Our client is Kieran McLaughlin who is fighting for a chance to stand up for his best friend and ‘brother’, Stephen Connell, and have answers surrounding Stephen’s death.
Who is Kieran McLaughlin?
Kieran has been my client since July 2016. He came to see Broudie Jackson Canter about the death of his best friend, Stephen Connell, for whom he was appointed next of kin and considered themselves brothers. Stephen lived in Kieran’s family home and became a part of their family. Kieran is devastated by the death of Stephen and is determined to have a voice for Stephen at his Inquest.
As Kieran was not Stephen’s blood relative, it has been impossible to obtain the funding to provide him with legal representation. Broudie Jackson Canter and a Barrister, Kate Stone of Garden Court North Chambers, have assisted Kieran on a “pro bono” basis in an effort to secure Kieran with the funding to assist him at the final Inquest.
Who is Stephen Connell?
Stephen was just 20 years old when he died. He had a difficult upbringing and was in and out of care from an early age. Because of the problems Stephen had experienced, he had a history of mental health issues. Sadly, whilst serving a prison sentence at HMP Hindley, Stephen was found on 18 February 2016 hanging from his cell window. He was taken to hospital, never regained consciousness and died a few days later. This devastated Kieran and their family.
There is evidence that Stephen was being bullied whilst in prison. He was ill, vulnerable and alone. He was not the first prisoner to kill himself at HMP Hindley after being bullied. There is also evidence that there were failures with the prison and/or healthcare to provide Stephen with the care and treatment he needed to deal with his mental health issues. Sadly, this is not an isolated case. In 2016, 107 people killed themselves in prison in the UK. HMP Hindley was heavily criticised following an inspection in 2016 which slammed the prison’s ‘unjustifiable’ prison regime. Inspectors reported the regime at HMP Hindley as one of the worst ever seen. It was found that there were a high number of assaults and inadequate support for inmates at risk of self-harm amongst other issues. The treatment of prisoners at HMP Hindley was described in December 2016 as ‘inhumane’.
At just 20 years old, Stephen could have had the opportunity to turn his life around. With the proper treatment of his mental health issues to tackle the problems resulting from his childhood, Stephen could have had a chance in life. Sadly, this is another young man who has lost his life in tragic circumstances.
Kieran is the only person who knew Stephen who will be involved in the Inquest and be able to speak to the Coroner and the jury from Stephen’s point of view.
The Inquest
Stephen’s Inquest is due to begin on 22 January 2018 at Bolton Coroner’s Court. The Inquest is a Coroner’s investigation to ascertain in this case the circumstances in which Stephen died. As the Inquest involves a death in state custody, the Coroner is required to have an enhanced Inquest, which engages Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life). This ensures public scrutiny of what happened to Stephen prior to his death and if there are criticisms of the Prison and the Healthcare services that these are properly put before the jury. One of the issues the jury at the Inquest will be considering is whether Stephen had the same level of healthcare available to him had he of been in the community. The Prison and Probation Ombudsman in their report recognised that there were failures.
The first step we took was to make an Application to the Coroner for Kieran to be recognised as an Interested Person to the Inquest. Without having Interested Person status, Kieran would not be able to participate in the Inquest. He would not have sight of the documentation and would not be able to ask the witnesses any questions. The Coroner agreed that Kieran’s and Stephen’s relationship was such that Kieran should be an Interested Person at the Inquest.
The next stage was then to obtain legal aid funding so that we could represent Kieran and instruct a Barrister. Unfortunately the Legal Aid Agency rejected Kieran’s application on the basis that he was not a relative by blood. We, and the Barrister assisting Kieran, did not consider that the Legal Aid Agency had correctly considered the application of Article 2 of ECHR which provides families to be able to properly engage in the Inquest. We appealed the decision but we were still not successful. We therefore sought to challenge the Legal Aid Agency in the High Court by bringing Judicial Review proceedings. This would enable an independent Court to consider the Legal Aid Agency’s decision and whether they had properly applied the law in considering Kieran’s request for funding for the Inquest. However, in order to proceed with that challenge there would need to be funding to pay for the costs associated with that case. Ironically the authority who decides whether Kieran is entitled to legal aid funding to challenge the Legal Aid Agency is…… the Legal Aid Agency. The Legal Aid Agency decided not grant the funding to enable Kieran to ask the High Court to review their decision. On what basis? This was solely decided on the basis that they consider their own decision was correct. They considered that they had properly applied the law and therefore would not provide legal aid funding so that Kieran could ask for their own decision to be reviewed.
Stephen’s Inquest - What Next?
Unfortunately, the option for Kieran to challenge the Legal Aid Agency’s decision further is something Kieran is unable to do.
Kieran now faces the prospect of representing himself as Stephen’s next of kin in the Inquest against 3 legal teams representing the Prison and the Healthcare. Kieran has no confidence that the Prison or the Healthcare would approach the Inquest with transparency or accountability for failures. This is a reasoned belief - it has recently been recognised publicly that state organisations and authorities often still approach Inquests with an attitude of institutional defensiveness. In the review by Right Reverend James Jones, he recommended a culture of openness and lesson learning at Inquests. He stated that public bodies should be expected to approach Inquests in an open, honest and transparent way. They should approach Inquests as an opportunity to learn and there should be parity of funding where the state is involved. The Review recognised that this is not currently happening and there is a trend of highly adversarial behaviour by some lawyers representing public bodies. The Prison and the Healthcare will have their legal representation funded by the public purse. The only person who will be present at the Inquest who knew Stephen will not have access to any legal representation because they do not have any way to fund their legal costs. Is this fair and just? The Coroner must remain impartial and independent so will not be able to assist Kieran. There will be no-one to directly challenge the state authorities involved in this Inquest in relation to their failings. Kieran, understandably, does not believe that the Prison and Healthcare will accept responsibility for their failings and more importantly learn lessons to prevent any more young men from dying unnecessarily.
Kieran has set up a crowdfunding page in an effort to raise enough funds to pay for his legal representation at the hearing. You can find the link to Kieran’s page here. Please support Kieran if you are able to do.
Conclusion
Working as a legal aid lawyer is often incredibly frustrating due to a complex and inconsistent funding system. However, having the opportunity to help people like Kieran navigate this complex system and through the daunting Inquest process can be rewarding, especially when we are able to make a difference. However, the unfairness of facing situations like Kieran’s is obstructing access to justice, and I can’t begin to imagine the frustration that Kieran is feeling. The Coroner has recognised Kieran’s special relationship with Stephen as his nominated next of kin. However, due to the decision from the Legal Aid Agency he will not be able to effectively participate at the Inquest. In my experience, what will happen with Kieran at the Inquest in reality is that the Barristers for the Prison and 2 Healthcare teams will try their best to protect their position and minimise any criticisms found in relation to their lack of care regarding Stephen.
Should the Legal Aid Agency be able to stop you from challenging them? It is absurd that this is the system to obtain funding to challenge the Legal Aid themselves in 2017. How can this system be seen as impartial and independent? Where a solicitor and a Barrister argue that there is a sufficient legal argument arising from the decision made by the Legal Aid Agency, surely it cannot be for the Legal Aid Agency themselves to say that they consider their own decision was correct. It clashes with our fundamental principles of fairness and justice.
We are continuing to do our best to assist Kieran through this process and doing our very best to obtain funding so that we and his Barrister can continue to assist him at the final Inquest.
Once again, if you would like to support Kieran, his crowdfunding page is here.