Bereaved Family ‘Involvement’ in (Prisoner) Death Investigations: Whose ‘Satisfaction’?
| Author | Philippa Tomczak,Elizabeth A. Cook |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/09646639221100480 |
| Published date | 01 April 2023 |
| Date | 01 April 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Bereaved Family
‘Involvement’in (Prisoner)
Death Investigations:
Whose ‘Satisfaction’?
Philippa Tomczak
prisonHEALTH research group, School of Sociology
and Social Policy, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, UK
Elizabeth A. Cook
Violence and Society Centre, City, University of
London, London, UK
Abstract
A duty to investigate deaths in detention is enshrined within international legislation
pose of these investigations, following UK case law, is that bereaved families ‘have the
satisfaction of knowing that lessons learned […] may save the lives of others.’We high-
light the striking absence of evidence illustrating the ‘satisfaction’of bereaved families,
utilising a case study of prisoner death investigations undertaken by the Prisons and
Probation Ombudsman (PPO) and Coroners in England and Wales. Drawing on data
from semi-structured interviews with 26 stakeholders, we explore what may produce
familial ‘satisfaction’and question who is satisfied by prisoner death investigations. Our
analysis demonstrates that bereaved family ‘satisfaction’was regularly spoken about by
investigators and invoked to legitimise investigations despite limited evidence thereof.
In conclusion, we highlight how the Ombudsman and Coroners should reconsider
their practices to better satisfy families and manage expectations.
Corresponding author:
Dr Philippa Tomczak, prisonHEALTH research group, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
Email: philippa.tomczak@nottingham.ac.uk
Article
Social & Legal Studies
2023, Vol. 32(2) 294–317
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09646639221100480
journals.sagepub.com/home/sls
Keywords
families, death, bereavement, prisons, inquests, suicide, detention
Introduction
Prisoner deaths form an enduring topic of (inter)national, multidisciplinary concern
(Sattar and Killias, 2005). More than 11 million people are imprisoned globally, of
whom 30% have not been convicted (Penal Reform International, 2021). Prisoner mor-
tality rates exceed rates in the general population by up to 50% (UNOHCHR, 2019:
p9) and are rising globally due to growing prison populations, increasing sentence
lengths, increasing numbers of older prisoners (Roulston et al., 2020), and elevated self-
inflicted death rates amongst prisoners (Zhong et al., 2021). (Inter)national laws impose
obligations on States to investigate all prisoner deaths (and all deaths in compulsory state
detention e.g. criminal, psychiatric, immigration) as suspected violations of the right to
life (OHCHR, 2016; Rogan, 2018). In October 2021, the UN Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Morris Tidball-Binz, identified deaths
in custody amongst his four priority areas and stressed the importance of death investi-
gation systems in preventing and resolving unlawful deaths worldwide. Tidball-Binz
stated: “most deaths in custody are preventable. However, they are seldomly investigated
properly […], which helps perpetuate this tragedy”
1
. Death investigations, underpinning
legal frameworks and evidence bases have not attracted attention reflecting their import-
ance and harm reduction potential (inter)nationally (Tomczak and McAllister, 2021).
Bereaved families’experiences of death investigations deserve sustained analysis, as
“ultimately those who are left to embrace the inquest’s benefits, or bear its failings, are the
bereaved”(Scott Bray and Martin, 2016: p. 136). Globally, S.10 of the Minnesota
Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death: United Nations Manual
(OHCHR, 2016) highlights that bereaved relatives “have the right to equal and effective
access to justice […] and to have access to relevant information concerning the violations
and relevant accountability mechanisms”. In the 47 Council of Europe member states, all
deaths in compulsory state detention that are unexplained or related to violence and self-
harm automatically engage Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR). Article 2 protects the right to life and includes a free-standing procedural obli-
gation to investigate potential violations. The form and nature of an investigation under
Article 2 varies across jurisdictions but must meet multiple criteria, including involving
the next-of-kin to the extent necessary to safeguard their ‘legitimate interests’(Owen and
Macdonald, 2015; ECtHR, 2015).
The adequacy of death investigation law and policy has been questioned internation-
ally (Scott Bray and Martin, 2016). Many (former) British Commonwealth states utilise
Coronial inquests to investigate unnatural deaths (Spillane et al., 2019; Evans, 2021).
Coronial reforms have recently been seen in jurisdictions including the UK, Australia,
Canada and New Zealand (Newhouse et al., 2020; Scott Bray and Martin, 2016). In
the UK, Coronial reforms were stimulated by human tissue retention controversies
from the late 1990s; the failure to detect Dr Harold Shipman’s serial killings from the
1970s until the late 1990s due to flawed death certification processes; the provisions of
Tomczak and Cook 295
To continue reading
Request your trial