Allan Waddup

OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Independent investigation into
the death of Mr Allan Waddup,
a prisoner at
HMP Northumberland,
on 13 December 2019
A report by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
Third Floor, 10 South Colonnade Email: mail@ppo.gov.uk T l 020 7633 4100
Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU Web: www.ppo.gov.uk
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
© Crown copyright, 2026
This report is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence,
visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3
Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission
from the copyright holders concerned.
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman aims to make a significant contribution to safer,
fairer custody and community supervision. One of the most important ways in which we
work towards that aim is by carrying out independent investigations into deaths, due to
any cause, of prisoners, young people in detention, residents of approved premises and
detainees in immigration centres.
My office carries out investigations to understand what happened and identify how the
organisations whose actions we oversee can improve their work in the future.
Mr Allan Waddup was found hanged in his cell at HMP Northumberland on 13 December
2019. He was 33 years old. I offer my condolences to Mr Waddup’s family and friends.
Mr Waddup had no history of self-harm or attempted suicide. Mr Waddup’s partner ended
their relationship in a phone call on the evening of 12 December. Staff were not aware of
this and we do not think that the prison could have foreseen Mr Waddup’s death.
However, he should have had a mental health assessment, which might have led to
supportive measures being put in place.
I am very concerned that staff did not consider going into Mr Waddup’s cell immediately
after they discovered that he was hanging. The delay did not affect the outcome for him,
but in other circumstances, could be crucial. This is not the first time that I have found
staff at Northumberland do not understand national guidelines about going into a cell at
night when there is a potential risk to a prisoner’s life. The Director needs to take
immediate action to address this.
This version of my report, published on my website, has been amended to remove the
names of staff and prisoners involved in my investigation.
Sue McAllister, CB
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman September 2025
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1
The Investigation Process ................................................................................................ 3
Background Information ................................................................................................... 4
Key Events ....................................................................................................................... 6
Findings ......................................................................................................................... 10
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Summary
Events
1. On 5 January 2015, Mr Waddup was sentenced to eight years in prison for sexual
offences against a child. On 9 October 2018, he was released on licence.
2. On 29 October 2019, Mr Waddup’s licence was revoked and he was sent to HMP
Durham, where healthcare staff referred him for a mental health assessment.
3. On 1 November 2019, Mr Waddup transferred to HMP Northumberland. The nurse
who screened him when he first arrived did not review his medical records or pick
up on the outstanding mental health referral. After prompting from Durham, Mr
Waddup was referred for a mental health assessment 12 days later. The mental
health team were not able to contact Mr Waddup by phone or letter, so they
discharged him from their caseload without assessing him.
4. On 5 December, Mr Waddup self-referred to the mental health team, but the mental
health team did not see him before he died.
5. On the evening of 12 December, Mr Waddup’s partner told him that she wanted to
finish their relationship. Mr Waddup was very distressed by the call. Staff were not
aware of this conversation.
6. At around 5.48am the next morning, an Operational Support Officer (OSO) saw Mr
Waddup hanging from the light fitting in his cell. The OSO called an emergency
code over the radio and another OSO attended to assist. The OSOs asked for
permission to go into the cell, but were initially refused because there were not
enough staff. Eventually they were allowed to open Mr Waddup’s cell and go in.
The OSOs cut the ligature and placed Mr Waddup on his bed. They saw that Mr
Waddup had signs of rigor mortis and did not try to resuscitate him.
7. At 5.50am, the ambulance service received the phone call from the prison and an
ambulance got to the prison gate eight minutes later. Paramedics pronounced Mr
Waddup dead at 6.07am. They recorded that Mr Waddup showed signs of rigor
mortis.
Findings
8. We consider that staff could not have known that Mr Waddup was at risk of suicide
or self-harm or having relationship difficulties. We do not consider that staff could
have foreseen his death.
Clinical care
9. The clinical reviewer found that the healthcare provided to Mr Waddup was of a
mixed standard, so not equivalent to that he would have received in the community.
10. We share the clinical reviewer’s concern that it took 12 days before Mr Waddup was
referred to the mental health team at Northumberland. An insufficiently thorough
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 1
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
initial health screen contributed to the delay. Mr Waddup did not respond to calls or
letters to engage and was never assessed.
11. We found that after Mr Waddup self-referral to the mental health team on 5
December, healthcare staff did not assess him within their expected timeframes.
The mental health team did not see Mr Waddup before he died, and this was a
significant missed opportunity to offer support to him.
Emergency response
12. We are concerned that staff did not go into Mr Waddup’s cell when he was found
hanging, and permission to do so was initially refused. This led to a delay before
anyone went into his cell. In this case, it is unlikely that it would have affected the
outcome as Mr Waddup had been dead for some time when he was found, but such
a delay could be crucial in future emergencies.
13. This is not the first time that we have found that staff at Northumberland do not
understand national and local policy that they should go into a cell in a life-
threatening emergency.
Recommendations
• The Head of Healthcare should review the mental health referral management
process at HMP Northumberland to ensure that:
• initial health screens are thorough so that outstanding mental health
assessments are actioned immediately; and
• the triage and assessment of prisoners after referrals are carried out within
expected timescales.
• The Director should write to the Ombudsman within 28 days setting out the actions
that have been taken to ensure that staff are aware of the need to enter a cell at
night when there is potentially a risk to life, in line with PSI 24/2011.
• The HMPPS Head of Custodial Contracts should satisfy himself that the Director of
HMP Northumberland has taken sufficient action to ensure that staff understand the
need to enter a cell at night when there is a potential risk to life, in line with PSI
24/2011.
2 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The Investigation Process
14. The investigator issued notices to staff and prisoners at HMP Northumberland
informing them of the investigation and asking anyone with relevant information to
contact him. The investigator spoke to a prisoner as a result of these notices.
15. The investigator obtained copies of relevant extracts from Mr Waddup’s prison and
medical records.
16. The investigator interviewed ten members of staff and a prisoner at HMP
Northumberland on 12 and 13 February 2020.
17. NHS England commissioned a clinical reviewer to review Mr Waddup’s clinical care
at the prison. The clinical reviewer interviewed four members of staff jointly with the
investigator.
18. We informed HM Coroner for Northumberland of the investigation. The coroner
gave us the results of the post-mortem examination and we have sent the coroner a
copy of this report.
19. One of the Ombudsman’s family liaison officers contacted Mr Waddup’s partner, his
nominated next of kin, and his grandparents, to explain the investigation and to ask
if they had any matters they wanted the investigation to consider. They wanted to
know how Mr Waddup killed himself.
20. We shared the initial report with HMPPS. They identified some factual inaccuracies,
which we have amended in this report.
21. We also shared the initial report with Mr Waddup’s family. They did not identify any
factual inaccuracies.
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 3
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Background Information
HMP Northumberland
22. HMP Northumberland holds up to 1,368 men. Sodexo Justice Services manage the
prison and, at the time of Mr Waddup’s death, G4S provided healthcare services.
Healthcare staff are on duty from 7.30am to 7.30pm from Monday to Thursday and
from 7.30am to 6.00pm on Friday. At weekends and on bank holidays, healthcare
staff are on duty from 8.00am to 6.00pm. Northern Doctors Urgent Care provide an
out of hours service at other times. Tees, Esk and Wear Valley Mental Health NHS
Foundation Trust provided mental health services.
23. Spectrum Community Health now provides health services at Northumberland.
HM Inspectorate of Prisons
24. The most recent inspection of HMP Northumberland was carried out in August
2017. Inspectors found that mental health services were provided effectively at the
prison but the management of prisoners subject to suicide and self-harm prevention
procedures (known as ACCT) was weak, reviews were poorly attended and
caremaps were incomplete. Handover arrangements were also poor and required
observations did not always take place. Access to Listeners (prisoners trained by
the Samaritans to provide support to other prisoners) was inadequate, although it
was better for prisoners on the vulnerable prisoner unit.
Independent Monitoring Board
25. Each prison has an Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) of unpaid volunteers from
the local community who help to ensure that prisoners are treated fairly and
decently. In its latest annual report, for the year to 2018, the IMB reported that the
introduction of the key worker scheme was managed well and prisoners have
benefitted from it. They reported that the quality of support for prisoners subject to
ACCT monitoring had improved.
Previous deaths at HMP Northumberland
26. Mr Waddup’s was the second self-inflicted death at Northumberland since
November 2017. In our previous investigation, we found that staff could not have
foreseen the prisoner’s death, although we highlighted missed opportunities to refer
the prisoner to mental health services. We also identified a delay in the emergency
response, caused by technical issues with the radio system.
Recall to prison
27. When someone is released from prison on licence or parole, they can be recalled to
prison if:
• they commit another crime or are charged with another crime, or
4 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
• they are behaving in a way that leads their Offender Manager to think they
might be about to commit another crime, or
• they break the conditions of their licence.
28. The length of time a prisoner who has been recalled will have to serve in prison
depends on the type of recall they are subject to:
• Fixed-term recalls: with a fixed-term recall, the individual is recalled to prison
but will be released automatically after 28 days. He will be on licence in the
community until the end of his sentence.
• Standard recalls: with a standard recall, the individual is recalled to prison
and remains there until the end of his sentence unless the Parole Board
decides otherwise. The case will be sent to the Parole Board automatically
after 28 days. If they decide release is appropriate, they can either authorise
immediate release or set a date (within one year) for release on licence.
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 5
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Key Events
2015 to 2018
29. On 5 January 2015, Mr Waddup was sentenced to eight years in prison for sexual
offences against a child. Four months later, Mr Waddup transferred to HMP
Northumberland from HMP Holme House. Mr Waddup took psychoactive
substances (PS) on several occasions and had disciplinary hearings as a result. Mr
Waddup was supported by mental health services and was prescribed
antidepressants. He did not have a history of attempted suicide or self-harm.
30. On 9 October 2018, Mr Waddup was released on licence. One of the conditions of
his licence was that he had to notify his offender manager if he formed a
relationship with someone who lived with children. His licence was due to expire on
9 October 2022.
Recall to prison
31. On 24 October 2019, the police found evidence that Mr Waddup was in a
relationship with a pregnant woman who was living with her two children, in breach
of the conditions of his licence. Mr Waddup had not told his offender manager
about the relationship.
32. On 29 October, the offender manager revoked Mr Waddup’s licence and he was
taken to HMP Durham. On his Person Escort Record (PER a document that
accompany prisoners when they travel from police stations, to court or prisons), a
police officer recorded that Mr Waddup had mental health issues, but no risk factors
for suicide or self-harm.
33. When he first arrived at the prison on 29 October, Nurse A recorded that Mr
Waddup did not have any thoughts of suicide or self-harm, but said that he suffered
from anxiety and depression. Nurse A referred Mr Waddup to the mental health
team and he went on the waiting list for a mental health assessment.
HMP Northumberland
34. On 1 November, Mr Waddup transferred to HMP Northumberland. He was located
in the vulnerable prisoners’ unit (VPU) because of the nature of his offence.
35. At his initial health screen, Nurse B did not record any health issues, and did not
pick up that Mr Waddup had an outstanding mental health assessment. She
assessed that Mr Waddup was mentally stable and did not have thoughts of
suicide. The same day, the substance misuse team reviewed Mr Waddup, but he
said that he did not want to engage with them. There is no evidence that Mr
Waddup took any illicit drugs while he was in the prison.
36. On 9 November, Prison Custody Officer (PCO) A, introduced herself to Mr Waddup
as his key worker while he was in the induction wing of the VPU. Mr Waddup told
her that his main concern was that he could not look after his pregnant partner. Mr
Waddup said that he was aware that the recall process was slow, and he knew that
6 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
it could take months for his hearing to take place. (His hearing was not scheduled
before he died.) Mr Waddup said that he was pleased to be at Northumberland.
He had already started to work as a tailor. Mr Waddup told PCO A that he felt safe
and that he did not have any thoughts of suicide or self-harm.
37. On 12 November, Ms A, a mental health administrator at Durham, noted that Mr
Waddup had been referred to the mental health team, but had not been assessed
before he transferred to Northumberland. She telephoned Ms B, a mental health
administrator at Northumberland, to notify her. The next day, Ms B added Mr
Waddup to the mental health team’s waiting list for review.
38. On 14 and 19 November, Ms B went to Mr Waddup’s cell to arrange a mental
health review, but Mr Waddup was not in his cell. Ms B followed up the missed
appointments with a phone call to his in-cell phone, but Mr Waddup did not answer.
On 21 November, Ms B tried to contact Mr Waddup over the phone again. Mr
Waddup did not answer the phone. As a result, Ms B sent Mr Waddup a letter in
the internal post asking him whether he wanted to engage with the mental health
team (known as an “opt-in letter”). The letter stated that Mr Waddup had to respond
by 29 November.
39. On 23 November, PCO B had a key worker session with Mr Waddup on behalf of
PCO A. Mr Waddup repeated that he felt safe at Northumberland and was happy
working as a tailor in the prison. Mr Waddup said that when he was not at work, he
played pool and talked to other prisoners.
40. On 2 December, Ms B recorded that Mr Waddup had failed to respond to the “opt-
in” letter, so she discharged him from the mental health team’s caseload.
41. On 5 December, Mr Waddup self-referred to the mental health team using the
wing’s self-reporting kiosk. Four days later, Ms C, a mental health administrator,
acknowledged his application and put him on the waiting list for a mental health
assessment.
42. On 6 December, Mr Waddup moved to another cell (on the same wing but different
corridor) in the VPU. The next day, PCO A spoke to Mr Waddup to explain that he
would be allocated a new key worker as he had moved cells. Mr Waddup said that
he felt safe and was happy at work. Mr Waddup told PCO A that he did not have
any thoughts of self-harm or suicide. Mr Waddup did not have any further key
worker sessions before he died.
43. On 8 and 9 December, Mr Waddup spoke to his partner on his in-cell telephone.
The investigator listened to these calls. On 9 December, Mr Waddup’s partner told
him that she had met social services who were concerned about her relationship
with Mr Waddup, as he was considered to be a risk to her children. She told Mr
Waddup that she loved him but “if she had to choose between him and her kids,
she had to choose them”. Mr Waddup was very upset by their conversation. Prison
staff were not aware of this conversation.
44. Over the next three days, staff did not record any conversations with Mr Waddup in
his prison or medical record. Mr B, a prisoner, told the investigator that he spoke to
Mr Waddup a lot, but he did not mention any concerns and seemed well.
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 7
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
12 and 13 December 2019
45. On 12 December, Ms B, Head of Mental Health, and Ms B discussed Mr Waddup’s
case. They confirmed that Mr Waddup had not returned the opt-in letter, but Ms B
agreed to try to call Mr Waddup’s in-cell telephone to check that he wanted support
for his mental health. (Mr Waddup died before she called him.)
46. Between 7.47pm and 8.11pm, Mr Waddup spoke to his partner on the telephone in
his cell. Mr Waddup’s partner said that she had to finish their relationship or social
services would take her children away. She said that he had lied to her as he had
never mentioned his previous offence or licence condition. Mr Waddup was very
distressed by the call, which ended when he ran out of credit. Just before they
were cut off, he arranged to call her the following Monday. Prison staff were not
aware of this conversation.
47. At around 8.20pm, OSO A went to Mr Waddup’s cell during a routine roll check.
She told the investigator that she opened the observation panel to check Mr
Waddup. Although she could not remember seeing him, she said she had no
concerns. OSO A then monitored the prisoners who were subject to ACCT
procedures and responded to cell bells throughout the night. Mr Waddup did not
press his cell bell.
48. At around 5.45am the next morning, OSO A started a routine roll check. Mr
Waddup’s cell was on the last corridor she checked. OSO A said she noticed that
Mr Waddup’s cell light was on. She opened the observation panel and saw that Mr
Waddup was hanging from a ligature made of bed sheets attached to the light fitting
in the middle of his cell.
49. At around 5.48am, OSO A radioed a code blue (a code blue emergency indicates
that a prisoner is unconscious or having difficulty breathing) from the wing office.
She told the investigator that she did not want to use her radio outside the cell in
case other prisoners overheard. OSO A then collected the emergency bag, the
defibrillator and the first aid kit.
50. OSO B arrived at the office and they ran back to the cell together. At the same
time, the ambulance service received the phone call from the prison requesting an
ambulance. OSO B said that he saw Mr Waddup hanging, so he immediately
radioed for permission to go into the cell. Senior PCO (SPCO) A, the night orderly
officer, refused permission because there were only two members of staff present.
He said they needed one more member of staff before they could go into the cell
safely.
51. OSO A said that as “back up did not arrive”, OSO B asked SPCO A for permission
to enter the cell again and he granted permission. OSO B said that he went into the
cell with OSO A, “took the weight off Mr Waddup” and OSO A cut the ligature. They
placed Mr Waddup on his bed on his back. OSO B checked for a pulse, but found
none. He said that Mr Waddup was very stiff.
52. At around 5.50am, as the staff placed Mr Waddup on the bed, other officers arrived
including PCO C. PCO C told the investigator that it took him around two minutes
from hearing the code blue to get to the cell and that, on arrival, OSO A and OSO B
were already in the cell. PCO C checked Mr Waddup and remembered that his skin
8 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
was “very blue - purple coloured”. All the officers agreed not to try to resuscitate Mr
Waddup as there were signs of rigor mortis.
53. At 5.58am, the ambulance arrived at the prison’s gate. At 6.03am, paramedics
arrived at Mr Waddup’s cell and pronounced him dead at 6.07am. They recorded
that there were signs of rigor mortis.
Contact with Mr Waddup’s family
54. At 10.40am, PCO D and PCO E, the prison’s family liaison officers, went to the
house of Mr Waddup’s partner (his nominated next of kin) and broke the news of his
death to her.
55. On 30 December, Mr Waddup’s funeral took place. The prison contributed to the
costs of the funeral, in line with national policy.
Support for prisoners and staff
56. After Mr Waddup’s death, Mr B, Head of Residence, debriefed the staff involved in
the emergency response to ensure they had the opportunity to discuss any issues
arising, and to offer support. The staff care team also offered support.
57. The prison posted notices informing other prisoners of Mr Waddup’s death, and
offering support. Staff reviewed all prisoners assessed as being at risk of suicide or
self-harm in case they had been adversely affected by Mr Waddup’s death.
Post-mortem report
58. A post-mortem examination established the cause of death as pressure on the neck
due to hanging. The toxicology analysis found no drugs or alcohol in Mr Waddup’s
body when he died.
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 9
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Findings
Assessment of risk
59. Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 64/2011, governing safer custody, requires all staff
in contact with prisoners to be aware of the triggers and risk factors that might
increase a prisoner’s risk of suicide and self-harm, and to take appropriate action,
including starting ACCT procedures, if necessary. Mr Waddup’s key risk factors
included his relationship issues, his recall and his mental health concerns.
60. PCO A said that Mr Waddup was well regarded by staff and prisoners and knew the
prison system well. Mr A told the investigator that Mr Waddup was very reserved,
but appeared to be happy and well.
61. While we will never know what was on Mr Waddup’s mind at the time he took his
life, his conversation with his partner on 12 December was deeply upsetting and
could have triggered his decision to take his life. We are satisfied that Mr Waddup
did not give any indication to staff or prisoners that he was at risk of suicide or self-
harm or having relationship difficulties. We do not consider that staff could have
foreseen his death.
Mental Health
62. The clinical reviewer found that the healthcare provided to Mr Waddup was of a
mixed standard and therefore not equivalent to that he could have expected to
receive in the community.
63. We are concerned that there was a significant delay of 12 days before Mr Waddup
was referred to the mental health team at Northumberland. Nurse B should have
noted that Mr Waddup had an outstanding mental health assessment from Durham
at his initial health screen and referred him immediately. She did not check Mr
Waddup’s medical records and we agree with the clinical reviewer that her initial
health screen was not sufficiently thorough, which contributed to the oversight. The
mental health team therefore only attempted to contact Mr Waddup from 12
November. They eventually discharged him from the mental health team caseload,
as he did not respond to their telephone calls or letter.
64. Ms E, a psychological wellbeing practitioner and Ms D told the investigator that all
mental health referrals at Northumberland should be triaged within 24 hours of
receipt and then an assessment should be completed five working days after that.
Mr Waddup self-referred to the mental health team on 5 December. His application
however was not added to the triage list until four days later and he was not triaged
for a further three days on 12 December, exceeding the expected timeframes.
65. The clinical reviewer was concerned that triage mental health assessments were
made without seeing prisoners at Northumberland. Ms E and Ms D told the
investigator that they have revisited this process and the mental health team will
triage all referrals by seeing prisoners in person in future.
66. We consider that Mr Waddup should have had a mental health assessment at
Northumberland and there were missed opportunities to do so. We understand that
10 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
the mental health referral system is now under review, but make the following
recommendations:
The Head of Healthcare should review the mental health referral process at
HMP Northumberland to ensure that:
• outstanding mental health assessments are picked up by initial health
screens and actioned immediately; and
• the triage and assessments after referrals are carried out within
expected timescales.
Emergency Response
67. PSI 24/2011 on management and security at nights stipulates that in normal
circumstances, the night orderly officer must give authority to unlock a cell during
night state and no cell should be opened unless at least two or three members of
staff are present. However, the PSI, and Northumberland’s own security strategy,
state that the preservation of life must take precedence over security. The PSI says
that where there is, or appears to be, immediate danger to life, cells may be
unlocked without the authority of the night orderly officer and an individual member
of staff may go into the cell on their own, following an on-the-spot risk assessment.
68. OSO A and OSO B said that they understood that they could not go into a cell on
their own under any circumstances. PCO C also said that more than two members
of staff should “always” be present to go into a cell during the night state. This is
contrary to national policy. We consider that OSO A should have gone into Mr
Waddup’s cell immediately. SPCO A wrongly refused permission to enter the cell
after OSO B’ first request, compounding the delay.
69. As a result, there was an avoidable delay before staff went into Mr Waddup’s cell.
Although the delay would not have affected the outcome for Mr Waddup (who had
been dead for some time when he was found), in other emergencies such delay
could be crucial.
70. We are concerned that this is not the first time that we have found that staff at
Northumberland do not understand national and local policy on entering a cell at
night. In a previous report issued in July 2019, we asked the Director to ensure that
staff prioritise the potential or actual threat to the safety or life of prisoners. Although
the Director accepted our recommendation from that report, the issue remains. We
make the following recommendations:
The Director should write to the Ombudsman within 28 days setting out the
actions that have been taken to ensure that staff are aware of the need to
enter a cell at night when there is potentially a risk to life, in line with PSI
24/2011.
The HMPPS Head of Custodial Contracts should satisfy himself that the
Director of HMP Northumberland has taken sufficient action to ensure that
staff understand the need to enter a cell at night when there is a potential risk
to life, in line with PSI 24/2011.
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman 11
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Inquest
71. The inquest into Mr Waddup’s death concluded on 10 August 2022 and recorded a
verdict of suicide.
12 Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Third Floor, 10 South Colonnade Email: mail@ppo.gov.uk T l 020 7633 4100
Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU Web: www.ppo.gov.uk
OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE