Government fined at inquest in 'extraordinary step'
A coroner has fined the government for failing to disclose evidence at an inquest into the deaths of three prisoners in Nottinghamshire.
Laurinda Bower has been leading an inquest into the deaths of Anthony Binfield, Rolandas Karbauskas and David Richards in 2023 at HMP Lowdham Grange.
A jury concluded that the trio, who all were found dead within a month of each other, died after "repeated failures" and "multiple missed opportunities" at the prison.
During the inquest at Nottingham Coroner's Court, evidence came to a "grinding halt" on 6 January due to the Ministry of Justice's failure to meet numerous deadlines, and the fine - which can now be reported following the inquest's conclusion - of £500 was issued.
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a coroner can issue a schedule 5 notice to a person or body to disclose relevant information to an investigation.
Coroners have the power to issue fines of up to £1,000 for failing without reasonable excuse to do anything required by such a notice.
Ms Bower gave three notices to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to provide documents and information, including emails, between October and December 2024, but it failed to meet any of the deadlines.
Between 3 and 4 January, Ms Bower said the MoJ submitted a large volume of information, comprising more than 1,000 pages, ahead of the next hearing due to take place on 6 January. She was also told there was more to come.
The MoJ was aware of the inquest and the scope of the investigation more than a year ago, Ms Bower said.
"That was ample time to get their house in order," she added.
"It pains me to impose a financial penalty on a public body given the pressures on all public services at present, and it is the first time in this jurisdiction that it has been necessary for me to take this extraordinary step."
She added the festive period was not a valid excuse for the delay.
At the time, a legal representative for the government told the court the MoJ "apologises for the inconvenience caused".
The running of HMP Lowdham Grange was transferred from private provider Serco, to fellow private firm Sodexo in February 2023.
It was the first prison transfer between two private providers in the UK.
The inquest heard how the jail had longstanding problems with culture, safety and staffing, which continued and were exacerbated during the handover period.
After the deaths of three inmates in March 2023, an unannounced inspection of Lowdham Grange found a number of failings - and the government subsequently took over the prison on an interim basis in December.
This became a permanent arrangement the following May.
There have been more deaths in custody at the prison since the deaths of Binfield, Karbauskas and Richards, including several during the inquest period since November, the court was told.
At the court, Ms Bower said she wrote to all parties in April 2023, including the MoJ, saying she was minded to link the inquests of the three inmates and that by January 2024, it would have been aware of the "need and scope of an inquest".
She said she received a response from the government's legal department on 26 January to point out that the prison was run by Sodexo at the time of the deaths, and asked Ms Bower whether the MoJ should be considered an interested person (IP).
"Knowing what I know about the intrinsic role senior members of the [MoJ] personnel played in the checks and balances of safety at the prison and in the transition period shortly before these deaths, it is staggering that the [MoJ] were questioning whether they required IP status - let alone the fact they were not actively seeking out IP status to assist my inquest," she said.
She added the MoJ's response to the inquest had been "reactive, and slow at that and not at all proactive".
A legal representative for the MoJ said: "It is accepted there has been a failure to comply with the schedule 5 notices and the MoJ apologises to the court and to the other interested persons for the inconvenience caused by this."
She added there had been an "incredible amount of work being undertaken to attempt to comply" with the notices, and added that lessons were being learned both in this case and for future cases.
She added the financial penalty would serve "no useful purpose".
The MoJ was given 28 days to pay the £500 penalty.
Ms Bower said she could not think of proceedings that required "a greater level of candour and due diligence than these", adding the MoJ had been given "chance after chance".
Follow BBC Nottingham on Facebook, on X, or on Instagram. Send your story ideas to eastmidsnews@bbc.co.uk or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2210.
'Repeated failures' at jail where three men died
Prison worker 'told to leave after raising concerns'
Inmate was 'let down by prison', inquest told
Prisoners died in cells in same month - inquest
Government to permanently take over running prison
HM Courts & Tribunals Service
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Rioters and people smugglers to be moved to open prisons early
Serious offenders, including rioters and people smugglers, will be transferred early to open prisons to tackle the jail overcrowding crisis, governors have warned. The Prison Governors' Association (PGA) said it was 'concerned' by a rule change that will allow potentially dangerous criminals to be moved to open prisons up to three years before they are due to be released. It could mean criminals serving sentences of more than seven years will be transferred within two weeks of being jailed, the PGA said. Among the eligible prisoners are human traffickers bringing in migrants for forced labour, offenders convicted of rioting or violent disorder, criminals caught with guns, class A drug dealers, motorists who have caused serious injury by dangerous driving and fraudsters. The rule, known as TPRS36, which takes effect on Friday, introduces a 'presumption' that offenders who meet certain risk and offence criteria should be transferred to open prisons three years before their automatic scheduled release date. Governors will make the final decision on transfers, but the PGA said they would only have limited discretion, in exceptional circumstances, to reject moves to open prisons While closed category A to C prisons remain overcrowded, there is space within category D open prisons. However, open prisons have minimal security with no physical barriers such as high walls, fences and secure gates and less supervision by officers to stop offenders from simply walking out. Accommodation is more akin to student digs, with eligible inmates allowed to spend most of their day away from the prison on licence to work, attend education or participate in other resettlement programmes. Tom Wheatley, PGA president, said: 'Open prisons are not a suitable place to house men that have been very recently sentenced for serious offences without any risk assessment. 'To ask the governor to decide that such risk is 'wholly unacceptable', given eligibility after just 14 days, is too short a time to make any such assessment and therefore to protect the public. It is also not what victims of crime expect, nor what the courts intend. 'This is simply a scheme to manage the lack of suitable prison capacity and, having already released many low-risk offenders, it is becoming difficult to use the capacity in open prisons. If TPRS36 rules were not used, many of these men would remain in the closed prison estate safely behind walls and fences.' Eligible prisoners include those serving standard determinate sentences, where they are eligible for release 40 per cent of the way through their terms, no history of escape attempts, have served at least 14 days of their time and have a 'low or medium' risk of causing serious harm on release. Terrorists, sex offenders, violent offenders serving sentences of more than four years and stalkers are excluded. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: 'We are building new prisons and are on track for 14,000 places by 2031 – the largest expansion since the Victorians. 'Our sentencing reforms will also force prisoners to earn their way to release or face longer in jail for bad behaviour, while ensuring the most dangerous offenders can be kept off the streets. 'Only certain thoroughly risk-assessed offenders are eligible for moves to open prison and anyone found breaching the rules can be immediately returned to a closed prison.' The move follows the introduction of an early release scheme where offenders are freed 40 per cent of the way through their sentence and changes so that violent criminals, burglars and robbers recalled to jail will serve just a month in prison. The early release schemes are designed to tide the MoJ through until the introduction of its sentencing reforms which will see prisoners who behave well released as little as a third of the way through their sentences and killers, rapists and other violent offenders eligible for release at the halfway point rather than two thirds. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Prisoners to be transferred to lower security jails to ease overcrowding
Prisoners are to be transferred to lower security jails in an effort to ease overcrowding, as part of a new measure quietly unveiled by the government. Sky News understands that as of Monday, offenders serving standard sentences can be transferred to open or category D prisons up to three years earlier than previously, to free up space in higher security jails. Open prisons have minimal security and allow eligible prisoners to spend time on day release away from the prison on licence conditions to carry out work or education. It's unclear how many prisoners this will apply to, but the majority of those in prison custody serve standard determinate sentences. This is an extension of a policy which previously existed, as the prison service is warned of urgent capacity pressures. Exemptions will include sex offenders, terrorists, violent criminals, those convicted of stalking, and prisoners serving a sentence of over four years. It could mean those convicted of domestic abuse-related crimes are eligible for transfer to open prisons. The Prison Governors Association told Sky News it has "concerns" about the measure. "This would still mean that after just two weeks in prison a man serving a seven and a half year prison sentence could be moved to an open prison, where there are no physical barriers like high walls, fences, secure gates and minimal staff supervision that could prevent prisoners from simply walking out," the association said in a statement. Prison governors will have some discretion to judge the risk of the move, but it's understood the "presumption" will be that the transfer should take place. Despite early release measures, prisons in England and Wales continue to face chronic overcrowding. The male estate is currently operating at around 98% capacity. Read more from Sky News: This latest measure comes after the government accepted recommendations made in the sentencing review, which will see almost 10,000 fewer people sent to prison in the next three years. However, these measures will take time to become legislation. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "We are building new prisons and are on track for 14,000 places by 2031 - the largest expansion since the Victorians. Our sentencing reforms will also force prisoners to earn their way to release or face longer in jail for bad behaviour, while ensuring the most dangerous offenders can be kept off the street. "Only certain thoroughly risk-assessed offenders are eligible for moves to open prison and anyone found breaching the rules can be immediately returned to a closed prison."
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump has demolished the liberal myth. Migrants shouldn't be treated equally
Sometimes the best policies are the ones that produce the shrillest wails from the Left. Such may be the case with Trump's latest travel ban, which by rights should spark serious soul-searching in Britain. Overnight, the President announced restrictions on the citizens of 12 countries. This was a response to the recent terror attack on Boulder, Colorado, in which an Egyptian national, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is alleged to have thrown firebombs and sprayed burning petrol at a Jewish vigil on Sunday in support of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Although Egypt is not on the list, Homeland Security officials said Mr Soliman was in the country illegally, having overstayed a tourist visa, but that he had applied for asylum in September 2022. So far, so Trumpian. (He took similar measures during his first term, after all, and they were repealed by Joe Biden who called them 'a stain on our national conscience'.) But then came the kicker. 'We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,' Trump said. Ouch. If the months of Trump 2.0 have so far shifted the Overton window across the West, allowing even the likes of Sir Keir Starmer to contemplate – at least rhetorically – tackling immigration, then such a travel ban should be welcomed on these shores as well. Already, the usual suspects are accusing Trump of being 'racist'. But a glance at the range of countries on the list shows that this is not a question of race, or even religion. Rather, it is a question of homeland security, and that holds a stark lesson for Britain. A few months back, official data revealed that though foreigners comprise just 15 per cent of the population of our country, they commit 41 per cent of all crime and up to a quarter of sex crimes. In the first nine months of 2024, almost 14 per cent of grooming suspects were Pakistani, five times their share of the population. Two nationalities – Afghans and Eritreans – were more than 20 times more likely to account for sexual offence convictions than British citizens, according to the data. Overall, foreign nationals were 71 per cent more likely than Britons to be responsible for sex crime convictions. Based on convictions per 10,000 of the population, Afghans with 77 convictions topped the table with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times that of Britons. They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population. In March 2025, data from the Ministry of Justice revealed that foreigners, who claim £1 billion a month in benefits, were also responsible for large proportions of violence, robbery, fraud and drug offences, between 2021 and 2023. There was no data for terrorism offences or acts of anti-Semitism. But does anybody want to hazard a guess? Which brings us to a fundamental question. Why? Why does Britain need to allow the criminals of the world to come to our shores to abuse women and girls, run criminal enterprises, foster terrorism and anti-Semitism, and claim benefits in the process? Obviously not all foreigners from these countries behave in this way. But facts aren't racist. Large numbers are pulling down our pants, spanking our buttocks and pulling them up again. In fact, the problem is not one of race but one of politics and culture. In my new book, Never Again? How the West Betrayed the Jews and Itself, which is coming out at the end of September, I look at groundbreaking research published in April by cognitive scientists Scott Barry Kaufman and Craig Neumann. They found that 'citizens in democratic countries have more benevolent traits, fewer malevolent traits, and greater well-being' than those living under autocratic regimes. Based on a study of 200,000 people from 75 countries, people living under autocracies were found to be much more likely to exhibit the 'Dark Triad' of negative personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. In democracies, by contrast, more people displayed the 'Light Triad' of humanism, faith in humanity and 'Kantianism', or treating people with dignity in their own right rather than viewing them as a means to an end. Obviously, this is not related to race. Russians are hardly black, but they hardly live in a democracy either. It is a case of cognitive development. The problem occurs when, in an age of global travel, 'Dark Triad' migrants who grew up in despotic regimes encounter gullible 'Light Triad' officials in the democracies, whose empathies are easily played upon. That is why we find British judges ruling that an Albanian convict should avoid deportation because his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, a Pakistani drug dealer could stay so he could teach his son about Islam, and a paedophile of the same nationality should not be sent home since it would be 'unduly harsh' on his own children. These real-life cases, reported by the Telegraph, provide a clear collision of the 'Dark Triad' traits in the criminals and the 'Light Triad' tendencies in the judges. It is a chemical reaction waiting to happen, and the vast majority of the population, wherever they are born, are suffering the consequences. In other words, we are being taken for fools. No foreign criminal has a God-given right to set up home in Britain just because he fancies it. This is our home, and although we are delighted to welcome strangers, that generosity should be withdrawn from those who nick our television and threaten our children – even if their own happen to like the chicken nuggets in our fridge. Trump has now thrown down the gauntlet. What is the British Government going to do to set our own house in order? Will it take an anti-Semitic outrage like the firebombing in Colorado before the Prime Minister takes action? Will he take action even then? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
