Inquest Finds Terror Control Order Contributed to Prisoner's Death at HMP Wandsworth

A comprehensive inquest has concluded that the stringent terrorism prevention measures imposed on a prisoner had a significant and detrimental effect on his psychological well-being prior to his death at HMP Wandsworth on Christmas Day 2021.

Akhtar Uddin, a 35-year-old builder from east London, was found dead in his cell while serving a sentence for violating a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPIM). The jury at Inner West London Coroner's Court delivered their findings this week, marking the first time an inquest has examined the specific impact of such orders on an individual's mental health.

The jury determined that the original TPIM, characterized by its "unusually restrictive nature," played a substantial role in altering Uddin's mental state. Furthermore, the panel found that the fear of the order being reimposed upon his release—and the prospect of it continuing indefinitely—also had a significant psychological impact during his time in custody. Significantly, the jury concluded that the prison service failed to provide support tailored to Uddin's specific needs, as staff were largely unaware of the TPIM restrictions and their potential consequences.

The inquest heard that Uddin had been jailed in February 2020 after breaching the TPIM order, which had originally been imposed in January of that year. Prior to this, he had served a sentence for racially or religiously aggravated harassment. His criminal record included over 20 previous convictions, though notably, none of these were for terrorism offenses.

TPIMs are civil orders that allow authorities to restrict individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism but who are not facing criminal charges. The Home Secretary imposes these measures based on advice from MI5. The restrictions are extensive, often including electronic tagging, strict curfews, relocation to a different part of the country, bans on internet usage, controls on finances, and limitations on who subjects can meet and where they can travel.

The inquest revealed that Uddin violated the terms of his order 12 times by withdrawing sums of money exceeding the permitted limits. The court heard that he largely spent this money on drugs. When the TPIM was first imposed, Uddin was forcibly relocated to the West Midlands. This move occurred immediately after he was arrested at the prison gates, in front of his sister who had come to meet him upon his release from a previous sentence.

A central theme of the proceedings was Uddin's state of mind. He reportedly believed the order was imposed because he had made reckless statements while under the influence of drugs, though he consistently maintained he was not a terrorist. It is understood that authorities alleged he had made verbal threats and associated with individuals MI5 regarded as being involved in terrorist activity. The full reasons for a TPIM are typically kept secret, even from the person subject to the order, as they rely on intelligence.

Coroner Bernard Richmond KC described Uddin as "loved and loving" but acknowledged he was "not someone without his troubles," which primarily revolved around his drug use. The coroner announced he would be issuing a report to the government due to concerns about risks to other individuals currently under similar terrorism control measures.

The jury's conclusions were stark. They stated they were satisfied that the imposition of the original TPIM and its restrictive nature had a substantial impact on Uddin's mental state. They also found that his fear of the order being reimposed, combined with its potentially never-ending nature, significantly affected him while in prison. Finally, they determined that the prison service's lack of awareness regarding TPIM restrictions resulted in a failure to provide appropriately targeted support.

This finding was underscored by evidence from a governor at HMP Wandsworth, who admitted that staff ignorance of TPIMs had led to treatment of Uddin that was "unintentionally cruel." The inquest heard there was little to no awareness among prison staff regarding the nature of these orders. Uddin's sister, Jasmine, provided testimony stating that in the weeks before his death, her brother described being questioned by counter-terrorism officers in prison who told him he would never be free of the TPIM.

Expert testimony further illuminated the psychological toll. Dr Richard Latham, an NHS consultant forensic psychiatrist, appeared as an expert witness for the coroner. He concluded that Uddin suffered from an undiagnosed personality disorder, alongside associated psychological problems and vulnerabilities, which resulted in impulsiveness, grievance, and paranoia. Dr Latham explained that Uddin likely assumed the worst about his future under the TPIM, a prospect that created profound distress and a sense of hopelessness.

Dr Latham noted that while TPIMs are intended to create a "degree of isolation," this design plays directly into existing psychological vulnerabilities and can foster "emotional isolation." He added that Uddin "felt a sense of injustice" about being branded a terrorist. The inquest also heard that Uddin's former solicitor, Amer Ahmad, had informed him in autumn 2021 that there were "highly limited prospects" of successfully overturning the TPIM legally. Uddin also feared that upon his early release in 2022, the order would be reimposed and that he would breach it again due to his drug use.

The jury ultimately concluded that Uddin died due to an action he took, but they stated it was "not possible to determine whether he intended the outcome to be his death." Following the verdict, the family of Akhtar Uddin issued a statement through their solicitors, Birnberg Peirce. They expressed that while nothing could bring back their "loving son, brother and uncle," they hoped the inquest's findings would make a real difference for others currently subject to what they described as an "inhumane regime."

This case highlights the complex intersection of national security measures, mental health, and prison management. The inquest has raised serious questions about how the criminal justice system supervises individuals subject to secretive intelligence-based orders and whether sufficient safeguards exist to protect vulnerable individuals from the severe psychological pressures such restrictions can create. The coroner's forthcoming report to the government is expected to address these systemic concerns, potentially shaping future policy on the oversight and support provided to TPIM subjects within the prison estate.