Michael Williams · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Jul 2016•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Failure to maintain visual observation when the observation panel is blocked
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate supervision and monitoring of prisonersPart of recurring concern: Unreliable prison cell-hatch observation of prisoners
  2. Delays in responding when a prisoner is unobserved
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate supervision and monitoring of prisoners
  3. Predictable timing of documented observations
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custody

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. National Offender Management Service Equality, Rights and Decency Group

    Introduce the Safer Custody toolkit with guidance on ACCT procedures, emergency response, and communication with hard-to-engage prisoners.

  2. National Offender Management Service Equality, Rights and Decency Group

    Revise and disseminate the contingency plan, train staff to intervene quickly when observation panels are blocked, and permit individual staff to open cells during immediate danger.

  3. National Offender Management Service Equality, Rights and Decency Group

    Implement unpredictable ACCT observations, remind staff of requirements, and monitor compliance through management checks and document quality assurance.

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 maintain visual observation when the observation panel is blocked

Wider context from the report

“Mr Williams should have been observed 4x every hour during the evening of 15th September 2015. Several of these checks were missed, and after he blocked the observation panel, he could only be heard, not seen. a) Observations (where they were carried out) were documented at precise 15 minute intervals, commencing on the hour, and were therefore predictable. This is not best practice and should be discouraged. b) There was no explanation for the missed observations. c) Mr Williams was unobserved for approximately 1 hour before the cell door was opened, and he was found deceased. The jury found this was inappropriate delay and I agree with them. Clear guidance and training should be provided, and regularly repeated, to assist the Prison Officers in managing such situations in a timely way. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate supervision and monitoring of prisoners; Unreliable prison cell-hatch observation of prisoners.

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

Delays in responding when a prisoner is unobserved

Wider context from the report

“Mr Williams should have been observed 4x every hour during the evening of 15th September 2015. Several of these checks were missed, and after he blocked the observation panel, he could only be heard, not seen. a) Observations (where they were carried out) were documented at precise 15 minute intervals, commencing on the hour, and were therefore predictable. This is not best practice and should be discouraged. b) There was no explanation for the missed observations. c) Mr Williams was unobserved for approximately 1 hour before the cell door was opened, and he was found deceased. The jury found this was inappropriate delay and I agree with them. Clear guidance and training should be provided, and regularly repeated, to assist the Prison Officers in managing such situations in a timely way. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate supervision and monitoring of prisoners.

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

Predictable timing of documented observations

Wider context from the report

“Mr Williams should have been observed 4x every hour during the evening of 15th September 2015. Several of these checks were missed, and after he blocked the observation panel, he could only be heard, not seen. a) Observations (where they were carried out) were documented at precise 15 minute intervals, commencing on the hour, and were therefore predictable. This is not best practice and should be discouraged. b) There was no explanation for the missed observations. c) Mr Williams was unobserved for approximately 1 hour before the cell door was opened, and he was found deceased. The jury found this was inappropriate delay and I agree with them. Clear guidance and training should be provided, and regularly repeated, to assist the Prison Officers in managing such situations in a timely way. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable recording of required observations in care and custody.

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 complete scheduled observations

Wider context from the report

“Mr Williams should have been observed 4x every hour during the evening of 15th September 2015. Several of these checks were missed, and after he blocked the observation panel, he could only be heard, not seen. a) Observations (where they were carried out) were documented at precise 15 minute intervals, commencing on the hour, and were therefore predictable. This is not best practice and should be discouraged. b) There was no explanation for the missed observations. c) Mr Williams was unobserved for approximately 1 hour before the cell door was opened, and he was found deceased. The jury found this was inappropriate delay and I agree with them. Clear guidance and training should be provided, and regularly repeated, to assist the Prison Officers in managing such situations in a timely way. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate supervision and monitoring of prisoners.

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

Introduce the Safer Custody toolkit with guidance on ACCT procedures, emergency response, and communication with hard-to-engage prisoners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(2) There was no explanation for the missed observations. In a notice to staff dated 24 March 2016, all staff were reminded of the importance of ACCT observations. The new Safer Custody toolkit that will be introduced in August 2016 provides clear instructions to staff regarding ACCT procedures and the importance of conducting ACCT observations.”

Source location

2016-0245-Response-by-NOMS
Page 1 · response
Published 11 July 2016

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

Revise and disseminate the contingency plan, train staff to intervene quickly when observation panels are blocked, and permit individual staff to open cells during immediate danger.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(3) Mr Williams was unobserved for approximately 1 hour before the cell door was opened and he was found deceased. The jury found this was an inappropriate delay and I agree with them. Clear guidance and training should be provided and regularly repeated to assist the prison Officers in managing such situation in a timely way. The contingency plan at HMP Leicester was revised in April 2016, and the amended plan has been brought to the attention of staff through training and briefings. Staff have been made aware that they must intervene quickly if the observation panel has been blocked and a prisoner is refusing to engage. In particular, where there appears to be an immediate danger to life, cells can be opened by an individual member of staff.”

Source location

2016-0245-Response-by-NOMS
Page 1 · response
Published 11 July 2016

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

Implement unpredictable ACCT observations, remind staff of requirements, and monitor compliance through management checks and document quality assurance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(1) Observations (where they were carried out) were documented at precise 15 minute intervals, commencing on the hour and therefore predictable. This is not best practice and should be discouraged. Prison Service Instruction 64/2011 Safer Custody sets out very clearly the requirement for observations to be conducted at unpredictable times, for example four times an hour, as opposed to every 15 minutes. All relevant staff at HMP Leicester have been reminded of this, and management checks are now in place to ensure that staff are correctly undertaking observations. All ACCT documents are quality assured and monitored by the Head of Safer Custody.”

Source location

2016-0245-Response-by-NOMS
Page 1 · response
Published 11 July 2016

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