FEET
11. Swelling, discolouration and bruising on left instep.
12. Right instep swollen and bruised.
13. Big toe nail coming off.
14. Swollen right ankle.
From the Polaroid photographs taken that same day by a sympathetic officer at Wandsworth, we can add the following:
15. Large area about 5in in diameter of bruising to the underside of the right upper arm.
16. Area of bruising about one-and-a-half inches in diameter to upper right quadrant of right buttock.
17. Large area of bruising about 4in across and 2in down to upper left quadrant of left buttock.
7. On 5 October 1998, police surgeon examined Mr Bronson on the instructions of a Police Sergeant Wells investigating the incident at Ms Morrissey’s instigation. Photographs were taken of his injuries. These are presently with the police. We know, however, that the photographs were said by DS Wells in a conversation with Ms Morrissey to be of good quality and to show clearly injuries to Mr 6 Bronson’s ‘hands, feet, arms, bum, legs, face, eyes, cheek and wrists’. The FME (Forensic Medical Examiner, or police surgeon) apparently took the view that the injuries he saw ‘could have been caused by falling, or other causes than direct injury, or by direct injury’.
OTHER INFORMATION
8. We have two current accounts of this incident through official prison service channels. According to the Report of Injury to Inmate form, ‘Mr Bronson refused to return to his cell, assaulted a member of staff and had to be restrained.’ According to Sir Derek Lewis’s letter to Sir Graham Bright, MP, ‘When he was unlocked for breakfast, Mr Bronson headed straight for an unfurnished cell and pushed aside a member of staff who barred his way. He was restrained by staff, placed in a body belt and returned to his own cell …’
9. Ms Morrissey was telephoned in the aftermath of this incident by a prison officer who chose to remain anonymous. The account he gave Ms Morrissey in his calls to her was that Mr Bronson had humiliated a Deputy Governor named Gareth Davis at Wandsworth by calling him a tea boy and demanding to see his boss. This same officer had decided to set up a confrontation with Mr Bronson, had recruited a young and inexperienced control and restraint team, had briefed the team that Mr Bronson was making outrageous and unreasonable demands (when, in fact, he was following custom and practice in his case), and had further briefed them to humiliate Mr Bronson in order to take him down a peg or two in the eyes of other prisoners. Of course, the officer’s evidence is not available to us.
10. There are a number of other salient features of this case. Firstly, Mr Bronson was not disciplined for the alleged assault, proceedings being abandoned at a very early stage under the ‘no useful purpose’ rule, despite the facts recorded by the officers at the time, and echoed by Sir Derek Lewis. Secondly, it has never been alleged that any officer was injured in the course of the incident. Thirdly, no officer chose to say anything about the incident when interviewed under caution.
MERITS OF MR BRONSON’S CLAIM
11. The information provided to Ms Morrissey by her anonymous source means that we have knowledge of a shocking moral background to this incident, which we are quite unable to prove in Court. So what we have to go on to do is to consider the prospects of success of the case on the evidence we know will be available to a Court.
12. The question for a Court to determine is whether we can prove on the balance of probabilities that, on this occasion, the officers concerned unlawfully assaulted Mr Bronson, or whether, on the balance of probabilities, they are able to show that they used no more than necessary force in carrying out their duties as prison officers.
13. Mr Bronson’s case, of course, is that the officers concerned failed to give him any indication of what was required of him that morning, let alone to warn him of the consequences to him of failure to comply, and that they treated his words to them as a pretext for a violent attack upon a man who had used no force on them.
14. I take the view that Mr Bronson’s injuries go some way to confirming his account. None of them is grave, particularly when one bears in mind that Mr Bronson had no clothes on at the time of this incident. But the bruises to Mr Bronson’s buttocks and arms are in common sense far more consistent with being beaten with sticks while on the ground than they are with a fall (which, of course, is not in any event the explanation raised for them). It strikes me also that the injuries to fingers and toes including loss of nails bespeak a fierce, concentrated, blunt impact and are not the sort of marks one would expect ordinary restraint to leave behind.
15. Mr Bronson, however, would, l know, be the first to agree that he is really quite extraordinarily strong and that his behaviour can be very volatile. He would, I think, agree that necessary force in his case might, in some circumstances, be extreme. In addition, with the burden of proving his case to discharge, in a non-jury action, Mr Bronson’s twenty-year history of confinement in prisons, and at times in special hospitals, leaves him with some difficulties in asking a Court to prefer his unsupported evidence to that of a group of prison officers.
16. For the present, I take the view that Mr Bronson’s claim should be pursued on his evidence and the confirmatory evidence provided by his injuries; however, once the Governor at Wormwood Scrubs files a defence, I take the view that we would need to seek the assistance of a consultant pathologist on all the evidence, including that currently in the possession of the police, as to whose account of their causation is preferable.
QUANTUM
17. As I have already said, none of Mr Bronson’s injuries, taken in isolation, was grave. However, there was a large number of them and the manner and circumstances of their infliction are aggravating features of the utmost gravity. Damages are at large in this case and, though not specially substantial for the injuries themselves, if a Court found that the attack on Mr Bronson amounted to oppressive arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government (as it should in my view if Mr Bronson’s account is accepted) then the award would fall to be increased by a substantial sum of exemplary damages.
In the circumstances, the course I propose is as follows:
1. That Mr Bronson’s solicitor, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, again request from the Metropolitan Police copies of the photographs of Mr Bronson taken on 5 October 1994 and the FME’s report, reminding them that after issue of proceedings we intend to apply under Section 34 of the Supreme Court Act for disclosure of these items to us.
2. Whatever the outcome of that final attempt to assemble the evidence and assess it before issuing proceedings, that we then see Mr Bronson in conference to finalise his instructions.
3. Once we have issued proceedings, seen a defence and, if necessary, obtained disclosure of the police evidence of injury, we can seek the advice of a pathologist on Mr Bronson’s injuries, and on whose account of their causation is preferable.
4. At the close of proceedings, we will need to assess again the prospects of success of Mr Bronson’s claim.
Isabella Forshall
14 November 1996
11 Doughty Street
LONDON
WC1N 2P6
BRONSON VS. THE SYSTEM (II)
What follows are two reports by Dr Bob Johnson. The first one was produced to show that I am suffering from PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). This report was based on Dr Johnson visiting me at HM Prison Durham. Read this and see the way he was disrespectfully handled by the dogs who work in the prison.
The report was to show why I took a hostage at HM Prison Hull and my reasoning and state of mind at the time. Dr Johnson backs up everything I have claimed; he is a man of knowledge, a man with letters after his name and a man who knows what dogs these prison officers can be. For the first time, an authoritative academic supports what I have long claimed – that prison brutality does exist … believe me.
CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIC REPORT
On Charles Bronson BTI 314 (formerly Peterson, currently Ahmed)
Durham Prison, Ol
d Elvet, Durham DHI 3HU
Born 6 December 1952, age 49
by Dr Bob Johnson
Consultant Psychiatrist
GMC Specialist Register for Psychiatry
Formerly Head of Therapy, Ashworth Maximum-Security Hospital, Liverpool Consultant Psychiatrist, Special Unit, C Wing, Parkhurst
Prison, Isle of Wight.
MRCPsych (Member of Royal College of Psychiatrists)
MRCGP (Member of Royal College of General Practitioners)
Diploma in Psychotherapy Neurology & Psychiatry (Psychiatric
Inst New York)
MA (Psychol)
PhD (Med Computing), MBCS, DPM, MRCS
Approved under Section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983
Member of Royal College of General Practitioners
I examined the above on Monday, 13 May 2002, in the prison stated and found as follows:
PSYCHIATRIC OVERVIEW
The psychiatric perspective on Charles Bronson is crystal clear – he is suffering from as clear a case of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as you would expect to find. Having been assured by a senior official from the Prison Service with whom he had been well acquainted over many years, that he could expect to stay at Hull Prison for a further 3 or 4 years, he was abruptly informed that this was no longer the case, that he now had to chose which of the Segregation Blocks, or Punishment Cells he would select for immediate transfer. Charles was all too familiar with all available Segregation Units having been moved from one to another every six weeks or so in a desperate and clumsy strategy on the part of the Prison Service to contain his outbursts – it has been estimated that he was subjected to 66 such destabilising moves.
This sudden and unanticipated change in his management strategy was a serious shock to this man. He had been greatly relieved to be off the ‘magic roundabout’ as it is known – thus, suddenly to find that his living quarters were again to be totally disrupted in an arbitrary fashion was too much for his system. He tells me that he has been severely beaten on a number of occasions during his time in prison – thus this threatened return to his earlier unsettling treatment appeared to him to be ‘a threat to the physical integrity of self’ as the text describes it. (See below.)
PTSD, as detailed below, represents the effects of a traumatic shock upon a vulnerable individual. In essence there must be (a) a threat, as above, (b) persistent intrusive thoughts of the trauma, (c) avoidance of circumstances of the trauma, and (d) heightened vigilance against the trauma recurring. When these are present for longer than one month, then the diagnosis of PTSD as described in the standard psychiatric text, the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edn. 1994) becomes inescapable. I include below a complete description of the disorder, as it appears in that text.
Even now, Charles displays all three. He has (b) flashbacks of the many beatings he suffered, which his abrupt change in management presaged. He avoids circumstances (c) that remind him of the threat, in so far as his restricted routine permits it. And (d) he has an inability to sleep, and cannot put the matter out of his mind. Every time he hears a van door slam, he immediately thinks that he is about to be moved again and trembles for the consequences he fears. When he walks to the exercise yard for his hour out of cell, he holds himself in readiness to be ‘jumped upon’ – whether the threat of this occurring is real or otherwise.
The legal issue applicable in this case, as I understand it, turns on the question of ‘duress of circumstance or necessity’, in which ‘the words or actions of one person break the will of another’. The necessity is generally seen in the context of applying to ‘a person of reasonable firmness’. Thus in one suffering from PTSD, as here, the impact of the duress of circumstance becomes more severe. By virtue of his having PTSD, Charles Bronson is rendered more susceptible than normal.
Three criteria have been suggested to me as being of relevance – (a) the act was done only to avoid what appeared to him to be an inevitable or irreparable evil, (b) that no more was done than was reasonably necessary for that purpose, and (c) that the evil inflicted by it was not disproportionate to the evil avoided.
I have not the least wish to intrude upon the legal process in which my qualifications are meagre – indeed, I only comment on these points strictly from a psychiatric point of view, in the hope that this might assist that process.
DURESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE
The phrase ‘break the will of a person’ has an unfortunate ring in this context – any reasonable person would seem bound to conclude that moving this man’s living accommodation without any notice, 66 times in a short space of time, never allowing him to stay in one spot longer than a few weeks, can only be seen as a deliberate policy of wearing him down. Whether this goes as far as a strategic attempt to ‘break his will’ I leave to others to judge – it certainly cannot be seen as an attempt to settle him down, to give him due encouragement to mend his impulsive ways, and to see if something more in the way of a carrot might not succeed better than too much stick.
Given this background it is not difficult to see how desperate the abrupt change of prison policy would appear to Charles Bronson. Having been confidently reassured that his ‘travelling days’ were over, that he would have the opportunity to settle for a number of years in one place, get on with his art work, and put down roots – this is suddenly and arbitrarily whisked away from him, and he is exposed to what he has, over the years, come to fear most – perceived violence from prison staff directed at him personally.
(A) AVOIDING AN INEVITABLE OR IRREPARABLE EVIL
In this context, the act to be avoided, namely the recommencing of the ‘magic roundabout’ would appear to Charles both an inevitable and an irreparable evil. What else could he do? What other avenues were open to him? After 28 years in prison, he knows only too well that verbal protests on his part would avail him nothing – even assurances from senior prison personnel, such as he had recently received, had been shown to be shortlived. The evil he perceived was again a direct consequence of his long familiarity with prison conditions – and whatever the facts in the case, there can be absolutely no doubt that Charles Bronson was terrified of receiving further violence in the manner he feared. He tells me he feared being killed – and from my knowledge of the man and of the prison service, I find this belief, however regrettable, entirely credible.
(B) NO MORE WAS DONE THAN WAS REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THAT PURPOSE
While he agrees that he has been impulsive, he assures me that he has never killed anyone, nor intended to do so. It is clear to me from my previous knowledge of him, and from my examination of him this week, that this is entirely correct. He has a pattern of kidnapping, indeed, in my personal knowledge he once kidnapped a solicitor’s clerk which did nothing to improve his legal case on that occasion. So it did not surprise me that he had impulsively reacted in this way again. It should be noted that he did not actually physically harm his victim, and that he promptly released him on speaking with his solicitor.
Damage, especially of a psychological kind, could well have been done to his victim. However, had Charles been like so many other violent prisoners in my direct experience, then serious physical harm would have been committed almost as a matter of course, given the widespread level of violence prevalent among the general run of prisoners. Violent injury was not offered, nor, as I see matters, was it intended.
(C) THE EVIL INFLICTED WAS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE EVIL AVOIDED
Charles Bronson’s fear of being killed by a kaleidoscope of changing prison staff is, as I say, entirely credible in my view. He was thus impelled to take remedial action. Though the fear of death to himself was paramount, he had no intention of murder in his mind. It would seem to me from this, that the offence he committed was not disproportionate to the fear he had in his mind.
In concluding this section, it remains to add that sending a prisoner to a Segregation Block or Punishment Unit commonly follows arbitration by the Governor a
s retribution for an infringement of prison rules. In the present case, there had been no such infringement. It would thus appear entirely unfair to Charles Bronson on this occasion. The prison service was here punishing him for doing what they must surely want him to do, namely settle and mend his impulsivity, which is precisely what it appeared he had been doing in Hull up to the critical moment. In a word, they were dispensing punishment when reward would have been more sensible.
GENERAL PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION
When I first examined Charles Bronson on Friday, 5 July 1991, in my then role as newly appointed Consultant Psychiatrist in Parkhurst Prison, there was not the slightest evidence of PTSD, nor of any other major psychiatric disorder. What I did find on that occasion, however, was a degree of Delayed Emotional Maturation, or Attachment Disorder. In other words, in my opinion then, he was still suffering from excess emotional dependence on his mother. This has caused him considerable distress over the intervening 11 years – especially when a member of his family became ill, or in his grandmother’s case, died.
It may be noted that his outbursts of impulsivity became very much worse on these occasions when his family were in trouble. Since that first consultation in 1991, he has repeatedly requested that I provide him with treatment for this condition; indeed, at times, his letters to me were desperate, even suicidal. Despite my repeated approaches to the Home Office, his request for medical treatment of his choice was denied. Had it been acceded to, I have not the least hesitation in stating that his time in prison would have been considerably calmer – indeed, many incidents could well have been averted altogether
Bronson 3 Page 22