Inquest Finds Terror Control Order Had "Substantial Impact" on Prisoner Who Died in Wandsworth

A jury at an inquest in London has concluded that a strict terrorism control order imposed on a prisoner had a "substantial impact" on his mental state before he took his own life in 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 inquest, held at Inner West London Coroner's Court, was the first ever to examine the impact of such measures on an individual.

The jury found that the prison service failed to provide the support Uddin needed, in part because staff at HMP Wandsworth had little or no awareness of what a TPIM was or how it might affect a prisoner's psychological wellbeing. Jurors concluded that Uddin died as a result of an action he took, but said it was "not possible to determine whether he intended the outcome to be his death."

TPIMs allow the authorities to place controls on people whom the government believes are involved in terrorism but who are not facing criminal charges. The home secretary imposes them on the advice of MI5. Subjects can face electronic tagging, curfews, relocation to another part of the country, bans on internet use, restrictions on finances, and limits on whom they may meet and where they may travel.

Uddin was jailed in February 2020 for breaching the TPIM order. Before that, he had served a sentence for racially or religiously aggravated harassment. The inquest heard that he breached the measures 12 times by withdrawing more money than he was permitted, and that he largely spent the money on drugs. He had more than 20 previous criminal convictions, none of them for terrorism offences.

When the TPIM was first imposed on Uddin in January 2020, he was forcibly relocated to the West Midlands. The relocation happened immediately after he was arrested at the prison gates in front of his sister, Jasmine, who had come to meet him on his release.

The full reasons for placing a person on a TPIM are typically kept secret, even from the individual concerned, because they are based on MI5 intelligence. The inquest heard that Uddin believed the order had originally been imposed because he made reckless statements while under the influence of drugs. He insisted, however, that he was not a terrorist. It is understood he was alleged to have made verbal threats and to have associated with people MI5 regarded as being involved in terrorist activity.

The jury's conclusions, delivered after hearing evidence, addressed three central points. First, jurors said they were satisfied that the imposition of the original TPIM, and its unusually restrictive nature, had a substantial impact on Uddin's mental state. Second, they found that his fear of a likely reimposition of such a restrictive order, and its possibly never-ending nature, had a significant impact on his mental state while he was in prison. Third, they concluded that because prison services were unaware of TPIM restrictions and their likely impact, there was a failure to provide support suited to his specific needs and situation.

A governor at HMP Wandsworth accepted in evidence that the lack of knowledge about TPIMs among prison staff had resulted in treatment of Uddin that was "unintentionally cruel." The inquest heard that awareness of the measures among staff at the prison was minimal or entirely absent.

Coroner Bernard Richmond KC described Uddin as "loved and loving" but said he was "not someone without his troubles," which centred on his drug use. The coroner announced he would issue a report to the government over concerns about risks to other people subject to the same terrorism control measures. Such reports are intended to prevent future deaths.

Giving evidence, Jasmine Uddin said that in the weeks before her brother's death he had described being questioned in prison by "counter terrorism officers," who told him he would never get off the TPIM. The inquest also heard that Uddin feared the order would be re-imposed when he left prison early in 2022, and that he would breach it again because of drugs.

His former solicitor, Amer Ahmad, had told Uddin in autumn 2021 that there were "highly limited prospects" of succeeding in a legal challenge to overturn the TPIM, the inquest heard.

Dr Richard Latham, an NHS consultant forensic psychiatrist, appeared as an expert witness for the coroner. He concluded that Uddin had an undiagnosed personality disorder, along with associated psychological problems and vulnerabilities, which resulted in impulsiveness, grievance and paranoia.

Dr Latham said Uddin probably assumed the worst about the TPIM's future, and that this prospect would have created distress and a sense of hopelessness. He added that TPIMs are designed to create a "degree of isolation," but that this plays on psychological vulnerability and can produce "emotional isolation." Uddin also felt a sense of injustice at being branded a terrorist, the psychiatrist said.

Uddin's family issued a statement through their solicitors, Birnberg Peirce, saying they welcomed the inquest's findings. "Although nothing can bring back their loving son, brother and uncle, they hope that this will make a real difference to those who are currently at the mercy of this inhumane regime," the statement said.

The measures Uddin was subject to have since been extended in scope. TPIMs can now last up to five years, compared with a maximum of two years at the time Uddin was under one.

The inquest has renewed attention on how terrorism control measures interact with the prison system and mental health care. The jury's findings suggest that a lack of communication between counter-terrorism authorities and prison staff left a vulnerable man without the support he needed, and that the open-ended nature of the restrictions weighed heavily on him. The coroner's forthcoming report to the government is expected to press for changes to ensure that other prisoners under TPIMs are not exposed to the same risks.