PFD report

Russell Ian IRVINE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Jul 2024•County Durham and Darlington

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

Described in 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 raised2

  1. Failure to escalate information about food and fluid refusal
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable management of food and fluid refusal in prisons
  2. Lack of a formal process to monitor prisoners’ meal collection and food and fluid intake
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.1

  1. Action

    Write to all Governors highlighting the case and requesting staff reminders and assurance that local food-refusal recording and healthcare-sharing systems are in place.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 August 2024.

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

  1. Position

    Governors are responsible for assuring that local processes record and share information about food and fluid refusals effectively.

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

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 escalate information about food and fluid refusal

Wider context from the report

“Russell Ian Irvine died three days after his entry into HMP Durham on 4 November 2022 following his nicotine recall into custody, about which he protested and told reception healthcare staff that he had refused food and fluids for the previous two days. The evidence demonstrated that this information was not escalated in accordance with established policy which meant that Mr Irvine's food and fluid intake was not adequately or at all monitored by prison wing staff. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable management of food and fluid refusal in prisons.

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

Lack of a formal process to monitor prisoners’ meal collection and food and fluid intake

Wider context from the report

“As to food and fluid monitoring generally and notwithstanding the availability of internal policies mandating necessary action in cases of known food and fluid refusal, evidence from prison officers at inquest was to the effect that no formal policy existed to monitor and identify whether a prisoner had collected their meal and so had necessary sustenance at least available to them. The absence of such policy was identified by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman during its investigation as to the circumstances of Mr Irvine's death and this formed a recommendation within the Ombudsman's report. HMP Durham's response to this recommendation was the introduction of process and form to record instances when a prisoner failed to collect their meal as a means of monitoring their intake. Evidence from a prisoner Governor was to the effect that she was not aware that such a process or form was in use at any other establishment within the nationwide secure estate, enquiries having been made to substantiate this. The concern is that other such establishments operate without the advantage of the safeguard now employed at HMP Durham with the risk of future deaths occurring elsewhere evident. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Write to all Governors highlighting the case and requesting staff reminders and assurance that local food-refusal recording and healthcare-sharing systems are in place.

Verbatim wording from the response

“are operating effectively. I will ensure all Governors are written to so that this case is brought to their attention and to ask them to remind staff of their role in early identification of food and/or fluid refusals and to satisfy themselves that there are systems in place for recording information and sharing it with healthcare providers.”

Source location

Response from HMPPS
Page 2 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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

Governors are responsible for assuring that local processes record and share information about food and fluid refusals effectively.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I understand your concern to ensure that this policy is translated into practical action, but in view of the range of catering and food service arrangements across the prison estate I do not believe that the introduction of a single process or form would be operationally viable. I believe that a better way forward is to ask Governors to assure themselves that their local reporting processes”

Source location

Response from HMPPS
Page 1 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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

A single process or form for monitoring food intake is not operationally viable because catering and food-service arrangements vary across the prison estate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I understand your concern to ensure that this policy is translated into practical action, but in view of the range of catering and food service arrangements across the prison estate I do not believe that the introduction of a single process or form would be operationally viable. I believe that a better way forward is to ask Governors to assure themselves that their local reporting processes”

Source location

Response from HMPPS
Page 1 · response
Published 1 August 2024

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026