Dean Louis BARRELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Oct 2018•East Sussex

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Delay in communicating actual release dates to custodial establishments
    Part of recurring concern: Inaccurate calculation of prisoners’ release and sentence datesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures
  2. Failure to inform vulnerable prisoners of their actual release dates promptly
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures

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. HM Prison and Probation Service

    Publish a new recall policy framework retaining the notification requirement and revising the timeframe to one working day.

  2. HM Prison and Probation Service

    Reinforce instructions to recall staff to complete work within target and to a high standard, including awareness of the consequences of failing to do so.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. HM Prison and Probation Service

    Existing recall procedures are clear and sufficient to provide offenders promptly with information about their recall.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Delay in communicating actual release dates to custodial establishments

Wider context from the report

“Dean Barrell clearly thought he was in HMP Lewes for the remainder of his sentence (some 3 months). This was incorrect, as he was due for release on 17 February 2017. Had Mr Barrell been informed sooner and in a timely fashion, he may well have not taken his own life. It took the Prison and Probation Service 7 days to communicate the actual release date to HMP Lewes. HMP Lewes attempted then to communicate this within 3 hours of receipt, but Mr Barrell had by then taken his own life. Fixed term recalls for breach of licence conditions are not complex. By their very nature, they can result in short sentences to be served. Vulnerable prisoners deserve to know what their actual release date is, as soon as possible. A seven day delay as in this case, is simply unacceptable. The communication of the actual release date to a prisoner should, in this technological age, take less than 7 days. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inaccurate calculation of prisoners’ release and sentence dates; Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

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 inform vulnerable prisoners of their actual release dates promptly

Wider context from the report

“Dean Barrell clearly thought he was in HMP Lewes for the remainder of his sentence (some 3 months). This was incorrect, as he was due for release on 17 February 2017. Had Mr Barrell been informed sooner and in a timely fashion, he may well have not taken his own life. It took the Prison and Probation Service 7 days to communicate the actual release date to HMP Lewes. HMP Lewes attempted then to communicate this within 3 hours of receipt, but Mr Barrell had by then taken his own life. Fixed term recalls for breach of licence conditions are not complex. By their very nature, they can result in short sentences to be served. Vulnerable prisoners deserve to know what their actual release date is, as soon as possible. A seven day delay as in this case, is simply unacceptable. The communication of the actual release date to a prisoner should, in this technological age, take less than 7 days. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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

Publish a new recall policy framework retaining the notification requirement and revising the timeframe to one working day.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This Probation Instruction remains in force; however a new policy framework covering recall actions will be published by the end of 2018. This framework retains the above requirement but, for the sake of clarity, revises the timeframe to one working day.”

Source location

Dean-BARRELL-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 11 October 2018

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

Reinforce instructions to recall staff to complete work within target and to a high standard, including awareness of the consequences of failing to do so.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I apologise for the error in this case which I agree was unacceptable. However, I am satisfied that the process for advising offenders of the reasons for their return to custody and the type of recall they are serving is clear. I have reinforced instructions to staff in PPCS responsible for the recall of offenders, of the need to ensure that they complete the work they carry out in target and to a high standard. I have also made them aware of the serious repercussions of not doing so.”

Source location

Dean-BARRELL-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 11 October 2018

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 recall procedures are clear and sufficient to provide offenders promptly with information about their recall.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I apologise for the error in this case which I agree was unacceptable. However, I am satisfied that the process for advising offenders of the reasons for their return to custody and the type of recall they are serving is clear. I have reinforced instructions to staff in PPCS responsible for the recall of offenders, of the need to ensure that they complete the work they carry out in target and to a high standard. I have also made them aware of the serious repercussions of not doing so.”

Source location

Dean-BARRELL-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 11 October 2018

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026