Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2019
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2019-0047, written 13 Feb 2019. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 13 Feb 2019 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2019-0047 |
| Deceased | Branko Zdravkovic |
| Coroner | Stephen Nicholls |
| Coroner area | Dorset |
| Category | State Custody related deaths |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text recovered by OCR from a scanned PDF. OCR is imperfect: check anything you rely on against the source PDF. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 1. The Minister of State for the Home Office Caroline Nokes MP 1 | CORONER lam Stephen Nicholls, assistant coroner, for the coroner area of Dorset. 2 | CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS | 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 13/04/17 | commenced an investigation into the death of Branko Zdravkovic aged 43. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 27/11/18. The conclusion of the inquest was Suicide, medical cause of death ligature suspension. 4 | CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Branko Zdravkovic was born in Slovenia. He lived in the UK since at least 2008. The Immigration Authorities had cause to detain him and seek his removal from the UK. He was taken to the Immigration Removal Centre, The Verne in Dorset arriving there on 21/03/17. Whilst at The Verne he was placed in the Segregation Unit on two separate occasions as a result of his behaviour under the influence of Spice. He was placed on an Assessment Care in Detention Treatment (ACDT) on two occasions. He self- harmed and was threatening suicide, and was he was later reassessed his risk had reduced and he returned to his unit. He was under regular observations by the staff. He was found suspended by a ligature in a toilet cubicle despite CPR and the attendance of both Healthcare and an ambulance he was pronounced dead at 00.09 on the 09/04/17. 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 could 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 Inquest heard evidence from a Doctor and Psychiatrist and Healthcare staff working at the IRC that they had received training and were told not to make a report under Rule 35(2) of the Detention Centre Rules (SI 2001/238) but instead to use the ACDT procedures to monitor suicidal tendencies. There was also evidence from several witnesses that there was no formal procedure for informing the Home Office when a detainee was placed on ACDT. In the case of a suicidal detainee, the ACDT procedure is necessary and desirabie, but it cannot replace the statutory duty to make a report under Rule 35. Rule 35 imposes a requirement to speedily review whether someone should be released because of concerns recorded by the medical practitioner. Without that information being provided the state cannot carry out its obligations under Article 2 ECHR. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe you have the power to take such action. YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 12" April 2019. |, 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 2. Ihave sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons The Interested persons as follows: .1. Representatives of Ministry of Justice Home Office Dorset University Foundation Healthcare Trust Care UK Exeter Drugs Project AABWN ! 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 5 fy Assistant Coroner Dated: 13 February 2019 ©’ ONehy Lh. Stephen Nicholls
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.
Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP
Minister of State for Immigration
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
www.gov.uk/home-office
11 April 2018
Mr S J Nicholls
H.M. Assistant Coroner
The Coroner’s Office for the District of Dorset
Town Hall
Bournemouth
BH2 6DY
Dear Mr Nicholls,
BRANKO ZDRAVKOVIC – REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
Thank you for your Regulation 28 report, dated 13 February 2019, following the inquest into
the death of Mr Branko Zdravkovic at The Verne Immigration Removal Centre (IRC).
Any death in detention is a tragic event, and I am very grateful to you for your report and for
the opportunity to review and, where possible, strengthen our processes.
You have identified the following matters of concern, which you suggest have the potential
to lead to future deaths, if left unaddressed:
• Training provided to doctors and healthcare staff directs doctors to use Assessment Care
in Detention Teamwork (ACDT) procedures to monitor detainees with suicidal tendencies
rather than Rule 35(2) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, which triggers a prompt
consideration by the Home Office of a detainee’s continuing suitability to remain in
detention (Concern 1).
• There is no formal procedure for notifying the Home Office of detainees at risk of suicide
or self harm when placed on ACDT monitoring procedures (Concern 2).
It may be helpful if I highlight our existing processes as well as set out the actions we have
taken or intend to take to guard against future deaths.
The Home Office’s suppliers which operate IRCs on our behalf are required to operate within
a strictly defined framework of legislation and guidance. This requirement is stipulated in our
individual contracts and, with HMPPS, in our service level agreement. The inquest’s findings
demonstrate that the Home Office must continue to ensure that these systems are used
appropriately and that they effectively support those at risk.
The Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody has been asked by the Home Office
to review and report on issues pertaining to deaths and incidents of serious self-harm in
immigration detention. This request has been made in support of three recommendations
relating to deaths in detention made by Stephen Shaw in his second review of immigration
detention, and will provide further insight into the availability and usefulness of the existing
data on deaths in detention.
To increase transparency on the reporting of deaths, the Home Office began publishing data
on deaths in immigration removal centres in November 2018. This included data on the
number of deaths in immigration detention in 2017 but did not include those who died while
being detained solely under immigration powers in HM prisons, or after leaving detention.
The Home Office is making provisions to better identify and flag individuals in IRCs and
foreign national offenders in prisons who are subject to ACDT/ ACCT1 monitoring, and those
about whom a Rule 35 report has been submitted. This will ensure an early review of
suitability for detention and the assessment of adult at risk factors, and will improve
information sharing.
Concern 1 – Rule 35(2) reporting
ACDT monitoring procedures deliver a tailored support package to monitor individuals
according to their assessed risk of self harm and suicide in detention. Scheduled and ad-
hoc contact/interventions with the individual take place throughout each day to ensure
contact is maintained, that welfare, mood and behaviour is kept under review, and that the
necessary support is offered and increased/decreased as required.
Notwithstanding this, ACDT monitoring is not a substitute or alternative reporting or
monitoring mechanism for those individuals of whom doctors have made a clinical
assessment and have concerns in respect of their risk of suicide. Where these concerns
are present, doctors are required to make a report under Rule 35(2).
ACDT monitoring and reporting under Rule 35(2) are reciprocal processes. The Home
Office is committed to supporting medical practitioners in the submission of Rule 35(2)
reports and ensuring that they are kept appraised of ACDT monitoring.
Home Office training which touches on Rule 35 reporting in the context of the Adults at Risk
policy does not advocate the substitution of Rule 35(2) reporting for the ACDT identification
and monitoring procedures. It would appear that there may have been some local
misunderstanding on this point at The Verne IRC during the period under examination.
There is however no ambiguity that the statutory provision in Rule 35 of the Detention Centre
Rules 2001 requires IRC doctors to report certain matters to the manager of the centre and
to officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. The Detention Centre Rules are
unambiguous that only an IRC doctor (‘medical practitioner’) may make a Rule 35 report.
The decision to do so in any particular case is solely a matter for the clinical judgment of the
IRC doctor.
The Home Office keeps the effectiveness of its procedures under review. As part of this
continuous improvement the Home Office conducted an internal review to analyse the use
1 Assessment Care in Custody Teamwork (ACCT); the self harm and suicide prevention monitoring system used by Her
Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Services in prisons.
of Rule 35(2). Given the low levels of Rule 35(2) reports received, the analysis aimed to
establish the effectiveness of the provisions of Rule 35(2) in identifying, safeguarding and
managing those at risk of suicide and to inform wider work being undertaken to review and
update the Detention Centre Rules.
The initial review covered the period 1 November 2017 to 1 November 2018, in which only
six Rule 35 (2) reports were raised. This naturally limits the weight of the indicative
outcomes. The review recognised that while ACDT plans are a useful tool in managing
suicide risk and safeguarding individuals in detention, there is limited scope to raise
concerns to the Home Office regarding continued detention and provide medical opinion of
suicide risk without the Rule 35 (2) reporting mechanism.
The findings of the initial review have been used to inform our separate work to finalise new
Removal Centre Rules to replace the current Detention Centre Rules. We are aiming to
introduce the new Rules, which will include updates to the reporting system in Rule 35, by
July 2019.
NHS England commission health services in prisons and other places of detention including
IRCs. This is undertaken through six NHS England Health and Justice Teams. Healthcare
in IRCs in Scotland is commissioned by the supplier running those centres. The Home
Office’s Director of Detention and Escorting Services will write to NHS England (as the
commissioning body for IRC healthcare services in England) and to the healthcare providers
at Dungavel IRC by the end of April 2019 to seek assurances that all parties are following
the correct process. The Home Office IRC Assurance Group forum will be consulted to
consider how this can be monitored.
Concern 2 - ACDT Monitoring Procedures
There are clear processes in place to ensure that Home Office officials and case workers
are notified when ACDT monitoring is initiated for an individual in detention. The Home Office
will take steps to ensure that all staff working in IRCs are reminded of the guidance in place,
and of their information sharing responsibilities. This will ensure that information on
detainees at risk of suicide and self-harm who are being managed under ACDT procedures
is shared promptly and appropriately with all relevant parties. The Director of Detention and
Escorting Services will write to all parties in IRCs by the end of April 2019 to bring the
requirements for sharing information on detainees being managed under ACDT procedures
to their attention and to confirm that this requirement is understood and action is being taken.
Separately, we have established Detention Engagement Teams within all IRCs, to provide
an onsite link between the Home Office’s various casework areas and the detained
population. We are confident that this will, in the fullness of time, allow for improved
assessments of vulnerabilities, including where detainees are subject to the ACDT process.
The Home Office has closely followed the work being undertaken by Her Majesty’s Prisons
and Probation Service (HMPPS) to review its Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork
(ACCT) procedures, upon which our ACDT procedures are modelled.
The HMPPS review has identified key elements of the ACCT process where practices need
to be strengthened. These include the identification and assessment of risk, multi-
disciplinary working and information sharing and the provision of person-centred care (with
a focus on outcomes for the individual).
On 13 September 2018, the consultation period for the new HMPPS procedures developed
as a result of this review ended, and a pilot for the new process was agreed. Morton Hall
IRC is currently trialling the new process on behalf of the immigration removal estate.
The Home Office will use the learning from the pilot to improve suicide and self-harm
prevention guidance and procedures and to clarify the information sharing responsibilities in
relation to those detainees assessed as being at risk of self harm and/or suicide.
I would like to thank you for raising these important issues and hope that this response
addresses your concerns. I am copying my reply to Rory Stewart MP, Minister of State for
Prisons at the Ministry of Justice.
Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP
Minister of State for Immigration
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.