Inquest Hears Prison Officer Falsified Inmate Welfare Checks

An inquest has been informed that a prison officer at a facility where three inmates died in their cells falsified records by documenting welfare checks that were not conducted correctly. Nottingham Coroner’s Court is currently conducting a joint inquest concerning the fatalities of Anthony Binfield, Rolandas Karbauskas, and David Richards, all of whom passed away at HMP Lowdham Grange in Nottinghamshire over a three-week period in March 2023. Court proceedings included the viewing of CCTV footage, which indicated that welfare checks purportedly performed on Binfield—the initial fatality among the three—were not conducted at the specific times noted in the logbook, nor were they executed to the mandated level of quality. Liam Doyle, a prison custody officer, informed the inquest on Thursday that he now recognized his errors. Testimony presented to the court revealed that Binfield was discovered hanging in his cell on the evening of 6 March, and his death was confirmed a short time later. On 3 March, he had been discovered under the influence of Spice, a synthetic cannabinoid, and possessing a weapon fashioned from a sharpened toothbrush. A mental health professional assessed him the subsequent day. On 5 March, a prison officer dispatched two emails to colleagues, stating that Binfield was “feeling very low” and noting his desire to light a candle in observance of a bereavement anniversary. Approximately at 17:35 GMT on 6 March, he was observed to be under the influence of Spice, leading to him being placed on half-hourly welfare checks shortly thereafter, during which prison officers were mandated to inquire about his state. Mr. Doyle, who had completed his training as a prison officer approximately 10 weeks prior to Binfield’s death, was on duty that weekend and on the day of the fatality. He testified that he had discussed concerns regarding threats from other inmates with the deceased on 4 March, but he was unaware of the events from the preceding day or of Binfield’s past self-harm and Spice consumption. “I should have, but I didn’t,” he stated. Mr. Doyle informed the court that upon commencing his shift on 6 March, he could not remember receiving a handover or a briefing, and he described prison staff as “constantly playing catch-up” while attempting to manage inmate updates within a “volatile” setting made worse by a “lack of staffing.” He further stated that he had no interactions with Binfield that day until after the inmate was placed under observation. Within a logbook designated for documenting checks on inmates suspected of being under the influence, Mr. Doyle recorded that he checked Binfield at 18:30, 19:00, and 19:25; however, CCTV footage demonstrated he was not present at the cell during those specific times. He was observed passing Binfield’s cell at 18:33 without stopping, and although he claimed to have conversed with the inmate at 19:08, he informed the court that he failed to inquire about Binfield’s well-being or if he had vomited, actions he was required to perform as part of the observations. The prison officer testified to the court that he occasionally recorded entries in the logbook from the office, either prior to or following the execution of checks, and was “guesstimating” the actual times they were performed. “Sometimes I would write it before, sometimes I would write it after I had done the check,” he stated. During questioning by area coroner Laurinda Bower, he conceded that the checks he conducted “weren’t good enough” and did not occur at the times he claimed. When prompted to explain the discrepancy between his current testimony regarding the checks and his previous statements made during a disciplinary investigation, he responded that “seeing the CCTV” altered his perspective and revealed that the checks were not adequately thorough. “I admit I have done wrong,” he declared.