Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2013

Jordan Buckton

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2013-0187, written 14 Aug 2013. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report14 Aug 2013
Reference2013-0187
DeceasedJordan Buckton
CoronerSheriff Payne
Coroner areaDorset
CategoryState Custody related deaths
Organisation namedDorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses publishednone published

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

ANNEX A 

REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

NOTE: This form is to be used after an inquest. 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

1.  Michael Spurr – Chief Executive Officer, NOMS 
2.  Paul Sly – Chief Executive Officer, Dorset Healthcare University NHS 

Foundation Trust 

1 

CORONER 

I am Sheriff Stanhope Payne, senior coroner, for the coroner area of Dorset. 

2 

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS 

I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 
and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

3 

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST 

On 12th January 2012 I commenced an investigation into the death of JORDAN 
ANTHONY BUCKTON, aged 20. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest 
on 1st August 2013. The conclusion of the inquest was that the medical cause of death 
was Ia) Hanging and that he killed himself. 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

At 0640 hours on 28th January 2012 Mr Buckton was found hanging by a ligature from 
the ceiling light fitting in his single cell at HMYOI Portland. 

5 

CORONER’S CONCERNS 

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In 
my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the 
circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. 

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows.  –  

(1) Information Sharing 

     Mr Buckton had previously hung himself in his cell at Exeter Prison on 14th February  
     2011 but was saved by prison staff and hospital treatment.  He had also committed 3    

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 acts of self-harm within that prison. 

At the Inquest none of the wing staff at Portland were aware of his history of such acts 
nor had they read the C-NOMIS Record of the Potential Identified Risks form. 

Evidence was given by medical witnesses that a history of previous self-harm is one of 
the most significant indicators of a future risk of suicide.  This is also recorded in PSO 
2700 and in the Self-harm Guidance issued by NOMS. 

The jury reported that there was a failure to share verbal and written information within 
the prison in a suitable manner that all the staff members were informed so as to be able 
to carry out informed actions. 

(2)  Follow Up After Issue of Anti-Depressant Medication 

On the 6th December 2011 one of the attending GP’s 
to Mr Buckton on the recommendation of Healthcare Assistant Board who stated that 
she had discussed such prescription with the Mental Health Team and felt that Mr 
Buckton was depressed.  
that date to check the effectiveness of the medication.  The jury found there was a 
failure by Healthcare staff to follow up Mr Buckton’s appointment with the GP and a 
failure to complete a PHQ9 Assessment. 

did not see Mr Buckton nor did she see him after 

 prescribed Fluoxetine 

If there had been a follow up appointment with Mr Buckton at the end of January 2012 it 
may be that raised risk of suicide would have been spotted and treated. 

was critical of this failure.  He gave evidence that a 

The expert witness 
follow up appointment is recommended in the Quality and Outcomes Framework 
Guidance to GP’s but is also a requirement of the National Institute of Clinical 
Excellence Guideline 90 which recommends “For people stated on anti-depressants who 
are not considered to be at increased risk of suicide, normally see them after 2 weeks.  
See them regularly thereafter for example at intervals of 2-4 weeks in the first 3 months 
and then at longer intervals if the response is good.  Early cessation of treatment is 
associated with a greater risk of relapse”.  

(3)  The failure to continue the “Emotional Wellbeing” Course in January 2012 

Mr Buckton had 4 sessions with HCA Board on this course which she regarded as 
successful in improving his outlook on life.  However she was injured on the 1st January 
2012 and off work but no other mental health staff were available to continue the course.  
Only 2 full time members of staff were in place to carry out the work of 5 full time mental 
health practitioners with 1 or occasionally 2 locum nurses employed to make up the 
deficiency. 

Whilst the jury did not regard the failure to continue the course as causative or 
contributory to Mr Buckton’s death they clearly felt it was important to record that the 
failure to continue possibly had a detrimental affect upon Mr Buckton’s wellbeing. He 
had been diagnosed with a personality disorder.  Evidence was given that the only 
effective treatment for such a disorder is by talking therapy and management strategies.  
Greater regard should have been given to the cessation of this course and the effect 
upon all prisoners involved. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you and your 
organisation have the power to take such action.  

7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, 
namely by 9th October 2013. I, the coroner, may extend the period. 

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out 
the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. 

8 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested 
Persons Messrs Irwin Mitchell acting for Mr Buckton’s father and Messrs. Weightmans 
acting for Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust. 

I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.  

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary 
form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful 
or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your 
response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. 

9 

14th August 2013                                            Sheriff Stanhope Payne 
                                                                         Senior Coroner for Dorset

Related reports

Other reports by Sheriff Payne

See all →

More reports categorised “State Custody related deaths”

See all →

Track Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.