs of disobedience to legal and contractual requirements. We have seen how the Amendment Rules were introduced to legitimate practices that up to then were illegal and in breach of the operators’ contracts. And Hassockfield STCSecure Training Centre is run by, and the Secretary of State relies on the evidence of, a man who before the Rickwood inquest, and in these proceedings, sought, apparently unchecked by the Secretary of State, to argue that his contractual obligations were not binding.” “ [para 74]

The finding that the Rule authorising the use of force breached article 3 flowed directly from the chaotic administration identified by the judge.

Mark Scott, a partner at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, acted for the child who brought the challenge as well as the families of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood. He commented:

“The Court has identified very clearly the dangers posed by the use of physical force to restrain children and the judgment is extremely critical of how the authorities have responded to this problem. It is difficult to understand how such a haphazard approach can be taken to the use of potentially lethal force against young people in the care of the state. Whilst my client is extremely pleased with the decision in his case, it is tragic that children have already died during or following the use of restraint in STCs.”

Deborah Coles, Co-director of INQUEST said:

“This judgment is further condemnation of the failure of the state and privately-run companies to protect vulnerable children in the custody and care of the state, the result of which has been death, injury and psychological damage. We have heard nothing since the deaths of Adam Rickwood and Gareth Myatt that has convinced us that those with responsibility have properly heeded what has been exposed and that necessary and appropriate changes have or will now be made to safeguard children. Instead what has emerged is complacency and a reliance on a restraint review conducted behind closed doors that the government has refused to disclose in advance of its response, thus preventing consultation and debate; the very things criticised by this judgment.

INQUEST remains convinced that the only way to prevent the suffering of children in custody and to ensure that more children do not die or are not injured is to conduct a holistic, independent inquiry in public into the way we treat children in conflict with the law with the proper involvement of families, children and those working within the system. That the government continues to resist such an inquiry, whose motivation would be protecting the human rights of children, is shameful.”

NOTES:

1. STCs hold young persons in custody between the ages of 12 and 17. There are four STCs in the country.
2. Article 3 prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 protects the right to a private and family life.

INQUEST RESPONSE TO PUBLICATION OF IPCC ANNUAL REPORT

Deborah Coles, Co-director of INQUEST said:

“INQUEST’s casework and monitoring demonstrates that there are still a disturbing number of deaths which raise concerns about the treatment and care of vulnerable people in police custody and failings in the duty of care. Many of these concerns stem from the need for diversion of people with mental health, drug and alcohol problems from custody in the first place.

Public confidence in the IPCC will only be sustained if there is proper public scrutiny of these deaths, the circumstances surrounding them are fully and fearlessly explored, and the police are held to account.

The fact that there has been no overall change in the numbers of deaths following police contact or in police custody, plus the disturbing rise in police shootings indicates there is much more work to be done to prevent future deaths”

JURY CONDEMNS THE USE OF EXCESSIVE RESTRAINT IN THE DEATH OF KURT HOWARD

The jury at the inquest into the death of Kurt Howard returned a narrative verdictA form of verdict letting a jury give a longer explanation of what they think are the main or important issues. which described the prolonged use of face-down prone restraint on him as “excessive.”

32 year old Kurt Howard died on 29 June 2002 at Cefn Coed hospital in Swansea whilst sectioned under the mental health act. The inquest lasted nearly five weeks and was held before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. Philip Rogers sitting at County Hall in Swansea.

During the inquest the jury heard evidence which raised serious concerns about the treatment and care Kurt received. In a seven page narrative verdictA form of verdict letting a jury give a longer explanation of what they think are the main or important issues. the jury catalogued a series of failings in staffing, training and facilities.

Deborah Coles, Co-director of INQUEST said:

“Evidence heard at this inquest is a damning indictment of the treatment of a vulnerable mentally ill young man who died a horrific death while being restrained. The scandal is that six years after Kurt’s death there is still no mandatory training on the use of restraint in psychiatric hospitals as recommended by the Rocky Bennett Inquiry in 2003. Excessive levels of restraint continue to be used in psychiatric institutions behind closed doors. The government must enforce national guidelines and implement compulsory training on restraint before further vulnerable patients die.”

Kurt Howard’s family was represented at the inquest by barrister Leslie Thomas of Garden Court Chambers, instructed by Joanne Kearsley of Farleys Solicitors. Both are members of the INQUEST Lawyers Group.

INQUEST TO OPEN INTO DEATH OF PRISONER STEPHEN BROWN

10:00 am Monday 30 June 2008
Sitting before HM Assistant Deputy CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for South Yorkshire (Eastern District) John Sleightholme,
Doncaster Law Courts, College Road,
Doncaster
DN1 3JH

The inquest into the death of Stephen Brown opens on 30 June 2008 and is expected to last for four weeks. Stephen Brown died from streptococcal septicaemia in Doncaster Royal Infirmary less than a week after arriving at HMP Doncaster in 2003. He had collapsed at the prison whilst waiting for a transfer to hospital but died later the same day.

Stephen’s family is very concerned about the quality of treatment he received in prison and hopes that the inquest – for which they have waited five years – will fully explore the circumstances surrounding his death. In particular they are hoping the inquest will examine:

• Whether Stephen received appropriate levels of care whilst in HMP Doncaster.
• Whether the seriousness of Stephen’s medical condition was recognised early enough.
• Why Stephen appeared not to have received medical treatment in prison prior to the day he died.

Both Stephen’s family and INQUEST will give a statement at the conclusion of the inquest.

Stephen Brown’s family is represented by INQUEST Lawyers Group members barrister Leslie Thomas of Garden Court Chambers instructed by Philippa Matthews of Howells Solicitors.

INQUEST TO OPEN INTO RESTRAINT-RELATED DEATH OF PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT

10am Tuesday 27 May 2008
Sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. Philip Rogers,
County Hall, Oystermouth Road,
Swansea
SA1 3SN

The inquest into the death of Kurt Howard opens on 27 May 2008 and is expected to last for three weeks. Kurt Howard died on 29 June 2002 aged 32 at Cefn Coed Hospital in Swansea while sectioned under the Mental Health Act. He died following a prolonged period of restraint in the prone position. Kurt’s family has waited nearly six years for the inquest into his death.

The family hopes the inquest will examine:

• why staff restrained Kurt for at least 55 minutes despite the widely known risk of death of such a prolonged period of restraint;
• concerns regarding the number of times Kurt was restrained in the days and hours before his death;
• whether the training of support workers and nursing staff involved in the restraint was adequate;
• failure by nursing staff to report Kurt’s death as being restraint-related.

Deborah Coles, co-director of INQUEST, said:

“The scandal is that six years after Kurt’s death there is still no mandatory training on the use of restraint in psychiatric hospitals as recommended by the Rocky Bennett Inquiry in 2003. Excessive levels of restraint continue to be used in psychiatric institutions behind closed doors. The government must enforce national guidelines and implement compulsory training on restraint before further vulnerable patients die.”

Kurt Howard’s family is represented by barrister Leslie Thomas of Garden Court Chambers, instructed by Joanne Kearsley of Farleys Solicitors. Kurt’s family will give a statement at the conclusion of the inquest.

INQUEST STATEMENT ON THE DEATH OF PAULINE CAMPBELL

The staff team at INQUEST are deeply saddened by the news of Pauline Campbell’s untimely death.

Deborah Coles, co-director of INQUEST, said:

“Having worked closely with Pauline since her daughter Sarah’s death in 2003 we were acutely aware of the impact the investigation and inquest had on her as she uncovered the horrendous circumstances in which Sarah died in HMP Styal. Borne out of her experience, Pauline became a formidable campaigner committed to exposing the injustices and inhumanity of the treatment of women in prison.

Her death should remind everyone not just about the many unnecessary and preventable deaths of women in prison but also of the impact on the families they leave behind.”

Pauline was committed not just to campaigning but also to helping INQUEST’s work in supporting bereaved families. Most recently she contributed her thoughts about her experiences following Sarah’s death for our report Dying on the Inside: Examining Women’s Deaths in Prison.

INQUEST’s tribute to Pauline can be found here.

CROSS PARTY WELCOME FOR INQUEST’S NEW BOOK – DYING ON THE INSIDE: EXAMINING WOMEN’S DEATHS IN PRISON

INQUEST’s new book Dying on the Inside: Examining Women’s Deaths in Prison was launched today in parliament at a meeting attended by cross-party MPs and peers. The book is the first comprehensive examination of women’s deaths in prison in England & Wales between 1990 and 2007. It presents an alarming picture of preventable tragedy and the recommendations make fundamental proposals for change. The key recommendation of the book is the abolition of prison as the normal response to women who break the law and investment in radical community-based alternatives.

For the first time the book brings into the discussion the largely unheard voices of bereaved families, some of whom attended and spoke at the launch.

Chaired by Baroness Vivien Stern, Senior Research Fellow at the International Centre for Prison Studies, the launch heard from the book’s authors Marissa Sandler and Deborah Coles, co-director of INQUEST. Also speaking were Julie Morgan MP, member of the House of Commons Justice Committee; Jenny Willott MP, Liberal Democrat spokesperson on prisons; and Kirsty Blanksby, twin sister of Petra Blanksby, a 19 year old woman who died in HMP & YOIYoung Offender Institution - prison for people aged 21 and under New Hall in 2003.

Baroness Stern said:

“I congratulate INQUEST on this exemplary publication. We don’t need any more books, any more meetings about what is going wrong’we don’t need any more recommendations; we need action.”<

Julie Morgan, MP for Cardiff North and member of the Justice Committee, said:

“These are all preventable deaths – that is the saddest point that can be made. I am committed to ensure that this issue is kept on the government’s agenda.”

Jenny Willott, Liberal Democrat MP for Cardiff Central, said:

“Prisons are effectively a dumping ground for people who are ill. This is not a party political issue, it’s a human rights issue. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it needs changing. It isn’t working.”

Kirsty Blanksby said:

“My sister died because she was a mentally ill woman who was wrongly sent to prison. I went through the same experiences as she did, but people believed in me ‘ I went to the right place, a therapeutic community, which is why I am here to day, and she is dead.”

Deborah Coles said:

“It is shameful that the same issues of concern apparent in the 1990s are as prevalent today. This report provides incontrovertible evidence of serious human rights abuses of women in prison and the abject failure of the criminal justice system in dealing with women in trouble with the law. The research is so conclusive that the solutions are self-evident.

We don’t need any more reviews or reviews of reviews. We need the abolition of prison as the normal response for women who break the law and investment in radical, community-based alternatives must be prioritised. The complex reasons behind why women enter the criminal justice system ‘ homelessness, poverty, addictions, mental and physical ill health and sexual and physical abuse ‘ must be addressed as a matter of priority. Without the political will to drive forward coherent policy change the female custodial population will continue to rise and more women will die.”

More details on Dying on the Inside can be found here.

Inquests into the deaths of four women in prison open on Monday 7 April 2008.

• Vicky Robinson, aged 26, died on 2 February 2005 in HMP New Hall. The inquest will be held at Wakefield CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s Court, 71 Northgate, Wakefield WF1 3BS, sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for West Yorkshire (Eastern District), David Hinchliff, and is expected to last three weeks.
• Sheena Kotecha, aged 22, died on 3 April 2004 in HMP Brockhill. The inquest will be held at Worcester Coroners Court, Bewdley Road, Stourport, Worcester, DY13 8XE sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for Worcestershire, Geraint Williams, and is expected to last two weeks.
• Lisa Woodhall, aged 28, died on 8 October 2006 in HMP Eastwood Park. The inquest will be held at Kings Weston House, Kings Weston Lane, Bristol BS11 0UR sitting before HM Deputy CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for the District of Avon, R, B, H Whitehouse and is expected to last one week.
• Lyndsey Wright, aged 30, died on 8 March 2005 in HMP Holloway. The inquest will be held at City of London CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s Court, Walbrook Wharf, 78-83 Upper Thames Street, London, EC4R 3TD sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. Paul Matthews and is expected to last four weeks.

INQUEST URGES MPs TO VOTE AGAINST GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS FOR ‘SECRET’ INQUESTS IN COUNTER TERRORISM BILL

INQUEST publishes a detailed briefing paper today on the government’s proposals for ‘secret’ death in custody inquests. The proposals are contained in Part 6, clauses 64-67 of the Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 which receives its second reading in the House of Commons tomorrow. INQUEST is urging MPs to call for the withdrawal of Part 6 of the Bill immediately.

INQUEST is strongly opposed to the measures contained in the Bill which give the Secretary of State extraordinary powers to intervene in inquests where sensitive information is involved. The proposals could result in inquests into highly contentious deaths in custody taking place without juries, in private, with government-appointed coroners and counsel overseeing the evidence. This would exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process.

Helen Shaw, co-director of INQUEST said:

“The proposals amount to a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the inquest system and could result in the inquests into highly contentious deaths involving state agents taking place without juries, in private, with government-appointed coroners and counsel overseeing the evidence. This would exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process in breach of article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried outArticle 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention of Human Rights.We have seen no arguments or evidence from the government to justify the imposition of such wide-ranging and draconian proposals and believe they should be withdrawn immediately.”

INQUEST’s briefing can be downloaded here.

Notes to editors:

1. The parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the House of Commons Justice Committee, the Law Society and JUSTICE have all expressed similar concerns about Part 6.

COURT FINDS THAT THERE WAS FLAWED AND UNLAWFUL DECISION MAKING LEADING TO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW RULES GOVERNING THE USE OF RESTRAINT ON CHILDREN IN SECURE TRAINING CENTRES

Judgment in a judicial reviewA type of court proceeding in which a High Court judge or judges reviews the lawfulness of the way a decision was made or and action was taken by a public body or official such as a coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.. public interest test case on behalf of a black child AC found that the decision making prior to the Secretary of State for Justice introducing the Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007 (the 2007 STCSecure Training Centre Rules) was unlawful.

A High CourtThe highest civil court where cases may be heard for the first time. It also hears appeals and conducts judicial reviews, and supervises magistrates and crown courts. judicial reviewA type of court proceeding in which a High Court judge or judges reviews the lawfulness of the way a decision was made or and action was taken by a public body or official such as a coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.. of the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice to introduce the 2007 STCSecure Training Centre Rules took place on 4-5 December 2007 and judgment has now been handed down.

On 6 July 2007 the Ministry of Justice amended the rules governing the use of force within Secure Training Centres (STCs), broadening the circumstances in which young children can be forcibly restrained. The amendment was made in response to evidence that emerged during the inquests into the deaths of 14-year-old Adam Rickwood and 15-year-old Gareth Myatt. They both died in STCs, which are privately-run children’s prisons contracted by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) to detain children who are too young or too vulnerable to be placed in Prison Service-run Young Offender Institutions. The families of both Adam Rickwood and Gareth Myatt supported this judicial reviewA type of court proceeding in which a High Court judge or judges reviews the lawfulness of the way a decision was made or and action was taken by a public body or official such as a coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.. application.

At the inquests it emerged that staff regularly used restraint to secure children’s compliance with instructions outside the strict criteria of the then Statutory Rules which govern STCs. Those Rules made it clear that the use of restraint should only be used as a last resort and only to prevent injury, damage to property, escape or incitement of another to do any of these things.

It was always the position of INQUEST and other concerned NGOs and bodies that the 2007 STCSecure Training Centre Rules, which were introduced without any form of public consultation and permitted children being restrained for reasons of ‘good order and discipline’, significantly broadened the circumstances in which force could be used against children.

Prior to and at the hearing, the Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board (who have responsibilities for the juvenile estate) persistently presented the rule change as simply being a ‘tidying up’ exercise and not amounting to any significant change in policy on restraint.
However the Court ‘unhesitatingly’ found that the change was ‘significant’ and that the Secretary of State, if she ‘had applied her mind to it, could [not] reasonably have seen it in a different way’.
The Court declined to quash the Secure Training Centre Rules on the basis that a joint review is being conducted on the issue of restraint. Following the judgment the Ministry of Justice has also now undertaken to carry out a race assessment of whether the broadening of the power to restrain is discriminatory.

Mark Scott of Bhatt Murphy, solicitor for AC, and for the families of Gareth Myatt and Adam Rickwood, said:

“It is disappointing that an application to Court had to be made for the true nature of the change in the rules governing the use of restraint of vulnerable children in STCs to be recognised by the Ministry of Justice. Albeit that it is to be welcomed that the Court have recorded the unlawful failures of decision making prior to the introduction of the rules it is of concern that the rules have been allowed to stay in place when important safeguards of consultation and a race assessment have still not been carried out.”

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST, said:

“Despite the protestations of the Youth Justice Board and the Ministry of Justice that the rule change was merely to clarify the law, the Court has found it to be a significant change to policy, as we argued from the outset. INQUEST questions the government’s commitment to learning lessons when we note that they have still not responded to the detailed rule 43 report made over six months ago at the conclusion of the inquest into the restraint-related death of Gareth Myatt. Our fear is that the narrow remit of the restraint review will not address the serious questions raised by the state-sanctioned use of force used against some of society’s most vulnerable children.”

Notes to editors

In a 17 page letter to Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord ChancellorThe cabinet minister in the government responsible for the effective running of the legal system in England and Wales., HHJ Pollard specified 34 preventative actions covering the treatment of children, the use of restraint, monitoring, good practice, access for emergency vehicles, and inspection of STCs. See here for details.

INQUEST TO OPEN INTO DEATH OF WOMAN IN STYAL PRISON

9.15am Monday 25 February 2008, Sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. Nicholas Rheinberg, Macclesfield Town Hall, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK10 1DP

The inquest into the death Valerie Hayes opens on 25 February 2008 and is expected to last for two weeks. Valerie was found hanging in the segregation unit of HMP Styal on 10 May 2006. She was 42 years old.

Valerie had a long history of mental health problems and drug misuse which escalated when her two children were taken into care in 1998. Following an incident in January 2004 she was convicted of arson and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months in prison. She was released on licence but was recalled to HMP Styal for breach of her licence conditions on 1 April 2006.

In the last few days of her life Valerie made a number of serious self-harm attempts. Despite being on suicide watch and subject to an ACCT (Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork) form, Valerie was restrained and moved to the segregation unit on 10 May where she was found hanging at 4.15pm.

The family hopes the inquest will examine:

• whether there was a failure to provide Valerie with the appropriate psychiatric assistance or timely assessment by the Mental Health Inreach Team;
• the quality of the care provided to Valerie following her decision to come off the methadone detox programme and whether there was a failure to ensure all staff members involved in her care were aware of the effect this may have had on her mental health;
• what communication there was about the details of the medication Valerie was receiving prior to her return to prison;
• the management of Valerie’s suicide and self-harming risk, including the entries in the ACCT notes;
• the decision to place Valerie in segregation.

Deborah Coles, Co-director of INQUEST, said:

“Despite the high level scrutiny of Styal prison, serious concerns remain about the safety and quality of life for women held there. INQUEST has repeatedly highlighted the failure of the Prison Service to act on previous recommendations made as a result of inspections and investigations into women’s deaths. Urgent action is needed to divert mentally ill women out of prisons which are incapable of meeting their complex needs.”

Janet Brough, Valerie Hayes’ sister said:

“Valerie was outgoing, chatty and well liked by everyone that met her. She was talented, had a lovely singing voice and played the guitar. Valerie was a loving sister and a bridesmaid to two of her sisters, a duty which she enjoyed very much. The same way Valerie loved us, we loved her back. All I want is that lessons are learnt from this tragedy and that her untimely death was not in vain, but has helped to change the circumstances for women in prison for the better.”

Valerie Hayes’ family is represented by barrister Alison Gerry of Doughty Street Chambers, instructed by INQUEST Lawyers Group member Nancy Collins of Bhatt Murphy Solicitors.

DAMNING CRITICAL VERDICT AT INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF 16 YEAR OLD GARETH PRICE

A jury today delivered a highly critical verdict at the inquest into the death of 16 year old Gareth Price. In an unusually detailed narrative, the jury highlighted failures by all the agencies involved in Gareth’s care including Youth Offending Teams and the Prison Service. The jury concluded that the collective failings of the agencies ultimately contributed to Gareth’s death.

Gareth Price was found hanging in his cell at Lancaster Farms Young Offender Institution on 19 January 2005. The jury’s verdict highlights concern over the inappropriateness of prison for troubled teenagers and the ability of the youth justice system to ensure the safety of children in its care.

In his conclusion, the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. Dr James Adeley stated:

“What appals me about this death is the number of organisations and individuals who missed opportunities to intervene in Gareth Price’s life… This wasn’t a single missed opportunity but covered prison and community youth offending teams who failed both on a managerial and individual basis, to psychiatrists, psychologists, solicitor and the prison.”

The coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. has indicated he will be making a significant number of rule 43 recommendations to the relevant authorities with the hope of preventing similar deaths in the future.

The jury found that the following contributed to Gareth’s death:

• failure of YOT services to arrange meetings for Gareth, incomplete documentation and assessments, and haphazard communication between services;
• grave error of Gareth’s family solicitor in doing nothing with a psychiatrist’s report warning of the risk Gareth Price posed to himself around the time of sentencing;
• the psychiatrist who concluded Gareth was at risk assumed incorrectly her report would be shared with relevant agencies;
• serious omission by the prison not to have informed Gareth’s parents that he had self-harmed;
• loss of prison psychologist’s report highlighting Gareth’s risk of self-harm in the internal mail;
• training of prison officers with regard to suicide prevention was inadequate;
• failure of health staff to monitor Gareth’s mental health following self-harm episodes.

The family made the following statement:

“We will never understand why every agency involved in Gareth’s care knew he was self harming and suicidal, yet nobody told us. What hurts the most is that warnings by experts that Gareth was at high risk of killing himself were not brought to the attention of prison officers and medical staff dealing with him either. If everyone involved with Gareth had done their job properly he might not have died”.

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST said:

“It is shameful that despite all the information available about how vulnerable Gareth was every agency that he came into contact with failed him. This verdict calls into serious question the competence of the Youth Justice Board and its fitness for purpose. Since Gareth’s death two more children have died in custody, including a 15 year old who was also found hanging at Lancaster Farms YOIYoung Offender Institution - prison for people aged 21 and under.

How many more have to die before the government hold the Youth Justice Board to account for its failings and review the use of prison for vulnerable and troubled children? The government must set up a full and holistic public enquiry into the youth justice system before more children die”.

Gareth’s family was represented by INQUEST Lawyers Group members Joanne Kearsley of Farleys Solicitors and barrister Colin Hutchinson of Garden Court Chambers.

Notes to editors:

1. Gareth Price first received counselling for symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when he was 14 following a series of traumatic bereavements in his early teens. Concerns about Gareth’s mental health in prison prompted the commission of two expert reports which both identified a high risk that Gareth would attempt suicide around his sentencing date. Tragically, these warnings were either ignored or lost and Gareth hanged himself the day before he was due to be sentenced. During his five months in prison Suicide/Self Harm Warning forms were opened for Gareth on four occasions, yet his parents were never informed of his attempts to self-harm.
2. Gareth was the 28th child to die in state custody since 1990. 30 have now died including Liam McManus who was found hanging at Lancaster Farms YOIYoung Offender Institution - prison for people aged 21 and under on 29 November 2007 aged 15. A table of child custody deaths can be found here.
3. The Youth Justice Board mission statement says, “The YJB oversees the youth justice system in England and Wales. We work to prevent offending and reoffending by children and young people under the age of 18, and to ensure that custody for them is safe, secure, and addresses the causes of their offending behaviour.”

INQUEST OPENS INTO THE DEATH IN POLICE CUSTODY OF ADRIAN COLDWELL

10am Monday 18 February 2008, Sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for West Yorkshire, David Hinchliff, Wakefield CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s Court, 71 Northgate, Wakefield WFI 3BS

The inquest into the death of Adrian Coldwell opens on 18 February 2008 at Wakefield CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s Court and is expected to last for two weeks.

Adrian Coldwell was found partly suspended by a cord from his track suit bottoms in a cell in Pontefract police station on 17 December 2004. He had a history of self harm and was already known to police as presenting a suicide risk. Adrian had twice been arrested and taken to the police station as a place of safety under section 136 of the Mental Health Act, the most recent occasion only three months before his death.

Adrian’s family are concerned about several aspects of the care he received during his time in police custody. The inquest is expected to explore a number of key concerns:

• Why, given his history of self harm, was Adrian apparently able to use a cord from his track suit as a ligature whilst in a police cell.
• Why were prescription drugs apparently given to Adrian by non-medically qualified police staff and what effect might these have had on his state of mind.
• Whether it is the case that routine checks on Adrian during his night in police cells did not take place and that it was at least two hours between the final check and Adrian being found.
• Whether a written error in taking down Adrian’s name led to police not having access to his record of mental health difficulties and self harm.
• Did poor cell maintenance, leaving a gaping intercom switch as a potential ligature point, contribute to his death?

Adrian’s sister Jayne Sharp is represented by INQUEST Lawyers Group member Ruth Bundey of Harrison Bundey solicitors

INQUEST INTO DEATH OF 16 YEAR OLD FOUND HANGED IN LANCASTER FARMS YOIYoung Offender Institution - prison for people aged 21 and under EXPECTED TO CONCLUDE THIS WEEK

Before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for Preston, North and South West Lancashire District, Dr James Adeley, sitting at Lancaster Shire Hall, Castle Parade, Lancaster, LA1 1YJ

The jury are expected to retire to consider their verdict following the conclusion of the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s summing up on Thursday 7 February at the inquest into the death of 16 year old Gareth Price in Lancaster Farms YOIYoung Offender Institution - prison for people aged 21 and under.

Gareth was found hanging in his cell at Lancaster Farms Young Offender Institution on 19 January 2005.

Gareth was the 28th child to die in state custody since 1990 and his death raises serious concerns over the ability of the criminal justice system to care for vulnerable children in prison. The need for lessons to be learnt from Gareth’s death has been highlighted by the tragic death of another child at Lancaster Farms, 15 year old Liam McManus, who hanged himself there on 29 November 2007.

Throughout the extensive three month inquest a catalogue of concerns has emerged in the evidence pointing to failures and inadequacies throughout the youth offending and prison services in relation to Gareth’s care.

The issues the jury will consider include:

• The failure by Youth Offending Team to hold a remand planning meeting and thereafter monthly meetings in respect of Gareth, in breach of national standards.
• The issue of the shortage of staff working within the Youth Offending Team and the impact that this may have had.
• The impact of the decision not to follow National Standards by the Youth Offending Team.
• The failure to bring to the attention of prison staff a psychiatrist’s report which clearly identified Gareth as a suicide risk.
• The failure to inform Gareth’s parents of his attempts to self-harm in prison.
• Whether Gareth’s death was preventable.

INQUEST will make a statement when the jury return their verdict.

JURY DELIVER CRITICAL VERDICT AT INQUEST INTO DEATH OF YOUNG WOMAN IN PRISON

Yet another jury at an inquest into a death of a woman in prison has highlighted the inappropriate use of prison for vulnerable women. The jury at the inquest into the death of 19 year old Petra Blanksby delivered a critical verdict declaring ‘prison was not an appropriate place’ for Petra.

Petra Blanksby died on 24 November 2003, following an incident at New Hall prison on 19 November when she was found in her cell having tied a ligature around her neck. The jury found that the following had contributed to her death:

• Traumatic life experiences including mental and physical abuse in early childhood, coupled with an unstable upbringing and a complete lack of emotional support.
• Prison was not an appropriate place in view of Petra’s diagnosis.
• There appears to be no infrastructure in the forensic mental health service for people with her problems.

At the conclusion of the three week inquest HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. David Hinchliff said that he was struck by the comments of the consultant psychiatrist Dr Keith Rix. Dr Rix gave evidence to the inquest that in a civilised society someone as severely mentally disordered as Petra should not be in prison. The coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. announced he would using his power under rule 43 of the Coroners Rules to write to the Prison Service and the Department of Health in the hope of them providing appropriate facilities for women with similar problems. In a statement made after the inquest the family urged the government to implement the recommendations of the Corston Report.

Kirsty Blanksby, Petra’s sister said:

“Petra was a wonderful mother and daughter, as well as a brilliant sister who always managed to warm the hearts of everyone around her. It is simply wrong that she was in prison instead of receiving the necessary and proper help for her deep-seated problems. We only hope that lessons will be learnt to prevent a similar tragedy happening again and for the government to realise that it cannot use prison as an NHS dumping ground for vulnerable women with mental health problems.”

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST, said:

“Petra was a vulnerable young woman who was criminalised for her mental health problems. Her death was entirely predictable and therefore preventable, for which someone should be held to account. We await the response of government ministers to the evidence heard at this inquest, and its verdict. They are responsible for criminal justice policies that fail to divert the mentally ill and vulnerable from custody. The failure to implement the recommendations of the Corston Report and invest resources in alternatives to custody for vulnerable women is putting more lives at risk. The sad reality is that despite this death talking place over four years ago the lessons have not been learned and women like Petra are still being sent to prison where they continue to die.”

Notes to editors

Further information:

Petra died on 24 November 2003 following an incident at HMP New Hall on 19 November when she was found in her cell having tied a ligature around her neck. At the time of her death Petra was on remand having been charged with the offence of arson with intent to endanger life. The evidence revealed that the offence with which Petra was charged was an act of self-harm and the only life endangered was her own.

Petra had an alarmingly long history of serious attempts at self-harm and had been under the care of the mental health services for many years. She had previously been diagnosed with a personality disorder. Throughout her time in New Hall, Petra was subject to an open F2052SH, the form used to record details of those identified as being at risk of suicide and self-harm. During the 130 days Petra spent in New Hall she was involved in at least 90 incidents of serious self harm, some resulting in hospital admission. While Petra was in the prison, her son was placed for adoption. Witnesses gave evidence that there was a ‘blatantly obvious’ increase in Petra’s pattern of self-harm linked to her son’s adoption.

A range of concerns have emerged in the evidence heard at the inquest including:

• The acknowledged unsuitability of prison for someone with Petra’s mental health problems.
• The lack of provision in the community for women who self-harm.
• Concerns about the role of Derbyshire Social Services in relation both to Petra’s own care and the arrangements for the adoption of her son.
• The collective failure of various authorities to understand the impact of adoption proceedings on Petra’s mental health and self-harming.
• Concerns about the care provided by the Pennine Health Care Trust in not admitting Petra to hospital on the day she committed the offence which led to her remand in custody, despite her specific attempts to seek help.
• Procedures, staff training and access to resources at HMP New Hall on 19 November 2003.

INQUEST CALLS ON THE GOVERNMENT TO ACT ON FINDINGS OF HMCIP ANNUAL REPORT

INQUEST today calls on the government to heed the recommendations in HM Chief Inspector of Prisons’ annual report 2006-2007 and condemns the government for deliberately following penal policies that have led to the current crisis in the prison system.

HMCIP annual report notes a massive 40% increase in self-inflicted deaths in the last year and calls for a Royal Commission or similar substantial public inquiry into the penal system to holistically address its current problems. INQUEST welcomes such a call which we believe is an urgent necessity.

INQUEST also welcomes the report’s criticisms of the juvenile custodial estate, an area of particular concern in light of the 30 deaths of children in custody in England and Wales since 1990. We urge the government to act on the report’s recommendation for ‘an overall review of the use and type of youth custody.’

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST, said:

“This report is a damning indictment of a prison system which is not fit for purpose as demonstrated by the massive rise in self-inflicted deaths in prison last year. No discussion of self-inflicted deaths in prison can ignore the regimes and conditions operating in prisons, criminal justice policies that imprison the mentally ill and vulnerable, or the institutional culture of violence and racism that exists there. Too many of the inquests we monitor expose systemic failures in the treatment and care of prisoners. Until urgent action is taken by the state to dramatically reduce the prison population the damaging and tragic consequences of imprisonment will continue.”

Notes to editors

Further information:

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England & Wales’ annual report 2006-2007

INQUEST’s statistics of deaths in prison

INQUEST INTO DEATH OF PETRA BLANKSBY IN HMP NEW HALL EXPECTED TO CONCLUDE ON WEDNESDAY

10am 30 January 2008
Sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for West Yorkshire (Eastern District), David Hinchliff
Wakefield CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s Court, 71 Northgate, Wakefield WF1 3BS

The coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s summing up at the inquest into the death of Petra Blanksby in HMP New Hall is expected to take place on Wednesday 30 January.

Petra died on 24 November 2003, following an incident at New Hall on 19 November when she was found in her cell having tied a ligature around her neck.

At the time of her death Petra was on remand having been charged with the offence of arson with intent to endanger life. The evidence revealed that the offence with which Petra was charged was an act of self-harm and the only life endangered was her own.

Petra had an alarmingly long history of serious attempts at self-harm and had been under the care of the mental health services for many years. She had previously been diagnosed with a personality disorder. Throughout her time in New Hall, Petra was subject to an open F2052SH, the form used to record details of those identified as being at risk of suicide and self-harm. During the 130 days Petra spent in New Hall she was involved in at least 90 incidents of serious self-harm, some resulting in hospital admission. While Petra was in the prison, her son was placed for adoption. Witnesses gave evidence that there was a ‘blatantly obvious’ increase in Petra’s pattern of self-harm linked to her son’s adoption.

A range of concerns have emerged in the evidence heard at the inquest which the family hope will be considered in the jury’s verdict, including:

The family and INQUEST will make a statement at the conclusion of the inquest.

Notes to editors:

INQUEST is the only non-governmental organisation in England and Wales that works directly with the families of those who die in custody. It provides an independent free legal and advice service to bereaved people on inquest procedures and their rights in the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s courts.

The coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. has made an order preventing any identification of Petra Blanksby’s son.

LINTON KWESI JOHNSON BBC RADIO 4 FUNDING APPEAL FOR INQUEST

On Sunday 3 February 2008 a BBC Radio 4 Appeal will be broadcast on behalf of INQUEST. The organisation provides a free advice and support service to over 350 bereaved families facing an inquest per year, particularly where their relatives die in contentious circumstances. It provides a unique and expert service for individuals as well as intervention at the parliamentary, media and legal levels following deaths in custody.

Internationally-renowned reggae poet Linton Kwesi Johnson‘s appeal for INQUEST will be broadcast on Radio 4 (92-95 FM) on Sunday 3 February 2008 at 07.55 and 21.26, and repeated on Thursday 7 February at 15.27. A transcript will be available to read on INQUEST’s website and listeners can send money as part of the Appeal as soon it has been transmitted. Donations to support our work can be sent in the post to Freepost BBC Radio 4 Appeal (please mark the back of the envelope INQUEST), or made online via the BBC Appeal website or by telephone to 0800 404 8144.

Every donation can make a real difference so that INQUEST can support more bereaved people.

Notes to editors

In December 2007 INQUEST was joint winner of the Liberty/JUSTICE Human Rights Award 2007 for organisations and non-legal individuals in recognition of our ‘high-quality specialist casework [on deaths in custody] and … commitment to providing incontrovertible evidence of the serious human rights abuses of children in custody’. The Human Rights Awards are made each year on Human Rights Day. Presenting the Award, Professor Francesca Klug OBE of the LSE Centre for the Study of Human Rights praised INQUEST for ‘working with families to build bridges between human emotions and the law’.

INQUEST was founded in 1981 following a number of controversial deaths in police and prison custody. Although the scope of the organisation’s work has widened since then, its main focus remains death in custody. It is the only charitable organisation in England and Wales that provides an independent, free legal and advice service to bereaved people on inquest procedures and their rights in the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s court and the civil courts. It is consulted widely, by government Ministers and Departments, MPs, lawyers, academics, policy makers, the media and the wider public. INQUEST possesses an unrivalled body of knowledge, experience and expertise on issues surrounding contentious deaths and their investigation. Through its casework, INQUEST has a unique overview of how the whole system operates from the perspective of bereaved families and their advisers. It has extracted the policy issues arising from the deaths and their investigation and campaigned with and on behalf of bereaved families and their legal representatives for changes in practice to prevent deaths. Casework also informs our research, parliamentary and policy work.

INQUEST DISMAYED BY FIRST DEATH OF A WOMAN IN PRISON THIS YEAR

INQUEST notes with sadness the self-inflicted death of 32 year old Lisa Marley in HMP Styal, a prison with a disturbing history of deaths of vulnerable women.

Deborah Coles, Co-Director of INQUEST said:

“We are saddened and dismayed by this death which reminds us of the tragic consequences of criminal justice policies which place vulnerable women into a system which cannot keep them safe. That this death has happened in the prison that prompted Baroness Corston’s Review of Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System should prompt the government to fully implement her recommendations. Unless more women are diverted from prison the increase in self inflicted deaths and the associated high levels of self-harm, mental distress and family disruption will continue”.

Notes to editors:

1. Since 2000 11 women have died in Styal prison. The inquests held into many of these deaths have raised serious concerns about the quality of treatment and care afforded women in Styal and the inappropriateness of prison for many of the women held there.

2. The Corston Review was published in March 2007. The Government responded to the review in November 2007 and has failed to allocate any resources to its implementation.

3. After a fortnight of evidence, the inquest into the death of 19 year old Petra Blanksby in HMP New Hall in November 2003 is due to conclude in Wakefield CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s Court in the middle of next week. The inquest has heard disturbing evidence about the treatment and care of a young woman with a long history of self-harm and mental health problems.

INQUEST CONDEMNS GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS FOR ‘SECRET’ DEATH IN CUSTODY INQUESTS

INQUEST today condemned government proposals in the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 which give unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in death in custody inquests where issues of state intelligence are involved.

Clause 64 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State extraordinary powers to issue certificates at his or her discretion to hold ‘secret’ inquests, without juries, in any case in which the Secretary of State believes that material will be revealed contrary to the public interest. The discretion given to the Secretary of State is broad and is to include reasons of national security, international relations or any other public interest. In these circumstances it is proposed inquests are to be conducted at least partly in private, with government vetted coroners and government vetted counsel overseeing the ‘sensitive material’. This would exclude bereaved families and their legal representatives – as well as the public at large – from the process.

INQUEST has written today to Bridget Prentice MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State responsible for coroners to express its extreme concern that this measure has been introduced without any consultation. This is despite the organisation and members of its Lawyers Group being in regular and ongoing dialogue with Ministers and officials about the operation of the inquest system and other proposed reforms.

The family of Azelle Rodney, shot seven times by police in a pre-planned surveillance operation in April 2005, have already been told that their case will be subject to the new measures.

Daniel Machover, solicitor for Susan Alexander, Azelle Rodney’s mother said:

“These proposals mean that Ministers and those responsible for intelligence gathering will never be held properly to account for the validity of their tactics. It is a fiasco, bearing no resemblance to a fair system of justice. Presented with the problem of what to do with sensitive material that is relevant to the circumstances of how and why a person was killed by a state agent, the government proposes to remove the vital democratic accountable layer of a jury and hide away from the bereaved family crucial evidence about the death. My client, Susan Alexander, is very distressed that having expected a new law which would finally enable her to see and question the key evidence that led to the police shooting of her son, she will end up being worse off than before.”

Helen Shaw, co-director of INQUEST said:

“We have serious concerns about these far reaching proposals which have been introduced without consultation and have wide reaching consequences. The public will find it difficult to have confidence that these coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.-only inquests, with key evidence being suppressed, can investigate contentious deaths involving state agents independently.”

Notes to editors:

1. The Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 received its first reading in the House of Commons on 24 January 2008.

2. The proposals contained in Clauses 64-67 of the Bill regarding inquests arose from legal challenges bought on behalf of the family of Azelle Rodney over admissibility of intelligence evidence.

INQUEST OPENS INTO DEATH OF 19 YEAR OLD WOMAN IN PRISON

10.00am Monday 14 January 2008
Sitting before HM CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. for West Yorkshire (Eastern District), David Hinchliff
Wakefield CoronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure.’s Court, 71 Northgate, Wakefield WF1 3BS

The inquest into the death of 19 year old Petra Blanksby opens on 14 January 2008 and is expected to last for two weeks. Petra died on 24 November 2003, following an incident at HMP New Hall on 19 November when she was found in her cell having tied a ligature around her neck.

At the time of her death Petra was on remand having been charged with the offence of arson with intent to endanger life. The offence with which Petra was charged took place at her own home and it is believed that the fire was an act of self-harm and the only life endangered was her own.

Petra had an alarmingly long history of serious attempts at self-harm and had been under the care of the mental health services for many years. She had previously been diagnosed with a personality disorder. Throughout her time in HMP New Hall, Petra was subject to an open F2052SH (identified as being at risk of suicide and self harm). During the 130 days Petra spent in HMP New Hall she was involved in at least 90 incidents of serious self harm, some resulting in hospital admission.

Petra, like many of the women at New Hall, had a long history of self harm and mental health difficulties. In her introductory remark to her 2003 inspection report on New Hall prison, Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said ‘New Hall is holding women and girls who should not be there’ and ‘there is an urgent need to provide alternative therapeutic environments where appropriate treatment and support can be offered’.

Deborah Coles, Co-director of INQUEST, said:

“This inquest must explore the key question as to why a woman with such severe mental health problems and at such risk of suicide was sent to prison in the first place. Delay in this inquest taking place has caused great distress to the family as well as frustrating the opportunity to learn lessons.”

Peter Blanksby, Petra’s father, commented:

“The delay has been really difficult. It’s disgusting that we have had to wait all this time. We need to know why my daughter was sent to prison when she had so many problems and why they couldn’t take care of her when she was there.”

The family is being represented by INQUEST Lawyers Group members Jo Kearsley of Farleys Solicitors, Burnley and barrister Leslie Thomas of Garden Court Chambers.