Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2016

Roy Hoey

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2016-0360, written 13 Oct 2016. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report13 Oct 2016
Reference2016-0360
DeceasedRoy Hoey
CoronerAndre Rebello
Coroner areaLiverpool and Wirral
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.

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: 

The National Offender Management Service 
Safer Custody 
Equality, Rights and Decency Group 
National Offender Management Service 
4th Floor, 70 Petty France 
London, SW1H 9EX 

1 

CORONER 

I am André J A Rebello, Senior Coroner, for the area of Liverpool and Wirral 

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 September 2014 I commenced an investigation into the death of Roy Patrick 
HOEY, Aged 20. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 4th October 
2016. The conclusion of the inquest was  

Ia Compression of the Neck                                                     
Ib Hanging                                                                     

Roy Patrick Hoey committed suicide 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 
The jury found after seven days of inquest hearing:- 

Roy Patrick Hoey died at 05.22 hours on 04/09/14 at Altcourse, Brookfield Drive, 
Fazackerley, Liverpool in Meeling Brown Wing, cell 14. He died by compression of the 
neck from hanging by using a curtain as a ligature. We are sure that he put himself in 
the position in which he was found with the intention of ending his life. 

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.  –  

During the course of this investigation inquest a considerable amount of time 
was taken up with the detailed questioning of witnesses around the meaning of 
local and national safer custody guidance. The court was taken to Noms PSI 
64/2011 and the apparent discrepancy between chapter 1 and chapter 5 was 
highlighted. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chapter  1  Page  10  -This  related  to  the  entire  document  “Management  of 
prisoners at risk of self harm to self, others and from others (Safer Custody) 
All staff who receive information, including from concerned family members, or 
observe  changes  in  a  prisoner’s  behaviour which  indicates  a  change  in  the  risk 
they pose to themselves, to others and/or from others must communicate their 
concerns  immediately  to  the  Residential,  Daily  or  Night  Operational  Manager, 
and/or  consider  opening  an  ACCT  Plan  and  make  a  record  in  an  appropriate 
source e.g. observation book, NOMIS, Security Information Report, ACCT Plan.  

The court ruled that this general catch-all chapter covers everything covered 
by the policy, self-harm, violence and bullying of others and protection from 
others – so that is why there are alternative solutions. 

Chapter  5  Page  26  -  This  chapter  only  related  to  the  operation  of  the  ACCT 
Process – Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork 
Any  member  of  staff  who  receives  information,  including  that  from  family 
members or external agencies, or observes behaviour which may indicate a risk 
of  suicide/self-harm  must  open  an  ACCT  by  completing  the  Concern  and  Keep 
Safe form. 

HMP Altcourse – safer custody Document 
“All prisoners suspected of being at risk of suicide or self-harm are placed onto 
an ACCT Plan – All Mandatory actions in PSI 64/2011 must be followed.” 

Admissions Policy at HMP Altcourse 
“All prisoners will be assessed for risk of suicide or self-harm during reception 
process. Upon arrival into admissions a prisoner’s documentation, PER or 
other documents received from courts, such as suicide warning forms will be 
checked for risks of suicide or self-harm Prisoners will be asked about this.” 

And then 

“Admission staff must raise an ACCT Plan when a prisoner is identified at risk 
of suicide or self harm” 

I ruled 

1.  I direct you that there is no internal conflict in PSI 64/2011 chapter 1 and 
chapter 5 are referring to different things - And in any event the Altcourse 
policy properly embraces national guidance in full. 

The  mandatory  actions  in  the  policy  are  italicised  and  I  read  again  –  “Any 
member of staff who receives information, including that from family members 
or  external  agencies,  or  observes  behaviour  which  may  indicate  a  risk  of 
suicide/self-harm must open an ACCT by completing the Concern and Keep Safe 
form.” 

2.  This does not mean that every contact from family members or external 

agencies or observed behaviour requires an ACCT to be opened. There needs to 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 be investigation, assessment and evaluation of the issue – which may indicate 
a risk of suicide /self harm – and thereafter it is mandatory to open an ACCT. 

3.  The reason I make this ruling is not only that it common sense and the plain 
English meaning of the paragraph - but also we have heard expert and 
experienced evidence from a MOJ/ NOMs trained ACCT trainer that that is the 
cascaded training down from NOMS – to each Prison and that is what is trained 
to ACCT assessors and to all those who have basic ACCT training. So in each 
scenario that has been raised was there assessment and evaluation of the 
presenting issue which may indicate a risk of suicide and self-harm?  

I am reporting this matter to NOMS as there was confusion for the witnesses 
when different parts of the guidance were put to them and this may lead to 
confusion as to what is required to apply the best practices of safer custody 
within prisons. It may be that clarification of the updated policy will improve 
safer custody, notwithstanding what the court was advised about the national 
training. Clarification would have certainly reduced the length of time for the 
inquest hearing considerably. 

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 30th December 2016. 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. 

COPIES and PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested 
Persons HMP Altcourse and Mr Hoey’s Family. 
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. 

8 

9 

André Rebello 
Senior Coroner for the 
City of Liverpool 

Dated: 13th October 2016 

3

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)
Ministry of Safer Custody and Public Protection

USTICE Nation
National Offender Management Service

4th Floor, 70 Petty France,
National Offender London SW1H 9EX
Management Service t: 020 3193 6582

Mr A Rebello OBE

Senior Coroner

H M Coroner's Court
Gerard Majella Courthouse
Boundary Street

Liverpool

L5 2QD

17 January 2017

Dear Mr Rebello

Thank you for your Regulation 28 report dated 13 October 2016 addressed to the National
Offender Management Service concerning the i isi inquest into the death pf Roy Hoey on 4
September 2014 at HMP Altcourse.

You have raised concerns about the confusion for the witnesses when different parts of the
ACCT guidance were put to them and that this may lead to confusion as to}what is required
to apply the best practices of safer custody within prisons. Chapter 1 details the
circumstances in which you may open an ACCT such as if a member ff staff receives
information or observes behaviour that indicates a change in risk. The policy states that the
concerns should be reported and recorded in the appropriate documents. Chapter 5 states
that the member of staff must open an ACCT if there are these concerns.

NOMS acknowledges the potential for confusion regarding the opening of an ACCT, and this
will be resolved in the revision of PSI 64/2011 due for completion by the endjof April 2017.

It is not the intention of the policy to require staff to open an ACCT automatically in every
circumstance where a risk may be indicated but it is expected that they communicate their
concerns immediately to the Residential, Daily or Night Operational Manager, consider
opening an ACCT plan and make a record of their decision in an appropriate source, for
example the observation book and PNOMIS.

| have passed on your concerns tothe policy lead responsible for the revigion of the policy,
and they assure me that the revised version will be much easier for the |staff to read and
understand.

| hope that you find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely

Related reports

Other reports by Andre Rebello

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.