PFD report

Paul Christopher THOMPSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Feb 2026•Suffolk

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Shortcomings in internal information passage concerning the release of prisoners receiving mental health care
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain healthcare continuity for prisoners after release
  2. Failure to provide released prisoners with clear information about when to report to Probation Services
  3. Failure to provide Probation Services with timely release information
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable information sharing for prison-to-community discharge coordinationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Action

    Compile a telephone list of active contact numbers for each Probation Area in England and Wales.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 February 2026.
  2. Action

    Operate a pilot flagging prisoners on the mental health caseload and require the discharging nurse to obtain mental health sign-off before release during service hours.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 February 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    NSFT was informed by email of the planned release in timely fashion, although the prisoner was not considered to require attendance.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Shortcomings in internal information passage concerning the release of prisoners receiving mental health care

Wider context from the report

“The evidence received at Inquest indicated that inadequate arrangements existed at HMP Norwich to provide for the release of prisoners in receipt of mental health care during out of hours periods. In line with procedures in place at HMP Norwich, Mr. Thompson should have been seen by the mental health team treating him so that appropriate arrangements could be put in place for follow up care and treatment in the community. This did not occur. The mental health team treating Mr. Thompson were only made aware of the fact that he had been released when it was mentioned the following day during a general staff briefing. In addition, Mr. Thompson was not given clear information around when to report to Probation Services, nor were Probation Services advised in a timely manner of Mr. Thompson’s release. As a consequence, when Mr. Thompson presented to Durham Probation Office the day after his release (12th July 2024), staff at the Probation Office in Durham had no knowledge of him or the fact of his release. Neither the failure to properly out-process Mr. Thompson from mental health services at HMP Norwich, nor the failure to inform Probation Services in Durham of Mr. Thompson’s release made a material contribution to his death. However, I am concerned that the evidence heard at Mr. Thompson’s Inquest reveals shortcomings in the internal passage of information at HMP Norwich concerning the release of prisoners in receipt of mental health care and treatment, particularly those who have expressed recent suicidal ideation. In addition, I am concerned as to the adequacy of information passage to the Probation Service relating to the release of prisoners from custody. In another case these failures may give rise to a risk of death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain healthcare continuity for prisoners after release.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide released prisoners with clear information about when to report to Probation Services

Wider context from the report

“The evidence received at Inquest indicated that inadequate arrangements existed at HMP Norwich to provide for the release of prisoners in receipt of mental health care during out of hours periods. In line with procedures in place at HMP Norwich, Mr. Thompson should have been seen by the mental health team treating him so that appropriate arrangements could be put in place for follow up care and treatment in the community. This did not occur. The mental health team treating Mr. Thompson were only made aware of the fact that he had been released when it was mentioned the following day during a general staff briefing. In addition, Mr. Thompson was not given clear information around when to report to Probation Services, nor were Probation Services advised in a timely manner of Mr. Thompson’s release. As a consequence, when Mr. Thompson presented to Durham Probation Office the day after his release (12th July 2024), staff at the Probation Office in Durham had no knowledge of him or the fact of his release. Neither the failure to properly out-process Mr. Thompson from mental health services at HMP Norwich, nor the failure to inform Probation Services in Durham of Mr. Thompson’s release made a material contribution to his death. However, I am concerned that the evidence heard at Mr. Thompson’s Inquest reveals shortcomings in the internal passage of information at HMP Norwich concerning the release of prisoners in receipt of mental health care and treatment, particularly those who have expressed recent suicidal ideation. In addition, I am concerned as to the adequacy of information passage to the Probation Service relating to the release of prisoners from custody. In another case these failures may give rise to a risk of death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide Probation Services with timely release information

Wider context from the report

“The evidence received at Inquest indicated that inadequate arrangements existed at HMP Norwich to provide for the release of prisoners in receipt of mental health care during out of hours periods. In line with procedures in place at HMP Norwich, Mr. Thompson should have been seen by the mental health team treating him so that appropriate arrangements could be put in place for follow up care and treatment in the community. This did not occur. The mental health team treating Mr. Thompson were only made aware of the fact that he had been released when it was mentioned the following day during a general staff briefing. In addition, Mr. Thompson was not given clear information around when to report to Probation Services, nor were Probation Services advised in a timely manner of Mr. Thompson’s release. As a consequence, when Mr. Thompson presented to Durham Probation Office the day after his release (12th July 2024), staff at the Probation Office in Durham had no knowledge of him or the fact of his release. Neither the failure to properly out-process Mr. Thompson from mental health services at HMP Norwich, nor the failure to inform Probation Services in Durham of Mr. Thompson’s release made a material contribution to his death. However, I am concerned that the evidence heard at Mr. Thompson’s Inquest reveals shortcomings in the internal passage of information at HMP Norwich concerning the release of prisoners in receipt of mental health care and treatment, particularly those who have expressed recent suicidal ideation. In addition, I am concerned as to the adequacy of information passage to the Probation Service relating to the release of prisoners from custody. In another case these failures may give rise to a risk of death. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable information sharing for prison-to-community discharge coordination; Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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

Compile a telephone list of active contact numbers for each Probation Area in England and Wales.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I note for your information that I have tasked my in-house Senior Probation Officer to compile a telephone list of active numbers, one for each Probation Area across England and Wales. This will in future days allow my administrators to supplement any email correspondence with a live call alerting our Probation colleagues to the relevant event. In the case of Mr Paul Thompson a Durham Probation number dialled at or shortly before 5pm was not answered. Clearly the incoming e-mail was not processed through to the Duty Officer before Paul arrived at Framwell House at 10am as directed by his discharge licence from HMP Norwich.”

Source location

2026-0066 - Response from HMP Norwich
Page 3 · response
Published 10 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

Operate a pilot flagging prisoners on the mental health caseload and require the discharging nurse to obtain mental health sign-off before release during service hours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A pilot initiative was agreed, and is now in operation, such that a flag on the SystmOne medical record, will be seen by the HCRG discharging nurse. That flag alerts the nurse to the fact that the prisoner being discharged is currently on the caseload of NSFT. The HCRG nurse will immediately call the NSFT duty person to the discharge unit to sign off the patient for release. This of course can only work from 0800 hrs until 1900 hrs.”

Source location

2026-0066 - Response from HMP Norwich
Page 2 · response
Published 10 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

NSFT was informed by email of the planned release in timely fashion, although the prisoner was not considered to require attendance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However an email timed at 1633 hrs the previous afternoon had been sent to the NSFT functional mailbox. The email is attached at Annex A to this response and shows recipients as ████████ and ████████. This email, even if opened by NSFT, would not have in itself resulted in the practitioners attending the discharge unit. Paul was not at that time considered to be a priority patient requiring any level of attendance from NSFT. However they were advised in timely fashion of the fact that he was to be discharged from the Prison on that day.”

Source location

2026-0066 - Response from HMP Norwich
Page 2 · response
Published 10 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

The release licence clearly instructed the prisoner when and where to report, and Durham Probation received timely release information at its correct email address.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I attach at Annex B to this correspondence a copy of the licence given to Mr Thompson as part of his discharge procedure from HMP Norwich. It is dated 11th July 2024 and is signed by Paul Thompson.”

Source location

2026-0066 - Response from HMP Norwich
Page 3 · response
Published 10 February 2026

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Send a copy of the response letter to the Prison Group Director.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 February 2026.
  2. 2

    Require two custodial managers to independently sign off every prison discharge.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 10 February 2026.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Existing HCRG 24-hour nursing provision is considered competent and sufficient to manage discharge support outside NSFT contract hours.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. 2

    Outside NSFT contract hours, HCRG has contractual responsibility for medically discharging prisoners and providing discharge support.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Send a copy of the response letter to the Prison Group Director.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is clear that there were some important issues for me to consider following your Regulation 28 letter. I hope that I have addressed them all and that you are content with our positive follow up actions. I believe all the necessary actions to allay your concerns sat within my establishment as Governor of HMP Norwich and no issues have been raised by me above establishment level, although I will send a copy of this letter to my Prison Group Director.”

Source location

2026-0066 - Response from HMP Norwich
Page 4 · response
Published 10 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

Require two custodial managers to independently sign off every prison discharge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In tackling that issue, all Prison Discharges are now signed off by two custodial managers and not just one. The dual aspect of checking and rechecking, quite independently of each other, as far as practically possible reduces the likelihood of the discharge going through the final gate without due medical procedures taking place. It is fortunate in assisting me to address your concern and I hope that you can accept my re-assurance on this matter that such human error should not re-occur at HMP Norwich, given the double checks now in vogue.”

Source location

2026-0066 - Response from HMP Norwich
Page 4 · response
Published 10 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 HCRG 24-hour nursing provision is considered competent and sufficient to manage discharge support outside NSFT contract hours.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Outside these hours, the role of medically discharging a prisoner falls as ever, to the HCRG who are on hand 24x7, and who have the contractual responsibility to cover this important process.”

Source location

2026-0066 - Response from HMP Norwich
Page 2 · response
Published 10 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

Outside NSFT contract hours, HCRG has contractual responsibility for medically discharging prisoners and providing discharge support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The contract that the NHS has agreed with NSFT does not require NSFT to attend the discharge unit and thus sign off on a patient such as Paul Thompson. Paul’s discharge procedure was always to be overseen by the duty nurse employed by HCRG. Unfortunately the Custodial Manager in charge of the prisoner’s passage to release, inexplicably failed to present Mr Thompson to the nurse and thus he was discharged without any medical clearance.”

Source location

2026-0066 - Response from HMP Norwich
Page 2 · response
Published 10 February 2026

Open published response
Back to top

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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026