Recipient

Wakefield Prison

First report 30 Nov 2021•Latest report 23 Jun 2023

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: 3
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

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

23 Jun2023
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised3
1. Failure to restrict access to potentially harmful male-grooming equipment for prisoners with an identified history of self-harming
2. Insufficient specialist psychiatric care for prisoners
3. Failure to withdraw potentially harmful male-grooming equipment from use in the prison
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Stephen Kurt Beadman · 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

Stephen Kurt Beadman was a 34-year-old serving prisoner at HMP Wakefield who was found unresponsive after applying a ligature to his neck and died in hospital the following day. The Inquest found that he committed suicide having been bullied by other prisoners. The principal concern was that the prison’s limited consultant psychiatrist resource was insufficient for the complex mental health needs of its prisoner population, creating concern that other deaths may occur.

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 Wakefield Prison; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to restrict access to potentially harmful male-grooming equipment for prisoners with an identified history of self-harming
Wider context from the report
“1) Mr Beadman had a history of self-harming ████████. Nonetheless, he was permitted ████████ in his possession when alone in his cell. 2) For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Beadman took his own life later in the afternoon of 7th April 2021 by applying a ligature to his neck, ████████ to take his own life. 3) The issue of ████████ gives rise to a foreseeable risk. 4) Only six weeks before the 7th April 2021 incident, another prisoner, Carl Shaun Langdell had used a similar type of ████████ to inflict a fatal wound to his neck. A Prevention of Future Death Report dated 21.10.22 was made in that case. A copy is attached, along with the response received from ████████ dated 23.12.22. 5) Evidence was taken at the Inquest in which several people working at the prison expressed support for such ████████ to be withdrawn from use in the prison. 6) It is acknowledged that consideration has been given within the prison service nationally to the withdrawal of ████████ of this type and that this work (including various pilot projects) is ongoing. It is further acknowledged that the difficulties in identifying a workable alternative system of male grooming are considerable. This does not, however, obviate the need to remove a clear source of potential harm from those with an identified history of self-harming. ”
Open source report
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 Wakefield Prison; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Insufficient specialist psychiatric care for prisoners
Wider context from the report
“2) Despite this complex cohort of prisoners, the prison only has one day per week of consultant psychiatrist resource. As the professed principle is equivalence of care with the community, this seems not to be achieved, particularly having regard to the psychological make up of the prisoner population. 3) Evidence taken at the Inquest indicated that further senior psychiatric doctor resource would enable the prison to provide better for the needs of the prisoners. 4) For the avoidance of doubt, it is accepted that Mr Beadman himself was able to see the consultant psychiatrist on 19th October 2021 for 1 hour and again on 25th January 2021 (at which time he was discharged). Notwithstanding that his death on 8th April 2021 cannot be attributed to a lack of psychiatric attention, there is a concern that other long-term inmates in the prison are not receiving the specialist care they probably need. This in turn gives rise to a concern that other deaths may occur. ”
Open source report
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 Wakefield Prison; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to withdraw potentially harmful male-grooming equipment from use in the prison
Wider context from the report
“1) Mr Beadman had a history of self-harming ████████. Nonetheless, he was permitted ████████ in his possession when alone in his cell. 2) For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Beadman took his own life later in the afternoon of 7th April 2021 by applying a ligature to his neck, ████████ to take his own life. 3) The issue of ████████ gives rise to a foreseeable risk. 4) Only six weeks before the 7th April 2021 incident, another prisoner, Carl Shaun Langdell had used a similar type of ████████ to inflict a fatal wound to his neck. A Prevention of Future Death Report dated 21.10.22 was made in that case. A copy is attached, along with the response received from ████████ dated 23.12.22. 5) Evidence was taken at the Inquest in which several people working at the prison expressed support for such ████████ to be withdrawn from use in the prison. 6) It is acknowledged that consideration has been given within the prison service nationally to the withdrawal of ████████ of this type and that this work (including various pilot projects) is ongoing. It is further acknowledged that the difficulties in identifying a workable alternative system of male grooming are considerable. This does not, however, obviate the need to remove a clear source of potential harm from those with an identified history of self-harming. ”
Open source report
21 Oct2022
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to prevent prisoners at known chronic risk of suicide or self-harm from possessing items when alone in locked cells overnight
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Carl Shaun Langdell · 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

Carl Shaun Langdell was discovered in his locked, single-occupancy prison cell with a significant neck wound and died after suffering cardiac arrest despite emergency treatment. The concerns included his identified chronic risk of suicide or self-harm, recent bizarre and agitated behaviour after refusing medication, and his being permitted to possess an unspecified item while alone in his cell overnight. The inquest recorded a finding of suicide and attributed the death to haemorrhage from a neck incision.

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 Wakefield Prison; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to prevent prisoners at known chronic risk of suicide or self-harm from possessing items when alone in locked cells overnight
Wider context from the report
“(2) He had been identified by a consultant psychiatrist as at “chronic risk of suicide attempts/self-harm attempts which is likely to remain due to the nature of his personality disorder”. (3) In January 2021 he was observed to be acting in a bizarre and agitated manner after refusing his prescribed medication for the previous month. (4) Despite this history and the known risk he was permitted under the prevailing ████████ rules at HMP Wakefield to be in possession of ████████ when alone in his locked cell overnight. ”
Open source report
30 Nov2021
West Yorkshire Eastern
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to obtain a response from all prisoners during welfare checks
2. Lack of clearly understood systems for assuring prisoner wellbeing during or shortly after unlock
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Connor Arthur Steven Hout · 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

Connor Arthur Steven Hout, aged 24, was found deceased in his prison cell on 10 June 2019 after several brief observations by prison officers during the morning. The report identified that welfare checks did not require officers to obtain a response or engage with prisoners, including those who appeared to be asleep, creating a risk that prisoners in distress or otherwise causing concern could be missed.

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 Wakefield Prison; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to obtain a response from all prisoners during welfare checks
Wider context from the report
“The evidence revealed prison officers are not obtaining, nor did the prison systems require them to obtain, a response from all prisoners during welfare checks. More specifically, during the morning unlock they are not required to, and therefore do not necessarily seek to, obtain a response or otherwise engage with prisoners. In particular, no response is required, and therefore not sought, from prisoners who appear to be asleep in bed, notwithstanding the requirements of PSI 75/2011 (Residential Services). The PSI sets out the fact that residential prison staff play a key role in spotting any signs of distress and will often be the first to pick up information or signs, and should accordingly engage with prisoners in such a way that facilitates the identification of any concerns or distress. Further, paragraph 2.3 of the PSI, namely, “Output No. 3 Prisoners are supported and their daily needs are met” states that prisons are required to have, “clearly understood systems in place for staff to assure themselves of the wellbeing of prisoners during or shortly after unlock”. In the absence of such systems prisoners in distress, or otherwise a cause for concern, may be missed. ”
Open source report
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 Wakefield Prison; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of clearly understood systems for assuring prisoner wellbeing during or shortly after unlock
Wider context from the report
“The evidence revealed prison officers are not obtaining, nor did the prison systems require them to obtain, a response from all prisoners during welfare checks. More specifically, during the morning unlock they are not required to, and therefore do not necessarily seek to, obtain a response or otherwise engage with prisoners. In particular, no response is required, and therefore not sought, from prisoners who appear to be asleep in bed, notwithstanding the requirements of PSI 75/2011 (Residential Services). The PSI sets out the fact that residential prison staff play a key role in spotting any signs of distress and will often be the first to pick up information or signs, and should accordingly engage with prisoners in such a way that facilitates the identification of any concerns or distress. Further, paragraph 2.3 of the PSI, namely, “Output No. 3 Prisoners are supported and their daily needs are met” states that prisons are required to have, “clearly understood systems in place for staff to assure themselves of the wellbeing of prisoners during or shortly after unlock”. In the absence of such systems prisoners in distress, or otherwise a cause for concern, may be missed. ”
Open source report

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised3

Failure to restrict access to potentially harmful male-grooming equipment for prisoners with an identified history of self-harming

Insufficient specialist psychiatric care for prisoners

Failure to withdraw potentially harmful male-grooming equipment from use in the prison

Concerns raised1

Failure to prevent prisoners at known chronic risk of suicide or self-harm from possessing items when alone in locked cells overnight

Concerns raised2

Failure to obtain a response from all prisoners during welfare checks

Lack of clearly understood systems for assuring prisoner wellbeing during or shortly after unlock