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

opportunities for social interaction and supportive contact with families. It was
unfair and may have been unlawful. It stopped in October 1999 (paragraph
17.20).
24 Loss of association under the wing-based disciplinary system increased Sonny
Lodge’s isolation and so may have increased his vulnerability (paragraph 17.20).
Was Sonny Lodge victimised?
25 Some prison officers may have spoken to Sonny Lodge about the incident at
Whiston Hospital but I have found no evidence of prison officers conspiring to
victimise him because of it (paragraph 18.21).
26 Repeated loss of association through the unfair wing-based disciplinary system
increased Sonny Lodge’s isolation, from support inside the prison and through
family contact, and his alienation from prison staff. This may have contributed to
deterioration in his behaviour, evoking increasingly authoritarian responses from
staff (paragraph 18.21).
27 Sonny Lodge’s sense of victimisation may have been exaggerated but it was not
without foundation. It had a harmful effect on his state of mind (paragraph 18.21).
The search and the incident in the cell
28 The loss of association imposed by Officer Downs was not properly authorised
and was not recorded in the restriction of facilities record as required (paragraph
20.9).
29 Sonny Lodge was the principal target of the search but there is no evidence to
show that his cellmate was deliberately excluded from the cell or from the search
for any malicious motive (paragraph 20.9).
30 It was legitimate to search cells more than once in a searching cycle and Officers
Bowcock and Downs had authority to select Sonny Lodge’s cell for an excess
search that evening (paragraph 20.9).
31 There were entries in Sonny Lodge’s record suggesting that he had previously
handled unauthorised articles. Setting aside the rough justice of the wing-based
disciplinary system, this gave some grounds for selecting him for a search
(paragraph 20.9).
180