Inquest Finds Terrorism Control Measures Contributed to Prisoner's Death at HMP Wandsworth

An inquest jury has concluded that strict terrorism control measures imposed on a prisoner had a "substantial impact" on his mental state before he took his own life at HMP Wandsworth on Christmas Day 2021.

Akhtar Uddin, a 35-year-old builder from east London, died while serving a sentence for breaching a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPIM). The jury at Inner West London Coroner's Court delivered its findings after hearing evidence about the unprecedented case, which marked the first inquest to examine the effects of such orders.

The jury determined that Uddin died as a result of his own action but stated it was "not possible to determine whether he intended the outcome to be his death." This nuanced conclusion reflects the complexity of the case, which centred on the psychological toll of living under restrictive controls designed to monitor individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism without charging them with criminal offences.

TPIMs represent a unique tool in the UK's counter-terrorism framework. They permit authorities to impose controls on individuals the government believes are involved in terrorism-related activity but who are not facing criminal prosecution. The home secretary implements these measures based on advice from MI5, the domestic security service. Those subject to TPIMs can face electronic tagging, curfews, relocation to different parts of the country, internet restrictions, financial controls, and limitations on whom they may meet and where they may travel.

Uddin was jailed in February 2020 for violating his TPIM order, having breached the measures on twelve separate occasions by withdrawing more money than permitted. The inquest heard that he largely spent the excess funds on drugs. At the time of his death, he had accumulated more than twenty previous criminal convictions, none of which related to terrorism offences.

The original TPIM was imposed on Uddin in January 2020, when he was forcibly relocated to the West Midlands. The inquest heard the measure was enacted immediately after his arrest at prison gates, in front of his sister who had come to collect him upon his release. This dramatic intervention set the stage for the events that would ultimately lead to his death.

The jury reached three significant conclusions. First, they found that "the imposition of the original TPIM and its unusually restrictive nature had a substantial impact on the mental state of Akhtar Uddin." Second, they determined that "the fear of a likely reimposition of such a restrictive TPIM, and its possibly never-ending nature, had a significant impact on the mental state of Akhtar in prison." Third, they concluded that "as a result of the consistent evidence that prison services were unaware of TPIM restrictions and their likely impact on Akhtar, there was a failure to provide support most suitably targeted to Akhtar's specific needs and situations."

The inquest revealed a troubling lack of awareness among HMP Wandsworth staff regarding TPIMs and their psychological effects on prisoners. A governor at the prison acknowledged in evidence that this knowledge gap had resulted in "unintentionally cruel" treatment of Uddin. The admission highlighted systemic failures in how the prison service manages individuals subject to these unique and highly restrictive measures.

Dr Richard Latham, an NHS consultant forensic psychiatrist who testified as an expert witness, offered critical insight into Uddin's psychological state. He concluded that Uddin suffered from an undiagnosed personality disorder, along with associated "psychological problems and vulnerabilities" that manifested as impulsiveness, grievance, and paranoia. According to Dr Latham, Uddin likely anticipated the worst regarding his TPIM's future, a prospect that would have generated "distress and a sense of hopelessness."

Dr Latham further explained that TPIMs are designed to create a "degree of isolation," but this approach exploits psychological vulnerabilities and can produce "emotional isolation." He noted that Uddin "felt a sense of injustice" at being labelled a terrorist, a label he consistently denied throughout his interactions with authorities.

The inquest heard that Uddin believed his TPIM was originally imposed because he had made reckless statements while under the influence of drugs. He maintained he was not a terrorist. It is understood he was alleged to have made verbal threats and associated with individuals MI5 regarded as being involved in terrorist activity. The full reasons for imposing a TPIM are typically withheld, even from the subject themselves, because they derive from intelligence that cannot be disclosed.

Coroner Bernard Richmond KC described Uddin as "loved and loving" but acknowledged he was "not someone without his troubles," which centred primarily on drug use. The coroner announced he will issue a report to the government expressing concern about risks to other individuals currently subject to terrorism control measures.

The inquest heard testimony from Uddin's sister, Jasmine, who described how in the weeks before his death her brother spoke of "counter terrorism officers" questioning him in prison and telling him he would never be free of the TPIM. His former solicitor, Amer Ahmad, had informed Uddin in autumn 2021 that there were "highly limited prospects" of successfully challenging the TPIM through legal means.

TPIMs can currently last up to five years, an increase from the maximum of two years when Uddin was subject to one. This extended duration compounds the uncertainty faced by individuals under such orders, particularly when combined with the possibility of reimposition.

Uddin's family issued a statement through their solicitors, Birnberg Peirce, expressing that while nothing could bring back their "loving son, brother and uncle," they hoped the inquest findings would "make a real difference to those who are currently at the mercy of this inhumane regime."

The case raises significant questions about the intersection of national security measures and mental health support within the prison system. It highlights the challenges faced by staff who may lack training on the psychological impact of counter-terrorism controls, and the potential consequences when vulnerable individuals are subjected to highly restrictive measures without adequate support tailored to their specific circumstances.