Inquest Finds Terror Control Order Severely Damaged Prisoner's Mental Health Before His Death in Wandsworth

A jury at Inner West London Coroner's Court has concluded that a strict government terrorism control order had a "substantial impact" on the mental state of a prisoner who died at HMP Wandsworth on Christmas Day 2021. Akhtar Uddin, a 35-year-old builder from east London, took his own life while serving a sentence for breaching a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPIM). The inquest was the first ever to examine the effects of such measures on an individual, and its findings raise serious questions about how the prison system handles people subject to these secretive restrictions.

The jury found that Uddin died as a result of an action he took, but stated it was "not possible to determine whether he intended the outcome to be his death." Jurors also concluded that the prison service had failed to provide the support Uddin required. In their formal conclusions, they said they were satisfied that the original TPIM, and its unusually restrictive nature, had a substantial impact on his mental state. They further found that his fear of the order being reimposed—and of its potentially never-ending nature—had a significant effect on him while he was in prison.

TPIMs allow authorities to control individuals the government believes are involved in terrorism but who are not facing criminal charges. The home secretary imposes them on the advice of MI5. Those subject to a TPIM can face electronic tagging, curfews, relocation to another part of the country, bans on internet use, controls on their finances, and limits on whom they may meet and where they may travel. Breaching a TPIM can lead to a terrorism conviction and a prison sentence. When Uddin was under one, TPIMs could last a maximum of two years; the limit has since been extended to five years.

Uddin had been 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 twelve times by withdrawing more money than he was permitted to, and that he largely spent the extra funds on drugs. He had more than twenty previous criminal convictions, none of them for terrorism offences. The jury heard that Uddin believed the order had originally been imposed because he made reckless statements while under the influence of drugs, but he insisted he was not a terrorist.

It is understood that Uddin was alleged to have made verbal threats and to have associated with people MI5 regarded as involved in terrorist activity. The full reasons for placing someone on a TPIM are typically kept secret, even from the person subject to the order, because they are based on intelligence. When the TPIM was first imposed on Uddin in January 2020, he was forcibly relocated to the West Midlands. The inquest heard he was arrested at the prison gates in front of his sister, who had come to meet him on his release.

The inquest also examined Uddin's state of mind in the period before his death. His sister, Jasmine, gave evidence that in the weeks before he died, he had described "counter terrorism officers" questioning him in prison and telling him he would never get off the TPIM. The hearing was told that Uddin feared the order would be reimposed when he left prison early in 2022, and that he would breach it again because of drugs. His former solicitor, Amer Ahmad, had told him in autumn 2021 that there were "highly limited prospects" of succeeding in having the TPIM legally overturned.

Coroner Bernard Richmond KC described Uddin as "loved and loving" but said he was "not someone without his troubles," which revolved around his drug use. The coroner said he would be issuing a report to the government over concerns about a risk to other people subject to the terrorism control measures. Dr Richard Latham, an NHS consultant forensic psychiatrist who appeared as an expert witness for the coroner, concluded that Uddin had an undiagnosed personality disorder, along with associated psychological problems and vulnerabilities, resulting in impulsiveness, grievance and paranoia.

Dr Latham said Uddin probably assumed the worst about the TPIM in the future, and that this prospect would have created "distress and a sense of hopelessness." He added that TPIMs are intended 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" about being branded a terrorist, Dr Latham said. The jury's findings echoed this expert assessment, concluding that the order and the fear surrounding it had a deep and lasting effect on his mental health.

The inquest heard there was little or no awareness among staff at HMP Wandsworth about TPIMs. A governor at the prison accepted in evidence that the lack of knowledge among prison staff had resulted in "unintentionally cruel" treatment of Uddin. The jury concluded that, because prison services were unaware of TPIM restrictions and their likely impact, there was a failure to provide support suitably targeted to Uddin's specific needs and situation. This finding places scrutiny on how information about such orders is—or is not—shared with those responsible for a prisoner's day-to-day care.

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 family's reaction reflects a broader concern that the inquest has highlighted: that individuals subject to TPIMs may be left without adequate mental health support, even when the restrictions placed on them are known to cause significant psychological harm.

The case is significant because it is the first inquest to consider the impact of TPIMs, and its conclusions could influence how the government and prison service handle people under these orders in future. The coroner's decision to issue a report to the government suggests he believes there is a continuing risk to others in similar circumstances. That report is likely to focus on the need for prison staff to understand TPIM restrictions and their effects, and on ensuring that appropriate support is available to those who are isolated and fearful as a result of the measures.

The inquest has also drawn attention to the unusual nature of TPIMs, which operate outside the normal criminal justice process. Because the full reasons for an order are usually kept secret, even from the person concerned, those subject to them can find it difficult to challenge or even understand the case against them. Uddin's insistence that he was not a terrorist, and his belief that the order stemmed from reckless statements made under the influence of drugs, illustrate the confusion and sense of injustice that such secrecy can produce. The jury's conclusions suggest that this lack of transparency, combined with the severity of the restrictions, can have devastating consequences for vulnerable individuals.

As the findings settle, attention will turn to whether the government responds to the coroner's concerns and whether the prison service changes its practices. For Uddin's family, the inquest has provided an official acknowledgment of the factors that contributed to his death, but it cannot undo their loss. Their hope is that the case will lead to meaningful reform, so that others subject to terrorism control measures receive the understanding and support they need while in custody.