Mark Culverhouse
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2021-0189
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 19 Jul 2021
Sent To
Response Status
Responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
19 Jul 2021
All responses received
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
The MATTERS OF CONCERNS are as follows: During the course of the inquest into the death of Mark Culverhouse it became apparent, and indeed was accepted that his detention at HMP Woodhill from the 18th of April 2019 until the 23rd of April 2019 was unlawful. He had been recalled under the terms of his license having been released from Peterborough prison on the 12th of April 2019. The calculation of his release date was not conducted by the offender management unit at the prison until the 23rd of April 2019, after the extended Easter bank holiday. I was told that there was no process in place whereby a prisoner’s release is calculated until such time as they come back into custody. The prison and probation ombudsman brought this matter to the attention of the prison service recommending that the release date calculation should take place within one working day of the prisoner arriving in prison. I cannot see how that can be acceptable particularly where, in Mr Culverhouse’s case, it would have made no difference because of the bank holiday. I consider that there was a clear link between his unlawful detention and his eventual death on the 24th of April 2019 and, in order to prevent similar deaths in the future, I believe an urgent review is required and the system changed to ensure that the calculation of the release date is made prior to the decision to recall being taken. This will avoid the possibility of anyone being unlawfully imprisoned in this country under similar circumstances.
Responses
Response received
View full response
Dear Mr Osborne, Thank you for your Regulation 28 report of 2 June 2021 following the inquest into the death of Mark Culverhouse at HMP Woodhill on 24 April 2019. I know that you will share a copy of this response with the family of Mr Culverhouse and I would like to express my condolences for their loss. Every death in custody is a tragedy and the safety of those in our care is my absolute priority. Following evidence heard at the inquest you have raised a concern in relation to how offenders’ sentences are calculated and recommended that an urgent review take place to change the system to ensure that calculation of release dates is made prior to a decision to recall. After careful consideration, we must advise that we do not consider it possible to comply with the recommendation for the following reasons:
1. The calculation of release dates is complex and must only be undertaken by staff who are trained in the subject. Those staff are located in the Prison Service and only operate during normal office hours between Monday and Friday. Calculations carried out by untrained staff would present the risk of incorrect information being communicated to the prisoner and possibility of a release in error, hence potentially putting the public at risk.
2. Until the point the licence revocation document is issued, it is not possible to calculate the balance of the sentence that remains to be served. Therefore, until the point of recall, it is not possible to establish whether the application of any balance of uncredited remand time would result in the immediate release of the prisoner or not.
3. The application of unspent remand time works differently depending on the type of recall (a fixed term recall or a standard recall) that is issued. In a fixed term recall one day of unspent remand time is applied to the sentence for every day that is
physically served in custody. In a standard recall the whole balance of unspent remand time can be applied to the sentence.
4. Confirmation of the type of recall cannot be confirmed at the point the revocation order is issued because it may be subject to change. For example, an offender recalled on a fixed term basis, who remains unlawfully at large for a period of time, may have their recall changed to a standard recall when the details of their behaviour during the period they are unlawfully at large and any further offending behaviour during that period have been taken into account. As the application of remand time differs between the two types of recall, it is not possible to provide an accurate calculation of the re-release date until the recall type has been confirmed.
5. We would be concerned about the possible detrimental effect to a prisoner’s wellbeing if an inaccurate release date was communicated on return to prison custody and similarly concerned about an increased risk of a prisoner being released in error, which could lead to a heightened risk to public protection. In this particular case, following the recommendation made by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), work was carried out to add an alert flag to the National Offender Management Information System (NOMIS) to warn staff when there is unspent remand time on a prisoner’s record which may cause a reduction in the time a prisoner should spend in custody or which may give rise to an immediate release. Sentence calculation is carried out as a priority in these circumstances. In response to your concerns, the sentence calculation policy team will be issuing further communication to all staff about the importance of using the alerts on NOMIS to flag prisoners with unspent remand time in order to reduce the risk of prisoners being detained longer than required and to confirm release dates to recalled prisoners as soon as possible. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention. I hope that this response provides assurance that action is being taken to mitigate the risk of prisoners spending more time in custody than is legally required whilst also balancing the complexities of sentence calculation, types of recalls, and public safety.
1. The calculation of release dates is complex and must only be undertaken by staff who are trained in the subject. Those staff are located in the Prison Service and only operate during normal office hours between Monday and Friday. Calculations carried out by untrained staff would present the risk of incorrect information being communicated to the prisoner and possibility of a release in error, hence potentially putting the public at risk.
2. Until the point the licence revocation document is issued, it is not possible to calculate the balance of the sentence that remains to be served. Therefore, until the point of recall, it is not possible to establish whether the application of any balance of uncredited remand time would result in the immediate release of the prisoner or not.
3. The application of unspent remand time works differently depending on the type of recall (a fixed term recall or a standard recall) that is issued. In a fixed term recall one day of unspent remand time is applied to the sentence for every day that is
physically served in custody. In a standard recall the whole balance of unspent remand time can be applied to the sentence.
4. Confirmation of the type of recall cannot be confirmed at the point the revocation order is issued because it may be subject to change. For example, an offender recalled on a fixed term basis, who remains unlawfully at large for a period of time, may have their recall changed to a standard recall when the details of their behaviour during the period they are unlawfully at large and any further offending behaviour during that period have been taken into account. As the application of remand time differs between the two types of recall, it is not possible to provide an accurate calculation of the re-release date until the recall type has been confirmed.
5. We would be concerned about the possible detrimental effect to a prisoner’s wellbeing if an inaccurate release date was communicated on return to prison custody and similarly concerned about an increased risk of a prisoner being released in error, which could lead to a heightened risk to public protection. In this particular case, following the recommendation made by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), work was carried out to add an alert flag to the National Offender Management Information System (NOMIS) to warn staff when there is unspent remand time on a prisoner’s record which may cause a reduction in the time a prisoner should spend in custody or which may give rise to an immediate release. Sentence calculation is carried out as a priority in these circumstances. In response to your concerns, the sentence calculation policy team will be issuing further communication to all staff about the importance of using the alerts on NOMIS to flag prisoners with unspent remand time in order to reduce the risk of prisoners being detained longer than required and to confirm release dates to recalled prisoners as soon as possible. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention. I hope that this response provides assurance that action is being taken to mitigate the risk of prisoners spending more time in custody than is legally required whilst also balancing the complexities of sentence calculation, types of recalls, and public safety.
Action Should Be Taken
7 YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 19 July 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
Family HMP Woodhill Government Legal GeoAmey CNWL Northamptonshire Police 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. Tom OSBORNE Senior Coroner for Milton Keynes Dated: 02 June 2021
Family HMP Woodhill Government Legal GeoAmey CNWL Northamptonshire Police 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. Tom OSBORNE Senior Coroner for Milton Keynes Dated: 02 June 2021
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 30/04/2019 I commenced an investigation into the death of Mark Samuel CULVERHOUSE aged 29. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 21 May 2021. The conclusion of the inquest was: I a Hypoxic brain injury and pneumonia I b Cardiac arrest (resuscitated) I c Ligature compression of the neck The jury concluded by a majority of 9-2 that he had died from suicide they also concluded that he had been unlawfully detained and this had contributed to his death and that the decision to take him to segregation on the 23rd April 2019 had contributed to his death
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Independent review of use of force on mentally ill detainees
Brook House Inquiry
Detention timescales
Mandatory use of force debrief training and multi-level review process
Brook House Inquiry
Detention timescales
Update DSO on food and fluid refusal management and reporting
Brook House Inquiry
Detention timescales
Healthcare staff guidance and training on use of force incidents
Brook House Inquiry
Detention timescales
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.