Death of Paul Wright in Armley Prison - inquiry report published in Parliament

An independent inquiry into a Bradford man's death in Armley Prison, Leeds, has found that prison healthcare let him down. The inquiry report, published today, concludes (inter alia) that medical care in the prison service and an unsupervised doctor with a questionable record, as well as routine checks on prisoners, failed Paul Wright and contributed to his death. He died of an acute asthma attack in his cell, on 7th November 1996.

This is the first public inquiry ordered into a death in custody under the Human Rights Act - possibly the first ordered at all. Inquiry chairman Dr Jon Davies' report finds that:

"In the months before his death, (June - November 1996) it seems clear to me that the medical service provided for Mr Wright was inadequate ...

"Paul Wright's medical care was in the hands of a Medical Officer whose appointment to the Prison Service had been mishandled: who was, contrary to the cautionary and admonitory adumbrations of his record in front of the GMC [General Medical Council], effectively allowed to operate with the full franchise of an independent clinician: and for whom, by the time of the death of Paul Wright, an effective re-training programme neither was nor could have been in place

He also finds it "very likely that on the night of 7 November the routine prison surveillance system (human and mechanical) failed to detect that Paul Wright, between 9:00 and 9:30, was in danger of his life".

"In the days before his death (October 24-Nov 7) there is considerable doubt whether Paul Wright had in his possession medication which might have saved him".
The Liberty lawyer representing the family, Joanne Sawyer, said:

"We broadly welcome the inquiry report and recommendations. However, we believe the inquiry should have gone further and stated categorically (as the Home Office accepted by admitting liability) that Paul's death was caused by negligence in the Prison Service and alarming inadequacies in the prison healthcare system".

"We also regret that the inquiry did not have the power to compel witnesses to attend. Most importantly, the doctor who treated Paul Wright, Dr Kumar Singh, did not have to attend the inquiry himself to give evidence. He didn't appear; neither did another prisoner whose evidence could have been very important".

Moira Bennett, Paul Wright's aunt, said:
"My sister and I are pleased the inquiry has at last taken place, but we are disappointed that we had to take the Home Office to court to get this inquiry and that it was ordered more than five years after Paul's death. We are also disappointed that many of our questions remain unanswered and are concerned that the answers to these questions may never be revealed.

"I think the Prison Service has covered up what happened; and I'm still very concerned about the poor level of medical care in prisons, notably in Armley itself. Some of the people criticised in this report still work there.

"I really don't want other families to have to fight to find out what happened to a loved one who's died in custody. We still want to know why tests weren't carried out at the post-mortem, despite our having asked for them to be done at the time of the inquest, to establish whether or not Paul had had his medication; and why Dr Singh was allowed to work unsupervised.

"We feel that if the Prison Service had listened to us at the very beginning and taken our concerns seriously other deaths might have been avoided." The fact that independent inquiries do not have powers to make key witnesses attend shows again that the system for investigating deaths in custody needs a radical overhaul.

Earlier this year, in another Liberty case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that an inquiry into the prison death of Christopher Edwards did not meet the necessary standards for investigation of a death in state care as required by Article 2 of the Human Rights Convention - largely because it did not have the power to compel witnesses.
The inquiry report was published in the House of Commons on Thursday, via a written answer from prisons minister Hilary Benn to a Parliamentary Question.

BACKGROUND
The independent inquiry into Paul Wright's death was set up after a judge ordered the Home Secretary to do so. In the six years since his death his family had never received a full explanation of the circumstances of his death.

In his judgment (June 2001), 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. Liberty represented the family both in the court case resulting in that order, and during the subsequent public inquiry.

Liberty is also leading a major research project into the effectiveness of remedies available following a death in state custody. The findings of this research and any recommendations for reform of the investigation, inquiry or inquest processes will be published later this year.