Crown Immunity, Prison Deaths and Human Rights | DISABLED ENTREPRENEUR

Written by Andrew Jones

Disclaimer: This article is for general information, education and public awareness only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws, policies and legal procedures can change, and individual circumstances differ. Anyone affected by a death, injury, mistreatment or alleged human-rights violation in custody should seek advice from a suitably qualified solicitor specialising in prison law, public law, human rights or related litigation. Content Warning: This article discusses deaths by suicide in prison custody. Details have been kept to the minimum necessary to explain the legal and human-rights issues.

Limits Of Crown Immunity

Understanding the campaign led by solicitor Aamer Anwar following the deaths of Katie Allan and William Lindsay, the limits of Crown immunity, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the continuing debate over accountability within the prison system

The principle of Crown immunity raises a difficult constitutional question: if an ordinary company can be prosecuted for serious health-and-safety failures, should a public body responsible for people in state custody be protected from the same form of prosecution?

This debate became particularly prominent following the deaths of Katie Allan and William Lindsay, also known as William Brown, at HMP & YOI Polmont in Scotland in 2018.

Solicitor Aamer Anwar, representing their families, publicly called for Crown immunity to be abolished, arguing that there needed to be greater transparency and accountability surrounding deaths in prison custody. The Morning Star reported his renewed call in January 2024 as the joint Fatal Accident Inquiry into the deaths began.

The issue is especially important because Crown immunity does not mean that the state is completely above the law, nor does it mean that nobody can ever sue the Crown.

Instead, the legal position is much more specific.

What Is Crown Immunity?

Historically, the Crown enjoyed very broad protection from legal proceedings, reflected in the old constitutional principle that “the King can do no wrong.”

Modern British law is very different.

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 created extensive mechanisms through which civil proceedings may be brought against the Crown. Therefore, it would be misleading today simply to say: you cannot sue the Crown.

Civil proceedings against government bodies can and do take place.

However, specific forms of Crown immunity remain within particular pieces of legislation.

One extremely important example concerns health and safety law.

Section 48 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

The Health and Safety Executive explains that Crown bodies are generally required to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

However, section 48 produces an important difference in enforcement.

The HSE states that although there is no general exemption from the Act, the Crown cannot be prosecuted for breaches of health and safety law in the same way as an ordinary employer.

This is the Crown immunity that lies at the heart of Aamer Anwar’s argument concerning the Scottish Prison Service.

It is consequently much more accurate to say:

Crown bodies can be subject to health-and-safety duties, but Crown immunity can prevent criminal prosecution under particular provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

That is very different from saying that the Crown can never be challenged in court.

What Happens Instead of Prosecution?

Where the Health and Safety Executive considers that there is sufficient evidence against a Crown body that could otherwise have justified prosecution, it can use a procedure called a Crown Censure.

According to the HSE, Crown Censure is an administrative procedure used where conduct would have led to prosecution had Crown immunity not existed.

A censure therefore represents a serious public finding against the organisation.

But there is an important difference.

It is not a criminal conviction.

There is also no criminal fine.

The distinction became especially visible recently. In May 2026, the HSE announced its intention to issue a Crown Censure against His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service following an investigation into excessive radon exposure at HMP Dartmoor.

The HSE described Crown Censure as the maximum sanction available to it against a Crown body, while confirming that there is no financial penalty.

That provides a very current example of why the Crown immunity debate remains relevant.

The Deaths of Katie Allan and William Lindsay

Katie Allan was 21 when she died in her cell at HMP & YOI Polmont on 4 June 2018.

William Lindsay, also known as William Brown, was 16 when he died in his cell at the same institution on 7 October 2018.

A joint Fatal Accident Inquiry was eventually conducted.

On 17 January 2025, Sheriff Simon Collins KC issued his determination.

His findings were extremely significant.

The sheriff concluded that there were reasonable precautions which might realistically have prevented both deaths, and found systemic failures contributing to their deaths.

In Katie’s case, the inquiry identified an environmental ligature risk in her cell that could have been removed or replaced.

In William’s case, the sheriff identified a series of failures involving suicide-risk assessment, information sharing, mental-health procedures and his cell environment.

The Scottish Government subsequently accepted that the deaths were preventable and that systemic failures had contributed to them.

This takes the debate beyond abstract constitutional theory.

It becomes a question of what accountability should mean when a person dies while entirely dependent upon the state for their safety.

What Did Aamer Anwar Say About Crown Immunity?

Before the eventual FAI determination, solicitor Aamer Anwar had already been campaigning on behalf of the families.

In material published by his law firm in 2022, it was stated that the Crown Office considered there was sufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish a breach of section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and that the breach materially contributed to the deaths.

However, section 48 meant that the Scottish Ministers could not be prosecuted under that legislation.

The alternative identified was the Crown Censure process.

This is the important distinction behind the statement about Crown immunity.

The argument was not that no legal proceedings whatsoever could ever be brought against the state.

It was that the relevant Crown body could not face the type of health-and-safety criminal prosecution that another organisation potentially could have faced.

Why Does This Create an Accountability Problem?

Imagine two organisations operating comparable facilities.

One is privately operated.

The other is a Crown body.

Suppose serious health-and-safety failures occur.

If one organisation may potentially be prosecuted while the Crown organisation can instead receive an administrative censure, questions inevitably arise about equality before the law.

A Crown Censure is undoubtedly serious. It creates a public record of the failure and requires senior officials to account for what happened.

But critics may reasonably ask whether an official reprimand provides the same level of accountability as criminal prosecution.

This raises a fundamental rule-of-law question:

Should the state be subject to the same legal consequences it imposes upon everyone else?

Crown Immunity Does Not Remove Human Rights

Another crucial distinction is that Crown immunity under health-and-safety legislation does not erase human-rights obligations.

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to life.

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates Convention rights into domestic UK law and places obligations upon public authorities.

The Crown Prosecution Service explains that Article 2 imposes a positive duty upon state authorities to take active steps to safeguard life.

Where someone dies in state custody, Article 2 can also require an effective investigation.

Such investigations must possess characteristics including independence, thoroughness, promptness, sufficient public scrutiny and appropriate participation by the deceased person’s family.

Therefore:

Crown immunity from a particular criminal health-and-safety prosecution does not mean the state has immunity from human-rights law.

This distinction is extremely important.

Article 2 and People in Custody

People in prison are in a uniquely vulnerable legal position.

They cannot simply leave an unsafe environment.

The state controls where they sleep, their access to healthcare, their movements, their contact with others and many aspects of their daily lives.

That control creates corresponding responsibilities.

The right to life does not merely prohibit the state from deliberately killing someone. In certain circumstances it can require public authorities to take reasonable steps to protect somebody where authorities know, or ought to know, that a real and immediate risk to life exists.

The procedural component of Article 2 can also require the state to properly investigate a death for which it may bear responsibility.

This is one reason deaths in custody engage particularly serious human-rights considerations.

Fatal Accident Inquiries in Scotland

In Scotland, a Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) is a judicial process investigating certain deaths, including deaths occurring in legal custody.

An FAI is not a criminal prosecution.

Its purpose includes establishing circumstances surrounding the death, identifying precautions which might have prevented it, identifying defects in systems of working and, where appropriate, making recommendations designed to prevent future deaths.

However, there is another significant limitation.

The Scottish Judiciary explains that once an FAI determination has been delivered, it is not the sheriff’s role to enforce recommendations or ensure that organisations comply with them.

That distinction illustrates why bereaved families can feel that identifying failures is not necessarily the same thing as achieving accountability.

The Scottish Government Accepted the Need for Reform

Following the FAI determination into Katie and William’s deaths, the Scottish Government announced a series of measures.

Among them was an explicit commitment to continue pursuing the lifting of the Scottish Prison Service’s corporate Crown immunity under health and safety law with the UK Government.

That commitment is particularly significant because it confirms that Crown immunity in this context is not merely something being alleged by campaigners.

It is a recognised legal and policy issue being discussed at the governmental level.

What Has Happened Since?

The issue has not disappeared.

A Scottish Government progress report published in March 2026 specifically listed:

“Pursue the lifting of Crown Immunity”

as one of the Cabinet Secretary’s commitments.

The report stated that the relevant UK Government minister had been identified, contact had been initiated, UK Government officials had been instructed to engage with their Scottish Government counterparts, and discussions were continuing.

Therefore, as of that report, lifting the relevant Crown immunity remained an ongoing matter between the Scottish and UK Governments.

This is particularly important when reading Aamer Anwar’s comments from 2024: the issue he raised continued to form part of the official reform agenda two years later.

The Wider Problems With Deaths in Custody

Crown immunity is only one part of a much larger problem.

In January 2026, an independent review conducted by Ian Abercrombie KC examined Fatal Accident Inquiries concerning deaths in Scottish prison and police custody.

Its conclusions were striking.

The review reported that the repeated message it received was that the FAI system concerning deaths in custody was not working effectively, particularly because inquiries took too long and families frequently felt confused, uncertain about their rights and retraumatised by the process.

The review ultimately made 34 recommendations for reform.

Its conclusion stressed the importance of having a robust system for investigating deaths in custody.

What Should You Do If You Believe a Prisoner Is Being Mistreated?

If you are a relative, friend, advocate or concerned member of the public and have reason to believe that somebody in prison is being abused, neglected, discriminated against or denied appropriate healthcare or reasonable adjustments, concerns should not simply be ignored. The appropriate route will depend upon the seriousness of the situation and whether the prisoner is able to make a complaint themselves.

Contact the Prison Immediately if There Is a Risk to Life or Safety

If you believe a prisoner is at immediate risk of serious harm, contact the prison directly and ask for the Duty Governor, Orderly Officer or Safer Custody Team. Make it explicitly clear that you are raising an urgent welfare or safeguarding concern. HM Inspectorate of Prisons advises relatives and others worried about somebody’s safety to contact these prison officials directly.

Do not assume that sending an ordinary letter or email will be treated as an emergency. Clearly use words such as “urgent welfare concern”, “risk of harm” or “safeguarding concern” where those descriptions genuinely reflect the situation.

Encourage the Prisoner to Use the Internal Prison Complaints Procedure

Prisoners should normally use the prison’s formal complaints system first. Complaints can concern matters including treatment by staff, conditions, bullying, intimidation, harassment, improper use of force and decisions relating to their care or treatment.

Keep copies of complaints and responses wherever possible and maintain a chronology showing dates, incidents, witnesses and what action was requested.

If the Prisoner Is Disabled and Cannot Write, Request a Reasonable Adjustment

A prisoner’s inability to physically write should never simply become a reason why they cannot access the complaints system.

Where disability affects writing, communication, reading or understanding, this should be stated explicitly, and assistance or an appropriate reasonable adjustment should be requested. Depending upon the individual’s needs, this could involve help recording the complaint, accessible communication methods or suitable technology.

This is particularly important because Independent Prisoner Complaint Investigations (IPCI), which forms part of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, confirms that another person may help somebody complain where they are unable to do so themselves, including where they have difficulty reading or writing.

Any refusal to provide assistance should also be documented.

Approach Independent Prisoner Complaint Investigations

If the internal prison complaints procedure has been exhausted and the matter has not been resolved, the prisoner can normally escalate the complaint to Independent Prisoner Complaint Investigations (IPCI), part of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO).

IPCI is independent of the prison and HMPPS and can investigate matters such as treatment, staff behaviour, bullying, harassment, conditions and improper use of force.

Importantly, the complaint generally needs to come from the person directly affected, although assistance can be provided where the prisoner cannot make the complaint unaided.

If the Ombudsman/IPCI Appears to Stonewall the Complaint, Escalate the Handling of the Complaint

An Ombudsman is not necessarily the end of the road.

If somebody believes the PPO or IPCI has handled an investigation unfairly, inadequately or improperly, there is a further complaints route to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

The PPO itself states that the PHSO can consider complaints from people who believe they have been treated unfairly because of mistakes made by the PPO/IPCI. Depending upon how the complaint is submitted and whether somebody else is assisting, involvement from the prisoner’s Member of Parliament may also be required.

Therefore, if correspondence is repeatedly ignored, important evidence has apparently not been considered, or there are concerns about how an investigation was conducted, keep copies of everything and consider escalating the handling of the complaint.

Contact the Independent Monitoring Board

Every prison has an Independent Monitoring Board (IMB). Its members monitor day-to-day conditions and the treatment of people held in custody.

A prisoner can contact the IMB operating within their establishment, and prison staff should be able to help them do this.

The IMB is particularly important because its role involves independent scrutiny of prison conditions. Its 2025 national annual report, published in June 2026, raised serious concerns about longstanding problems across the prison estate and warned that unsafe conditions risk becoming normalised.

Friends and relatives should be aware, however, that the national IMB office does not act as an intermediary between families and individual prison IMBs; concerns about an individual’s immediate welfare should still be raised directly with the prison.

Report Suspected Staff Bullying or Serious Misconduct

Where there are concerns that a prisoner is being bullied or mistreated by a member of staff, prisons publish details of a Staff Integrity Hotline. Current GOV.UK prison information states that this facility can be used anonymously and is managed separately from the prison.

If the allegation potentially amounts to a criminal offence, such as assault, sexual abuse or another serious crime, obtaining specialist legal advice and considering whether the matter should also be reported to the police may be appropriate.

Separate Healthcare Complaints From General Prison Complaints

Poor medical treatment may require a different complaints route.

The PPO/IPCI does not investigate the professional clinical judgement of doctors or other medical professionals.

For prison healthcare in England, NHS England has a complaints procedure and specifically asks complainants to identify the prison when making a healthcare complaint. Where somebody complains on behalf of another person, patient consent will ordinarily be required.

This distinction is important because a complaint about what a doctor clinically decided may follow a different route from a complaint that prison staff prevented a prisoner from accessing healthcare.

Seek Specialist Prison-Law Advice

Where internal complaints and Ombudsman procedures are failing, specialist legal advice becomes particularly important.

The Prisoners’ Advice Service (PAS) provides free legal advice and support to adult prisoners throughout England and Wales concerning legal and human rights, healthcare rights, prison conditions and prison law. PAS specifically states that it can assist prisoners with complaints about their treatment and may take action where a prison fails to respond adequately.

A specialist prison-law, public-law or human-rights solicitor may also be able to determine whether the circumstances potentially justify further legal proceedings.

Consider Judicial Review Where a Public Authority Is Acting Unlawfully

In sufficiently serious circumstances, a solicitor may advise that a decision, action or failure to act by a public authority could potentially be challenged through judicial review.

Judicial review is concerned with the lawfulness of public decision-making, rather than simply asking a court whether it agrees with the decision.

There are strict time limits. Under Civil Procedure Rule 54.5, a judicial review claim generally has to be filed promptly and, in any event, no later than three months after the grounds arose, although shorter limits apply to some categories of case.

Anyone contemplating this route should therefore obtain specialist legal advice urgently rather than waiting indefinitely for correspondence to be answered.

Consider Human-Rights and Equality-Law Issues

Serious prison mistreatment may potentially engage the Human Rights Act 1998, depending upon the circumstances.

For example, cases may involve issues concerning the right to life, protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, respect for private and family life or discrimination.

Where a disabled prisoner is being denied necessary support or reasonable adjustments, the Equality Act 2010 may also become relevant.

However, the existence of a human-rights or disability issue does not automatically mean that a particular legal claim will succeed. A specialist solicitor should assess the evidence, applicable law, defendant and relevant limitation periods.

Contact the Prisoner’s MP

An MP can sometimes make representations, seek information from government departments or HMPPS, raise concerns about prison conditions and assist constituents navigating public bodies.

An MP can also become particularly important where a complaint about the PPO/IPCI is being escalated to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, as some PHSO complaint routes require an MP to sign and forward the complaint.

Consider Human-Rights Organisations and Campaigning Bodies

Where allegations suggest a wider or systemic human-rights problem, organisations concerned with prisoners’ rights, disability rights or human rights may also be worth approaching.

These organisations should not be treated as substitutes for emergency safeguarding, legal representation or the formal complaints system. However, organisations such as Amnesty International, the Prison Reform Trust and other relevant advocacy groups may be interested in patterns of systemic mistreatment or broader policy concerns.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons itself directs people seeking additional prison support towards organisations including the Prison Reform Trust.

Preserve Evidence

Keep a detailed written record containing:

Dates and approximate times;
Names or descriptions of staff involved;
What the prisoner reported;
Injuries or changes in health;
Requests for healthcare;
Requests for disability adjustments;
Complaint reference numbers;
Copies of letters and emails;
Ombudsman correspondence;
Witness details;
Missed appointments or unexplained restrictions; and
Dates on which organisations were contacted.

Do not embellish what happened. Separate what you personally witnessed from what the prisoner told you and from what you suspect may have happened.

Good contemporaneous records can become extremely important if lawyers, investigators, courts or oversight bodies subsequently become involved.

Do Not Give Up Simply Because One Organisation Says No

Being told that an Ombudsman cannot help, receiving an unsatisfactory response or having correspondence apparently ignored does not necessarily mean that every avenue of redress has been exhausted.

Depending upon the circumstances, there may still be routes through the prison’s safeguarding procedures, IPCI/PPO, the PHSO, the Independent Monitoring Board, NHS complaints procedures, MPs, specialist prison-law solicitors, judicial review, equality legislation or human-rights law.

The appropriate route depends upon what has happened.

Most importantly, where a disabled prisoner cannot physically access the complaints system without assistance, the inability to write should not be allowed to silence them. Their communication difficulties may themselves form an important part of the complaint and should be raised repeatedly and documented.

Legal Aid for Bereaved Families

There has also been progress.

From 7 April 2025, ministerial powers were used in Scotland to remove means-testing for legal aid for families participating in Fatal Accident Inquiries relating to deaths in custody.

The Scottish Government’s March 2026 progress report confirmed that this had been implemented, although primary legislation would still be required to place the arrangement on a permanent statutory footing.

Access to legal representation is especially important because families facing state institutions may otherwise confront teams of publicly funded lawyers without equivalent resources of their own.

Equality of arms is an important element of meaningful access to justice.

Prisoners Do Not Lose Their Human Rights at the Prison Gates

Imprisonment lawfully removes an individual’s liberty.

It does not remove their humanity.

People in prison retain fundamental rights, including protections concerning life, dignity, discrimination and access to appropriate healthcare.

This is particularly important for disabled prisoners, people with mental-health conditions, neurodivergent prisoners and others who may require reasonable adjustments or additional safeguards.

A failure to accommodate disability can potentially engage several areas of law depending upon the facts, including equality law, public law and human-rights law.

The fact that someone has been convicted of an offence does not give the state permission to neglect their health, safety or fundamental rights.

Crown Immunity and Equality Before the Law

The philosophical argument against Crown immunity is relatively straightforward.

The rule of law is based partly upon the principle that government itself is governed by law.

Public bodies possess enormous powers over individuals.

In the prison system, those powers become particularly extensive because the state controls virtually every aspect of a prisoner’s environment.

Where those powers are accompanied by legal immunity from particular forms of prosecution, the question becomes:

Who holds the state accountable when the state itself breaks the rules?

Supporters of retaining Crown immunity may point to constitutional differences between Crown bodies and ordinary corporations and argue that mechanisms such as judicial review, civil litigation, investigations, Fatal Accident Inquiries, parliamentary accountability and Crown Censure provide alternative forms of scrutiny.

Critics respond that accountability without the possibility of equivalent sanctions creates an unequal system.

Both arguments demonstrate why this is an important constitutional-law debate rather than simply an issue concerning individual prisons.

Crown Censure Versus Criminal Prosecution

The distinction can be summarised.

Crown Censure	Criminal Prosecution
Administrative process	Court proceedings
Used against Crown bodies where immunity prevents prosecution	Available against prosecutable organisations/persons
Creates an official public record	Can result in criminal conviction
No financial penalty	Courts can impose penalties
Does not constitute a criminal conviction	May result in conviction
Reflects evidence that could otherwise have justified prosecution	Determines criminal liability through the courts

The HSE describes Crown Censure as its maximum sanction against a Crown body.

For campaigners, however, that difference is precisely the problem.

Does Crown Immunity Mean You Cannot Sue the Government?

No.

This is perhaps the most important misconception to correct.

Crown immunity in this context should not be interpreted as blanket immunity from every kind of legal action.

Depending upon the circumstances, proceedings involving public authorities may potentially arise through areas such as:

Civil claims;
Negligence;
Judicial review;
The Human Rights Act 1998;
Equality law;
Statutory complaints and investigations;
Fatal Accident Inquiries in Scotland;
Coronial proceedings in England and Wales;
And, where legally available, criminal proceedings against individuals or organisations.

Whether a particular remedy exists depends upon the facts, applicable legislation, limitation periods, jurisdiction and identity of the proposed defendant.

Specialist legal advice is therefore essential.

Why This Matters for Human Rights

There is an inherent power imbalance whenever a person is detained by the state.
The prisoner cannot choose another accommodation provider.
They cannot decide that their cell is unsafe and simply move elsewhere.
They cannot independently arrange every aspect of their healthcare or safety.
That dependence makes transparency and accountability particularly important.

Article 2 protects the right to life precisely because the state’s obligations extend beyond merely avoiding deliberate harm.

Where someone dies while under state control, society is entitled to ask:

Was the risk recognised?
Were reasonable precautions taken?
Were systems adequate?
Were warnings communicated?
Was the subsequent investigation genuinely independent and effective?

And ultimately:

If serious failures occurred, what meaningful consequences followed?

A Matter of Law, Accountability and Public Trust

Aamer Anwar’s campaign over Crown immunity exposes a wider constitutional tension.

The state makes laws.
The state prosecutes breaches of those laws.
The state also operates prisons in which individuals are entirely dependent upon it.

It is therefore legitimate to question whether the state should receive protections from criminal prosecution that would not necessarily be available to other organisations carrying out comparable responsibilities.

The deaths of Katie Allan and William Lindsay led eventually to findings of preventable deaths and systemic failures. They have also contributed to substantial scrutiny of Scotland’s prison system and the processes used to investigate deaths in custody.

Their families’ campaigns demonstrate something fundamental about human-rights law:

rights require accountability mechanisms if they are to have practical meaning.

Conclusion

Crown immunity does exist in modern British law, but it is important to understand exactly what type of immunity we are discussing.

The Scottish Prison Service controversy does not establish that a person can never sue the Crown or that public authorities are exempt from human-rights obligations.

Instead, the issue highlighted by solicitor Aamer Anwar concerns a much more specific legal protection: Crown immunity from prosecution under health-and-safety legislation.

Section 48 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 means that Crown bodies may be required to obey health-and-safety duties while nevertheless being protected from the criminal prosecution that might follow if another organisation committed an equivalent breach. The principal HSE alternative is Crown Censure.

At the same time, Article 2 of the ECHR continues to impose significant obligations upon the state concerning the protection of life and the investigation of deaths in custody.

The Scottish Government itself has committed to pursuing the lifting of the Scottish Prison Service’s Crown immunity in this area, and official reporting in March 2026 confirmed that discussions with the UK Government remained ongoing.

The question therefore remains highly relevant:

“If every person and private organisation is expected to be accountable under the law, should the state be held to any lesser standard when somebody dies in its care”?