Prison service boss says it should lose immunity from prosecution
The head of Scotland's jails has told the families of two young people who took their own lives in prison that she believes crown immunity should be abolished.Theresa Medhurst said the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) should face the possibility of criminal prosecution over deaths in custody.Ms Medhurst made the comment during a meeting with the families of Katie Allan and William Brown, also known as William Lindsay, who both died by suicide at Polmont Young Offender's Institution in 2018.Under the law, the Crown, which includes the Scottish Prison Service, cannot be held criminally responsible for deaths in custody.
The Scottish government said it has pursued a change in the law, but that it would require UK government approval.Last year a fatal accident inquiry (FAI) into the deaths of Katie Allan, 21, and William Brown, 16, made 25 recommendations, which were accepted by the SPS and Scottish government.The families' lawyer, Aamer Anwar, said the meeting on Wednesday with Ms Medhurst had been "robust and painful".
However, he said it was important Ms Medhurst had agreed crown immunity for the prison service should be "abolished".In 2022, the Crown Office found a breach of the Health and Safety Act at the jail "materially contributed" to the deaths, but it was unable to act as the SPS was protected by the Crown immunity principle.Mr Anwar said the families would seek a meeting with prime minister Sir Keir Starmer to further push for a change in the law.He said: "When you have a situation where the SPS agrees with the lifting of Crown immunity, when the Scottish government and every opposition party in the Scottish Parliament agrees with the lifting of Crown immunity, the question really is now for the UK government to deliver on that.He added: "The next stage for the families, and for a number of other families we act for, is for a meeting with Keir Starmer and the justice minister, because they carry the power to do this."There is clearly unity right across Scotland, from all the institutions as well as the family, to remove Crown immunity. It's unacceptable."
What is Crown immunity?
Crown immunity is a legal principle which states 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.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, regardless of whether Crown Immunity applies, an individual can be prosecuted if they cause a breach.Campaigners have long challenged the law, arguing that the public and private sectors do not operate on a level playing field.
'We didn't feel demonised'
Ms Allan's mother, Linda, said the meeting was "very positive," adding it was the "beginning of a dialogue" with the SPS.She said: "For the first time we didn't feel demonised by the prison service, but we felt listened to, and we found that very restorative."Speaking after the meeting, Ms Medhurst said: "This was just an opportunity to meet personally with the families, to offer our apologies for their loss, the tragic loss of Katie and William, and to apologise for the failures of the past."And to ensure that they understand we are committed and determined to not only action the recommendations that we have accepted in full, but to ensure that there is systemic change across the organisation, which will be impactful and lasting."The families met the Scottish government's justice secretary, Angela Constance, at Holyrood ahead of a statement to parliament last week.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: "The Lord Chancellor has received the letter from the Scottish cabinet secretary for justice and home affairs and will respond in due course."A Scottish government spokesperson added: "The Scottish government will continue to pursue the lifting of the SPS corporate Crown immunity under reserved health and safety law with the UK government."All of the recommendations in his determination of the FAI into the deaths at Polmont YOI of Katie and William have been accepted and the work on these is being delivered at pace with progress closely monitored."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Feral seagulls 'close to killing a human' as stark warning issued to tourists
A warning has been issued after a child was left with "blood running down her face" in flurry of horrific attacks from the flying gulls with politicians calling for more to be done Feral seagulls are edging closer to killing a human, it's been claimed. n what is seen as the most alarming warning yet over the terrifying flying threats, a summit to deal with them is set to get off the ground. Former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross, who previously called a debate on the issue at Holyrood, told Parliament humans risk being killed over the "growing problem" of kamikaze-diving seagulls. The politician said: 'The strength of the cross-party support in my debate should be all the SNP government need to finally act before we see someone killed due to being attacked by a gull.' Adding fuel to the flames, Tory Rachael Hamilton claimed "aggressive" seagulls had attacked seven children in just one month in Eyemouth last year. She went on to highlight how one girl had gashes to her scalp and "blood running down her face" after a "divebombing attack," the Daily Star reports. The MP added: 'Aggressive seagull behaviour continues to cause a real concern amongst businesses, amongst tourists, amongst everybody that has anything to do along the harbour. 'And it is not just a seasonal nuisance. It is a serious, growing health risk. It's a safety risk, particularly for children and elderly residents.' The latest flap over gulls comes after the people of Moray in Scotland were dive-bombed by the birds. In one case, an elderly woman broke her leg during a gull swoop. But other ministers are urging Brits to hug a gull. MSP Jim Fairlie said a summit on tackling the scourge of demented seagulls should not 'demonise' the pests. His fellow Nationalist MSP Christine Grahame added: 'Language such as 'mugging' and 'menace' can be applied to us, or our counterparts, but it is not appropriate to demonise an animal simply looking for food. 'What we mustn't have is people versus gulls, or gulls versus people.' Highlands and Islands MSP Mr Ross said he has been 'inundated' with reports about the dangers of gulls from constituents. They included a couple in the village of Hopeman who were 'worried about going out of their home' due to the aggressiveness of the birds. Jeff Thornhill, a Moray pensioner, said he and his wife were 'dive-bombed' by gull on Monday morning while they were out for a stroll. Among the other victims of the birds is terrified Caroline Mackay, who has lived in the coastal town of Nairn for almost 50 years. She said: 'I know they are part of living beside the sea, and I accept that, but they are quite a danger.' Lucy Harding from Nairn Business Improvement District said they had received 85 reports of gull attacks in the last year alone.
South Wales Guardian
2 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Scottish troops set for relocation with high-readiness posting in Cyprus
The soldiers of 4th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland (4 SCOTS) have been based at Bourlon Barracks at the Catterick Garrison in North Yorkshire for the last 10 years. During that time they have been able to 'put down roots' – building families and friendships, and continuing 'proud' Scottish traditions including the Highland games. The new posting will see them relocate to the British Sovereign Base Area in Dhekelia, Cyprus, with the first flights scheduled for Saturday. Once there the battalion will stand ready to respond at short notice to emerging situations across the Middle East and North Africa. At the same time they will be tasked with supporting peacekeeping efforts and protecting key military infrastructure on the island. Captain Craig Taylor, who has been with the battalion throughout its time at Bourlon Barracks, said the move will be a 'big change' for the troops. 'We've had 10 solid years of stability here in Catterick. It's been a place where soldiers could put down roots, raise families, and grow professionally,' he said. 'Moving to Cyprus will be a big change for us, not just in terms of the climate. 'This is an exciting opportunity that soldiers have been training hard for. It's not a short-term tour or exercise – it's a full overseas posting which gives us the chance to experience new cultures and ways of life. 'Professionally, it sharpens our edge. We'll be held at high readiness to deploy anywhere in the region, and beyond which is of real strategic importance to the UK.' It is not the first overseas posting for the battalion, which has been involved in operations in the likes of Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo since its formation in 2006. Closer to home, 4 SCOTS also provided security support for the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Birmingham, provided emergency aid during the 2018 Saddleworth Moor wildfires, and took part in the national Covid-19 response. Despite being more than 2,000 miles from Scotland, the battalion intends to take its traditions with it, with events including regimental competitions and Burns Night celebrations remaining 'firm fixtures' in the calendar. Capt Taylor added: 'We're proud of everything we've achieved here. 'But now it's time to pack up, push forward, and embed our Scottish identity into a new location.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
The time Trump reviewed Citizen Kane and revealed too much of himself
Yet there are rare moments when this side reaches the surface, and it can feel quite startling, as if he has maybe revealed too much of himself. Times when he has spoken about his brother Fred, for one, whose alcoholism led to an early death that greatly influenced the trajectory of the younger Trump. Glimpses into his personal grief are fleeting, but they expose a man who, beneath his bravado, is deeply shaped by his fear of being rendered powerless. Read more: Think of all the great art we'll get from a Trump win… But there's an even stranger instance of Trump revealing his vulnerable side, and it's when, in 2002, he reviewed his favourite film – the 1941 Orson Welles-directed Citizen Kane. It's not hard to see why the film resonates so much with Trump. Its portrayal of Charles Foster Kane – a wealthy, ambitious, and arrogant media mogul whose life is marked by power, betrayal, and isolation – has drawn plenty of comparisons with the President. Throughout his review, Trump makes it clear that he sees Kane as a stand-in for himself. 'The wealth, the sorrow, the unhappiness, the happiness, just struck lots of different notes,' he muses. He finds solace in Kane's struggles with the pursuit of success and wealth, rather than the cautionary tale Welles intended, pointing out telling moments like Kane and his wife sitting further apart at the dinner table the more his power mutates and grows. It is transparent that Trump sees parallels to his own personal life in these moments, and he sees Kane as that rare someone who can actually understand him. 'In real life I believe that wealth does in fact isolate you from other people. It's a protective mechanism. You have your guard up much more than you would if you didn't have wealth.' His reading is rather revealing, even if he misses much of the film's subtext. Citizen Kane is a tragedy about a man who sacrifices love and humanity in pursuit of power, only to die alone, lamenting his lost innocence. Yet Trump doesn't recoil from Kane's fate; he relates to it. He recognises Kane's isolation not as a direct result of his actions and mindset, but as a protective mechanism. It is as if Trump sees Kane as a muse, a kindred spirit that he in some way must protect lest it reflect badly on himself. It's a telling inversion, where a critique of wealth and power is instead embraced as a necessary defence against a hostile world. Errol Morris, who directed the segment featuring Trump's review, later remarked on the strange dissonance between the film's intent and Trump's interpretation, the clash between the obvious meaning behind Kane's character and Trump's completely analogous take. 'If I were Donald Trump, I would not want to emphasise that connection with Kane. You know, a megalomaniac in love with power and crushing everything in his path. The inability to have friends, the inability to find love,' the documentarian observed. Read more: Trump film tariff proves Scottish film cannot afford to sell out to Hollywood Trump changes the reasons he loves Citizen Kane over time, and it always runs in sync with his own narrative. When speaking on the film during his 2016 presidential campaign, he focused on the sharp turn the media took against Kane, likening it to his own media onslaught at the time. In that reading, Kane becomes a fellow 'fake news' martyr, unjustifiably persecuted. Like most things with Trump, his reading of Citizen Kane is less about the film and more about himself. He doesn't see a warning; he sees a mirror. And in that reflection, he finds validation – even in the parts that should give him pause. The film explores how fetishising success can become a hollow pitfall in wait, yet to Trump, it just makes Kane a misunderstood man. It is peculiar that through the endless observations of Trump, the millions of words out of his mouth that have been documented and spread, we begin to get closer to how his internal world works through his grasp of a film's meaning and what becomes accidentally revealed through that. His relationship with Citizen Kane speaks loudly about his own relationship with power, where the spectre of tragedy is just an inevitability of that process. Of course, by the end of the review, the Trump we all know returns. Trump's reply when asked what advice he would give Kane, a man of a similar disposition? 'Get yourself a different woman'.
