Family backs bill to prosecute prisons for custody deaths
Last year a fatal accident inquiry (FAI) into the deaths of Katie and William Brown,16, found that a breach of the Health and Safety Act at the prison "materially contributed" to their deaths.Katie Allan was jailed for 16 months in March 2018 for causing serious injury by dangerous driving and driving over the alcohol limit.William - also known as William Lindsay - had been remanded in custody after walking into Saracen Street police station in Glasgow while carrying a knife.The Scottish government accepted the findings of the FAI and said it had pursued a change in the law to scrap Crown immunity, but that it would require UK government approval.Teresa Medhurst, head of the Scottish Prison Service, has also said it should face the possibility of prosecution over deaths in custody.Crown Immunity has previously been scrapped for the NHS and police.McDougall said the move would introduce accountability into the prison system.The East Renfrewshire MP told BBC Scotland News: "I want to see Crown immunity lifted so that when there are failings in health and safety duties by prisons they are held to account for it."At the moment they are untouchable, they can fail again and again."People, particularly young prisoners, can lose their lives and there is no consequence for that."If his private members' bill passes it will proceed to the next stage in the legislative process.
Katie Allan's mother, Linda, has been lobbying for change in the Scottish Prison Service since her daughter's death.She approached McDougall, who is her local MP, at his first surgery after the general election last year to raise the issue and said he had been supportive ever since.Ms Allan said: "We've always said justice for us would be the removal of Crown immunity. There's no meaning in losing a child but it would be a legacy for us."It means that in death Katie has done something good. That her death hasn't been meaningless. "It means that perhaps her death might save the lives of other people in the future."Ms Allan said it "sticks with her" that NHS Forth Valley could also not be prosecuted for any role they played in Katie's death - despite not having Crown immunity - as health care services were provided on the prison estate.NHS Forth Valley have been approached for comment.Similarly, she said if Katie had been in a private prison at the time of her death, a prosecution would have been be possible.Ms Allan said the introduction of the bill was an important day for families who had lost loved ones to "preventable deaths" in prisons across the UK and would play a part in improving safety in jails.She added: "If you look for example at the police service, when it lost Crown immunity, safety standards started to increase in terms of cell custody and police stations."So you would hope the same would happen across the prison estate."
What is Crown immunity?
Crown immunity is a legal principle which means that legislation does not normally apply to the state.Effectively, it means the state, including government and official bodies such as the prison service - and sometimes its employees or agents - can be protected from being charged with criminal offences created by statute.For example, if a person dies while in custody at a jail, the Crown could not be held criminally responsible for their death.It does not shield them from civil liability, such as the case brought by the family of Allan Marshall, who died after being restrained by up to 17 prison officers at HMP Edinburgh in 2010.Crown immunity was removed from the NHS over 30 years ago as part of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.It was introduced after a series of scandals, including a salmonella food poisoning outbreak in 1984 that contributed to the death of 19 patients.In Scotland, Crown immunity may not always protect prison officers or officials.For example, if they are caught using, possessing or giving a "personal communication device," such as a mobile phone, to a prisoner.A provision of the Health and Safety at Work Act also states that, regardless of whether Crown immunity applies, an individual can be prosecuted if they cause a breach.It also doesn't apply to privately managed jails, like HMP Addiewell which is the only prison in Scotland which is privately run.Campaigners have long challenged the law, arguing that the public and private sectors do not operate on a level playing field.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Beware the blizzard of lies: US advice on how to handle Farage's Trump tactics
Truth, the progressive California politician Hiram Johnson once said, is the first casualty of war. Johnson's oft-cited remark was supposedly made in 1918 in reference to the first world war, which had by then caused millions of human casualties. More than a century later, truth is once again caught in the crossfire, this time as a casualty of 21st-century culture wars. If Donald Trump is the high priest of disinformation, then Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform, is showing signs of being a willing disciple, if his behaviour in the UK this week is anything to go by. Farage has proposed sending prisoners abroad – including to El Salvador, where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees and suggested sending US citizens. He also suggested an extensive police recruitment drive and prison-building programme all while cutting health and education spending. In the US, the parroting of Trump's policies by a UK populist has not gone unnoticed. And for those who have studied the president's modus operandi – there is one particular tactic the British public should be braced for: the blizzard of lies and false statements that frequently overwhelms his opponents. The Trump experience, they say, contains sobering lessons for critics of Farage. US pro-democracy campaigners warn that Trump has become even harder to factcheck since his first term, thanks to a combination of factors including looser social media content moderation and a reluctance among some media owners to stand up to his intimidation tactics. The Washington Post, which tracked more than 30,000 lies or misleading statements from Trump during his presidency, lost subscribers and public trust after its billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, reportedly vetoed an editorial endorsing the Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for president. 'It's become more difficult because there's less commitment from those who are in the best position to do the factchecking,' said Omar Noureldin, a senior vice-president for Common Cause, a non-partisan group. 'Seeking the truth here comes with costs and risks.' Complicating matters is the loss of trust in institutions, with many consumers relying on social media platforms for news. 'Even the best factchecking can be unpersuasive, because we're not just facing an information crisis here, but also a trust crisis in the American information ecosystem,' Noureldin said. Media watchers say the political environment has become so deeply polarised that factchecking can even have the counter-productive effect of further entrenching misplaced beliefs. 'From a lot of research, we're reaching the conclusion that factchecking hasn't been as effective as one would want,' said Julie Millican, the vice-president of Media Matters for America, a media watchdog. 'One reason is that information and disinformation spreads faster than you can check it. It takes a lot longer to factcheck something than it does for it go viral. 'But the other thing is factchecking can backfire. People so distrust institutions that factchecking can validate the misinformation in their minds and make them more inclined to believe the lie they believed in the first place.' A 2022 report from Protect Democracy suggested this was the result of a deliberate strategy of authoritarian regimes. 'Disinformation is spread through coordinated networks, channels and ecosystems, including politically aligned or state-owned media,' the report said. 'The goal is not always to sell a lie, but instead to undermine the notion that anything in particular is true.' Further compounding the problem in the US has been Trump's appointments of allies to key government agencies that have traditionally served as sources of accurate and reliable data for factcheckers. A case in point is Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has engaged in anti-vaccine theories, Trump's pick for health and human services secretary, putting him in charge of the country's vast health bureaucracy. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'Factchecking wasn't working very well in the first place, but now you can't even get access to the facts that you need be able to factcheck as well as you used to,' said Millican. The outlook seems bleak. Yet that does not make the problems insurmountable, campaigners insist. One answer is to invest in independent, non-partisan research. A prime purpose would be to increase media literacy among young people, who primarily get news from platforms such as TikTok which can be subject to disinformation tools such as AI-manipulated videos. The aim is to teach consumers how to spot doctored footage. 'Media literacy is extremely important and something that should be invested in and taught at a young age,' said Millican. Another solution is the development of 'pre-buttal' strategies to inoculate the public against disinformation, in effect getting the truth out first. Media Matters for America and Common Cause used this approach during last year's presidential election, partly by producing videos designed to counter anticipated false narratives surrounding voting procedures in certain areas. Also important, said Shalini Agarwal, special counsel at Protect Democracy, is calling out the demonisation of vulnerable groups, such as immigrants, as soon as it happens. A crucial role is played by media, even as Trump intensifies his assault on journalists as 'fake news' and tries to exclude certain established outlets from press briefings. 'It's really important when there are opportunities for one-on-one briefings and there are multiple reporters,' Agarwal said. 'Part of it is a sense of collective action. Often, whoever is speaking at the podium won't give a straightforward answer or gives a false answer and then tries to move on – it's incumbent when that happens for other reporters to jump in and say: 'Wait. What about what the other reporter asked?'' Millican has two pieces of advice for Britain and other European countries hoping to arm themselves against any coming authoritarian onslaught: fortify the media and preserve legislation designed to combat disinformation and illegal content online – represented by the online safety act in Britain and the digital safety act in the EU. 'The first thing that's going to happen in these authoritarian takeovers is they're going to try to silence and take over the media and information landscape,' she said. 'Any efforts to rein in hate speech or misinformation on platforms will be seen as tantamount to suppression of conservative thought or free speech. 'I can't stress enough trying to buffer the pollution of your information ecosystem as much as possible. One of the first things that they're going to do is just take down any barriers they can.'
Daily Mail
6 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Gregg Wallace says 'I am not a flasher' and says he is horrified to be compared to Jimmy Savile and Huw Edwards as he again blames autism for not wearing underwear
Disgraced presenter Gregg Wallace has hit out at critics for comparing him to Jimmy Savile and Huw Edwards, insisting he is 'not a groper, sex pest or a flasher'. The former MasterChef host, 60, tearfully apologised to anyone he had hurt in the wake of dozens of allegations of inappropriate behaviour, including claims that he dropped his trousers in front of staff. In his first interview since being sacked by the BBC in light of the complaints, Wallace broke down in tears as he spoke of the 'hurt' suffered by him and his family, insisting he had been unfairly treated in the media spotlight. He told The Sun that he understood some of his actions may have offended people and 'weren't socially acceptable' but denied being a 'wrong-un'. 'I'm not a groper. People think I've been taking my trousers down and exposing myself - I am not a flasher. People think I'm a sex pest. I am not,' he added. Wallace said that being discussed in the same breath as notorious sex offenders Savile and Edwards was 'horrific' and admitted he was scared to go outside in case people 'abuse' him in the street. Wallace insisted he is 'not trying to play the victim' and claimed his autism diagnosis was partly responsible for some of his alleged behaviour as it means he struggles 'to read people' and can be perceived as 'odd' at times. He also again defended allegations - which he claims have been 'sexualised' - that he would not wear underwear while working on the cooking show, saying it was due to his 'hypersensitivity' as a result of the condition. Wallace stepped down from the hit BBC cooking show after complaints were made about his behaviour and following a report into his conduct, in which 45 of 83 complaints were upheld. In total, 41 people complained. The review concluded that the 'majority of the substantiated allegations against Wallace related to inappropriate sexual language and humour'. It added that 'a smaller number of allegations of other inappropriate language and being in a state of undress were also substantiated', with 'one incident of unwelcome physical contact' also substantiated. The ex Eat Well for Less? presenter told the Sun that while he didn't deny being guilty of some of the claims, he believed things had been 'perceived incorrectly'. Wallace claimed that he had worked with around 4,000 people, meaning that just 0.5% of those he has worked with 'found fault with me'. He said his actions were the result of learned behaviour and workplace culture and claimed that his recent autism diagnosis also played a role. 'I know I am odd. I know I struggle to read people. I know people find me weird. Autism is a disability, a registered disability,' he said. Wallace has faced backlash from autism charities over similar claims, with some accusing him of using autism as an excuse for his alleged inappropriate behaviour. Seema Flower, founder of disabilities consultancy Blind Ambition, told BBC News there was 'no excuse' for being inappropriate to people in society. 'Where does it leave us if we use autism as excuse to behave in whatever way we like?' she asked. Emily Banks, founder of neurodiversity training body Enna, also condemned Wallace. She said: 'To be clear: being autistic is never an excuse for misconduct. It doesn't absolve anyone of responsibility, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't tell the difference between right and wrong.' While Dan Harris, who runs the charity Neurodiversity in Business and is himself autistic, said people like him 'may miss social cues autism is not a free pass for bad behaviour.' 'Comments like this stigmatise us and add an unfortunate negative focus on our community.' Wallace has previously said he felt the BBC failed to provide enough support for his condition during his 20 years working on Masterchef. 'My neurodiversity, now formally diagnosed as autism, was suspected and discussed by colleagues across countless seasons of MasterChef,' Wallace said. 'Yet nothing was done to investigate my disability or protect me from what I now realise was a dangerous environment for over 20 years.' During the interview, Wallace also defended his sacked former co-host John Torode, telling the paper he is 'not a racist'. Torode was the subject of an allegation about using racist language that was upheld as part of a review carried out by law firm Lewis Silkin into the alleged behaviour of co-presenter Wallace. Torode said he had 'no recollection of the incident' and was 'shocked and saddened' by the allegation. Pointing to the allegation against Torode, Wallace told the Sun: 'I've known John for 30 years and he is not a racist.' 'There is no way that man is a racist. No way. And my sympathies go out to John because I don't want anybody to go through what I've been through,' he added. Torode never defended his MasterChef colleague when allegations against him first emerged in December last year. Wallace was said to be 'furious' with his former co-star and unfollowed him and his wife Lisa on Instagram. Wallace admitted that he and Torode 'never really did get on that well', insisting they are 'two very, very different characters'. But he went on to say they had made 'bloody good telly together for 20 years'. Wallace's comments come after it was revealed that the BBC would air its amateur 2025 series of MasterChef. In the nine months since the hit BBC programme finished filming last Autumn there have been questions over whether it would ever be broadcast following allegations of inappropriate behaviour against presenters Wallace and Torode. Now the corporation has revealed that the amateur series of MasterChef filmed last year, before allegations against Gregg and John were upheld, will be broadcast on BBC One and BBC iPlayer from August 6. The MailOnline understand that the BBC have told the MasterChef production company Banijay that the show should reduce Gregg and John's screen time to a minimum in light of the report's findings. A source said: 'The BBC have made it clear that it should limit the amount of airtime the presenters have in the editing of the new series, with a bigger focus on the contestants who are at the heart of the competition.' 'Neither Gregg nor John will appear in BBC iPlayer thumbnails and they will not be doing any promotional activity around the latest series.' 'All of the brilliant new contestants were consulted on whether the series should be broadcast, and no one objected.' 'Everyone involved is very keen to promote the hard work of the contestants and that will be our priority.' The BBC said it had taken the decision to broadcast the unaired series 'after careful consideration and consultation with the contestants'. In a statement, the corporation said: 'MasterChef is an amazing competition which is life-changing for the amateur chefs taking part. The focus of it has always been their skill and their journey.' The BBC also said it had not yet taken a decision on the completed celebrity series and Christmas special, filmed with Torode and food critic Grace Dent. In its statement, the BBC said: 'This has not been an easy decision in the circumstances and we appreciate not everyone will agree with it. 'In showing the series, which was filmed last year, it in no way diminishes our view of the seriousness of the upheld findings against both presenters. We have been very clear on the standards of behaviour that we expect of those who work at the BBC or on shows made for the BBC. 'However, we believe that broadcasting this series is the right thing to do for these cooks who have given so much to the process. We want them to be properly recognised and give the audience the choice to watch the series.' The BBC concluded its statement by describing MasterChef as 'a brilliant, much-loved programme which is bigger than any one individual'.
