Brandon Valrick JOHNSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Between 24ᵗʰ and 27ᵗʰ June 2024 evidence was heard touching the death of Brandon Valrick JOHNSON who died on 12ᵗʰ September 2019 aged 40 years.

Medical Cause of Death

I (a) Cardio-Respiratory Failure
1(b) Ischaemic Heart Disease
1(c) Coronary artery atheroma and left ventricular hypertrophy
1(d) Chronic cocaine misuse
2 Schizophrenia, chronic substance misuse

How, when, where Brandon Valrick JOHNSON came by his death:

On 12ᵗʰ September 2019, Brandon Valrick Johnson suffered cardio-respiratory failure at cell 29, HMP Wandsworth, Heathfield Road, Wandsworth, London.
Conclusion of the Jury as to the death:
He died of cardio-respiratory failure as a result of poor heart health. Chronic cocaine misuse more than minimally contributed to his poor heart health.

Extensive evidence was heard by the court in the form of written and oral evidence, including expert evidence.

Of particular significance for the purpose of this report are the following matters:

I heard evidence that Brandon was not discovered as deceased until the late afternoon of 12ᵗʰ September 2019 despite a number of attendances at his cell by prison officers and other staff. Rigor mortis and pooling of the blood had been identified. I was told various checks had been undertaken since 0430. I heard evidence that whilst staff knew they needed to obtain positive responses from prisoners and should assess whether the person is alive and breathing, they had little time in which to do this when combined with other duties.

I am concerned about the robustness of the procedures and processes for checking that prisoners are alive within their cells. My concern arises because I heard evidence that Brandon was not discovered as deceased until the late afternoon of 12ᵗʰ September 2019 despite a number of attendances at his cell by prison officers and other staff. Rigor mortis and pooling of the blood had been identified. I was told various checks had been undertaken since 0430. I was not confident, having heard and assessed the evidence as a whole that staff had sufficient time to properly check on inmates and obtain positive responses or note obvious signs of life. The checks that were made were for a matter of seconds, and I was not satisfied that the signs of life said to have been noted were sufficiently obvious or reliable to have given appropriate reassurance, or that signs of life were actually being looked for rather than as being incidental to other observations.

I am concerned whether all appropriate measures are being taken to perform robust checks at appropriate times that elicit positive responses to indicate that a prisoner remains alive. In addition, I am concerned about how the prison satisfies itself that staff know how and when to perform these checks, what that consists of, and in relation to signs of life/positive response what those are meant to be and where that is set out in the training of staff.

Further if checks are performed which elicit a positive life response how are those recorded, who checks this is being done, in what form and how often.