Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014

Vincent Oliver

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0438, written 9 Oct 2014. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report9 Oct 2014
Reference2014-0438
DeceasedVincent Oliver
CoronerTony Brown
Coroner areaNorth Northumberland
CategoryState Custody related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

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

Tony Brown LLM 
H M Senior Coroner 
North Northumberland 

Teleph 

     17 Church Street 
      Berwick-upon-Tweed 

TD15 1EE 

      Tel :          01289 304318 
 Fax :        01289 303591  

REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS  

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 

Mr Matt Spencer 
Director 
HMP Northumberland 
Acklington 
Morpeth 
Northumberland 

1 

CORONER 

I am Tony Brown, senior coroner, for the coroner area of North Northumberland 

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 4th July 2013 I commenced an investigation into the death of Vincent Oliver, age 50 
years.  The  investigation  concluded  at  the  end  of  the  inquest  on  29th  September  2014. 
The  conclusion  of  the  inquest  was  that  Vincent  Oliver  died  from  natural  causes,  the 
medical cause of death being:- 

1a   Ischaemic Heart Disease 
1b   Coronary Artery Atheroma 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Vincent Oliver was serving a term of imprisonment at HMP Northumberland.  A roll 
check was carried out at 4.00 p.m. on 4th July 2013 and Mr Oliver was recorded as 
present.  At approximately 5.40 p.m., shortly after the cells were unlocked, the lifeless 
body of Vincent Oliver was discovered in his cell by a fellow prisoner.   

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.  –  

The prison officer unlocking Mr Oliver’s cell on 4th July 2013 at approximately 5.40 p.m. 
for the evening meal did not check on his physical well-being by getting a response from 
him, before moving on to the next cell.  This led to Mr Oliver, who had died some time 
earlier  and  was  affected  by  rigor  mortis,  being  found  by  another  prisoner  when  he 
entered Mr Oliver’s cell.   

There  has  been  a  number  of  other  occasions  at  the  prison  when  appropriate  cell 
unlocking  procedures  have  not  been  followed  and  the  Prisons  and  Probation 
Ombudsman has made recommendations about this previously. 

I understand that a Prison Director’s Order has been issued requiring that on roll check 
Prison  Officers  must  obtain  a  response  from  each  prisoner  to  ensure  their  physical 
presence and well-being.  My understanding of the procedures is that there is no current 
requirement  for  the  Officer  completing  the  roll  check  to  record  on  the  roll  check  report 
that he or she has complied with the requirements of the above Order. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you and/or 
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 5th December 2014. 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, 

and the Treasury Solicitor’s Department. 

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 

DATE      09 October 2014                                

TONY BROWN 
HM Senior Coroner for North Northumberland

Responses

1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Noms (PDF)
a Equality, Rights and Decency
National Offender Group

H National Offender Management Service
Management Service 4th Floor, Clive House,

70 Petty France,
London, SW1H 9HD

ri

Mr Tony Brown LLM
HM Senior Coroner
North Northumberland
17 Church Street
Berwick-Upon-Tweed
TD15 1EE

December 2014

Dear Mr Brown,

Regulation 28 Report concerning the inquest into the death of Vincent Oliver
on 4" July 2013 at HMP Birmingham

Thank you for your report addressed to the Director dated 9
October concerning the inquest into the death of Vincent Oliver who died at HMP
Northumberland on 4" July 2013. Your letter has been passed to Equality, Rights
and Decency Group in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), to
respond to as we are responsible for the policy on suicide prevention and self-
harm management and for sharing learning from deaths in custody.

You raised concerns at the inquest about staff receiving responses from prisoners
when they are unlocked.

PSI 75/2011 Residential Services at chapter 2.3 offers the following guidance,

“The appropriate arrangements will depend on the local regime, but there need to be
clearly understood systems in place for staff to assure themselves of the well being
of prisoners during or shortly after unlock. For example, if a prisoner is expected to
leave their cell for an activity shortly after being unlocked, then it will be sufficient for
there to be a check on any prisoner who does not do so. Where prisoners are not
necessarily expected to leave their cell, staff will need to check on their well-being,
for example by obtaining a response during the unlock process.”

In order to address this issue HMPS Northumberland have introduced a system for
recording in writing that wellbeing checks of prisoners have taken place throughout
the day. The wing diaries have been amended to reflect the change and the system
was in place from Sunday 16" November 2014. | attach copies of the relevant
Director's Order and Notice to Prisoners.

Yours sincerely

aral naerson

NOMS Equality, Rights and Decency Group

Related reports

Other reports by Tony Brown

See all →

More reports categorised “State Custody related deaths”

See all →

Track State Custody related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching State Custody related deaths, 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.