Richard Gordon Franks · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 17 April 2019 I commenced an investigation into the death of Richard Gordon Franks, aged 39. This concluded on 19 October 2021 when a jury returned a narrative conclusion recording a finding of suicide based upon the post mortem evidence that the cause of death was ████████

Mr Franks was remanded in custody on 29 December 2018 and remained in HMP Leeds until his death on 12 April 2019. On 11 April 2019 he appeared at Leeds Crown Court. He was seen in conference that morning by his solicitor and counsel at which time he was said to be in a highly agitated state and to indicate he was likely to commit suicide if sentenced to two years imprisonment. On his return to prison at approximately 17:00 hours he reported erroneously that he had been sentenced to five years imprisonment when in fact his case had been adjourned for sentencing at a later date.

Mr Franks was last seen alive at approximately 20:25 hours when locked in his single occupancy cell. At approximately 06:00 hours the following morning, 12 April 2019 he was found dead in his cell.

A post mortem examination attributed his death to ████████

(1) Mr Franks had a known history of self-harming and suicide attempts. His emotional state when seen at court on 11 April 2019 was triggered at least in part to his reaction to a development in the prosecution brought against him which he had not foreseen. His statement that he was likely to commit suicide was not communicated to either the security staff at the court or the prison staff. In consequence, the prison staff had no information concerning the events which took place at court.

(2) Mr Franks somehow perceived that he had been sentenced to five years imprisonment, which was not the case. This false impression caused him to be in distress prior to being locked in his cell around 19:00 hours.

(3) Had information concerning his emotions at court been relayed to the prison staff, this may have triggered a decision to open an ACCT – the process by which a prisoner is subject to increased monitoring and support. In the event no checks were made on him for some 10 hours.

(4) At a previous hearing on 25.02.17 Mr Franks had made a comparable threat to kill himself as a result of what he perceived to be an adverse development in the case brought against him. At that time his signed consent authorising information to be passed to the prison was obtained and communicated to the prison.

(5) The benefit of relaying helpful information to the prison intended to protect Mr Franks, does not seem to involve a breach of professional privilege. It would have been sufficient to request that the prison staff assess Mr Franks for themselves on his return in view of (unspecified) developments at court that day.