Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances of the Death of Bernard ...

August. Mr Clucas had not been interviewed at the time of Sonny Lodge’s death. Mr
Lodge was interviewed on 24 August but, according to his legal representative, that
happened only at her prompting, as he wanted the matter dealt with before his release
date. It is not unusual for prisoners to want to expedite outstanding cases so that time on
remand runs concurrently with an existing sentence.
16.13 The information about Officer Brownley’s disciplinary history, about the rumour
circulating in the prison at the time, and about Governor Halliwell’s concern might have
affected the decision to charge Sonny Lodge with grievous bodily harm. It could certainly
have been material to his defence. The information was not disclosed to the police, who
had no reason to pursue lines of inquiry about Officer Brownley’s character. Not having
been disclosed to the police, it is unlikely it would have come to the attention of the
prosecuting authorities or have been disclosed to Sonny Lodge’s defence.
16.14 Since these events, the then Governor of Risley has died, so the inquiry could
not explore his reasoning. Evidence from Governor Williams was that the Governing
Governor wished to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the police, although she
expected the police to have access to all the relevant information.
16.15 Prisoners sometimes say that their complaints of unprofessional conduct by staff
are referred to the police in order to neutralise them. Something that might be a minor
incident in the street and rank low in police priorities may be a serious allegation in the
context of the powers exercised by staff in a prison. On the other hand, the Prison
Service might be equally open to criticism for internal investigation of serious allegations.
16.16 In this case the allegation was of an assault by a prisoner on a member of staff
not an allegation by a prisoner, but the Governor’s decision meant there was no Prison
Service investigation of possible serious misconduct by a prison officer, even though
concerns had been raised by two governors acting independently and relying on
separate sources. By contrast, the assault on a prisoner for which Officer Brownley was
disciplined previously was not referred to the police. Through Counsel, Mr Lodge’s family
expressed astonishment that a prison officer could keep his job after assaulting a
prisoner. I share their concern. Officer Brownley’s subsequent retirement was agreed
apparently without investigation of the incident giving rise to his disability. That invites
the unfortunate perception that it was not inconvenient for the Prison Service for an
officer with an embarrassing disciplinary record to retire by consent.
133