Barrie Forster · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 5/11/24, I concluded the inquest into the death of Barrie Forster.

I recorded the cause of death as:
1a) Multi-organ failure;
1b) Acute Upper Gastro-Intestinal Haemorrhage in a Man with Ischaemic Heart Disease and on Treatment with Apixaban; Craniofacial Trauma Necessitating Surgical Repair (Operation 21/11/2020).

I recorded a conclusion that Barrie was unlawfully killed. In the event proper assessments had been made of the risk the perpetrator posed to Barrie and/or of the suitability of Barrie's address as somewhere for the perpetrator to live, it is more likely than not that the perpetrator would not have been permitted to live at Barrie's address upon release from custody and the assault would not have occurred when it did.

Barrie was assaulted on 20/11/20. The perpetrator, ████████, had been released from custody two days earlier. ████████ had recently had three spells in custody the last two sentences having been imposed after offences committed against his sister who had the protection of a Restraining Order.
The risk ████████ posed to Barrie had not been assessed properly or at all by the Probation Service particularly in light of a complaint of sexual assault by Barrie Forster against another family member and in the context of recent assaults by ████████ against other members of the family. Additionally, no or no adequate, assessment had been made by the Probation Service of the suitability of Barrie's address as a place at which ████████ could reside after his release from custody.

After an earlier release from custody ████████ had been found a bed in approved premises where he had stayed for six months. Thereafter, he had stayed in two B&Bs in another county before returning to Cornwall where he was homeless for a period, living in a tent at different locations.

After his most recent custodial sentence, a formal application for a bed at approved premises had not been made but, informally, members of Probation Service had been told one was not available. Discussions were ongoing with the Council’s homelessness team, but accommodation had not been secured. ████████ had earlier convictions for arson. The Probation Service thought ████████ would be found a room at a Travelodge or similar.

In the event, on the day of his release from custody, it was brought to the attention of the Probation Service that ████████ intended to sleep on a sofa at his father’s address. The suitability of this accommodation was not considered. The risk ████████ presented to Barrie was not assessed. Had this been done, I found it was more likely that ████████ would not have been permitted to live with his father and the assault would not have occurred when it did.

There is a lack of accommodation available to the Probation Service in which prisoners released from custody may properly be placed. This includes both Approved Premises (which I understand to be the responsibility of the MoJ) and more generally through the local authority to avoid homelessness. As a consequence, some prisoners are released and become effectively homeless (with increased difficulties in supervision) while others are accommodated at unsuitable premises, as happened in this instance.