Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2024

Frazer Williams

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2024-0294, written 31 May 2024. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report31 May 2024
Reference2024-0294
DeceasedFrazer Williams
CoronerRachael Griffin
Coroner areaDorset
CategoryState Custody related deaths · Suicide (from 2015)
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published4

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: 

1.  The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care  
2.  The Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation  
3. 

, Director General of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service 

(HMPPS) 

4. 
5. 
6. 

, Chief Executive Officer for NHS England 

, Governor at HMP Guys Marsh  

, Chief Executive Officer of Unilink Software Ltd, provider of 

email a Prisoner 

1  CORONER 

I am Rachael Clare Griffin, 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  the  10th  March  2022,  an  investigation  was  commenced  into  the  death  of 
Frazer Charlie Williams, born on the 30th October 1993. 

The investigation concluded at the end of the Inquest, before a jury, on the 17th 
May 2024. 

The medical cause of death was: 

Ia Ligature suspension  

The  conclusion  of  the  Inquest  was  “Frazer  Charlie  Williams  died  by  suicide  in 
circumstances  where  there  was  inadequate  assessment  and  monitoring  of  his 
risks of self-harm and suicide prior to his death”. 

4  CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Frazer  was  found  deceased  on  the  7th  March  2022,  in  his  cell  at  HMP  Guys 
Marsh,  Shaftesbury,  Dorset,  suspended  by  a  ligature 

I have attached to this report the Record of Inquest. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 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.  During the inquest evidence was heard that: 

i.  On the 4th June 2021 Frazer, was placed at HMP Lewes where he 
remained until his release on the 4th October 2021 having served 
a  sentence  of  imprisonment.  On  the  7th  October  2021,  he  was 
remanded  into  custody  and  placed  at  HMP  Winchester.  He  was 
sentenced to a term of imprisonment on the 10th November 2021 
and was due to be released on the 25th March 2022.  

ii.  During  his  placement  at  HMP  Lewes,  Frazer  presented  with  a 
deterioration  in  his  mental  health  and  remained  subject  to  an 
ACCT  due  to  an  incident  of  self  harm,  and  was  also  under  the 
care of the healthcare team until the point of his release on the 
4th October.  

iii. 

Following  his  arrival  at  HMP  Winchester,  which  has  a  residential 
healthcare unit,  referrals were made to  the mental health team. 
Frazer was assessed by a psychiatrist on the 20th December 2021 
who felt that he was suffering with enduring psychotic illness and 
required further review. 

iv.  On  the  14th  January  2022  Frazer  was  transferred  to  HMP  Guys 
Marsh. HMP Guys Marsh does not have a healthcare unit or a 24 
hour  in  prison  healthcare  provision.  The  healthcare  team 
operating hours are 7.30am to 6pm daily. 

v. 

vi. 

An email was sent from the healthcare team at HMP Winchester 
to  the  healthcare  team  at  HMP  Guys  Marsh  with  Frazer’s  name 
and  that  he  was  a  person  of  interest.  No  other  handover  took 
place between the healthcare teams or the prison staff teams. 

Following Frazer’s transfer, the Head of Healthcare at HMP Guys 
Marsh raised an inappropriate transfer investigation as the clinical 
opinion  was  that  he  should  not  have  been  transferred  to  HMP 
Guys  Marsh.  Prior  to  Frazer’s  transfer,  there  had  not  been  a 
discussion  with  the  healthcare  teams  at  HMP  Winchester  and 
Guys  Marsh  by  the  prison  service  to  consider  suitability  of 
Frazer’s  transfer  in  view  of  the  fact  he  was  in  the  process  of 
being  assessed,  and  a  confirmed  diagnosis being  made,  relating 
to his mental health.  

vii. 

The Associate Medical Director for Practice Plus Group (PPG) who 
provided  the  healthcare  at  HMP  Lewes  and  HMP  Guys  Marsh 
when Frazer was at those establishments, confirmed that there is 
no  national  directory  that  explains  what  healthcare  facilities  are 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 viii. 

ix. 

x. 

available at each prison and PPG have created one internally for 
the prisons they provide healthcare at. It was explained that this 
would assist when making decisions around suitability of location 
within the prison estate for prisoners, given their needs. Further 
if  there  was  a  national  directory  across  all  prisons  this  would 
greatly  assist  as  PPG  are  only  1  of  the  10  different  healthcare 
providers across 114 prisons. He gave an example that he would 
not  know  how  many  disability  access  beds  or  cells  there  are  at 
the  prisons  where  PPG  do  not  provide  the  healthcare.  He  also 
explained  that  there  is  no  national  specification  in  relation  to 
healthcare units.  

Frazer  was  a  person  with  complex  needs.  His  mental  health 
deteriorated  at  HMP  Guys  Marsh.  He  would  spend  most  of  the 
time  in  his  cell,  he  generally  did  not  engage  with  staff  or  ACCT 
reviews,  and  there  were  records  that  he  missed  and  secreted 
medication.  He  held  delusionary  beliefs  that  if  his  toilet  was 
flushed or he watched television, his family would come to harm. 
His cell was in an extremely poor state, littered with rubbish, an 
unflushed toilet and a bucket which was used for him to urinate 
and defecate in. This bucket was found to be full in his cell at the 
time of his death.  It was acknowledged  by  the staff  at  the time 
he  was  self  neglecting  and  he  was  referred  to  the  Safety 
Intervention  Meeting  (SIM)  process  on  the  9th  February  2022. 
The  Head  of  Healthcare  gave  evidence  that  there  was  not  an 
adequate  plan  between  the  prison  and  healthcare  teams  to 
manage Frazer’s self neglect. 

There is no national guidance on how to manage self neglect in 
prison. HMPPS are currently finalising a Social Care Learning Brief 
on  Managing  Self  Neglect  which  is  expected  to  be  issued  later 
this year, however there is no NHS guidance on this issue or joint 
guidance  between  HMPPS  and  NHS  as  to  how  to  manage  self 
neglect in a prison setting.  

Frazer’s  mental  health  deteriorated  to  such  an  extent  that 
following  an  assessment  on  the  9th  February  2022,  he  was 
deemed  to  require  transfer  to  hospital  under  Section  47  of  the 
Mental  Health  Act  1983.  The  second  doctor  assessment  was 
carried  out  the  following  day,  10th  February  2022,  and  an 
application  was  sent  to  Ravenswood  House  Hospital,  a  secure 
unit  within  Southern  Health  NHS  Foundation  Trust  on  the  15th 
February 2022. Frazer was visited by the community psychiatrist 
on  the  25th  February  2022  when  it  was  confirmed  he  required 
transfer  to  hospital  for  full  assessment  and  treatment.  The 
warrant was obtained from the Ministry of Justice for the transfer 
on the 1st March 2022. A bed was offered to HMP Guys Marsh by 
the hospital on the 1st March 2022 for admission on the 3rd March 
2022, however, the prison could not facilitate an escort that day. 
The  hospital  could  not  facilitate  safe  admission  on  Friday  4th 
March 2022 or over the weekend, and the transfer was arranged 
for  Monday  7th  March  2022.  Frazer  was  told  on  the  3rd  March 

3 

 
 
 
 
 xi. 

xii. 

xiii. 

xiv. 

2022 he would be transferred to hospital, however the evidence 
indicated  he  was  not  told  when.  At  approximately  03.15am  on 
the  7th  March  2022  Frazer  was  found  deceased  in  his  cell, 
suspended by a ligature. 

The  ligature  was  made  from  a  ripped  bedsheet  attached  to  the 
top corner of the cell door. The bedsheet was the same colour as 
the  door  and  had  not  been  seen  prior  to  his  death,  and  was 
therefore camouflaged. I refer to the attached photograph of the 
cell door which shows the ligature in place. The colour of the cell 
doors  in  each  prison  is  directed  by  the  Governor  of  the  prison 
and  not  by  national  directive,  however  the  same  bedsheets  are 
issued nationally across the prison estate. The similarity in colour 
could be a national issue and apply to other prisons.  

An  ACCT  was  opened  in  relation  to  Frazer  on  the  15th  January 
2022  and  remained  open  until  his  death.  Between  15th  January 
and  7th  March  2022  there  were  11  case  reviews.  The  ACCT 
records  were  incomplete  and  inadequate.  The  last  case  review 
took  place  on  1st  March  2022.  The  next  case  review  was 
scheduled  for  3rd  March  2022,  however  this  did  not  take  place 
and there was no further case review prior to Frazer’s death. The 
evidence  did  not  reveal  why  this  had  not  taken  place.  As  the 
ACCT  is  a  paper  based  system,  a  missed  case  review  is  not 
automatically flagged in any way. 

Since  Frazer’s  death  there  has  been  the  implementation  of  the 
ACCT  assurance  process  nationally  which  requires  the  ACCT 
paperwork to be reviewed on 3 occasions as quality assurance or 
audit.  Firstly,  between  25  and  72  hours  of  the  ACCT  being 
opened, secondly at day 7 of the ACCT being opened and finally 
at the post closure review. If a person is subject to an ACCT for a 
lengthy  period  of  time,  there  is  a  gap  between  day  7  and  the 
post closure review where no quality assurance is required to be 
undertaken. 

Frazer’s key worker at HMP Guys Marsh gave evidence that in an 
ideal world prison officers would sit down with a prisoner for 45 
minutes  once  a  week  to  undertake  key  work  as  per  national 
guidance. He explained that the 2 key work sessions he had with 
Frazer lasted no more than 5 minutes and were conducted on the 
landing  outside  his  cell  whilst  other  people  would  be  walking 
around the wing. This was due to the fact the officer had to run 
the  wing  at  the  same  time  and  he  therefore  explained  the 
keywork  sessions  were  not  effective.  He  confirmed  that  the 
keywork  sessions  he  undertakes  now  with  prisoners  now  would 
probably  be  no  more  than  15  minutes.  He  further  confirmed  he 
was  not  invited  to  any of  Frazer’s  11  ACCT  case  reviews  and  to 
date  he  has  never  been  invited  to  any  ACCT  reviews  for  any 
prisoner at HMP Guys Marsh, even as a prisoner’s keyworker. 

xv. 

There  is  inequity  in  the  system  in  that  if  a  person  is  deemed 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 detainable  under  the  Mental  Health  Act  1983  in the  community, 
they will be admitted to hospital straight away. If there is no bed 
available  in  a  psychiatric  unit  they  will  be  placed  in  an  acute 
hospital where there is monitoring and access to medical care 24 
hours a day. If a person is in need of hospital care and treatment 
under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983, there are delays 
in  the  transfer  to  a  hospital  setting.  When  a  prisoner  suffers  a 
physical  health  problem  they  can  be  transferred  to  hospital  for 
care by ambulance or escort. With a mental health care problem, 
the appropriate paperwork needs to be completed, a hospital bed 
found  and  arrangements  made  for  transfer  before  a  person  is 
admitted to hospital. During this time a prisoner may be placed, 
as Frazer was, in a prison without a healthcare unit and without 
24  hour  healthcare  monitoring  and  care.  The  current  legal 
timeframe  for  this  is  within  28  days.  In  relation  to  Frazer,  his  
transfer  would  have  been  completed  26  days  after  he  was  first 
assessed  Several  witness  said  this  was  one  of  the  quickest 
transfers they had experienced.  

xvi.  When  a  code  blue  or  code  red  is  called  at  HMP  Guys  Marsh, 
evidence  was  given  that  the  control  room  do  not  automatically 
call an ambulance and before doing so, ask questions such as is 
the  patient  conscious  and  breathing.  Annex  A  of  Prison  Service 
Instruction  (PSI)  03/2013  requires  an  ambulance  to  be  called 
automatically as a mandatory contingency response upon a code 
blue  or  red  being  called,  and  the  directs  staff  to  await  updates 
from  the  scene.  This PSI is  not  currently being  followed  at  HMP 
Guys Marsh. 

xvii. 

xviii. 

Frazer  did  not  have  any  contact  with  his  family  whilst  at  HMP 
Guys  Marsh  and  when  his  mother  was  told  of  his  death,  she 
thought  it  was  a  mistake  as  she  thought  he  was  still  at  HMP 
Winchester.  She  had  been  writing  to  Frazer  at  HMP  Winchester 
through the email a prisoner service. There was no evidence her 
correspondence had reached Frazer. Email a prisoner is based on 
the person in the community who wants to contact the prisoner, 
entering  the  prisoner’s  location  in  the  prison  estate,  rather  than 
their  unique  prison  number.  If  the  location  is  wrong  or  the 
prisoner  has  been  moved,  the  prisoner  will  not  receive  the 
contact. 

Frazer  told  prison  staff  during  his  induction  at  HMP  Guys  Marsh 
and the ACCT assessment that he was in contact with his family 
and  he  used  his  parents  for  support.  Familial  contact  can  be  a 
key  protective  factor  in  the  management  of  a  person’s  mental 
health.  In  the  personal  information  section  of  Frazer’s  NOMIS 
records,  he  was  recorded  as  having  no  next  of  kin.  There  is  no 
record the contact details of his next of kin were discussed with 
him.  This  evidences  missed  opportunities  to  involve  Frazer’s 
family in his care and management prior to his death.  

xix. 

Evidence was given that  at  the time  if there  was  no  next  of  kin 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 recorded  for  a  prisoner  at  HMP  Guys  Marsh  a  monthly  report 
would  reveal  this  and  prisoners  would  be  spoken  to  about  this. 
There is no record Frazer was spoken to about this and it did not 
appear from the prison there was a clear process as to how next 
of kin is detailed or checked. 

2.  I have concerns with regard to the following: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

v. 

vi. 

vii. 

viii. 

There is inequity within the system of the treatment of a person 
with mental illness in the prison setting compared to an individual 
in the community, due to the fact that in the community a person 
would  be  placed  in  a  hospital  setting  on  the  day  they  were 
deemed  to  require  hospital  admission,  however  in  prison  there 
are  delays  in  transferring  a  prisoner  in  the  same  situation  to 
hospital. 

There is a lack of NHS guidance, and joint guidance with HMPPS, 
on  the  identification,  management,  and  treatment  of  someone 
with self neglect in the prison setting. 

There is a  lack  of  a  national  directory  detailing  the  facilities  and 
provision  of  healthcare  at  individual  prisons  across  England  and 
Wales,  and  associated  guidance  on  the  transfer  of  individuals 
between prison establishments  when they  are  under the care of 
the healthcare teams and are not placed on medical hold. There 
is a lack of guidance on consultation with prison doctors where a 
prisoner is receiving medical care, whether that be for physical or 
mental  health,  when  there  is  consideration  by  the  prison  to 
transfer the prisoner who is not placed on medical hold. Further 
there  is  a  lack  of  consultation  with  the  healthcare  team  at  the 
proposed  receiving  prison  to  ensure  they  can  provide  the 
appropriate care for the person.  

There is a lack of national guidance for healthcare teams working 
in prisons around the handover of healthcare of a prisoner to the 
receiving prison when they are transferred to another prison. 

There  is  a  lack  of  national  specification  in  respect  of  prison 
healthcare units. 

There  is  lack  of  national  guidance  for  both  senior  management 
and  operational  prison  staff  in  relation  to  the  handover  of  a 
prisoner  in  advance  of  their  transfer,  not  specific  to,  but 
especially those with complex needs, when transferring between 
prisons. 

The  lack  of  ACCT  quality  assurance,  or  audit,  between  day  7  of 
the ACCT and the post closure review. 

There  is  lack  of  automatic  flagging  of  a  missed  ACCT  review  at 
HMP Guys Marsh and this could also be a national problem.  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ix. 

x. 

xi. 

xii. 

xiii. 

xiv. 

Relevant individuals, such as key workers are not being invited to 
attend  ACCT  reviews  at  HMP  Guys  Marsh  in  line  with  ACCT  6 
guidance. 

The keyworker scheme is not being delivered in line with national 
guidance at HMP Guys Marsh.  

The  colour of the cell doors and bedsheets at HMP Guys Marsh, 
and  possibly  at  other  prisons  nationally,  being  very  similar  can 
camouflage ligatures.  

PSI 03/2013 is not being followed at HMP Guys Marsh as there is 
no immediate call to the ambulance service when a code blue or 
red is raised. 

There is a lack of process regarding the recording of a prisoner’s 
next of kin and involvement of them at HMP Guys Marsh.  

The email a prisoner system is dependant on the person wanting 
to contact the  prisoner knowing their location,  so if the  prisoner 
is transferred to another prison  and  the person contacting  them 
is not aware, contact which can be a protective factor particularly 
in a prisoner’s mental health care, will not be facilitated. 

6  ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In  my  opinion  urgent  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, 26th July 2024. 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: 

(1) Leigh Day on behalf of Frazer’s Family 
(2) Government  Legal  Department  on  behalf  of  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and 

HMP Guys Marsh 

(3) Hill  Dickinson  LLP  on  behalf  of  Practice  Plus  Group  and  Oxleas  NHS 

Foundation Trust  

(4) DAC Beachcroft LLP on behalf of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust 
(5) EDP 
(6) CGL (Change Grow Live) 

7 

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

I  have  also  sent  a  copy  of  this  report  to  the  following  persons  for  their 
awareness:  

a)  Prisons and Probation Ombudsmen 
b) 

, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists 

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  Dated 

Signed 

Rachael C Griffin 

31st May 2024                                       

8

Responses

4 responses 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 Dhsc (PDF)
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for  
Patient Safety, Women’s Health and Mental Health. 

39 Victoria Street 
London 
SW1H 0EU 

020 7210 4850 

09 September 2024 

Our Ref: 

Rachael Griffin  
Senior Coroner for Dorset 
Coroner’s Office for the County of Dorset 
BCP Civic Centre 
Bourne Avenue 
Bournemouth 
BH2 6DY 

By Email: 

Dear Ms Griffin, 

Thank you for your Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths dated 31 May 2024, about 
the  death  of  Frazer  Charlie  Williams.  I  am  replying  as  the  recently  appointed  Minister  with 
responsibility for mental health and offender health.      

Firstly, I would like to say how saddened I was to read of the circumstances of Frazer’s death 
and  I  offer  my  sincere  condolences  to  his  family  and  loved  ones.  The  circumstances  your 
report describes are deeply concerning and I am grateful to you for bringing these matters to 
my attention.  

I  understand  the  concerns  raised  in  your  report  over  a  lack  of  equity  regarding  accessing 
treatment  for  individuals  with  severe  mental  illness  in  prison  settings;  a  lack  of  national 
guidance  relating  to  a  range  of  healthcare  issues  in  prison  settings;  operational  issues 
regarding the assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) process and engagement 
with prisoners’ family members.  

I am aware that NHS England has now provided its response to your report, which sets out 
the steps it is taking to address inequity in the system for prisoners accessing treatment and 
responds  to  your  concerns  around  the  transfer  of  mentally  unwell  prisoners  and  the 
provision of healthcare in prison settings. 

I share your concerns about the length of time it can take to transfer some mentally unwell 
prisoners to hospital when needed, and we are taking steps to improve that. As highlighted in 
NHS  England’s  response  to  you,  the  Department  is  working  with  NHS  England,  and  His 
Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to respond to the concerns highlighted in His Majesty’s 
Inspectorate  of  Prisons’  thematic  review  The  Long  Wait,  published  in  February  2024, 
which focuses on delays in the transfer of mentally unwell prisoners. NHS England is leading 
on this response, which I will be reviewing and I will be keeping a close eye on how this work 
progresses.  

In addition to this, the Mental Health Bill will be introduced in this Parliamentary session. The 
Bill sets out vital reforms to support people with severe mental illness in the criminal justice 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 system  with  the  aim  of  speeding  up  access  to  specialist  inpatient  care  and  ensuring  that 
offenders and defendants with severe mental health needs are able to access appropriate and 
timely support in the most appropriate setting.   

The reforms proposed in the Bill will speed up access to specialist inpatient care and treatment 
by introducing a new statutory time limit of 28 days for the transfer of patients from prison and 
other places of detention to hospital. This mirrors the time limit set out in  the NHS England  
good  practice  guide  published  in  2021:  Guidance  for  the  Transfer  and  Remission  of  Adult 
Prisoners and Immigration Removal Centre Detainees under the Mental Health Act 1983.  I 
hope that these reforms will help to reduce the likelihood of the issues outlined in your report 
from being repeated. 

With regard to the other concerns you have raised around a lack of national guidance relating 
to  a  range  of  healthcare  issues  in  prison  settings;  operational  issues  regarding  the  ACCT 
process and engagement with prisoners’ family members, I would expect the other recipients 
of your report to address these in their responses, as they are responsible for matters relating 
to day to day operations within prison settings. I look forward to seeing their responses and 
working with them where appropriate, to avoid a repetition of the horrific events of this case. 

I hope this response is helpful in setting out how we plan to address some of the issues you 
have raised. Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention.  

Yours sincerely,
Response from Hmpps HMP Guys Marsh (PDF)
ae His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
HMP Guys Marsh

HM Prison & Shaftesbury
Probation Service Seana
2ND August 2024

Dear Coroner,

Frazer Williams - ref: 23542028

Please find attached the PFD response reference the death of Frazer Williams.

Yours sincerely,

>

_ Governing Governor

“suoslid UaaMjeq SULJOJSUEL UBYM ‘SPaau Xa]GWOd YIM esou},
Ajeioadsa Ing ‘0} oyI9ads Jou ‘Vajsued 194} Jo BOUeAPe Ul JOUOSIId eB Jo JeAOPULY ay} OJ LONe}aL
ul yes Uosid }euoNeiedo puke JUsWAaZeUELU JOJUAS YOG JO) BDUepINS jeUONeU Jo 49e] S] BAU “IA

|| g]euonen “syn auesueay UOSsiid Jo yadsai Ul UOeoIsI9ads }BUOIJEU JO YOR] B S| BIBL “A
“uosiud

JayOUR 0] pauajsues aie Adyy UBM UOSLd BUIAJa9J AY} 0} JBUOSIId e jo BJeOYWeaY JO JaAopueY

ayeoyneoH ay} punoJe SuOSId U! BUPOM Sled} a1edyWeay JO) souepIN }eUO!eU JO 492] E S| B19 “Al

“uosiad 94) JO) 129 ayedoidde ay) apiaoid ued Aay} aunsua
0] UOSId BuIAIaD9/ pasododd ay}. Je Wes} aIedYI]e9y OY} YIM UOIE}NSUOD Jo 9k} e S} Bay JaYyYNY
“poy jeoIpeww Uo padejd jou S| OYM JBUOSLG ayy JaySUeL] 0} UOSLIC ayy Aq UOIeep!suod Ss! 9194)
UdUM ‘UNesy ]e}UaW JO ]edISAYG 10) aq Jey) JaYJaYM ‘aJed }ed|Paw BUIAJ9I—J S! JaUOSLd e Bay
$10]90P UOSIId YUM UO!]e}NSUOD UO BdUEPING Jo YDE} e SI BBY “*P}OY JedIPawW UO pade}d jou ale pue
SWS] SIEOUTeSY 84} JO B1e9 ay) JepuN oe Ady) UdYM S]UaLUYS|]gelse UOsLd Usamjaq sjenpiAlpul
JO JaJSUB)) AY} UO BoUEPINZ payelsosse pue ‘Saye pue pue|suy Sso9e suUOS|Jd }ENpIAIPUl
aJBOLYE3H ye aieoyneay Jo uolsiaoid pue saroes ayy Bupeyap Aojoaup JeuoNeu e Jo 92) e SI aJaUy *
BUIOS UOSIId OU} U! }9e)BeU Jas YIM OUOaWOS Jo JUaWIeAN pue UaWaseUueW
ZUayM UO BoUAapINS jeuOHeN ‘UONeOIUSP! BY} UO ‘SddWH UM aduepIns yulo! pue ‘BQuepINs SHN Jo 49k) e S| BJ9YL

‘Veydsoy 0} uoNenys ewes 8y) Ul JoUOSLd e BULasJsUe Ul SAejap ale 3134) UOSLd Ul Je@AaMoOY

“‘UOISSIWUpe jeyIdsoy euinbad 0} pawiaap aiam Ady} Aep ay} uo BuNies jeydsoy e Ul pade;d aq pynom

uosiad e AWUNLWWOD BY} Ul JEU} Je} BY} O} ANP ‘APYUNWLWOD BU} U! JENPIAIDUI! Ue 0} pasediwos BuNIes

éleuonen| uosid ay) uJ Ssaun! }e}UaW YIM UOSJad e 40 ]UAU}eAI} BY} Jo WAaysAs ayy UIYYWM AyNbaU! S| aJ8UL *}

asuodsay Ayigisuodsay :suJa0u09 asuodsa, gz uoneinsey

asuodsa: gz uolepnsay swe Jezel4

“suloguo

Ss} ‘uonoe/uoNNjosal jeuajod
pue anss} 343 Jo uoNelo}dxa
e907 - asuodsay yeuoneu

e JO) poyeyeosa uaaq sey SIUL
“"yZ0Z Jaquiajdas ul paonpoljul
2q nm dois ¢ pueg ay} Jo}

“spaemuo
p7Z0z Jequiaydas wos) aonasduI
TIM SIU] “SMAIABI LOOW puaHe 01
a]qeun ase S1a9IfJO € pueg *S}aAd]
BULYEIS JUALIND 0} anp “aABMoY
SMAIADL LGW S1EUIIe} OM,
“ysnsny

JST. 84} WO paonpo.qu! aq 0} SI
00} Bulyoog mau Y * ABulpio20e
pauue}d pue pajnpays ae
SMAIAAJ BINSUA 0} padnpdoJjul
usag sey jaays SUyaliq

Aylep Mau Y¥ “Jad1YO Aavepsio

3Y) 0} palysiysiy ae smalAal
yeu) saunsua weal Ayes aUL

JUBWLWOD ]eUO!IeEN SSaippe UOSHd

ssaJppe uoSid

Sones) sBeyNowed ued JeyIWIS Alan Bulag ‘Aeuoneu
suosid ayo ye Aiqissod pue ‘yseW SAND dWH 1€ S}@ayspaq PUe SIOOP 199 94} JO INO}OD ay] “1x

ysiew sng dH Je BOUepINS }euO!eU YIM aun UI PalaAnap Bulag JOU S| BWAYos JaxJOMKaY SUL “x

ssaippe UOSHd

3 9 LOOW UM aul] UL YsseW SANQ
dWH 2€ SMAIAa LOO pusaye 0} payJAul Bulaq JOU a1e S1ayJ0M Ady SE YONS ‘S]ENPIAIPUI JUBARTAY “x!

“wajyqold jeuoneu e aq osje

WUBWIWOD }eUOHEN SsaJppe UOSsUd] PyNod siyj puke YsIeW SAND dWH 1€ MAA! LOOY Passi e Jo BUISZE) NeWOINe Jo 49k] SI BIL “WIA

“aoueunssy Joy ayeLepun pue
Ajyuow 891M] WO puany ose
Wea} jeuolsay ay “siseq Apjaam
® UO paje]dwod si SIMUL "YO eu)

Joy a1qisuodsal s! uonOUN) Mayes
BY} UY JaBeueW JeIPOIsND ayL

ssaippe UOSHd

“Malnad
ainsoy9 Isod ayy pue JOOy ay} 40 Z Aep usamjag ‘yIpne Jo ‘aoueinsse AyNenb 19Dy JO 49k] SUL “WA

“OION
OU pey dy pajels ay ased SJazes4

Ul) ‘SINON Uo UOReUOyU! ayy
WWANs Pur YON al Ajruap! Mou
NWO 'S}!218P YON Bulps09ai
Jo ssa90Jd ay] passasppe
Ajuacal aney Wea} Ajayes aul,
"sueap Z 3Se|
ay} UO SEM pue pamoyjo}
SI (ISd 242 JO y xauUy)
sasuodsay Aduasuljuod
Asoyepuew anatjag | SuWwO0
pue payejnouo Ajjuaas
SEM SIN an|q/pad apop

“payeyoe} 8g JOU PIM “aed YeoY
yequaw s,Jouosid e ul Aeynored 10j9e4 aAoejold e aq UD YoIYM 39e\UOD ‘aseme JOU S$} Wau)
Bulj9eJU0 UosJad ay) pue UOSd JayjOUe 0} pavaysue.) SI JQUOSHd aU} J! OS ‘UOeD0) aU) BSUIMOUy
Jauosid ay) 39e]U09 0} BujUeM UOSJad ay? UO JURpUadap SI WaIsAS JoUOSIId e eLWe aU ‘AX

ysuew skng dWH 1 Way)
SSB1JPPe UOSiJd| JO JUAWAJOAUI PUe UP] JO IXAU S,JBUOSLd e JO BUIPJOdaJ BY} SUlpesas Ssadoid jo 99k] e SI BOUL “IIx

pasied S| pai 10 anjg apoo e uaym ad|Mias aoue}nque
ssauppe uosid BUY} 0} 29 aJe!PSLULUI OU SI AJAY Se YSIeEW SAND dWH Je PaMmoy]o4 Bulag JOU Si ET0Z/E0 ISd
Response from NHS England (PDF)
Mrs Rachael Clare Griffin  
HM Senior Coroner 
Dorset Coroners Service 
Civic Centre 
Bourne Avenue 
Bournemouth  
BH2 6DY 

National Medical Director  
NHS England  
Wellington House 
133-155 Waterloo Road  
London 
SE1 8UG 

24 July 2024  

Dear Coroner, 

Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths – Frazer Charlie Williams 
who died on 7 March 2022  

Thank you for your Report to Prevent Future Deaths (hereafter “Report”) dated 31 May 
2024 concerning the death of Frazer Charlie Williams on 7 March 2022. In advance of 
responding to the specific concerns raised in your Report, I would like to express my 
deep condolences to Frazer’s family and loved ones. NHS England are keen to assure 
the family and the Coroner that the concerns raised about  Frazer’s care have been 
listened to and reflected upon.   

I  have  responded  to  your  matters  of  concern  which  are  relevant  to  NHS  England 
below.  

1. There is inequity within the system of the treatment of a person with mental 
illness  in  the  prison  setting,  compared  to  an  individual  in  the  community, 
since in the community a person would be placed in a hospital setting on the 
day they were deemed to require hospital admission. In prison however, there 
are delays in transferring a prisoner in the same situation to hospital. 

I would like to reassure you that NHS England consistently strives for equality in mental 
health  healthcare  provision.  To  address  the  specific  concerns  about  Frazer’s  care, 
there are several cross party workstreams underway. 

In February 2024, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) published “The Long 
Wait”, a thematic review of delays in the transfer of mentally unwell prisoners, which 
identified  several  concerns.  The  concerns  include  areas  such  as  length  of  time  to 
transfer,  hospital  availability,  information  sharing  and  early  identification  of  needs. 
NHS England’s Health and Justice, Specialist Commissioning and Adult Mental Health 
Teams, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and His Majesty’s Prison 
and  Probation  Service  (HMPPS)  are  in  the  process  of  directly  responding  to  the 
concerns  highlighted  in  this  review.  This  response  is  due  to  be  with  our  National 
Director  of  Health  &  Justice,  Armed  Forces  and  Sexual  Assault  Referral  Centres 
imminently, for approval to meet the timeframe for submission. 

A  new  clinical  template  for  improving  data  collection  and  monitoring  has  been 
developed and is now in place, to record the referral, assessment and transfer process 
for prisoners and detainees, under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 

                                                                                                                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 1983. This template is for use within the health and justice information system (HJIS) 
in  prisons  (currently  SystmOne).  NHS  England  is  working  to  use  the  information 
generated to gather data on the timeliness of transfers, whilst also proactively working 
with Health and Justice commissioners to improve data quality and completeness of 
existing manual collection.  

A review of processes, communication and information sharing around mental health 
concerns is also underway and will be completed by February 2025. This review is 
calling  “Health and  Justice  Mental  Health  Pathway”.  Work on  the development  of a 
Mental Health Pathway aims to:  

•  Ensure  from  a  patient  perspective  the  pathway  is  robust,  seamless, 

individualised, and responsive to a person’s needs and requirements. 

•  Provide  people  with  mental  health  concerns  consistent,  high-quality 

advice/treatment/support across all Health and Justice services. 

•  Reduce reoffending and improve health outcomes by addressing the underlying 

mental health and associated vulnerability issues.  

To achieve this, NHS England will: 

•  Clarify  the  current  mental  health  provision  within  each  Health  and  Justice 

• 
• 

service. 
Identify and build on best practice. 
Identify  and  understand  dependencies  between  Health  and  Justice  services 
and other parts of the pathway. 

•  Understand  where  we  are  now  and  develop  a  proposed  pathway  for 

engagement.  

•  Develop  a  pathway  programme  plan  based  on  identified  gaps  and  key 

priorities.   

To  support  this  work,  a  series  of  online  workshops  are  planned  throughout  August 
2024  for  subject  matter  experts  to  come  together  and  share  knowledge  and 
experience  in  areas  such  as  governance,  transfer  and  remission,  and  information 
sharing.  

2. There  is  a  lack  of  NHS  guidance,  and  joint  guidance  with  HMPPS,  on  the 
identification,  management,  and  treatment  of  someone  with  self-neglect  in 
the prison setting. 

It is clear in this case that information sharing, and general communication, could have 
been stronger. NHS England is committed to improving information sharing between 
agencies  and  promoting  better  joint  working,  to  improve  outcomes  for  people  with 
mental health needs, and the Prison Mental Health Service Specification (March 2018) 
covers  these  elements:  service-specification-mental-health-for-prisons-in-england-
2.pdf. 

This service specification links directly the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ (RCPsych) 
guidance  on  Standards  for Prison  Mental Health  Services  (September 2023)  which 
provides clear guidance for mental healthcare provision. The regional  NHS England 
Health and Justice commissioners include these specifications as a link into the Prison 
Mental  Health  Service  Specification.  The  commissioners  monitor  the  providers’ 

 
 
 
 
 progress  against  the agreed  specification.  Regular  NHS  England national meetings 
are held with the regional commissioners, and this will be raised this at the national 
meetings. 

3. There are two parts to this next concern, which I have separated as follows: 

i.  There is a lack of a national directory detailing the facilities and provision 
of  healthcare  at  individual  prisons  across  England  and  Wales,  and 
associated  guidance  on  the  transfer  of  individuals  between  prison 
establishments when they are under the care of the healthcare teams and 
are not placed on medical hold.  

NHS England suggests that this would be for HMPPS to respond to, however we will 
continue to work with HMPPS on any proposed actions requiring healthcare input. 

ii. 

There is a lack of guidance on consultation with prison doctors where a 
prisoner is receiving medical care, whether that be for physical or mental 
health, when there is consideration by the prison to transfer the prisoner 
who is not placed on medical hold. Further there is a lack of consultation 
with the healthcare team at the proposed receiving prison to ensure they 
can provide the appropriate care for the person. 

It  is  clear  that  communication  between  clinicians  in  Frazer’s  case  fell  below  the 
expected standard. It is also a concern whether a receiving prison can manage and 
support significant mental health concerns such as those experienced by Frazer.   

As explained above, the pathway work currently underway will review issues around 
consistency of clinical care, information sharing and communication, not only within 
NHS  England but  across  the  dependent  and  aligned  services.  The  output  from this 
work should address the concerns highlighted.  

4. There is a lack of national guidance for healthcare teams working in prisons  
around the handover of healthcare of a prisoner to the receiving prison when 
they are transferred to another prison. 

NHS  England  is  continually  striving  to  improve  communication,  information  sharing 
and handover of information between the custodial services. In addition to the Mental 
Health  Pathway  work,  each  Health  &  Justice  regional  commissioner  manages  the 
contract and monitors the services against the agreed specification. 

There is a National Partnership Agreement (NPA) in place which sets the agreement 
between DHSC, HMPPS, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), NHS England and the United 
Kingdom  Health  Security  Agency  (UKHSA),  which  supports  and  strengthens 
partnership working across agencies.  

The NPA sets out the basis of shared understanding of, and commitment to, the way 
in which partners will work together across prison and people - National Partnership 
Agreement for Health and Social Care (publishing.service.gov.uk). This is a regional 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 commissioner responsibility, to ensure from a health perspective that the providers are 
fully engaged with the partnership agreement.  

HMPPS  can  provide  a  response  regarding  the  NPA  from  their  perspective  to  also 
commit to this.  

5. There is a lack of national specification in respect of prison healthcare units. 

The  Prison  Mental  Health  Service  Specification  (March  2018),  referred  to  above, 
provides  clear  guidance  for  mental  healthcare  provision  within  prisons.  This  will  be 
updated  and  reviewed  by  quarter  one  of  2025.  In  the  meantime,  following  the  sad 
death of Frazer, NHS England will work with our commissioning teams to ensure the 
specifications  are  being  followed  and  measures  are  put  in  place  to  monitor  their 
progress. 

In addition to the concerns highlighted above, I note that there are also concerns at 
paragraphs 7 (vii), 8 (viii) and 9 (ix) of your Report around: 

7.  The  lack  of  Assessment  Care  in  Custody  and  Teamwork  (ACCT)  quality 
assurance or audit between day 7 of the ACCT and post closure review. 
8.  The lack of automatic flagging of a missed ACCT review at HMP Guys Marsh, 

which may be a national issue.  

9.  Relevant individuals such as key workers not being invited to attend ACCT 

reviews at HMP Guys Marsh, in line with ACCT 6 guidance.  

The  points  above  relating  to  the  ACCT  process  (annex-to-psi-64-2011-acct_.docx 
(live.com)  will  be  shared  with  NHS  England’s  regional  Health  and  Justice  
commissioners, with a request that they monitor this in contract review meetings and 
feedback via the Health and Justice Oversight Delivery Group (HJDOG).  

The HJDOG is the senior leadership forum, which holds responsibility for the oversight 
of delivery and continuous improvement in Health and Justice commissioned services, 
through  both  the  national  and  regional  teams,  with  a  focus  on  improving  health 
outcomes and reducing variation across England.  

Overall,  HMPPS  is  responsible  for,  and  oversees,  the  ACCT  process,  including 
delivery  of  effective  training  that  is  carried  out  at  establishment  level  for  all  staff, 
including  healthcare,  and  I  note  that  HMPPS  is  responding  independently  to  the 
concerns about ACCT in Frazer’s case.  

I  understand  that  in  September  2022,  the  Safer  Custody  Team  provided  refresher 
training  to  healthcare  staff  at  HMP  Guys  Marsh,  to  ensure  they  understand  their 
responsibilities to identify prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm. Further guidance 
supporting  this was  issued  to  ensure  staff awareness  of  the need to notify  relevant 
departments  where  concerns  about  a  prisoner’s  risk  of  self-harm  or  suicide  are 
identified.  Relevant  training  highlighting  the  importance  of  sharing,  recording,  and 
considering  all  relevant  risk  information  has  also  been  provided  to  induction  and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 reception staff who conduct first night interviews. HMP Guys Marsh confirms this will 
continue at regular intervals throughout the year. 

NHS  England  will  continue  to  work  in  partnership  with  HMPPS  nationally  and 
regionally to support the ACCT process.  

Additionally,  HMP  Guys  Marsh  sit  as  a  member  on  the  Dorset  Local  Safeguarding 
Board and are therefore subject to Bournemouth and Poole and Dorset Safeguarding 
Boards’ guidance on self-neglect. NHS England’s South West region also supported 
the  development  of  the  e-learning  training  for  healthcare  staff  on  safeguarding  in 
secure and detained settings: Adult Safeguarding in a Secure and Detained Setting - 
elearning for healthcare (e-lfh.org.uk). 

I  would  also  like  to  provide  further  assurances  on  the  national  NHS  England  work 
taking  place around  the  Reports  to  Prevent Future  Deaths.  All  reports received  are 
discussed  by  the  Regulation  28  Working  Group,  comprising  Regional  Medical 
Directors,  and  other  clinical  and  quality  colleagues  from  across  the  regions.  This 
ensures that key learnings and insights around preventable events are shared across 
the NHS at both a national and regional level and helps us to pay close attention to 
any emerging trends that may require further review and action.   

Thank you for bringing these important patient safety issues to my attention and please 
do not hesitate to contact me should you need any further information.  

Yours sincerely,  

National Medical Director
Response from Unilink (PDF)
Unilink Software Ltd                                                    
Europoint              
5 – 11 Lavington Street 
London SE1 0NZ 

31st July 2024 

Coroner’s Support Officer 
The Coroner’s Office for the County of Dorset 
Civic Centre, Bourne Avenue 
Bournemouth BH2 6DY 

Dear

, 

Re: Frazer Charlie Williams – HMP Guys March.  Your reference 

I am writing to express our profound sadness at the tragic death of Frazer Charlie Williams while in 
custody at HMP Guys March. We also apologize for the delay in our response to your correspondence. 
This was due to our company’s year-end work around the 30th of June, which regrettably impacted 
our ability to reply promptly. 

Following the receipt of your letter, we have conducted a thorough internal investigation regarding 
the email a prisoner service provided to Frazer. Our records indicate that four messages were sent to 
Frazer, one to HMP Lewes and three to HMP Winchester, with the last one being sent on Friday, 14th 
January, at HMP Winchester. It is most likely that this message was printed at HMP Winchester on 
15th January or on Monday, 17th January. 

However, we now understand that Frazer was moved to HMP Guys March on 14th January, and it is 
therefore unlikely that he received this last message. As you may know, Unilink does not have access 
to prison rolls or prisoner movement information for security reasons.  This is expected to be known 
by  the  person  contacting  them.  In  this  case  neither  the  sender  nor  Unilink  was  aware  of  Frazer’s 
transfer and hence were unable to take any action to redirect the message or notify the sender of the 
situation. 

We  fully  recognize  the  importance  of  ensuring  that  such  communications  reach  their  intended 
recipients, particularly in situations like this, and we deeply regret any distress this may have caused. 
To prevent similar occurrences in the future, we will raise this issue with the Ministry of Justice and 
explore whether  there is  a possibility of confidentially  sharing relevant information about prisoner 
movements, which could help to better manage and redirect communications in a timely manner. 

We are committed to doing everything within our power to improve our processes and ensure that 
our services function effectively and compassionately. 

We remain at your disposal should you require any further information or assistance. 

Yours sincerely, 

CEO - Unilink Software Ltd 

Unilink Software Ltd established 1994 

Registered address: 5-11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.  Co Registration: 2924046.   
Web: www.unilink.com  Tel: +44 20 7036 3810  

Protect Unilink

Related reports

Other reports by Rachael Griffin

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.