Sahayb Abu v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 3026 (Admin)

“(1) Where it appears desirable, for the maintenance of good order or discipline or in his own interests, that a prisoner should not associate with other prisoners, either generally or for particular purposes, the governor may arrange for the prisoner's removal from association for up to 72 hours. (2) Removal for more than 72 hours may be authorised by the governor in writing who may authorise a further period of removal of up to 14 days. (2A) Such authority may be renewed for subsequent periods of up to 14 days. (2B) But the governor must obtain leave from the Secretary of State in writing to authorise removal under paragraph (2A) where the period in total amounts to more than 42 days starting with the date the prisoner was removed under paragraph (1). (2C) The Secretary of State may only grant leave for a maximum period of 42 days, but such leave may be renewed for subsequent periods of up to 42 days by the Secretary of State. (3) The governor may arrange at his discretion for a prisoner removed under this rule to resume association with other prisoners at any time. (3A) In giving authority under paragraphs (2) and (2A) and in exercising the discretion under paragraph (3), the governor must fully consider any recommendation that the prisoner resumes association on medical grounds made by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse working within the prison. (4) This rule shall not apply to a prisoner the subject of a direction given under rule 46(1).”

“(1) Where it appears desirable, on one or more of the grounds specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary of State may direct that a prisoner be placed in a separation centre within a prison. (2) The grounds referred to in paragraph (1) are— (a) the interests of national security; (b) to prevent the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism, a terrorism offence, or an offence with a terrorist connection, whether in a prison or otherwise; (c) to prevent the dissemination of views or beliefs that might encourage or induce others to commit any such act or offence, whether in a prison or otherwise, or to protect or safeguard others from such views or beliefs, or (d) to prevent any political, religious, racial or other views or beliefs being used to undermine good order and discipline in a prison. . . . ”

“Research into the mental health of prisoners held in solitary confinement indicates that for most prisoners, there is a negative effect on their mental well-being and that in some cases the effects can be serious. A study by Grassian & Friedman (1986) stated that, “Whilst a term in solitary confinement would be difficult for a well adjusted person, it can be almost unbearable for the poorly adjusted personality types often found in a prison.”

“The lack of effective monitoring of Mark Keenan’s condition and the lack of informed psychiatric input into his assessment and treatment disclose significant defects in the medical care provided to a mentally ill person known to be a suicide risk. The belated imposition on him of a serious disciplinary punishment (cellular confinement)… is not compatible with the standard of treatment required in respect of a mentally ill person.”

“A decision to continue the segregation of a prisoner under Prison Rule 45 . . . is taken by a Segregation Review Board . . . having regard to the individual circumstances of the prisoner concerned. . . . The initial Segregation Review Board for a prisoner is held within the first 72 hours of a prisoner being placed in segregation. Subsequent Review Boards are held at a frequency to be agreed locally (between governor and area manager) but at least every 14 days.”

“Where a final decision is made to continue segregation, the chairperson must ensure that the prisoner is informed of the substance of the reasons on which the decision to continue segregation was based and ensure that the prisoner is informed, both orally and in writing, of meaningful reasons for the decision. This will not normally require the disclosure of the primary evidence on which the decision to continue segregation was based . . . ”

“An ACCT case review will be completed for all prisoners who are on an open ACCT (or in ACCT post-closure phase) at the time of the SRB. Prisons must be aware of the potential effects of segregation on a vulnerable person’s state of mind and begin ACCT procedures if they observe any changes in a prisoner’s behaviour or circumstances, which indicate an increase in the risk of suicide and self-harm.”

“This form must have attached any paperwork relevant to the segregation that the prisoner has not had sight of. Where the case involves a vulnerable prisoner, including a prisoner on an open or post closure phase ACCT, the prison must attach any relevant additional information, for example healthcare reports, to the form.”

“SCMC [the Separation Centre Management Committee] considered evidence that Mr Abu has retained his extremist mindset in custody with reporting strongly suggesting he is sharing these ideologies with others, posing a clear and present threat to the estate and producing an environment where others could be susceptible to radicalisation…. SCMC also considered evidence that Mr Abu has repeatedly attempted to influence prisoners’ behaviour, push boundaries, and use threats/violence to create an Islamic gang culture in each location he has been in. If placed on any mainstream location, it was assessed that this behaviour will undoubtedly continue. His involvement in threats and violence, and ability to influence other prisoners shows he poses a threat to the good order or discipline of the prison.”

“(c) to prevent the dissemination of views or beliefs that might encourage or induce others to commit any such act or offence whether in prison or otherwise, or to protect or safeguard others from such views or beliefs (d) to prevent any political, religious, racial or other views or beliefs being used to undermine good order and discipline in a prison.”

“notwithstanding that some of the prisoners in Separation Centres were not presenting any overt indication of risk to staff, the risk was elevated to the point that the maintenance of good order or discipline could justify segregation of such prisoners for the purposes of post-attack risk management. While an individual’s risk of attack might previously have been considered lower, the dynamics within the prisoner cohort, their skills and in some cases their ability to evade detection or suspicion over prolonged periods both prior to offending and in custody, made the risk assessment complex and it was therefore difficult to adequately mitigate the potential risk of attack.”

“At this point, both HMP Woodhill and HMP Full Sutton had chosen, in response to their own assessments of risk and unknowns, to limit association and/or place the Separation Centres on single unlock (in the case of HMP Full Sutton, this step had been taken due to the comments made in representations by a Separation Centre prisoner, . . . and in the case of HMP Woodhill, this decision had been taken by the establishment on receiving the HMP Frankland Separation Centre prisoners”

“it was unclear how long the prisoners would remain at HMP Woodhill and an initial decision needed to be taken concerning the prisoners’ regime. I understand the then acting Governing-governor discussed the issue of the transferees’ placement and regime with the Duty Governor and on 13 April 2025 decided that in light of the seriousness of the HMP Frankland attack and unknown risks stemming from this (making a cautious approach necessary), the prisoners should all be placed on a single unlock regime and as such, given a regime that amounted to a segregation (Rule 45) regime. This meant that each prisoner would have access to regime on their own, with no association with other Separation Centre prisoners. I understand this decision was made at pace, in response to a number of uncertainties following a serious and shocking violent event – the Frankland attack, in a situation where the risk presented by the transferees and group dynamics were unknown. Amidst these uncertainties – including the duration of the transferees’ allocation to HMP Woodhill, the Claimant and other transferees were not at this time formally placed on segregation under Rule 45. However, . . . the Claimant - due to his above behaviour on transfer, was placed on Rule 53 and placed into the segregation cell on that basis.”

“Mr Abu due to the potential risk to the Good Order or Discipline of the unit further to a recent serious incident, and consequential reviews of the regime, you have been removed from association. This will be in place until further assessments can be made on your continued removal from association and as such in line with the policy framework PR45B now applies.”

“I consider the “direction” from Centre described by Governor Clayden in the above email as the first ‘central steer’ given from LTHSE leadership on the Separation Centres. The context for this, was the need to ensure that plans to expand regime or unlock were sufficiently rigorous to manage risk in the aftermath of the Frankland attack (and CSC murder). Given the seriousness and complexities of the risks, I wanted to ensure that any easing of restrictions by establishments was supported with things like risk assessments and safe systems of work. Hence, in my view, it would be prudent for the prison to first prepare and present the case for this. My team could then analyse those proposals and advise – supporting the establishments with making robust decisions. Nevertheless, it remained with the establishment to make the final decision. This was not a measure which prevented the prison from making a decision to end Rule 45, but a gateway to test their thinking and offer competitive analysis as required on the complexity and severity of risk, so that their decision-making could be properly informed.”

“My concern at this time remained that we had a broadly aligned group of individuals in Separation Centres in terms of their shared extremist ideology. One of that group had conducted a significant attack on Separation Centre staff, resulting in staff requiring hospitalisation and surgery, and we did not know the degree to which other prisoners were aware of the attack, supported or denounced the actions of Mr Abedi. It seemed reasonable and a realistic assessment to me, that within this cohort, and in connection with their shared extremist ideology, there is a commonality of broad belief that the state, and by extension our staff, were (and are) potential targets. In this context, my own view was that Rule 45 (Good Order and Discipline) was applicable, and a suitable way of managing the underlying risk for the time being, until a better understanding of the risks posed both individually, and collectively, was obtained.”

“Theres nothing more to add from our conversation last week re R45 and unwinding the regime. We're still working with several teams and networks to establish a better picture of the current threat across the SC cohort as a whole and not just those at Full Sutton, this will also inform the reason to continue with segregation at this time.”

“I have just signed everyone up again for another 14 days. I do think we need to be getting a plan together as we will hit the DDC 42 day review soon enough & the current picture of work going on externally to the unit does hamper me putting together something that is able to consider all the risk factors out there – some of which I’m willing to bet I haven’t been read in on & we don’t have any outcomes ref the ongoing urgent reviews. If I had been left to my own devices – I could have put something together – however now the instructions have come out for PGD approval before doing anything it does beg the question what do they know that I / we don’t….I have a similar dilemma with the CSC although before the PGD directive came out I had put them on split cohorts – which im currently maintaining and could unwind further in the next week or so if things keep moving in the right direction.”

“[r]eally do need this to get approval to move the regimes.”

“If [the Claimant’ were to be removed from rule 45 in his current location at HMP Woodhill it is a realistic possibility he would instigate an act of violence against staff. However, this would increase to the higher end of likely if he was located at HMP Full Sutton due to him being restrained there and highly likely if he was located at HMP Frankland. It is possible that if he did perpetrate violence, this would be an extremist motivated act, however it would be more likely that an act of violence would be linked to his own personal grievances and feelings of mistreatment. It is highly unlikely that he would perpetrate violence against his peers on the SC. . . . “Whilst there is nothing to indicate that [the Claimant] specifically aligns to Mr ABEDI’s cause, he undoubtedly has an Islamist Extremist mindset. It is likely that if Mr ABU perceives that Mr ABEDI’s actions were due to being mistreated by SC staff, he is supportive of Mr ABEDI’s attack on staff”; ” (Emphasis in the original).

“It was assessed as “likely” that the HMP Frankland attack was extremist motivated violence, and a “realistic possibility” that the Claimant supported this motive. . . . It was noted that while there was nothing directly to suggest that the Claimant would commit a copycat offence, he was frustrated with his location on the Separation Centre and also appeared to have issues with staff on the Separation Centres at both HMP Full Sutton and HMP Frankland due to perceived mistreatment. Therefore, it had to be considered “likely”, given his propensity for violence, that he would be more than willing to perpetrate violence towards staff. . . . The Claimant was not assessed to hold a significant level of influence over the other Separation Centre prisoners, however, it was considered “highly likely” that if another prisoner(s) were planning to attack staff, the Claimant would encourage them, and “likely” that he would involve himself in this act . . . ”

“I have asked specifically for CSC that any changes to regime are reviewed by CMG to consider the defensible decision making sat behind them and in the case of SC I would ask that again you are working towards any changes to regime and discussing these with [the LTHSE Operational Lead] and his team in order that a systemic view of risk can be considered and fed back to you if required so that you can consider it in your decision making in the application of Rule 45. The fundamental difference between Rule 46 and 46a is that CSC has limbs that allow removal from association and then the enabling of association, 46A does not have this hence the need for you to use Rule 45 when locally a decision was made to cease association in the unit.”

“Though polite and compliant with staff in his interactions in person. Intel suggests that this is different to his true feelings. When a member of staff was trying to help him, he described him as a bad man and a dog, [The Claimant] feeling messed about. In conversation with peers described officers as Nazi’s treating the prisoners as Jews. It is also the group’s belief that a far-right prisoner would be treated as if they were in a five-star hotel. Following this week’s DRAM it has been agreed that [the Claimant]’s risk has neither increased nor decreased over the last week though it remains high. It was decided that [the Claimant] can be managed on the current three officer unlock.”

“I have been advised today that you can start moving towards cohorted regimes. And consider now removing SC prisoners from R45. (could I suggest this is done at this weeks [sic.] DRAMs). . . . Removal from R45 is a local decision based on the presenting risks and any thing you consider relevant to your decision making. If there’s a view the risks cannot be managed safely he remains on R45. Your cohorts are at your discretion but I would ask you review the attached document completed by the LTHSE CTU team in your conversation and thoughts. This document is not for further sharing or printing. Some points to consider: Minimum 3 for Assoc (difficult for you Sam [Governor Jordan] so you may need to consider how you'll do this as less than 3 still requires R45). Sam you may need to expand the regime to include CV/GYM to test and see any re-actions initially. All decisions are recorded in the DRAM. individual R/A's are up to date. MDT decision's are made. . . . This unwind is at your pace and when you feel comfortable to press forward.”

“ . . . in the weeks following the 15 May Frankland/Whitemoor progress meeting, officials were focused on the option of easing the Separation Centre prisoners out of segregation, and towards cohorting. Some limited association/cohorting was viewed as an appropriate security response to the residual risk of copycat attacks and to assess offenders in a more controlled setting, whilst still letting the prisoners have some physical association (when not permitted to associate, they could still communicate verbally with one another from their cell doors and windows). In an email to me on 30 May 2025 at 10:02AM, the LTHSE Operational Lead noted cohorting prisoners would be subject to more stringent unlocks than under a normal regime, and this would be taken into account for each prisoner. The LTHSE Operational Lead proposed to conduct a review in 4 weeks of how this was affecting the estate and the offenders at which point, there would be the option to revisit whether to begin returning to normal association and unlock or continue with a restricted regime.”

“Following the horrific attack on three officers at HMP Frankland on 12 April, the Prison Service commissioned a snap review into whether protective body armour – also known as stab-proof vests – should be rolled out to staff. The Lord Chancellor has now confirmed new protective vests will be made mandatory for prison officers working in Close Supervision Centres and Separation Centres which hold the most dangerous offenders in the estate. Officers working with prisoners held in segregation units within the high-security estate will also benefit from the rollout.”

“Address mental health issues and ascertain treatment required. I understand that this was underway at HMP Frankland, he has been referred to HMP Woodhill’s local mental health team and is awaiting assessment. Previous documents indicate that this should happen prior to his engagement in any other work (such as HII [The Healthy Identity Intervention offending behaviour programme]). It is not clear at this time what the concerns are with regards to his mental health other than him mentioning this, and referring to having sought community mental health services before. This may be linked to prior trauma (highlighted in the SC, R3 assessment) . He is also noted to have asked for DDP [Desistance and Disengagement Programme] work to be postponed ‘due to his mental health’ (during the SC assessment) therefore it will be important to address this. The sequencing of interventions and support we can offer will need to be considered. … This may result in considering an assessment of cognitive / executive functioning as these have been recommended in this SC assessment (due to his impulsivity, observations and OASys LD screening). This may help us to understand his susceptibility / improve communications with him. . . . Progress in line with the above suggestions is contingent on Mr Abu’s unlock level and access to the regime.”

“Since the mental health section of the QR was blank on this occasion, SCMC took into account the information about Mr Abu’s health and wellbeing contained in the R45 segregation review paperwork. This paperwork indicated that Mr Abu had expressed some concerns about his mental health and a desire to speak with Psychology. SCMC were satisfied that the R45 paperwork confirms that these mental health concerns are being addressed and that Mr Abu’s SC placement allows him sufficient support from healthcare professionals. SCMC also noted Mr Abu did not make any representations about his mental health in this quarterly review.” [p412] “It was acknowledged that you have expressed some concerns around your mental health, but on this occasion the SCMC considered, based on the reports of professionals, that there is no evidence that your SC placement is having a significant detrimental impact on your mental or physical wellbeing. The mental health referral was acknowledged, and SCMC would like to encourage you to continue to access this confidential service, or you can speak with other professionals on the unit, if you feel it could benefit you and your wellbeing.”

“[The Claimant] was willing to give up his gym session to benefit a peer which demonstrates he can and will be influenced by the group. It is noted that his father is ill and had a recent trip to Qatar. Those on the Separation Centre have a dislike for Qataris due to their allegiance to the west. When meeting with his new prison offender manager he positively expressed a desire to progress. The panel have decided that Mr Abu has evidenced a slight increase in risk due to his paranoia, also for demonstrating he will put the groups needs before his own. It has been decided though he can be managed on the existing two officer unlock and be seen in open conditions for interventions.”

“[The Claimant] engages with the Imam, but chaplaincy had no concerns to raise. He is known to the mental health team though there has been no contact yet. His interactions with staff and visitors to the unit are polite and appropriate. After discussing [the Claimant’s] IR’s [Intelligence Reports] though the evidence of his risk is highlighted. In a conversation with his father it is discussed that land in Somalia had been taken. Mr Abu even discussed being willing to be shot and die than having land stolen from him. [The Claimant] also has attempted to buy butter from canteen which after having cooking removed from their regime is now controlled in possession. It is the decision of the panel that [the Claimant] can still be managed by a two officer unlock and that he can still be seen in open conditions. It is noted that there is an increase in risk as the conversations with his father and frustrations surrounding this could be triggering.”

“Psychology said they were interested in the dynamic between [the Claimant] and the peer on his cohort. Intel confirmed that withdrawal has previously indicated an increase in risk and when the group will plan. This is further evidenced if it is followed by a period of false compliance where the group becomes chattier and more open with staff. The panel agreed that this period has seen an increase in risk for [the Claimant]. He is managed on a two officer unlock and interventions can take place in open conditions with no changes proposed.”

“I understand that PBA team will be with you next week to measure up your staff and I would anticipate PBA delivery 3 weeks from order. With imminent moves within the SC estate being finalised I have been discussing with PGDs what this might mean for risk levels and they are content to maintain the segregated position for now, pending legal advice which we have requested. Despite an initial positive indication on additional sets of existing PBA ORRU have not been in a position to provide this. I think the principal agreement will be a huge step forward and hopefully some restraint in progressing it will rebuild local faith in the importance of staff safety. Developing a risk assessment for cohorting with PBA would be useful and in that you could consider what additional mitigations exist that you could deploy without it however the senior steer at present is that the defensibility of a decision to open up if there was a further attack and we do not have the mandated PBA in place would be very difficult to justify. Apologies for this late notice shift it only developed recently, happy to have a chat if that useful.”

“Operational Response 1. Following the incident of 12th April 2025 restricted regimes were put in place across Separation Centres in response to an assessed increase in risk. This included segregation of all separation centre prisoners under Rule 45. 2. Over the period since the restricted regimes were applied the ongoing overt presentation of individual risk has reduced. Rule 45 requires a justification of the maintenance of good order or discipline, or a prisoner’s own interests and it is usually applied on a individualised basis. However, the view was taken that, notwithstanding that some of the prisoners were not presenting any overt indication of risk to staff, the risk was elevated to the point that the maintenance of good order or discipline could justify segregation of SC prisoners even in the absence of such overt indications for the purposes of post-attack risk management, [Subject to legal professional privilege]. The current operational assessment remains that, based on the general risk within the Separation Centre cohort, with many prisoners sharing Mr Abedi’s ideology, there is an increased potential they may feel emboldened by the attack at Frankland. We have previously seen prisoners within SCs taking collective action, albeit that this has manifested as non-cooperation rather than assault, which again speaks to the risk of groupthink in this specific prisoner cohort. Outside of Separation Centres the terrorist attack at HMP Whitemoor in 2020 was perpetrated by two extremist prisoners that were outwardly compliant prior to the attack. 3. Many of the prisoners in SCs have committed offences involving attack planning or the radicalisation of others. In the context of the current situation, while an individual’s risk of attack may previously have been considered lower, the dynamics within the prisoner cohort, their skills and in some cases their ability to evade detection or suspicion over prolonged periods both prior to offending and in custody, make the current risk assessment complex and it is therefore difficult to adequately mitigate the potential risk of attack, particularly at a time when we will be seeing new group dynamics play out as prisoners move between units as we close Woodhill and reopen Frankland. This is compounded by reporting which indicates some prisoners in the SC cohort remain supportive of Mr Abedi and hostility towards SC staff. 4. We assess the only way to avoid an unacceptable risk to staff in the absence of mandated risk control measures is to segregate until they are in place.”

“[The Claimant] has remained distant from staff this week. Although little intelligence has been generated a conversation with a peer has highlighted that his ideology remains present and there is clear disdain at non muslim people. The risk to staff remains at an elevated stage and [the Claimant’s] moods fluctuations are unpredictable. The MDT believe he is appropriately managed at this time and processes in place are justified.”

“For the first 6 weeks, I wasn’t allowed to associate with anyone. I was getting more and more frantic in my thoughts. I stood at my door at night, listening out for the sound of officers coming. I was so paranoid about a further assault, about them coming in the middle of the night. I was confined in the cell and trying to work out what had happened to me. I became very reclusive and stopped talking to other people. I kept the light off most of the time and would try to sleep or just watch TV. There was nothing else to do. I started feeling very negative towards others, and constantly fearful. The other guys were shouting to talk to me but I would often not answer, I was constantly replaying the attack in my mind, I felt like I was in a tunnel and that I would never be able to get off the SC and that I would now be seen as guilty by association with what Mr Abedi did. I felt very despondent.”

“Despite the positive changes I was still really struggling. I was very worried about getting sent back to HMP Frankland. My head was on a swivel. Any noise, rattling of a key or sound at night, would put me on high alert. I was constantly … afraid that I was going to get assaulted again. I was still asking for help every day at the daily rounds. I would ask the nurse to get the mental health team to come and see me and tell them that I was struggling. This was in earshot of other prisoners and staff. When I was behind my door I would get so so low, and have dark thoughts like I didn’t want to be there anymore, like there was no point to my life. The mental health team still not coming. I was raising it in all my SRBs and saying I needed help. One of my SRB targets was to engage with the mental health team but no one came. There would be a mental health nurse at the r45 meetings. The nurse would often say that I was being prioritised for mental health but that there was a waiting list. My mental health was declining. It got to the point that I just wanted peace, I had had enough pain and misery and uncertainty. This is when I started to hear a voice like a growling man’s voice in my head . I still hear it. It sounded at first like the voice was saying, “I’m listening”

“Following the recent announcement that all staff working in small units will be mandated to wear PBA in the course of their duties, a central steer that was given that subject to governor’s individual decisions, association should not be permitted until such time as this mandated equipment is available to staff. The threats from Mr Abu recorded are significant especially given the recent incident within the Separation Centres and for the Good Order of the prison to protect staff from violence then segregation is required at this time. I therefore grant a short period of leave of 28 days, the time for review is reduced for the concerns with his MH to be monitored and supported. Segregation can be ended at any point prior to the next OTO review at the discretion of the local team. The concerns of the impact on segregation upon him are considered and are part of the decision for the review. The local team must prioritise the support to him. His threats are considered alongside this and segregated conditions with MH support is appropriate for the safety of all with regular reviews in place.”

“I had been asked to go and speak to Mr Abu as he has stated he has swallowed the end of his knife (3 days ago) and then 2 drawing pins today, I did advise him that I had my BWC on just for clarity. I asked why he had ingested the objects he said the voices told me, I asked if he was currently getting support from the mental health service he said yes so I said I would ask them to pop and see him, Mr Abu did state on more than occasion that he had swallowed the item and tried to go to the toilet to get this out. . . . I asked him if he had any further thoughts to self-harm to which he shook his head, Mr Abu told me to come search his cell, I did explain that I wasn’t going to due to his current unlock measures.”

“Patient presented as alert, well kempt, irritable and with odd mannerisms at the beginning of the meeting which were self defeating. He made good eye contact and rapport was established. There was evidence of psychomotor agitation throughout. There was no evidence of him responding to any unseen/unheard stimuli. His speech was spontaneous logical and coherent. There was no evidence of a formal thought disorder. He reported voices, paranoia, beliefs around devils, jinn, government and secret service corruption and collusion of staff . . .. my assessment was that these symptoms did not have the quality of psychosis. He denied any suicide/self harm thoughts plans or intent ... he was advised that at present I did not believe he was psychotic, but I wanted to see him again to explore his symptoms and background further. I advised him that he reported a number of trauma symptoms which may benefit from trauma therapy and that I would ask my psychology colleague to consider assessing him in respect to this. I offered some off label medication, and we agreed that I would send information leaflets to him. I advised him that his beliefs and experiences are likely to be explained by his cultural background, reported trauma history and current situation rather than a mental illness, but I would keep an open mind about this. I did not advise him this, but a differential diagnosis of malingering should be considered.”

“Mr Abu is on an ACCT document for his support and I’m pleased to note that he engaged with this and attended the recent ACCT reviews. The reasons for his ACCT document are covered through other documents and reviews. It was noted by the reviewing team that Mr Abu continues to be subject to an open ACCT and has had several reports compiled on him in the reporting period from external professionals including Psychiatrists. His ACCT was reviewed as part of the SRB with note taken of Dr Cohen’s reporting and the more recent reporting of Dr Veisi. During the review Mr Abu presented increasingly ‘better’ the longer the review went on, Mr Abu stated his main ‘fear’ was that of been [sic.] assaulted by staff as he believes he was assaulted on transfer by Full Sutton staff. When asked if any of the staff he was referred to worked Separation unit he stated they didn’t – but this did little to allay his fears as they would still be in the Prison. Whilst his triggers were discussed his coping strategies also presented well with all agreeing (Including Mr Abu) that the level of current observations he is subject to could be lowered at this time to x1 hourly. Mr Abu has received assessments and support for his mental health and these were considered as part of his segregation review boards when the decision was made on his segregation… I note from the review that the SRB has considered the impact of segregation on Mr Abu and alongside the reports submitted and the local healthcare department and psychologist’s views. The reviewing panel concluded the current management of Mr Abu remains appropriate & further noted his willingness to engage with Dr Afsal on the 8th October and Ms Horseman (Unit psychologist) in the coming weeks. Mr Abu also gave an undertaking to let staff know if he felt he was going on a downward spiral – so any reassessment of his support could be further considered. It was reported that Mr Abu asked for his cutlery and kettle be returned after he had left the review – the team discussed this & agreed to see how the reduced observations went prior to re-issuing the aforementioned items – which would be done as part of any further case management ACCT review. The review has considered the reports from medical professionals, SRBs, nomis reports, previous representations and other documentation.”

“I also note that Mr Abu’s risk to others is not assessed as safe for ending segregated conditions. The local SRB continue to work with Mr Abu to understand his view of recent violence towards staff in the SC and wider estate as well as exploring his current risk factors particularly in light of his comments made at HMP Woodhill whereby he was ‘looking for revenge’ following his transfer from HMP Frankland to HMP Woodhill. He has met and exchanged introductions with the unit psychologist assigned to him on the 22nd August, indicating he is willing to engage further with them to identify any risk reduction work in response to any areas of concern we identify through further exploration with him. Ultimately there is no evidence of significant risk reduction to note during the reporting period on this issue. There are positives to note and engagement with professionals is moving forward. However, at this stage the SRB does not believe that segregation can be ended. PBA is not yet in place and efforts to resolve this remain ongoing with positive indications that this is moving forward. The support of the MDT and MHT including through the ACCT process is set out. There are reports from Mr Abus team that indicate that segregation should be ended but also evidence from the MHT that disagrees. My view on this is that the MHT is better placed to present a view and support Mr Abu and that their opinion regarding ongoing segregation is taken note. The processes, procedures, MDT and MHT are in place to support Mr Abu and work with him. The announcement that all staff working in small units will be mandated to wear PBA in the course of their duties is not yet resolved while the delivery of PBA is sought. It remains that a central steer was given that subject to governor’s individual decisions, association should not be permitted until such time as this mandated equipment is available to staff. Positive indications that this is moving forward are given. The risk to the staff group from Mr Abu as an individual (threats from him are noted) and the SC cohort without staff donning PBA is not yet assessed as able to end segregation at this time. I note the specific threats made by Mr Abu and the concerns and support for his mental health. While the local teams record that segregation should not be ended based on his MH I will reduce the time for the next review to maintain oversight. I grant a short period of leave of 28 days segregation for the Good Order of the prison from the risk of violence to staff, this can be ended at any point prior to the next OTO review at the discretion of the local team.”

“if additional time out of cell or on association were to be provided solely for the Claimant, this would inevitably come at a cost, either to other prisoners in the Separation Centre, or to those held on mainstream wings. The staffing pool is finite, and any reallocation of time in favour of one individual reduces the capacity to deliver fair unlock time to others.”

“They put you in a break room (CV Room) with a TV, fridge, pool table and computers (we are not allowed to use the computers), there are exercise machines that you can use. There is a small adjoining yard outside with pull up bars which we are allowed to go out to and use on our own for up to 40 minutes. Officers watch through the gate. . . . Last week I was in the CV room and I saw another prisoner [y] going to the laundry room accompanied by officers. He was on his way to the green yard and was stopping off to drop his laundry. He had two bottles of aloe vera drink with him and asked me through the bars if I could put them in the fridge. The officers didn’t object and I approached the gate to take the bottles. As I took them my hand brushed [prisoner y’s] hand, I realised I hadn’t touched another person apart from an officer in weeks. It was uplifting. I said to him that it was the first time we had seen each other face to face without a plastic glass screen (these cover the door flaps) between us, since the morning of 12th April. It was a moment where I realised how dehumanised I have been feeling, that all of these most basic forms of human contact even with just the few of us that are on the wing mean a lot to me. Its really the only thing we have. Even the small joy I had from cohorting . . . has been taken away. It feels like a POW camp. It’s very brutal.”

“I have been hearing voices in my head again. It had started in HMP Woodhill but in the last couple of weeks it has been very intense. At HMP Woodhill it had only happened when I was on the phone with my sister. It happened a couple of times. At HMP Full Sutton now it has been happening more and more, even when I’m not on the phone. It was sounding like it is coming from my telephone even when it is off. It says things to me like “don’t you want to know who I am?”

“The local SRB continue to work with Mr Abu to understand his view of recent violence towards staff in the SC and wider estate as well as exploring his current risk factors particularly in light of his comments made at HMP Woodhill whereby he was ‘looking for revenge’ following his transfer from HMP Frankland to HMP Woodhill. Of note is Mr Abu’s more recent comments that all staff at Full Sutton are Racist despite the reviewing SRB team pointing out that he does have some positive relationships with staff. Staff will work with Mr Abu to try and gain a better understanding for these opinions with the view to challenging them. During the SRB Mr Abu stated that staff at Full Sutton were racist but later agreed he had a good relationship with a member of staff”

“My mental health started to backslide in segregation. Traumatic memories would come back to me, like the time that I got stabbed. I got stuck thinking about why my life is the way that it is, and how what I experienced in my early life had affected me. I was also feeling very paranoid because of the constant worry of getting attacked by anti-Muslim prisoners. The cells were squalid too. The treatment that we were getting depressed me. My focus was on my hopes for going back to the wing and getting back to doing my education and other activities that I had been prioritizing before.”

“He continues to suffer auditory hallucinations of a voice ordering him to do things and now also hears a second voice he describes as like a poltergeist. He does not feel he can disobey the voice ordering him to do things, he submits to it. He experiences visual hallucinations of a flickering dark shadow at the edge of his vision, which he associates with impending threat and attack, and which makes him back away with the fear that he is going to be stabbed in his right eye. He has a degree of insight into these experiences, in that he does not think they are real, but they still exert a powerful influence over him and cause fear and severe anxiety. He does not identify any protective factors to prevent him from trying to kill himself again. He does find some relief when he is praying, but this does not last and although he knows his faith says suicide is a sin, he longs for the relief that death will bring, of no longer being in pain and fear- he no longer feels his faith would prevent him from suicide. He does not confide in his family and describes that for the past 12 days or so he had isolated himself in his cell, not coming out to take part in any activities in the brief period of unlock, and neglecting his self-care. He recognises this as a pattern he has had before and it is similar to when he had a ‘breakdown’ in the past.”

“The critical risk factors acting currently include (but are not limited to): his prior mental health conditions, now very seriously exacerbated, his psychotic symptoms including a voice ordering him to kill himself, his environment of isolation and constant monitoring which increases his anxiety and paranoia, and the absence of any provision of supportive care and therapy.”

“13.3 He has a longstanding history of trauma and instability that pre-dates his current imprisonment. Records document episodes of low mood, anxiety, panic attacks, claustrophobia, and trauma symptoms over several years. Since his placement under Rule 45 in April 2025, there has been a reported deterioration in his mental health. He has been anxious, hypervigilant, and fearful of staff, reporting nightmares, flashbacks, and a sense of constant threat. His distress intensified following alleged assaults by staff and removal of cohorting, and he has described intrusive re-experiencing, avoidance behaviours, poor sleep and irritability. He has expressed suicidal thoughts and has engaged in acts of self-harm, including swallowing foreign objects. His current presentation is therefore best understood through the lens of trauma-related disorder rather than the development of a primary psychotic illness. 13.4 There are notable inconsistencies in Mr Abu’s reporting which undermine a straightforward interpretation of his presentation. He has at times denied a history of substance misuse, yet elsewhere has admitted to long-standing use of cannabis, cocaine and alcohol. His accounts of auditory experiences have varied when professionals assessed him. He has also provided contradictory explanations for his time in France and for his family affiliations, at times minimising and at other times exaggerating his experiences. I note his account of poor sleep and waking up screaming, which has never been documented in his ACCT documents. These variations call for caution in weighing his self-report at face value, highlighting the importance of corroborating evidence and careful clinical formulation. 13.5 From the beginning of his placement in Separation Centre, his symptoms have consolidated into a pattern consistent with Complex post-traumatic stress disorder, according to the criteria set by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD 11). He experiences recurrent and distressing intrusive memories and nightmares, hyperarousal with panic attacks, emotional numbing, mistrust of others, exaggerated sense of threat, and re-living of past traumatic experiences when exposed to reminders. He describes voices and visions in this context, but these are better understood as intrusive trauma phenomena rather than psychotic hallucinations. 13.6 Dr Cohen, a General Practitioner, has described him as suffering psychosis with an irresistible drive towards suicide. In my view, this overstates both the diagnostic position and the immediacy of the risk. Her interpretation does not fully distinguish between trauma-related intrusive experiences and psychotic phenomena. While his distress is real, his insight is preserved, and his acts of self-harm, such as swallowing objects, appear more demonstrative and situational. I note that he had indicated that he was going to attempt suicide by swallowing a knife in a written letter to a custody manager and a few days later he proceeded to do so, in protest to his condition, rather than driven by mental state. 13.7 As regards risk of suicide, he has expressed suicidal thoughts and engaged in self harm behaviours, but these have not been accompanied by persistent intent or by actions carrying high lethality. He identifies protective factors in his family ties and in his religious beliefs, and he has not made sustained or violent attempts to end his life. His risk is better described as one of episodic self-harm in response to distress, rather than a continuous imminent risk of suicide. He remains appropriately managed under ACCT procedures with psychiatric and psychological input. The risk can be further mitigated through continued engagement with trauma-focused interventions, careful monitoring, and addressing the stresses inherent in his segregation, but it does not necessitate transfer to hospital. 13.8 Turning to the matter of necessity of hospital transfer. This is subject to a transfer direction via section 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended 2007). It is often the prison psychiatrist who makes the first recommendation for such direction and the receiving psychiatric hospital to do the second recommendation. I note that Dr Afazal did not make such recommendation. In my opinion, having worked in multiple prisons and secure hospitals during my career, Mr Abu’s mental disorder is not of a nature or degree to warrant his transfer to hospital. 13.9 In my opinion, his mental health condition is being appropriately managed within prison setting. Dr Afzal has commenced him on mirtazapine (antidepressant) and has considered starting quetiapine (An antipsychotic in this case used for emotional regulation). He has contact with prison psychologist and over time this measure will be able to address his trauma and symptoms.”

“even Mr Abu, with his prior vulnerability, mental health conditions of depression, anxiety, PTSD and panic attacks, documented deteriorating mental health, now compounded by auditory and visual hallucinations including a voice ordering him to kill himself, and actual acts of attempted suicide/serious self-harm, still cannot reach this threshold.”

“Psychotic symptoms of auditory and visual hallucinations can occur in severe PTSD and in severe depression. Features of psychotic conditions such as schizophrenia are not present. The fear of being possessed by a djinn may perhaps be considered as a ‘culturally appropriate’ delusion but Mr Abu rejects this as a sole explanation for his hallucinations. He expresses both that being possessed is a fear for him, and that he understands his symptoms to relate closely to his past experiences and to be amenable to mental health treatment. I make the diagnoses of PTSD and severe depression, with panic attacks and psychotic symptoms, not based solely on the history related but on my observations throughout the examination, the responses made to specific clinical questions and my objective findings on examination of his mental state, as well as on review of the extensive medical records and other documents provided.”

“the failure of health care staff to advise the ACCT reviews and SRBs of his prior mental health conditions and vulnerability factors, or to adequately assess and consider the evident deterioration in his mental health and the likely impact of any further period in segregation particularly in view of its prolonged and indefinite nature. Relevant information about his mental health and vulnerability that is readily available in the medical records, much of which was also recorded on a safety care plan, has not been communicated to the SRBs or ACCT reviews.”

“390. The impact on his mental health is evident from the deterioration culminating in his recent attempt to kill himself, as set out above in this report and in my letters of 28 August 2025 and 4 September 2025. The impact is severe and is causing serious suffering. 391. Continued segregation can only increase this suffering and further deterioration of his mental health, and increase his vulnerability to further psychotic symptoms and acts of self-harm and suicide. 392. Self-harm and suicide are increased in prisoners in solitary confinement. The components of solitary confinement that are so damaging include the social isolation, reduced activity and stimulation, lack of control over all aspects of daily life, and duration. Mr Abu’s period in the SC constitutes small group isolation and the evidence shows his mental health has deteriorated over this period and further deteriorated in the current period of segregation/solitary confinement. Both the conditions of small group isolation and of segregation have harmed and continue to cause further harm to his mental health and put him at increasing risk of acting on his suicidal thoughts. 393. The damage to his mental health will be greater the longer he spends in segregation, and I do not believe will be much improved at this point even if the unit returns to the previous restricted small group isolation SC regime. There is a real risk of further deterioration, making it much more difficult to treat his mental health conditions and for him to engage in therapy - the longer he remains in these conditions, the more difficult it will become to treat him. 394. The mental health treatment and support he currently receives is not relieving his symptoms. He is prescribed a low dose of the antidepressant Mirtazapine which has not been reviewed in over 7 weeks. A review by the psychiatrist Dr Afzal is scheduled for six weeks from 27 August 2025, at which point Dr Afzal stated he may consider medication with Quetiapine. 395. He has recently had assessments for neurodivergence. He may be receiving some support from the mental health team. He has not been seen by the psychologist recently, although Dr Afzal has recommended this. 396. In my opinion, as set out in my letters, he needs care and supportive treatment and medication, ideally in a hospital setting to achieve stabilisation of his symptoms and reduction of his risk of suicide. I understand that the prison has other considerations in this regard, but this is my recommendation based on his healthcare needs.”

“16th April 2025 – Bruising to his face, right elbow and right wrist noted. Reported to be having panic attacks. Thoughts of deliberate self-harm. 29th April 2025 – Told nurse about suffering from trauma after being assaulted by staff prior to transfer. 30th May 2025 – Trauma screening questionnaire. He answered yes to all ten screening questions. 3rd June 2025 – Recent interactions between prisoner and mental health team suggest he may benefit from psychology input. 6th June 2025 – Discussed mood problems and dark thoughts. Intrusive thoughts and psychological distress associated with assault by staff. Symptoms suggestive of PTSD relating to past events and current experience. 2nd July 2025 – ACCT opened 1st July 2025. Had said he saw no reason to live anymore. Feeling like he is screaming and shouting whilst experiencing thoughts of death. Symptoms of depression and persistent rumination on past trauma. 3rd July 2025 – Some ADHD symptoms. Said he is not being supported with his mental health, and he is really struggling. 4th July 2025 – Segregation said not to be impacting his mental health. Presenting with low mood. 7th July 2025 – No significant or enduring mental health issues indicative of thought disorder or psychosis. Experiencing low mood and emotional distress which appear to be linked to environmental stressors. 15th July 2025 – Restrictions negatively affecting his mood. Just loses interest in everything. Said It is depressing, I’m just depressed. 16th July 2025 – Low mood, lack of pleasure, symptoms consistent with depression. 18th July 2025 – Appeared anxious, continuous rocking and hypervigilance. However, presented as bright and affectively reactive. 31st July 2025 – Anxious and guarded at beginning of the review however he later engaged well with intermittent eye contact. Self-harm thoughts with no plans to act on these. 1st August 2025 – Mental health assessment. Low mood, anxiety and trauma related symptoms. Reported being attacked in HMP Full Sutton and HMP Frankland which triggered childhood abuse by his father. Constantly anxious, feelings of under threat all the times, feeling on edge, poor sleep, hypervigilant, nightmares, flashbacks and panic attacks. Being back at HMP Full Sutton has brought back bad memories and upsetting reminders. Feels he will be attacked any time, trust issues. 7th August 2025 – Generally heightened/anxious. Described flashbacks of being brutally murdered and disposed of. Nightmares of the events and alleges he was physically abused and verbally assaulted at HMP Full Sutton. 13th August 2025 – Anxious, looking around. Eyes darting around the room. Very paranoid about prison staff, states they want to assault him. 20th August 2025 – Hearing voices and needs help. 21st August 2025 – Feeling unsafe in the interview room. Reported several traumatic events he was having flashbacks to. Presentation changed when talking about future plan of a music career. 26th August 2025 – Speech and language assessment. Some involuntary hand movements. 27th August 2025 – Discussed prison being corrupt and hierarchy who send jinn and devils to punish him. Explained voices this way. Spoke about being abused since childhood. Described voices starting two months ago when speaking to his sister. Conclusion was that he was not psychotic but that a number of trauma symptoms which may benefit from trauma therapy. 28th August 2025 – Fidgeting, clicking his fingers and suspicions of responding to unseen stimuli. Minimal eye contact. Looking at door, watching the officers, stating they planned to assault him.”

“He is someone who was by virtue of his experiences predisposed to developing mental illnesses such as PTSD and depression and so his mental state is entirely plausible. The symptoms he is experiencing are completely consistent with what we know and understand about people with these diagnoses but also what we know about people kept in isolation and deprived of ordinary social contact. . . . The current segregation conditions are directly contributing to a worsening of his mental health. The restrictive conditions have likely contributed to worsening of symptoms associated with traumatic experiences from his past. The conditions remove some of the avoidant strategies he has used to mitigate the impact of this trauma. The voices he is hearing are likely to be exacerbated by the degree of isolation and deprivation of contact he is experiencing.”

“83.1 I disagree with the assertion that he is not psychotic . . . 83.2. I agree that trauma symptoms are prominent. 83.3. I agree that some of his beliefs and experiences are likely to be explained by his cultural background, trauma history and current situation. However, I disagree with the suggestion that this means it is not a mental illness. It may be that Dr Afzal means he does not have schizophrenia, however both PTSD and depressive disorder are mental illnesses.”

“84.1. I agree that his mental health problems are best understood through the lens of a trauma-related disorder rather than a primary psychotic disorder (such as schizophrenia). 84.2. I do not agree that inconsistencies described undermine assessment of his presentation. Methods of assessment, circumstances of any assessments, professional experience and differences in documentation are all relevant in understanding apparent inconsistencies. Absolute consistency is far more unusual when there are such extensive records as there are for Mr Abu. 84.3. I agree that the hallucinations are best understood in the context of his traumatic experiences (as well as his mood state and his current circumstances) but hallucinations are seen in depression and PTSD. I therefore disagree with the notion that these are not hallucinations. 84.4. I agree that his risk of suicide is to some extent situational. The situation is undoubtedly increasing the risk of suicide. I disagree that the risk of suicide is not driven by his mental state. I fail to see how his mental state can be discounted as the driver of his suicide risk, irrespective of the understanding of the abnormal mental state. 84.5. I disagree that the ACCT procedures constitute appropriate clinical management. I agree that trauma-focussed interventions and other clinical support is necessary, but this is not currently being provided. The ACCT process is not providing him with mental health care. 84.6. I agree that transfer to hospital should not be necessary. I disagree that his mental health is being appropriately managed for the reasons described above.”

“9.1 At my most recent assessment, Mr Abu presented as distressed and irritable but remained able to engage with me, challenge my report, and demonstrate choice and agency in how he interacted. He displayed inconsistencies in his reporting. At first, he denied reading my report, but moments later challenged its contents, asking for certain passages to be removed. 9.2 His reported self-harm behaviours, such as swallowing pins and plastic cutlery, were described by him as painful and distressing but not lethal. He openly acknowledged to me that swallowing pins “would hurt his throat and stomach but would not kill him”

“segregation, in the current conditions is worsening his mental state by increasing his distress. I also agree that transfer to hospital under the Mental Health Act should not be necessary and that comprehensive, adequate mental health care should be available in prison. Whether or not a move to a healthcare wing would be sufficient would depend on the particular facilities and conditions in that healthcare wing. There is unfortunately, inconsistency in healthcare wing provision across the prison estate.”

“Decisions under rule 45(2) do not involve the determination of a charge against the prisoner or the imposition of a punishment, either in form or in substance. As counsel for the Secretary of State emphasised, segregation decisions are not based on a determination of fact as to whether a particular event has occurred, but involve a judgment as to the risk posed to the good order and discipline of the prison, and whether the particular situation could be equally or better addressed by other measures, such as transfer to another wing, closer supervision on normal location or transfer to another establishment. Allegations may be made against a prisoner, but the subject matter of the . . . decision is not whether the prisoner behaved as alleged: these are not disciplinary proceedings.”

“any recommendation that the prisoner resumes association”

“This rule shall not apply to a prisoner the subject of a direction given under rule 46(1).”

“77. Turning finally to the Policy Non-Adherence Basis, I have found this the hardest question in the case. The Lumba public law duty of adherence to a policy, absent a good reason justifying departure, is well established. But there are limitations as to whether the duty is in play. And there are difficulties in the word “policy”, since that word can mean different things. Many public authority decisions or actions are “policy” decisions or actions, but they do not constitute a “policy” in the public law adherence-duty sense. In my judgment, the Courts will generally expect there to be two features before the Lumba duty is engaged: (i) an identifiable external decision-making function; (ii) a document which, viewed objectively, serves as a prescriptive instrument for that function. By “external decision-making function”

“the question for the court is, did the Secretary of State ask himself the right question and take reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly?”

“First, the obligation on the decision-maker is only to take such steps to inform himself as are reasonable. Secondly, subject to a Wednesbury challenge . . . it is for the public body and not the court to decide upon the manner and intensity of inquiry to be undertaken . . . Thirdly, the court should not intervene merely because it considers that further inquiries would have been sensible or desirable. It should intervene only if no reasonable authority could have been satisfied on the basis of the inquiries made that it possessed the information necessary for its decision. Fourthly, the court should establish what material was before the authority and should only strike down a decision not to make further inquiries if no reasonable authority possessed of that material could suppose that the inquiries they had made were sufficient. Fifthly, the principle that the decision-maker must call his own attention to considerations relevant to his decision, a duty which in practice may require him to consult outside bodies with a particular knowledge or involvement in the case, does not spring from a duty of procedural fairness to the applicant but rather from the Secretary of States duty so to inform himself as to arrive at a rational conclusion. Sixthly, the wider the discretion conferred on the Secretary of State, the more important it must be that he has all the relevant material to enable him properly to exercise it.”

“In giving authority under paragraphs (2) and (2A) and in exercising the discretion under paragraph (3), the governor must fully consider any recommendation that the prisoner resumes association on medical grounds made by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse working within the prison.”

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

“ . . . for practical purposes, an individual complainant has the burden of showing that he has suffered the ill-treatment he alleges, and that that amounts to a violation of article 3 . He must do that by "conclusively establishing" that he has suffered treatment that could be classified as inhuman or degrading including that any harm suffered was sufficiently serious (Aerts v Belgium (1998) (ECtHR Application No 25357/94) [2000] 29 EHRR 50 at [66]). That is sometimes referred to as "beyond reasonable doubt" but . . . that phrase has an autonomous meaning as applied by the ECtHR. Those phrases may (but do not necessarily) connote a standard of proof higher than the balance of probabilities. There is no clear guidance in the cases; other than it is a very high hurdle, and one which complainants generally may not find it easy to overcome.”

“33. Although the regime prevented contact with the general prison population, it did not involve the appellants total isolation from other prisoners or from other human contacts. He was confined to his cell for between 20 and 22 hours per day. He was permitted to associate with other prisoners at times when he was released from his cell. He generally had access to one hour of exercise per day in the segregation unit yard. He often had access, for about an hour at a time, to a gym located in the segregation unit. He was entitled to receive visits and to use prison telephones. He had daily access to showers and newspapers. He occasionally had his hair cut. He was occasionally visited by an Imam. He occasionally attended court. After March 2008 all the cells in which he was accommodated had electric power, and a television was provided. Prior to that date, he was provided with a battery powered television in his cell. The impression conveyed by the documentation is that the staff of the various segregation units generally did their best to treat him as well as they could within the restrictions inherent in the rule 94 regime. On the other hand, no work or other occupation was provided or permitted in his cell, and education courses were not generally available. He was not permitted to attend religious services, although from May 2009 he attended a class for Muslim prisoners at HMP Glenochil. . . . 36. The prison authorities were aware of the risks which segregation, especially for a prolonged period, can pose to mental health. The effects on the appellant were regularly monitored. Prison medical officers visited him at least once every seven days. They did not find that he was medically unfit to be segregated. He was examined in January 2007 by a psychologist at Barlinnie, who reported that he appeared to be coping well. When interviewed by a psychologist instructed by his lawyers for the purpose of these proceedings in May 2010, towards the end of his period in segregation, his demeanour indicated low mood. He reported anxiety about going outside the segregation unit, hearing voices, which the psychologist considered to be a reaction to his environment, and a loss of confidence. Without under-estimating the unpleasantness of the symptoms reported by the appellant, it is not suggested in the report, or in any other evidence before the court, that he suffered any severe or permanent injury to his health.”

“207. . . . Solitary confinement is one of the most serious measures which can be imposed within a prison and, as the Committee for the Prevention of Torture has stated, all forms of solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation are likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities. Indeed, as the Committee’s most recent report makes clear, the damaging effect of solitary confinement can be immediate and increases the longer the measure lasts and the more indeterminate it is. 208. At the same time, however, the court has found that the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment. In many states parties to the Convention more stringent security measures, which are intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, exist for dangerous prisoners. 209. Thus, whilst prolonged removal from association with others is undesirable, whether such a measure falls within the ambit of article 3 of the Convention depends on the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned. 210. In applying these criteria, the court has never laid down precise rules governing the operation of solitary confinement. For example, it has never specified a period of time, beyond which solitary confinement will attain the minimum level of severity required for article 3. The court has, however, emphasised that solitary confinement, even in cases entailing relative isolation, cannot be imposed on a prisoner indefinitely.”

“It is important to bear in mind that the isolation which he experienced was partial and relative. The fact that his segregation was imposed in the interests of his own safety is also relevant. There is no doubt that the duration of his segregation was undesirable, and indeed exceptional by the standards of prisons in the United Kingdom. There are also respects in which his conditions might have been improved, in particular by making greater provision for the pursuit of purposeful activities. The procedural protections available were not as effective as they should have been, particularly as a result of the prolonged delay in obtaining legal aid.”

“201 In order to fall under art.3, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity. The assessment of this minimum level is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the state of health of the victim. Although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of art.3. 202 For a violation of art.3 to arise from an applicant’s conditions of detention, the suffering and humiliation involved must go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve an element of suffering or humiliation. However, the state must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured. 203 When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant. The length of the period during which a person is detained in the particular conditions also has to be considered.”

“The Court has considered treatment to be ‘inhuman’ because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering. It has deemed treatment to be ‘degrading’ because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them. In considering whether a punishment or treatment is ‘degrading’ within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. However, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3.”

“a relatively short period of segregation was imposed on the prisoner concerned: 7 days segregation plus an additional 28 days to his sentence imposed 9 days before his expected date of release. However, when combined with the other circumstances of the case, including what the Court found to be the lack of effective monitoring of his condition and the lack of informed psychiatric assessment and treatment, which disclosed significant defects in the medical care provided to a mentally ill person known to be a suicide risk, this led to a finding that there had been inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, contrary to Article 3, on the facts of that case.”

“122. First, there is no suggestion that the Claimant has been kept in segregation with the intention of debasing or humiliating her; nor any suggestion that the measure was calculated to break her resistance or will. There has been no element of premeditation in the sense used by the European Court of Human Rights. 123. Secondly, the segregation regime has not amounted to total solitary confinement and has been modified as conditions have permitted. For example, the Claimant has been permitted to communicate with some other people; has been able to do some work as an orderly and has had access to facilities such as a library and a gym. 124. Thirdly, although the Claimant suffers from a mental disorder, the impact of segregation on her health has been monitored by professionals, including psychologists, and it has been certified that she can continue to be kept in that environment at all relevant times. 125. Fourthly, the Claimant’s segregation has at all material times had a legitimate aim and has not been imposed for arbitrary reasons. The reality is that the Claimant is in an almost unique position in the prisons of this country. She poses an exceptionally high risk to others, including other prisoners. This is not to say that the Claimant’s segregation can be indefinite but that is not what the Second Defendant has sought to do. Rather the evidence before this Court makes it clear that reasonable efforts have been made to facilitate the Claimant’s ability to move to another environment within the prison estate but only in a safe and structured way. 126. At the hearing before me Mr Southey conceded that he could not realistically ask the Court to hold that the Claimant’s segregation at the present time should be brought to an immediate end. However, he did question whether enough had been done at an earlier stage in order to facilitate her transfer to another environment such as the Primrose Project. I do not accept that submission. In my judgment, the Second Defendant has acted with reasonable diligence and has been able to get the Claimant to the point where she can realistically move on to the Highly Complex Needs Pilot at HMP Bronzefield. Although that may prove to be a pre-cursor to a transfer to the Primrose Project in the future, the evidence before the Court explains why it would be inappropriate to transfer the Claimant to that project at this stage, since it is located at HMP Low Newton, which would not be a suitable prison for her at this time. 127. Fifthly, the need for the Claimant’s continued segregation has been kept under review on a regular basis both by the Second Defendant and by the First Defendant. Those authorities have concluded, in their professional judgment, which is based on extensive experience of prisons, that her continued segregation is necessary. The reasons for those conclusions have been explained to the Court in evidence which is before me and which I have summarised earlier. 128. Finally, the Claimant has had access to an independent judicial authority, namely this Court, which has been able to assess the continuing need for her segregation. On the evidence before this Court I am satisfied that that need has been demonstrated by the Defendants.”

“The Court accepts that the very nature of the applicant’s psychological condition made him more vulnerable than the average detainee and that his detention may have exacerbated to a certain extent his feelings of distress, anguish and fear. It also takes note of the fact that from 11 June to 29 October 1996 the applicant was kept in custody despite a psychiatric opinion that continuing detention could jeopardise his life because of a likelihood of attempted suicide. However, on the basis of the evidence before it and assessing the relevant facts as a whole, the Court does not find it established that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment that attained a sufficient level of severity to come within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.”

“95. . . . both before and during his detention from 4 October 1993 to 29 October 1996 the applicant had suffered from chronic depression and that he had twice attempted to commit suicide in prison. His state had also been diagnosed as personality or neurotic disorder and situational depressive reaction. 96. The Court further observes that the medical evidence which the Government produced to it (but not to the Commission) shows that during his detention the applicant regularly sought, and obtained, medical attention. He was examined by doctors of various specialisms and frequently received psychiatric assistance. From the beginning of October to the end of December 1993 he had several times been examined by psychiatrists in prison. At the end of 1993 the trial court obtained a report from a psychiatrist confirming that his state of health was at that time compatible with detention. Shortly after his first suicide attempt, an event which in the light of the evidence before the Court does not appear to have resulted from or have been linked to any discernible shortcoming on the part of the authorities, the applicant was given specialist treatment in the form of psychiatric observation in Wroclaw Prison Hospital from 9 March to 26 May 1994. Later, after the observation in Wroclaw, he also underwent two further follow-up examinations, on 9 November and 7 December 1994. 97. Admittedly, that did not prevent him from making a second attempt to take his life in January 1995. However, the Court, while it does not consider it necessary to express a view on whether that attempt was, as the authorities asserted, of an attention-seeking character or a manifestation of the suffering caused by his disorder, does not find on the material before it anything to show that they can be held responsible for what happened. 98. Similarly, the Court cannot discern any subsequent failure on their part to keep the applicant under psychiatric observation. On the contrary, it finds that from the beginning of 1995 to his release on 29 October 1996 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist at least once a month. In 1996 alone, that is to say, before being released, he underwent 12 such examinations.”

“(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.”

“(1) As stated by Arden LJ in R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence [2006] 1 WLR 3213; [2006] EWCA Civ 1293 at [274], equality duties are an integral and important part of the mechanisms for ensuring the fulfilment of the aims of anti-discrimination legislation. (2) An important evidential element in the demonstration of the discharge of the duty is the recording of the steps taken by the decision maker in seeking to meet the statutory requirements: R (BAPIO Action Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWHC 199 (QB) (Stanley Burnton J (as he then was)). (3) The relevant duty is upon the Minister or other decision maker personally. What matters is what he or she took into account and what he or she knew. Thus, the Minister or decision maker cannot be taken to know what his or her officials know or what may have been in the minds of officials in proffering their advice: R (National Association of Health Stores) v Department of Health [2005] EWCA Civ 154 at [26 – 27] per Sedley LJ. (4) A Minister must assess the risk and extent of any adverse impact and the ways in which such risk may be eliminated before the adoption of a proposed policy and not merely as a “rearguard action”, following a concluded decision: per Moses LJ, sitting as a Judge of the Administrative Court, in Kaur & Shah v LB Ealing [2008] EWHC 2062 (Admin) at [23 – 24]. (5) These and other points were reviewed by Aikens LJ, giving the judgment of the Divisional Court, in R (Brown) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWHC 3158 (Admin), as follows: i) The public authority decision maker must be aware of the duty to have “due regard” to the relevant matters; ii) The duty must be fulfilled before and at the time when a particular policy is being considered; iii) The duty must be “exercised in substance, with rigour, and with an open mind”

“Section 149 of the 2010 Act applies to a public authority when it exercises its functions (see section 149(1)). It requires a public authority to give the equality needs which are listed in section 149 the regard which is due in the particular context. It does not dictate a particular result. It does not require an elaborate structure of secondary decision-making every time a public authority makes any decision which might engage the listed equality needs, however remotely. The court is not concerned with formulaic box ticking, but with the question whether, in substance, the public authority has complied with section 149. A public authority can comply with section 149 even if the decision-maker does not refer to section 149 (see, for example, Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2016] AC 811).”

“Training particularly tailored to working with the group of prisoners placed in separation centres has been provided. Active steps have included giving staff the skills and confidence to understand prejudice and promoting a positive environment. Staff have been trained in faith understanding and will receive regular updates as identified as part of the evaluation of learning process.”

“Throughout the development of the separation centre system, it was assessed as likely that the decision making under the policy framework will appear to have a disproportionate effect on Muslim prisoners because it is from within this group of prisoners that the current risks are most evident. The policy was developed to apply to all adult male prisoners regardless of their religion or beliefs. Selection will be on the basis of whether the grounds of Rule 46A apply. The policy framework applies to all prisoners who fulfil the criteria set out in Prison Rule 46A, irrespective of their ideology, faith, race, religion or beliefs. Selection will be on the basis of prisoners’ actions, not intrinsic characteristics. SCMC considers each referral on a case-by-case basis. Prisoners are able to practice their religion / faith within the separation centre and have regular contact with faith leaders, for corporate worship and education purposes, subject to an individualised risk assessment. Access to a dedicated theologian may be arranged for individuals who are identified as requiring this intervention. Corporate worship has been impacted due to COVID restrictions in line with prison wide COVID policies, but is recommencing in line with the lifting of these restrictions. Prisoners have access to religious materials and events required to support their religious and cultural needs as per the PSI 2016/05 (Faith and Pastoral Care of Prisoners). Additionally, chaplaincy staff work as part of the separation centre Multi-Disciplinary Team and contribute to quarterly reviews that are put to the SCMC, so their insights can inform decision-making. A positive impact is expected on the wider prison population as removing those who meet the criteria of Prison Rule 46A should allow for a more harmonious inter faith dynamic to develop. The training and awareness packages available to staff will increase staff understanding of all faiths. While this was expected to advance improved inter-faith relationships between staff and prisoners, due to the general non-engagement of prisoners, this has not had the expected impact. Subsequently, staff may not feel confident in speaking to prisoners about matters relating to their faith and challenging views that have been expressed. Staff selected to work in separation centre will be required to attend training sessions as part of their role, as well as continuing professional development and training during their period of deployment. Operational staff selected to work in the separation centre will be required to attend specialist training relevant to their role including the nationally approved training course entitled ‘Working with Challenging Behaviour (WCB)’. Staff can attend the first module following selection to work in a separation centre unit and before taking up post. Other staff groups contributing to the work of the separation centre may also be required to attend some specialist training, where appropriate and necessary to enable them to perform their duties.”

“We had Islamic studies sessions on Thursdays, but this was just a half hour slot to get books and things from the small library of Islamic books, we didn’t sit down all together with the Imam although we could ask questions in this time. I would ask him things sometimes about books and religious subjects. We prayed together on Fridays but not with the Imam.”

“[98] . . . a prisoner should normally have a reasonable opportunity to make representations before a decision is taken by the Secretary of State under rule 45(2). That follows from the seriousness of the consequences for the prisoner of a decision authorising his segregation for a further 14 days; the fact that authority is sought on the basis of information concerning him, and in particular concerning his conduct or the conduct of others towards him; the fact that he may be able to answer allegations made, or to provide relevant information; and, in those circumstances, from the common laws insistence that administrative power should be exercised in a manner which is fair. . . . [100] A prisoner’s right to make representations is largely valueless unless he knows the substance of the case being advanced in sufficient detail to enable him to respond. He must therefore normally be informed of the substance of the matters on the basis of which the authority of the Secretary of State is sought. That will not normally require the disclosure of the primary evidence on which the governor’s concerns are based: as I have explained, the Secretary of State is not determining what may or may not have happened, but is taking an operational decision concerning the management of risk. It is however important to understand that what is required is genuine and meaningful disclosure of the reasons why authorisation is sought. The reasons for continued segregation which were provided by the prison staff involved in the present cases gave, at best, only the most general idea of the nature of their concerns, and of why those concerns were held. More could and should have been said and was said, in the witness statements led in these proceedings without endangering the legitimate interests which the prison authorities were concerned to protect. The imposition of prolonged periods of solitary confinement on the basis of what are, in substance, secret and unchallengeable allegations is, or should be, unacceptable. . . . It has to be recognised, however, that authority under rule 45(2) will often be sought on the basis of information which cannot be disclosed in full without placing at significant risk the safety of others or jeopardising prison security. Considerations of that kind were relevant in both of the present cases. There may also be cases where other overriding interests may be placed at risk. In such circumstances, fairness does not require the disclosure of information which could compromise the safety of an informant, the integrity of prison security or other overriding interests. It will be sufficient to inform the prisoner in more or less general terms of the gist of the reasons for seeking the authority of the Secretary of State.”