PFD report

Paul Martin GOBELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Dec 2024•Nottinghamshire

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
4

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 raised4

  1. Lack of arrangements for welfare checks when the First Night Interview cannot take place
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate prison reception safeguardsPart of recurring concern: Unreliable welfare-check processes for people whose health is of concern
  2. Failure to obtain Probation input for Open Conditions Suitability Assessments
  3. Failure to communicate changes in cell sharing risk promptly to prisoners
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe cell-sharing decisions for prisoners
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.3

  1. Action

    Update the induction policy to require late-arrivals forms when normal induction cannot be facilitated.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 January 2025.
  2. Action

    Amend the local safety strategy to require written notification when prisoners’ CSRA levels change following review.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 28 January 2025.
  3. Action

    Complete and reissue the CSRA policy, clarifying that prisoners must be informed promptly of changes to their CSRA status.

    Stated by HM Prison and Probation ServiceStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 28 January 2025.

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

  1. Position

    Existing published Expectations cover the identified prison safety issues, which inspectors will consider during inspections and follow up as appropriate.

    Stated by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of PrisonsExisting 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

Lack of arrangements for welfare checks when the First Night Interview cannot take place

Wider context from the report

“1. Paul Gobell was serving a life sentence for rape. He had served fifteen years in a closed prison, most recently at HMP Prison, Whatton. In August 2021, he was deemed by the Parole Board to be suitable for a move to open conditions and was therefore transferred to HM Prison Hollesley Bay on 20/10/21. He was there for just two and a half weeks. Within a few hours of his return to HM Prison, Whatton on 04/11/21 he was subject to a Control & Restraint incident. His behaviour at this time was reported to be refractory and aggressive. During the incident he received a soft tissue injury which necessitated a trip to the A&E department at the local hospital. As a result, the usual First Night Interview did not take place that evening, nor on the following day. As a result there was no welfare check and no ACCT was opened. There is no national or local policy in place stating what arrangements should be made to carry out a welfare check when, for operational reasons, the First Night Interview cannot take place. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate prison reception safeguards; Unreliable welfare-check processes for people whose health is of concern.

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 obtain Probation input for Open Conditions Suitability Assessments

Wider context from the report

“3. Whilst at HM Prison, Hollesley Bay, Paul Gobell rang the Probation Officer (who had dealt with his Parole Board hearing in August 2021) and told her that he felt he was a poor fit in open conditions, that the environment there was hostile and unpleasant and that he had let slip to another prisoner that he was serving a term of imprisonment for offences of a sexual nature. The Probation Officer concerned did not see fit to report these disclosures to the Offender Management Unit. An Open Conditions Suitability Assessment ('OCSA') was subsequently held at HM Prison, Hollesley Bay on 02/11/24, after Mr. Gobell spoke to an Orderly Officer and asked to be returned to HM Prison, Whatton. Despite the multi-disciplinary nature of the OCSA, no input was obtained or requested from Probation staff at HM Prison, Hollesley Bay or elsewhere. Had the relevant Probation staff been involved this would have better informed the OCSA and steps could have been taken to offer Mr Gobell additional support, designed to encourage him to remain in the open conditions of a 'D' category prison rather than taking the regressive step of being returned to closed conditions. Consideration should be given to imposing a requirement that the input of Probation (both from the Offender Management Unit and outside) is obtained whenever a OCSA is undertaken. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 communicate changes in cell sharing risk promptly to prisoners

Wider context from the report

“2. Paul Gobell was assessed as being suitable to share a cell in June 2021, having previously been considered high risk. He was not informed off this change until immediately prior to the C&R incident on 04/11/21 and had never had to share a cell before. The Cell Sharing Risk Assessment carried out by Healthcare and Reception staff upon his return to HM Prison, Whatton on 04/11/21 deemed him to be a standard risk. He felt that he should have been designated as high risk. He was concerned for the safety of whoever he might be required to share a cell with, due to the fact that he (Gobell) suffered from paraomnia. Despite protesting to staff, he was told that he would have to share and it was this that sparked the incident leading to the use of control and restraint techniques. Had he been pre-warned of the change to his cell sharing status this incident would not have happened. Consideration should be given to ensuring that any such change of cell sharing risk is communicated promptly to the prisoner concerned. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe cell-sharing decisions for 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

Failure to report prisoner disclosures to the Offender Management Unit

Wider context from the report

“3. Whilst at HM Prison, Hollesley Bay, Paul Gobell rang the Probation Officer (who had dealt with his Parole Board hearing in August 2021) and told her that he felt he was a poor fit in open conditions, that the environment there was hostile and unpleasant and that he had let slip to another prisoner that he was serving a term of imprisonment for offences of a sexual nature. The Probation Officer concerned did not see fit to report these disclosures to the Offender Management Unit. An Open Conditions Suitability Assessment ('OCSA') was subsequently held at HM Prison, Hollesley Bay on 02/11/24, after Mr. Gobell spoke to an Orderly Officer and asked to be returned to HM Prison, Whatton. Despite the multi-disciplinary nature of the OCSA, no input was obtained or requested from Probation staff at HM Prison, Hollesley Bay or elsewhere. Had the relevant Probation staff been involved this would have better informed the OCSA and steps could have been taken to offer Mr Gobell additional support, designed to encourage him to remain in the open conditions of a 'D' category prison rather than taking the regressive step of being returned to closed conditions. Consideration should be given to imposing a requirement that the input of Probation (both from the Offender Management Unit and outside) is obtained whenever a OCSA is undertaken. ”

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

Update the induction policy to require late-arrivals forms when normal induction cannot be facilitated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All prisons have well established first night induction processes and policies in place to ensure that prisoners receive appropriate care when entering prison custody. Welfare checks and conversations form part of this process and, in most cases, prisoners coming into reception are inducted in line with existing national and local policies. However, there may be exceptional circumstances when this does not happen, such as in the situation you have described involving Mr Gobell. HMP Whatton will update their Induction policy so that, when a normal induction cannot be facilitated, the prisoner will be asked to complete the “late arrivals form.” This form asks the prisoner to provide information that can then be used to consider the prisoner’s welfare until a face-to-face interview can be conducted.”

Source location

Response from HMPPS
Page 1 · response
Published 28 January 2025

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

Amend the local safety strategy to require written notification when prisoners’ CSRA levels change following review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“changes to their CSRA status is made clear. In support of this HMP Whatton have amended their local safety strategy to now include the line Prisoners must be informed in writing when their CSRA levels change following a CSRA review.”

Source location

Response from HMPPS
Page 2 · response
Published 28 January 2025

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

Complete and reissue the CSRA policy, clarifying that prisoners must be informed promptly of changes to their CSRA status.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The HMPPS CSRA policy is currently under review and is due to be reissued during 2025. As part of this review, we will ensure that the need to inform prisoners as soon as possible of”

Source location

Response from HMPPS
Page 1 · response
Published 28 January 2025

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 published Expectations cover the identified prison safety issues, which inspectors will consider during inspections and follow up as appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“HMI Prisons’ inspections are carried out against published inspection criteria known as Expectations. The Inspectorate sets its own inspection criteria to ensure transparency and independence. Many of the issues highlighted in your report are covered via our Expectations, and therefore matters which our inspectors will consider on each inspection. For example, in relation to first night interviews, one of our safety expectations states:”

Source location

Response from HMIP
Page 1 · response
Published 28 January 2025

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Keep the coroner’s findings on file for inspectors to consider during future inspections of HMP Whatton and HMP Hollesley Bay.

    Stated by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of PrisonsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 28 January 2025.

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

Keep the coroner’s findings on file for inspectors to consider during future inspections of HMP Whatton and HMP Hollesley Bay.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will keep your findings on file so that, when we next inspect HMP Whatton and HMP Hollesley Bay, inspectors are aware of this information and can follow up as appropriate.”

Source location

Response from HMIP
Page 2 · response
Published 28 January 2025

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
2/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026