Carl Foot

PFD Report Historic (No Identified Response) Ref: 2015-0447
Date of Report 26 October 2015
Coroner ME Hassell
Response Deadline est. 21 December 2015
No published response · Over 2 years old
Sent To
Response Status
Responses 0 of 1
56-Day Deadline 21 Dec 2015
Over 2 years old — no identified published response
About PFD responses

Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.

Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Coroner’s Concerns
Between 1.53pm and 2.51pm on the afternoon of his death, Mr Foot rang his cell bell 13 times.

On occasion, including the last occasion, it was left up to 27 minutes before being answered by a prison officer, rather than within the expected five minutes. Mr Foot was found at 3.18pm by a passing prison officer. He was resuscitated, but died four days later in hospital. If he had been found earlier, he would have had a better chance of survival.

1. The jury found that there was an inadequate response by prison officers to the cell bells, and that this was a contributory factor in Carl Foot’s death.

2. Once a cell bell has been pressed, unless they remember hearing it and the time of hearing it, officers on the landing have no way of knowing when the bell was pressed, in other words, how long the prisoner has been waiting. That makes it more difficult to prioritise appropriately.

3. In terms of learning lessons for the future, which may include learning by individual officers as well as on a systemic basis, there was no exploration immediately after Carl Foot’s death of the cell bell log and all those who heard/answered his bell that afternoon. By the time of inquest, memories had faded.
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 11 December 2014, I commenced an investigation into the death of Carl Robert Foot, aged 33 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 23 October 2015.

The jury made a narrative determination, which I attach.
Circumstances of the Death
Mr Foot was found hanging in his cell at HMP Pentonville.

 That morning, he had been told that he would be moving cells to a different wing. This was simply to accommodate his methadone prescription, but he did not want the move and was angry as a consequence.  He then racially abused a prison officer and was put on a basic regime. His television was taken away.

 He later realised that he had not been taken to court that day as he should have been.

The jury concluded that Mr Foot did not actually intend to take his life.
Copies Sent To
National Offender Management Service
Related Inquiry Recommendations

Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes

Standard form for derogations from guidance
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
No open learning culture
Documentation of technical adviser advice
Scottish Hospitals Inquiry
No open learning culture
Training on normalcy bias
Cranston Inquiry
No open learning culture
London Fire Brigade to establish lessons learned process
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
No open learning culture
Ensure Home Office staff presence and visibility in IRCs
Brook House Inquiry
No open learning culture
Robust debrief systems for multi-agency exercises
Manchester Arena Inquiry
No open learning culture
National systems to record lessons from exercises
Manchester Arena Inquiry
No open learning culture
Obtain comprehensive accounts from commanders
Manchester Arena Inquiry
No open learning culture
Address BTP systemic failings from Volume 1
Manchester Arena Inquiry
No open learning culture
Review international practice on medics with firearms officers
Manchester Arena Inquiry
No open learning culture

Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.