22 Feb 2010

An inquest begins today into the death of Naomi Bryant – killed in August 2005 by Anthony Rice, a violent convicted sex offender. Liberty successfully used the protections within the Human Rights Act to argue that an inquest must be held into the events leading up to Naomi’s death, and also that the inquest itself must be as wide-ranging as possible.

Liberty is acting on behalf of Naomi’s mother, Verna Bryant, who is seeking answers as to whether public authority failings in the handling of Rice’s release from prison led to her daughter’s death. Mrs Bryant hopes that lessons will be learned and that similar tragedies in the future can be avoided.

Following Rice’s admission of guilt, the Coroner took the decision not to hold an inquest into Naomi Bryant’s death. This would have been the end of the matter but for the arguments brought by Liberty under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act (the right to life). Today a full jury inquest opens at Winchester Crown Court, scheduled to run for three weeks. This will be the first inquest to examine the monitoring and supervision of prisoners released on licence and the role played by the probation, police, and the prison services, as well as the Parole Board and private providers of accommodation.Twenty-one witnesses will give evidence, including witnesses from two probation services, the police force, the Parole Board and the hostel that Rice was released to and living in when Naomi was murdered.

James Welch, Liberty’s legal director, said:

“Where officialdom sought to scapegoat the Human Rights Act for Naomi’s murder, we have used it to ensure that there is a careful and determined investigation into the failings that led to her death. Liberty is seeking answers for Naomi’s family and has full confidence that the inquest will provide them.”

Article 2 of the Human Rights Act – used to secure the re-opening of the inquest and to ensure as broad an inquiry as possible – provides that everyone in Britain has a right to life and places an obligation on the state to protect life. Where the state may have failed to protect life, a full investigation must take place.

Contact: Liberty’s press office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831 128


Notes to Editors

1. At the time of Naomi Bryant’s murder there were suggestions that ‘human rights considerations’ played a part in the decision to release Rice early from prison. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has unequivocally rejected this suggestion, stating that “there was no clear causal connection between any … application of the Human Rights Act and the death of Naomi Bryant.” The Committee concluded that the Human Rights Act had been used as a convenient scapegoat for unrelated failings. This inquest – that has only been made possible by the Human Rights Act – will draw out any such failings and enable lessons to be learned from this tragedy.

2. Anthony Rice had a record of previous sexual offences against females, including a very serious assault on a five-year-old girl. He was released from prison in November 2004 having served almost 16 years of a life sentence for a violent attempted rape. He had previously served a seven-year sentence in the early 1980s for rape and threats to kill, and had multiple convictions for indecent assaults going back to 1972.

3. The Parole Board did not have access to information about the assault on the child when it decided to release Rice – something which might have affected the decision to release him. Although the decision to release Rice is not something the inquest can consider (as it is deemed too far removed from Naomi Bryant’s death) this point remains one of great concern to Naomi’s family.

4. Verna Bryant hopes to get answers to the following questions during the inquest which opens today:

a. Did Rice breach the licence under which he was released from custody, and if so, why did any such breaches not trigger his being recalled to prison?

b. Was the hostel Rice was released to suitable for an offender with his history of violent sexual offences?

c. Were there any problems with the license conditions imposed on Rice at the point of his release from prison?