Recipient

Liverpool Prison

Pin Request correction

First report 16 Dec 2016•Latest report 16 Dec 2016

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Justice · Prison or young offender institution. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Liverpool Prison linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    Mark LILLIOTT · 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

    Mark LILLIOTT, a 54-year-old inmate at HMP Liverpool, was found unresponsive in his cell on the morning after 22 December 2014 and was pronounced dead at 09:12. The report raised a concern about a short delay in accessing a senior officer with a radio to request emergency assistance, although it stated that Mr LILLIOTT was already dead when discovered and that the delay did not affect the outcome in this case.

    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. The report was sent to Liverpool Prison; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure immediate access to a radio for emergency calls

    Wider context from the report

    “When the two Prison Officers discovered Mr Lilliott they immediately tried to identify an Officer with a radio to request immediate assistance from HOTEL1 (the urgent nursing response within the prison) and subsequently determining that this was a CODE Blue and therefore an emergency ambulance was also required. The two Prison Officers therefore left the cell to seek the Senior Officer with the radio. It was reportedly noisy on the wing at the time. The Prison Officers tried to shout down from level 5 to attract the Senior Officer who they believed was on level 2 but this action was unsuccessful. One of the Prison Officers therefore left the 5’s landing to go down to the lower levels and find the Senior Officer, as he passed through level 4 he saw another Prison Officer who he thought might have a radio but he didn’t and therefore he proceeded to lean over the landing and shout again to try to attract the attention of the Senior Officer with a radio and again it was reported that the Prison Officers shouts were not heard because of the noise, it was a busy period with prisoners making their way to their daily activity. When the Prison Officer shouted again to get the attention of the Senior Officer he was on this occasion heard and the appropriate radio dispatches were immediately made in respect of HOTEL1 and Code Blue. The delay, albeit relatively short, in accessing a Senior Officer in possession of a radio on this occasion did not affect the outcome, Mr Lilliott was already dead when he was discovered and had been for some time. However, it might not have been the case that the prisoner was already deceased and it might have been the case and it might be the case in the future that the fastest possible response and action to radio for emergency help could make a difference to the outcome. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026