Wednesday 2 June 2021

Guilty by Association

A much-respected old colleague rang me last night for a chat and I took the opportunity of asking them a question I've put to others of late:- "Is being a probation officer compatible with being a civil servant?"  The answer was a categoric "No!"  So why are we and where's the vigorous campaign to regain our identity and independence? Whilst ever probation remains part of HMPPS and subject to civil service command and control, bureaucracy, secrecy and unaccountability, we are disgracefully part of a system responsible for what Eric Allison recently recounts here in the Guardian:- 

Two deaths in English prisons make me wonder how civilised we are in 2021

Without doubt, the conditions in jails in England and Wales are currently – and by some distance – the worst I’ve ever known them: both in four decades as a career criminal after first entering custody in 1957; and latterly, for 17 years, writing about the prison system that held me for about 16 years, on and off.

I base that statement on clear evidence. The past 14 months have been by far my busiest since joining this paper as prisons correspondent; inundated by calls, messages, letters about how Covid has had an impact on an already grossly underfunded, chaotic and dangerous system.

Then, earlier this month, I received shocking accounts of two deaths in custody from the charity Inquest, which were heard in evidence before two juries at two coroner’s courts. They have seared themselves indelibly in my mind and made me reassess my belief that I can no longer be shocked by anything coming out of our wretched penal estate.

On 21 May a jury at West London coroner’s court delivered their narrative verdict on the death of Winston Augustine and heard evidence about the last three days of his life. They heard that, on 28 August 2018, he was moved to the segregation unit at HMP Wormwood Scrubs in west London. On 30 August, at 16.47 he was found to have killed himself in his cell. Pathological evidence indicated he had been dead for four to five hours.

Dead for that length of time, in daylight, in a prison cell on a small unit? What was going on?

The jury were told Augustine’s cell door had not been opened since he arrived on the unit and that he had received no food in the time he had been there. Pathological evidence showed his body was in a state of ketoacidosis, indicative of starvation. He was also starved of his medication: a daily slow-release dose of the strong painkiller tramadol, prescribed to relieve his chronic pain, caused by kidney stones. The day before he died a nurse and a doctor were, separately, refused permission to see him. The nurse pushed a single dose of tramadol under his cell door. It’s not known if he took it, but the jury heard he would have been in “severe pain” when he died. The jury found the failure to fulfil his need for food and medication contributed to his death.

What did the officers in that unit say about this man’s treatment? That he was “non-compliant” and therefore too dangerous for them to unlock his door. Segregation units are generally well staffed and sometimes hold people who tend not to comply with rules.

The other prison death inquest concluded on 21 May. The jury at Milton Keynes coroner’s court had deliberated on the death of Mark Culverhouse, who killed himself in another segregation unit, this time at HMP Woodhill on 23 April 2019.

Culverhouse, 29, had a minor criminal record but major mental health issues. The jury heard that, six days before his death, he had climbed some scaffolding and threatened to jump off the third-storey frame. Skilled negotiators talked him down before he was arrested for offences related to the incident.

He was taken into custody by police in Northampton and deemed fit to be detained, despite one of his negotiators wanting him to be assessed under the Mental Health Act. The next day, Culverhouse was taken to court, but before appearing had to be taken to hospital after repeatedly head-butting a wall in the cell area.

While he was in hospital – and repeatedly saying he would kill himself if he went back to prison – the probation service decided to recall him to prison in relation to a previous short sentence for driving while disqualified.

That recall was unlawful because he had served his full time on that sentence, but, astonishingly, the jury heard the probation service did not, then, calculate sentences before recalling prisoners.

On arrival at Woodhill, CCTV footage captured him telling staff he had tried to kill himself and asking to go to hospital. On 19 April, he was moved to the segregation unit, where he repeatedly hit his head hard and said he wanted to die. He was taken to the prison hospital and spent a few days under constant observation.

Four days later, he was taken back to segregation in restraints following a row with another prisoner. Again Culverhouse hit his head hard and expressed his wish to die. Later that day, he was found dead.

In Woodhill, he was subject to self-harm observation, so should have been monitored closely. The day he died, two observation notes simply recorded him lying under a sheet. He was in that position, dead, when finally, staff entered his cell to physically check on him. Administrative staff had been told that he might be due for immediate release, but this information was not passed on to him.

It is said that our prime minister is a great admirer of Winston Churchill, who reportedly said: “The treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.” Staying with history: the senior coroner at the inquest into Culverhouse’s death said he was “outraged” at the circumstances and said his detention was unlawful and “contrary to the Magna Carta of 1215”.

In this, my second career, I have come across many organisations connected to the criminal justice system. Some, in my view, do a better job than others. The charity Inquest would be at the top of that group. Please visit their website and read what these two men meant to their families. And remember: two men, not numbers, died in prison. One where starvation played a part, the other held unlawfully, according to laws established 800 years ago.

A measure of our civilisation, in 2021?

Eric Allison is the Guardian’s prisons correspondent

11 comments:

  1. It's hard to believe that the things described above are allowed to happen, whilst so much effort and focus has been spent recently on whether prisoners should be called residents or not.
    It seems perverse that what you call a prisoner evokes more publicity and outrage then leaving people, starving and mentally ill to die in a locked cell.
    There was an interesting article reported by sky news yesterday,

    https://news-sky-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/ex-female-prisoner-to-become-first-to-publicly-sue-nhs-over-mental-health-care-in-jail-12321653?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16226171295626&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2Fex-female-prisoner-to-become-first-to-publicly-sue-nhs-over-mental-health-care-in-jail-12321653

    Jut a random fact, the use of bread and water as a punishment in prisons was only stopped in 1973.

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A woman who has been in and out of prison for 25 years is trying to become the first to publicly sue the NHS over claims of bad mental health care in jail.

      Farah Damji, 54, has four convictions for 28 offences, including multiple counts of theft, fraud, stalking and breach of a restraining order, which date back to 1995.

      She has spent time in eight UK prisons, following her first six-month sentence at the notorious Rikers Island jail in New York.

      After years of mental ill health, a psychologist diagnosed her with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in 2019.

      Since 2013, the NHS has been responsible for prisoners' health care in England, which it says is "guided by the principle that those who have committed a criminal offence should be able to access equivalent medical care to civil patients".

      Ms Damji is suing Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust over claims she was repeatedly denied mental health care at HMP Bronzefield, HMP Downview and HMP Send between 2014 and 2020. "Women are so reluctant to complain about anything in prison, because they are too frightened of the repercussions," she told Sky News.

      She is currently living in Dublin, having fled her most recent trial for breaching a restraining order in March 2020, which she claims was because she suffered a breakdown.

      According to Ministry of Justice figures, more than 71% of the female prison population have mental health issues.

      Andy Bell, deputy chief executive of Centre for Mental Health, describes "poor wellbeing" as the "norm" in women's prisons.

      "Many women in prison have very complex needs coming from a lifetime of abuse and neglect," he said. "So the NHS is trying to meet an awful lot of need in an environment which is inherently difficult and far from conducive to providing good mental health support."

      Ms Damji says she has consistently sought psychological help in prison but was only able to get a final diagnosis 20 years after her first conviction - through a paid-for court report.

      While serving time at HMP Downview in 2005, she was told she had borderline personality disorder (BPD), which her lawyers now claim was a misdiagnosis.

      Nine years later in 2014, she was back inside and on remand at HMP Bronzefield when she says she told prison staff she felt suicidal.

      "I felt like I wasn't going to get through what was happening to me," she said. "I kept asking and asking for help, but they did nothing. It's a campaign of ignore them and they'll shut up."

      HMP Bronzefield in Surrey is privately run, with health care services provided by CNWL NHS Foundation Trust.

      After Ms Damji complained about her treatment there, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman ruled in 2015 that the trust breached guidelines by refusing her psychotherapy. They had claimed she wasn't entitled to it because she was a remand prisoner - not a sentenced one.

      Delete
    2. Three years later she was transferred to HMP Send in Woking, where she says she asked for mental health care again.

      "I was told I wasn't a priority. They told me 'you're going to have to get help when you're out," she told Sky News.

      She was released the following year but recalled a few months later after criticising her probation accommodation and support workers in a tweet.

      Her solicitors ordered a detailed psychological report, which finally gave a diagnosis of complex PTSD.

      "It made sense - with the trauma of my childhood - but also the retraumatisation of being in prison so many times," she said. "It made me feel angry. Angry that my mental health had meant so little to so many people and agencies.

      "'Why didn't they help me years ago? Why have I spent my life in and out of prison?"

      Ms Damji and her legal team are seeking damages of at least £70,000, with their first High Court date due later this year.

      Caron Heyes, senior associate in medical negligence at the law firm Fieldfisher, is not representing Ms Damji, but told Sky News cases like hers are rarely heard in public and almost always settled out of court.

      "If this case goes on to be argued in a trial and brings out the medical issues into open court, it could be really, really important," she said. "It could establish some case law, so when we're trying to win cases for other people, it gives us precedent to refer back to."

      She said that although the NHS has a statutory duty of mental health care to prisoners, inmates are "at the mercy" of prison GPs and officers to refer them to specialists and take them to appointments.

      "There is a double resourcing issue - of the NHS and the prison service. It doesn't matter what you say should happen, if it's not actually happening on the ground, people will continue to be harmed," she said.

      Ms Damji and her team are still crowdfunding their legal costs, which include another expensive psychological report.

      She says she is trying to get mental health support in Ireland, but still feels "very fragile", is hyper-vigilant and struggles with sleep.

      Currently fighting extradition and in the process of trying to appeal her restraining order at the Supreme Court, she is also unable to return to the UK and see her family.

      But she says the court case is keeping her going.

      "There has to be another way for women who have gone through the trauma and abuse that I have and end up in the criminal justice system," she said.

      "The state is not meant to put you in a position where your mental health deteriorates to the point you can't function.

      "Mental health is a human right - your right to life is your most basic human right.

      "I don't want the same thing to happen to anyone else."

      Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust said in a statement: "While we are sympathetic towards Ms Damji, we don't accept the claims made and we are unable to comment further as legal proceedings are underway."

      Delete
  2. "She was released the following year but recalled a few months later after criticising her probation accommodation and support workers in a tweet."

    This fragment of the story tells you all you need to know about post-TR probation & the priorities that motivate NPS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Covid-inspired SDLT holidays for the wealthy enabling them to save £tens-of-thousands in tax will soon finish: "On 8 July 2020, the Chancellor announced that there would be a temporary stamp duty cut until 1 July 2021. This means that you will only pay SDLT if purchasing a property that costs more than £500,000" ...

    ... but the delayed evictions for struggling tenants in the rental sector came to an end yesterday AND they've introduced new rules allowing fasttrack eviction procedures for those who will either (1) struggle most to pay or (2) are deemed to be 'anti-social':

    "Eviction and being asked to leave - The eviction ban ends on 1 June... Notices get shorter from 1 June

    Most tenants will still be entitled to at least 4 months' notice before court action can start.

    A section 21 must give at least 4 months' notice if it's received on or after 1 June 2021.

    Most other eviction notices must also give at least 4 months' notice but there are some situations where your landlord can give a much shorter notice. For example, high rent arrears or antisocial behaviour."


    This government's social 'cleansing' programme is now in full swing - austerity, punitive benefits system, pro-landlord rental arrangements, make the scum homeless, force them to the very edge, lock them up, let them die there.

    Meanwhile...

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/thousands-of-asylum-seekers-go-hungry-after-cash-card-problems

    "facilities management company Sodexo had the contract to provide £39.63 a week to asylum seekers via these cards. But on 21 May, Prepaid Financial Services took over."

    Starve them out. Kill them all. While the chumocracy gets fatter & fatter feeding off the public purse.

    As Eric says, "A measure of our civilisation, in 2021?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @09.43 I wouldn't say that the SDLT holiday is benefitting the wealthy. The wealthy still have to pay it. The threshold normally starts at £125,000 which is happens to be half the value of the average UK house so hardly wealthy.

      As for evictions, whilst I'm sure there are some dodgy landlords I know of countless friends and family who have rented houses out to nightmare tenants who don't pay their rent and completely trash the place. I understand evicting people like that was already hard and time consuming enough. There has to be a means of evicting such people from your property.

      Delete
  4. "She was released the following year but recalled a few months later after criticising her probation accommodation and support workers in a tweet." Yes Anon at 8.47 That leapt out of the page at me. I am not sure how much longer I can keep drawing the paycheck. I was so proud of and inspired by the Probation Service I joined last century. I am counting down to retirement and hanging on in for the wages and pension but I am find myself embarrassed to say that I am a Probation Officer these days. Ashamed. Its not good for mental health. I have flagged this up before, but it is traumatic: it has been identified as "moral injury" which is at the root of the burnout I and other old moaners are experiencing. My best bud colleague is about to retire early in a couple of months time, for this exact reason, as are other older experienced colleagues, who have managed their financial planning better than me. I am coming to the conclusion I will have to get out early, and subsist on ships biscuit, rather than peg out in harness. I can't find answers to two questions: 1. What to do about the damage to our institution and profession 2. How to do any of the precious work I want to do, which no longer seems to be what my paymaster requires.

    Pearly Gates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you could find out what method our soul-less Health Minister uses to dump all sense of shame before he starts every new day. Its as if nothing bad has ever happened as he dismisses criticism with such casual aplomb. His arrogant, deluded performance at Oxford today was painful & embarrassing. Summary: i've never done nuffink wrong and don't you forget it!

      Delete
    2. Pearly gates I'm sure there was much more to it than simply posting a critical tweet. She would hardly be the first recalled service user to downplay the reasons for her recall.

      Delete
    3. Coming to this late as I've only just seen this thread. But yes 19:10, I too was struck by the readiness of posters here to accept - without question - the account given by this woman and her legal reps. Not saying there might not be a kernel of truth hut seems unlikely to be anything like the full story. Perhaps this is at least part of the reason why the profession is so often under scrutiny.

      Delete
    4. Everything has an angle; everyone can be criticised for taking 'a view'. Perspective & context is everything. Who will know the truth of that recall? Probably no-one. The basis for any recall, in my experience, is down to whether the 'decision-maker' wants the recall to happen.

      I've had recall requests refused, only to see more serious events unfold & the subsequent investigation find that my original request went 'missing' - "there's no evidence of such a request"; and had other recalls imposed upon cases in circumstances where I was trying not to recall for, in my view, sound professional reasons. "Over-ruled".

      So, I can understand how/why someone might be left with the impression that a simple text/tweet was the basis for their recall; or, in fact, that that was enough to inspire a wounded decision-maker into making that call.

      "Perhaps this is at least part of the reason why the profession is so often under scrutiny."

      Profession? Its long gone. Scrutiny? What scrutiny?

      MoJ/HMPPS/NPS have gotten away with murder, both metaphorically & literally; they have thrown £billions of public money at their chums. The only scrutiny seems to be when frontline staff are crucified for management's failure to manage.

      Delete