HomeAboutJoinNews & Events IssuesPublicationsContact
  • Paul Wright - death in custody: judge orders investigation

  • 20 Jun 2001
  • Hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice - Administrative Court
    20th June 2001

  • A judge in the High Court today ordered the Home Secretary to set up an independent investigation into the death of Paul Wright. Paul died in 1996, of an asthma attack whilst in Armley Prison, Leeds. The family has never received a full explanation of the circumstances of his death.

    In his judgement, Mr Justice Jackson stated: "Paul Wright was a young man who had serious asthma... experts' reports show that his medical treatment was seriously deficient. By November 1996, Paul was exposed to the risk of a severe asthma attack. On the night of his death he was locked in his cell with inadequate medication or apparatus and there was no key nearby to unlock the cell quickly. Paul suffered an attack".

    It's extremely rare for a judge to order an investigation of this kind. The Home Office was granted leave to appeal. Joanne Sawyer, a Liberty lawyer acting for the Wright family, said: "The family have waited five years to find out what happened to Paul. We hope the Home Office will not drag this out through the Court of Appeal. The family deserve to know now".

    In a statement Paul's aunt, Moira Bennett said: "We've waited all this time. More than ever we need to know what happened to Paul: we don't want any more delay".

    CIRCUMSTANCES: Paul Wright, aged 33 and from West Yorkshire, had a history of asthma and required constant medication. His asthma was severe enough to mean that he sometimes had to be hospitalised. He died from an asthma attack which started whilst Paul was in his cell on the evening of 7th November 1996. He was pronounced dead the same day at 22.35 at Leeds General Infirmary. The Home Office admitted liability on 18th April 2000, but without adequate explanation.

    We now know that the prison doctor who treated Paul Wright had been the subject of a number of disciplinary hearings before the General Medical Council between 1994 and 1999: and as a result was subject to restrictions on how and where he was permitted to practise as a doctor. These issues were not raised at the Inquest into Paul Wright's death, nor at the Inquest of another prisoner who died whilst under this doctor's care.

    Jackson J said: "One of the disturbing features of the case is the fact that Dr Singh was entrusted with the medical care of Paul Wright. By 1996, the Prison Service had been notified of the conditions that the General Medical Council had set on Dr Singh practising". One condition was that he should not practise as a locum or a sole practitioner in the community and should be supervised. He appears to have been unsupervised when practising within the Prison Service".

    We brought judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court against the Home Office under Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention for Human Rights for failing to investigate Mr Wright's death. Effectively, the Court has found that the Home Office was in breach of Articles 2 and 3 because they failed to investigate properly.

    Appallingly low prison healthcare standards are now being addressed by the Home Office, but there is a clear need for further changes. Liberty is calling for a national inquiry into the investigation of deaths in custody. The circumstances of all such deaths must be fairly, openly and thoroughly investigated. The Home Office's planned enquiry into the coroners' system should focus on this investigation process.

    Joanne Sawyer, the Liberty lawyer acting for Mr Wright's family, says: "Paul Wright's death highlights the need for drastic improvements in medical care in prisons. His family's struggle since then shows the urgent need for a better system of investigation when deaths in custody do occur - to ensure openness and accountability, to ensure that any lessons learned are shared across the custody system, and to help restore public confidence".

    "It's important for the family personally, for the impact it should have on the inquest system, and because it's one of the few decisions in English law yet to be won solely on the basis of the Human Rights Act".