Recurring concern

Failure to safely segregate vulnerable prisoners from prisoners who may victimise them

First to latest report 20 Nov 2017 — 28 Jan 2026

Reports that mention this concern: 2
Times this concern has been raised: 4
Stated actions linked to this concern: 3

What this concern includes

Includes failures of prison placement, allocation or segregation controls that leave vulnerable prisoners mixed with or exposed to prisoners who may victimise, exploit or otherwise endanger them, including inappropriate placement in vulnerable-prisoner units and comparable risks arising from prisoner allocation decisions.

What is not included

Excludes general prison violence, bullying or prisoner-supervision concerns where no deficient placement, allocation or segregation control is identified.
Excludes ordinary cell-sharing decisions unless the assertion specifically concerns protection of a vulnerable prisoner from a materially identified victimisation risk.
Excludes generic prison staffing, training, communication or safeguarding deficiencies unless they directly cause unsafe placement or segregation of vulnerable prisoners.
Excludes unsuitable care, mental-health or social-care placements outside prison custody.

Trends

Reports over time

Reports mentioning this concern, over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Ministry of Justice1

St George's Hospital1

Wandsworth Prison1

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

28 Jan2026
Leicester City and South Leicestershire
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to prevent offence-neutral residential integration of prisoners convicted of sexual offences
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

HM Prison and Probation Service
Stated actions 3
1. HM Prison and Probation Service
  Provide governors and directors with evidence-based guidance for making safe, locally tailored accommodation decisions for people convicted of sexual offences.
2. HM Prison and Probation Service
  Maintain oversight of safety, intimidation, violence and threats to assess whether accommodation integration decisions remain appropriate.
3. HM Prison and Probation Service
  Continue reviewing accommodation arrangements and make changes where required to support prisoner safety and wellbeing.
Respondent positions 2
1. HM Prison and Probation Service
  Existing guidance, local accommodation discretion, risk oversight and established safeguards are considered sufficient to manage PCOSO safety without universal separation.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. HM Prison and Probation Service
  Complete separation of PCOSOs from the wider prison population is not always operationally feasible, so it cannot be maintained universally.
  Unable to act
AI-generated summary

Nigel Anthony FECKEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Nigel Anthony Feckey was found suspended by a ligature in his prison cell at HMP Fosse Way on 23 September 2024 and was declared deceased at the scene. The inquest concluded suicide, with concerns including bullying and abuse of prisoners convicted of sexual offences, offence-neutral prison arrangements, staffing pressures, weaknesses in information-sharing and ACCT processes, and failures to respond adequately to reported concerns and risks.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to prevent offence-neutral residential integration of prisoners convicted of sexual offences
Wider context from the report
“Mr Feckey was a Prisoner Convicted of a sexual offence (PCOSO). Offence Neutrality is when there is no special block to keep sex offenders in, and the population is mingled regardless of the offence they are in prison for. It was discussed at the inquest and concluded in evidence that it is not possible to keep offences secret for the most part because although the prisoners have access to the wide internet themselves in their cells, they only have to ask someone on the phone or at a visit to find out what someone is in for and it can be that easy. Also heard at the inquest was that many mainstream prisoners held strong views that they did not wish to share their living space with men convicted of sex offences. They were both vocal and physical in their resistance to integrated living. The data at Fosse Way suggested that a change was required as figures for self-harm and self-isolation were beginning to emerge. Although steps were taken to encourage integration a reassessment of this position took place in early 2025 and decision was made to separate the residential houseblocks and In March 2025 700 prisoners from the prison were transferred to a non-integrated unit. Since then, there had been a reduction in the number of ACCT documents and self-isolation. Evidence in the inquest indicated that sex offender prisoners were scared, they felt they couldn’t leave their cells and that they were vulnerable to direct bullying or verbal abuse. Shouting and threats were constantly heard directly connected to the PCOSO offences. Whilst Fosse Way have taken their own risk reductions regarding offence neutrality, I understand that the policy remains and is still implemented in other prisons and it is a matter of concern to me that a future death may occur. ”
Source location
Nigel Anthony FECKEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Provide governors and directors with evidence-based guidance for making safe, locally tailored accommodation decisions for people convicted of sexual offences.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The management of PCOSOs is complex, and we continue to review, refine and adapt our approach to supporting this cohort as we learn more about their diverse needs. Our guidance document, The HMPPS Approach to the Management and Rehabilitation of People Convicted of Sexual Offences, provides evidence-based guidance for governors and”

Source location
2026-0047 - Response from HMPPS & MOJ
Page 1 · response
Published 2 February 2026
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Maintain oversight of safety, intimidation, violence and threats to assess whether accommodation integration decisions remain appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Key workers will escalate and document any concerns raised, particularly in relation to safety, bullying and/or intimidation through established channels so that individual prisoners can be monitored and supported appropriately whilst also challenging the behaviour of perpetrators. It is imperative that governors and directors give thorough consideration to, and maintain oversight of, concerns relating to safety,”

Source location
2026-0047 - Response from HMPPS & MOJ
Page 2 · response
Published 2 February 2026
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Continue reviewing accommodation arrangements and make changes where required to support prisoner safety and wellbeing.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Thank you again for bringing your concern to my attention. I hope that this response provides assurance that whilst some prisons do operate an integrated, ‘offence neutral’ regime, this is to encourage and support all prisoners towards resettlement and release, with access to the rehabilitative opportunities required to successfully transition back into the community. I hope that you are assured that governors and directors continue to review and make changes where required, and that there are a range of established risk management processes and safeguards in place to support the safety and wellbeing of PCOSOs throughout their sentence.”

Source location
2026-0047 - Response from HMPPS & MOJ
Page 3 · response
Published 2 February 2026
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing guidance, local accommodation discretion, risk oversight and established safeguards are considered sufficient to manage PCOSO safety without universal separation.

Verbatim wording from the response
“directors to support them to make safe and appropriate decisions on accommodation arrangements. The guidance sets out that governors and directors have discretion over whether PCOSOs should be integrated or separated, and that consideration should be given to the specifics and facilities of each establishment. For example, the size of the prison, cohort mix, availability of activities and courses, and the regional support available should be factors in decision making as well as prisoner concerns around risk and safety. This ensures that decisions are tailored to local risks and resources with the flexibility to make changes when required rather than relying on a ‘one size fits all’ model. You heard evidence at the inquest that HMP Fosse Way have now created two separate houseblocks and that PCOSOs are given the option of locating there which most, but not all, choose to do.”

Source location
2026-0047 - Response from HMPPS & MOJ
Page 2 · response
Published 2 February 2026
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Complete separation of PCOSOs from the wider prison population is not always operationally feasible, so it cannot be maintained universally.

Verbatim wording from the response
“HMPPS is committed to supporting PCOSOs to progress through the prison system, working on rehabilitation, and feeling supported to be ready to leave prison. Whilst it will not always be appropriate or operationally feasible to maintain complete separation from the wider prison population there are a number of ways that staff provide support to prisoners who feel vulnerable or at risk from others either due to their offence or for any other reason. For example, the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) model sets out that all prisoners are allocated a key worker. Key workers aim to build constructive, supportive and motivational relationships with prisoners through regular and consistent key work sessions. These sessions provide an opportunity for prisoners to discuss wellbeing and to raise any issues, including any risk related concerns.”

Source location
2026-0047 - Response from HMPPS & MOJ
Page 2 · response
Published 2 February 2026
Open published response
20 Nov2017
Inner West London
Concerns raised3
1. Inappropriate mixing of vulnerable prisoners with non-vulnerable prisoners in the vulnerable prisoners’ unit
2. Inappropriate cell allocation for vulnerable prisoners
3. Mixing of vulnerable prisoners with potential bullies
This report raised 12 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Robert John Richards · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Robert John Richards died by suicide after being found hanging by a sheet in his cell at HMP Wandsworth on 29 July 2014. The report identified concerns about bullying, extortion, inadequate risk management and communication, unsuitable cell allocation, staffing and training, and failings in resuscitation equipment and procedures.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inappropriate mixing of vulnerable prisoners with non-vulnerable prisoners in the vulnerable prisoners’ unit
Wider context from the report
“2. The organisation of the vulnerable prisoners’ unit is such that those truly vulnerable are mixed with those prisoners placed there for reasons as drug debt from other wings, who are not vulnerable in other ways and then abuse prisoners such as Mr Richards. ”
Source location
Robert John Richards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inappropriate cell allocation for vulnerable prisoners
Wider context from the report
“4. That the system for cell allocation is inappropriate such that a young and immature and vulnerable man such as Mr Richards was sharing a cell with a prisoner with convictions for predatory sexual behaviour with boys. ”
Source location
Robert John Richards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Mixing of vulnerable prisoners with potential bullies
Wider context from the report
“1. That bullying within HMP Wandsworth is not appropriately managed due to inadequate systems being in place, too few staff on duty, poor communication between teams, inadequate staff training, poor recognition of risk and the mixing of vulnerable prisoners with potential bullies. ”
Source location
Robert John Richards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
Open source report

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Trends

Reports mentioning this concern, over time

Concerns raised1

Failure to prevent offence-neutral residential integration of prisoners convicted of sexual offences

Linked response

Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised3

Inappropriate mixing of vulnerable prisoners with non-vulnerable prisoners in the vulnerable prisoners’ unit

Inappropriate cell allocation for vulnerable prisoners

Mixing of vulnerable prisoners with potential bullies

Stated actions 3

Respondent positions 2