Rethink use of restraint on young offenders, urges coroner
· Youth, 14, hanged himself at secure unit
· Jury was not given full facts, claims mother
Eric Allison and Martin Wainwright
Friday June 1, 2007
The Guardian
A coroner called yesterday for an urgent review of the use of restraint on young offenders after a jury returned a suicide verdict on a vulnerable 14-year-old who hanged himself with his shoelaces at a privately-run secure unit.
Adam Rickwood was the youngest person to die in custody in Britain for more than 50 years when he took his life after begging his mother to get him moved from the centre at Consett, Co Durham, where he had been for less than a month.
A four-week inquest heard that the boy had been forcibly restrained by four staff shortly before his death three years ago, and a controversial technique designed to cause brief but sharp pain by twisting and squeezing the nose had been used to force him to go to his room.
A few hours later, a care officer found the body of the boy, who had threatened to kill himself in letters home and was known to have mental health problems with suicidal tendencies.
The jury of nine women and one man at Chester-le-Street coroner's court exonerated care staff at Hassockfield secure training centre, run by the prison specialist company Serco. They reached a nine-one majority verdict after four days' deliberation.
The coroner, Andrew Tweddle, had asked the jury to consider 11 questions, including whether the centre, 150 miles from Adam's home in Burnley, was the right place for him, and whether staff had acted appropriately in the run-up to his death. The jury replied yes to both, but found that Lancashire social services should have done more to get details of the boy's vulnerability to the Youth Justice Board before the decision to pick Hassockfield was made.
The findings were criticised by Adam's mother, Carol Pounder. She said after the hearing: "I am disgusted at not having a full inquiry into the death of a very vulnerable child, my only son. The jury was not given the whole of the evidence relating to his death.
"What gives anyone the right to allow four men, weighing 58 stone between them, to restrain a 14-year-old boy, cause him pain and injure his nose for refusing to go to his room? If that had happened at home, I would have been charged."
The coroner took a stronger line than the jury's findings, expressing concern about the brief violence used to force Adam to comply.
He said: "There needs to be the most urgent and thorough investigation and review of the interrelationship between the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, secure training centre (STC) rules and the directors' rules (which apply to STC heads) to avoid any confusion of what applies where and when." Adam's death increased concern about uncertainty in the treatment of young people in custody. The campaign group Inquest called earlier this year for a detailed inquiry into the use of restraint in institutions housing young offenders.
Adam was sent to Hassockfield, one of three centres of its type in England, after being remanded on charges of wounding and taking a vehicle without consent.
The day before his death, he lost privileges, including a sound centre and TV in his room, after two cigarettes smuggled in by his mother were found in his trainers.
The family's solicitor, Mark Scott, said after the verdict: "The jury, Mrs Pounder and her family have been denied the opportunity to have a full inquiry into all points surrounding Adam's death."
The care officer who used the nose technique, Stephen Hodgson, told the inquest earlier: "There is no way I would hurt a child in our care, that's why I warned him twice. The manual says we are supposed to warn them once, but I did it twice."
Comment: I'm surprised that they did not simply put a bullring through his nose and drag him into the cell...
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Haven't got time to think about a considered reply but see several shocking facts.
ReplyDelete14 year old detained in custody 150 miles from home.
Staff ARE allowed to inflict physical pain to make children do as they are told.
Known to be suicidal with mental Health problems, my two points above could in my layman's opinion only make the Boy's health worse.
Why are they called care officers? They certainly did not exercise any "Duty of"
The system is wrong, even if he had got out alive, I am sure the experience would not have helped in any way to put him on the straight and narrow.
Definitely a tragic case. It raises the question why we need to lock children up in prison in the first place.
ReplyDeleteYes I meant to conclude with what you have said. Was in a rush though.
ReplyDeleteYou have a good Blog here. I have never been in jail and it is the last place I would want to be. A great shame that most people do not realise that they are quite capable of committing a crime, any crime given the right circumstances.
Anon
ReplyDeleteSadly, 14 year old boys can be a right handful if they decide to kick off, and some commit offences in such quantity that detention is a necessary step on breaking the cycle of offending. There have to be consequences. The perceived lack of proportionate punishment may be part of what fails to deter them initially. Who knows ?
When you detain a young 'un, they are assessed for appropriate accommodation. To remand someone to secure accommodation is still a big deal nowadays, and there aren't that many locations around the country. If the nearest suitable one is 150 miles away from home then that's unfortunate, but if he'd kept his hands to himself, then maybe it wouldn't have been necessary. Adam Rickwood was, I believe, on remand for wounding. I don't know the fine details of his charge, but there's a big difference between scrumping and stabbing. He was due for trial on a charge which implies a seriously injured complainant and the usual array of worried witnesses.
In respect of the use of force, if they've never been on the losing end of a fight with an adult, they also tend to think they're invincible. Using four staff to restrain one person doesn't sound too harsh to me, given that using two risks ending up in a simple fight if he manages to incapacitate one. Overwhelming odds and clean techniques can work wonders.
His suicidal status and mental health problems are the real sticking point, but has been asked before, what else do you do with someone who (given the apparent wounding charge) could quite easily kill someone next time?
"I am sure the experience would not have helped in any way to put him on the straight and narrow" - the question is, as always, do you have an alternative suggestion to detention that will actually prevent immediate reoffending and protect witnesses from intimidation and attack?
Sorry if this comes across as negative, John, but the reason why we need to lock children up is that sometimes, just sometimes, other people's kids need to be protected from attack.