Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2021

Richard Franks

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2021-0355, written 21 Oct 2021. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report21 Oct 2021
Reference2021-0355
DeceasedRichard Franks
CoronerKevin McLoughlin
Coroner areaWest Yorkshire (Eastern)
CategoryOther related deaths · Suicide (from 2015) · State 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) 

THIS REPORT IS  BEING SENT TO: 

David Ake & Co Solicitors, Falk House, Westgate, Leeds 

1 

CORONER 

I am  Kevin  Mcloughlin, Senior Coroner for the Coroner area of West Yorkshire (East) 

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  17  April  2019  I  commenced  an  investigation  into  the  death  of  Richard  Gordon 
Franks,  aged  39.  This  concluded  on  19 October  2021  when  a jury returned  a  narrative 
conclusion  recording  a finding  of suicide based  upon the  post mortem evidence that  the 
cause of death was

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Mr  Franks  was  remanded  in  custody  on  29  December  2018  and  remained  in  HMP 
Leeds  until  his  death  on  12.  April  2019.  On  11  April  2019 he  appeared  at Leeds  Crown 
Court.  He  was  seen  in  conference  that  morning  by  his  solicitor  and  counsel  at  which 
time  he  was  said  to be  in  a highly agitated  state and  to  indicate he was  likely to commit 
suicide  if sentenced to  two years imprisonment.  On  his return to  prison  at approximately 
17:00  hours  he  reported  erroneously  that  he  had  been  sentenced  to  five  years 
imprisonment when in fact his case had been adjourned for sentencing at a later date. 

Mr  Franks  was  last seen  alive  at  approximately  20:25  hours  when  locked  in  his  single 
occupancy  cell.  At  approximately 06:00  hours  the  following  morning,  12  April  2019  he 
was found dead  in  his cell. 

A post mortem examination attributed  his death to 

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)  Mr  Franks  had  a  known  history  of  self-harming  and  suicide  attempts.  His 
emotional  state  when  seen  at  court  on  11  April  2019  was  triggered  at  least  in 
part  to  his  reaction  to  a  development  in  the  prosecution  brought  against  him 
which  he  had  not foreseen.  His  statement  that  he  was  likely to  commit  suicide 
was  not communicated to  either the security staff at the court or the prison staff. 
In  consequence,  the  prison  staff  had  no  information  concerning  the  events 
which took place at court. 

(2)  Mr  Franks  somehow  perceived  that  he  had  been  sentenced  to  five  years 
imprisonment,  which  was  not the  case.  This  false  impression caused  him  to  be 
in distress prior to being locked  in his cell around  19:00 hours. 

(3)  Had  information  concerning  his  emotions  at  court  been  relayed  to  the  prison 
staff,  this  may  have  triggered  a  decision  to  open  an  ACCT  -
the  process  by 
which  a  Prisoner is subject to  increased  monitorinq and  su ooort.  In  the event  no 

1 

 
 
 checks were made on him for some 10 hours. 

(4)  At  a  previous  hearing on  25.02.17  Mr Franks  had  made a comparable  threat to 
kill  himself as a result of what he perceived to be an adverse development in  the 
case  brought  against  him.  At 
time  his  signed  consent  authorising 
information  to  be  passed  to  the  prison  was  obtained  and  communicated  to  the 
prison. 

that 

(5)  The  benefit  of relaying  helpful  information  to  the  prison  intended  to  protect  Mr 
Franks,  does  not  seem  to  involve  a  breach  of  professional  privilege.  It  would 
have  been  sufficient  to  request  that  the  prison  staff  assess  Mr  Franks  for 
themselves  on  his  return  in  view  of  (unspecified)  developments  at  court  that 
day. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE  TAKEN 

In  my  opinion  action  should  be  taken  to  prevent  future  deaths  and  I  believe  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 Friday 17 December 2021.  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:-

,  Mother of Mr Franks 

1. 
2.  HM  Prison,  Leeds,  FAO: Governor 
3.  Practice Plus Group (formerly Care UK Ltd), FAO: 
4.  Dr 

, Locum GP, HMP Leeds 

I have also sent it to:-

1. 
2.  The Law Society, The Law Society's Hall,  113 Chancery Lane, London 
3.  The General Council Of The Bar,  289-293 High  Holborn, London 

, Park Square Barrister Chambers 

who may find  it useful or of interest. 

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. 
Dated: Thursday 21 st  October 2021 

9 

l  f_ 
\ 

~ -

KEViNM~  UGHLI; 
Senior Coroner 
West Yorkshire (E ) 

2

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 David Ake Co Solicitors (PDF)
DAVID AKE & Co. 

Criminal Defence Solicitors 
&  
Mental Health Law Specialists 
Ground Floor, Falk House, Westgate, Leeds LS1 2RA 

Web Site: www.davidake.co.uk

14 December 2021 

Office of the Senior Coroner 
Coroner’s Office and Court 
71 Northgate 
Wakefield   
WF1 3BS 

Dear Sirs 

Inquest touching the death of Richard FRANKS (deceased) 

We are in receipt of documentation sent to us in October 2021.   We would comment 
as follows in relation to Regulation 28 – Report to Prevent Future Deaths. 

The statement of 
 confirms she attended Leeds Crown Court on  
the morning of 11 April 2019. The case involving Mr Franks was listed as a Floating 
Trial (there was no specific court allocated or hearing time). She was in company with 
,  who  was  representing  Mr  Franks.  During  conference  Mr 
a  Barrister, 
Franks appeared in an agitated state and made a threat to end his life if he received a 
sentence of two years imprisonment. However, Mr Franks managed to calm down 
sufficiently to provide his barrister with instructions that he would plead guilty to the 
Prosecution case.  It was clear at this stage the case would not proceed to trial and 
there was no indication as to when the case was to be called on (floating trials are n ot 
always reached). It was agreed with Counsel that an application to adjourn would be 
made for the reasons below and there was no reason to anticipate that this would not 
happen.  On  that  basis  Miss  O’Connell  did  not wait within the court building and 
counsel agreed to forward his note of the hearing if the case was called on. 

Authorised and Regulated by the SRA 
SRA  No: 00076234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The case was called on in the afternoon and came before His Honour Judge Bayliss 
QC (we anticipate that the Coroner will have requested and been provided with a copy 
of the court transcript). Mr Franks was represented in court by his barrister.  

In light of our concerns and those expressed in the letter (22 March 2019) of 

, Senior MH Nurse, HMP Leeds, the barrister representing Mr Franks asked 
the court for an adjournment of the case to allow for Mr Franks to be assessed by 
Probation and a Psychiatrist. This was granted and Sentence was listed to tak e place 
on 9 May 2019.  Mr Franks was present in court and would have heard the Def ence 
application  to  adjourn.    In the circumstances, it is difficult to see how Mr Franks 
formed the view that he had been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.  We were 
unaware that Mr Franks believed he had been sentenced.  

The previous hearing was in February 2019 (as indicated in our statement).  It was 
after  that  hearing  that  we contacted the prison regarding  Mr Franks threat to self-
harm. We received their reply in March 2019.  The Regulation (page 2) refers to a 
previous hearing on 25 February 2017.  The Regulation which was provided to the 
Press conveys the impression that we took no action as a result of Mr Franks’ threats 
made at court in  February 2019. With respect, this is an unfortunate typographical 
error.  We were surprised to hear that the prison had put Mr Franks on a short-term 
ACCT when they were aware that he had a history of self-harm and were notified of 
our concerns regarding his recent threat to self-harm.   

We anticipate that, on his return to the prison, Mr Franks would have presented in an 
agitated  state  bearing  in  mind  he  believed  erroneously  he  had received a  5-year 
prison  sentence.    We  respectfully  agree  with  the  jury  conclusion  that the prison,  
having a duty of care and being aware of his previous history of self -harm and suicide 
attempt, should have placed Mr Franks on an ACCT for his own safety. 

We  only  learned  that  Mr  Franks  had  taken  his  own  life  when  our  instructed 
psychiatrist contacted the prison to arrange an appointment to assess Mr Franks and 
was informed, he was no longer at HMP Leeds.  

We accept there are lessons to be learned. We have always endeavoured to follow the 
correct protocol when threats  of self-harm are made by clients. However, we will 
ensure that we remind appropriate organisations each time a threat to self-harm 
is repeated.   

Yours faithfully 

PARTNER

Related reports

Other reports by Kevin McLoughlin

See all →

More reports categorised “Other related deaths”

See all →

Track Suicide (from 2015)

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Suicide (from 2015), 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.