THE ZAHID MUBAREK INQUIRY

THE ZAHID MUBAREK INQUIRYInquiry Charmin: The Honourable Mr Justice KeithWitness StatementAmy Jennifer PoulsonNationalProbationServiceSenior ProbationOfficera) Qualifications:-1993 - BA Hons Sociologyof SocialAnthropology1994 - Post Graduate Diploma in Secretarial and BusinessAdministration1997 - Diploma in Social Work (Home Office Sponsored)1997 - Masters in Applied Social Sciencesb) Employment History:-1997- 1999 - County Durham Probationarea, ProbationOfficer,Secondedto HMP Low Newton1999- 2003 - GreaterManchesterProbationarea, ProbationOfficerTameside DistrictResettlementand PersistentOffendersTeam2003 - 2004 (to date) - SouthYorkshireProbationarea:Nov03 - Feb 04 - ProbationOfficer,RotherhamDivision,CommunityPunishmentTeamFeb 04 (to date) - Senior ProbationOfficer, DoncasterDivisionc) Trainingrelatingto mentalhealthand riskassessment:-1992 - 1993 - BA Honours - twoyear Psychologymodule,includedstudyof mentalillness

1995 - 1997 - Diploma in SocialWork - includedmoduleandassessed assignment on mentally disorderedoffenders1998 - Three day training course - Understanding Mentalillness1. Dealings with Mr Stewart and significant events:I was Mr Stewart's Supervising Probation Officerfrom 2ndJuly1999, when he was released on a Young Offenders Licence.During this period on Licence, I met with Mr Stewart on fouroccasions (IB 1005-1006). Firstly, at his family home on 5thJuly1999 and then at Hyde Probation Office on 6thJuly 1999, 14thJuly1999 and 23rdJuly 1999. On 28thJuly 1999 1received a telephonecall from Thameside Magistrates' Court to inform me that MrStewart had been arrested for further drivingmatterson 27 th July1999 and was being held in custody. He has remained in custodysince this date.On 23rdDecember 1999, I receiveda requestfromTamesideMagistrates'Courtto preparea Pre-SentenceReport regardingtheoutstandingmattersof DangerousDrivingand No Insurance. Isubsequentlybookeda visitto interviewMr Stewart at HMP Hindleyon 10th January 2000. On the morning of 10thJanuary 2000, I wasinformedby HMP Hindleythat Mr Stewart had been transferredtoHMP Felthamin relationto furtheroutstandingmatters. In viewofthe limitedtime available,I arrangedto interviewMr Stewartbytelephonein orderto preparethe requestedreports. This interviewwas facilitatedbythe ProbationDepartmentat HMP Feltham. Thisinterviewwas conductedonthe afternoonof 10thJanuary 2000 andlastedapproximatelythirtyminutes. This isthe lastcontactI hadwithMr Stewartpriorto him committingthe offenceof murderagainstZahid Mubarek.-1636-2 mm_

2. Recollectionof attitudes and behaviour:-\On the four occasionswhich I met withand interviewedMr Stewart,whilstinthe community,hisdemeanourtendedto be passive,immatureand what couldbe describedas 'silly'. He did notexpressanystrongemotionsand whenfeelinguncomfortableat beingchallengedabouthisoffending,had a tendencyto giggle. He did notrespondaggressivelyor expressanystrongopinionsaboutothers.3. Indicationof view of a racistnature:-Duringthe period I supervised Mr Stewart, prior to hisconvictionof theoffenceof murder,he saidnothingto me whichgave any indicationthathe heldviewsof a racistnature.4. Whether he was sufferingfrom any mentaldisorder:-There was nothingin Mr Stewart'sbehaviourwhichcaused me to thinkthat he may have been sufferingfrom a mentaldisorder. Herespondedappropriatelyto questions,if inan immaturefashion. Hedid notsay anythingthat appeared particuladyodd, or extreme, or outof character. He, like manyoffendingyouths,liveda disaffectedanddirectionlesslifestylewhere drugand alcoholabusewere common.This lifestyleinevitablyhad a negativeimpacton his emotionalhealthand levelof immaturity,but nomorethan many young,delinquentpeerswithwhomI worked. Hisbehaviourpresentedas that of a youngpersistentoffender,but notthat of a personwhowas mentallydisordered/mentallyill.5. Reportingon a convictedpersonwho was alreadyserving/ormightserve a CustodialSentence:-3 -1637-.

In the above circumstances,which were true of the period inwhich Isupervised Mr Stewart, I did regard it as part of my function to identifyrisks which Mr Stewart might pose in custody. As a SupervisingProbation Officer, it was my responsibility to assess the risks which MrStewart posed to any person or people be they in custody or in thecommunity. During the period of time that I worked with Mr Stewart, Iwas aware that he committed an offence of Arson while in custody. Anassessment of this offence was included in the Pre-Sentence Reportwhich I prepared on 10thJanuary 2000 (IB 1007-1010). This reportrecognised that the offence of Arson indicated that Mr Stewart couldbehave in an unpredictable and impulsive way, both inside and outsideof prison. However, at the time during which I supervised Mr Stewart, Iwas not aware of any other previous incidents of concern regarding hisbehaviour in custody, such as the death of 'Prisoner A'. Further to this,I had no information brought to my attention from Prison staff, that hisbehaviour gave cause for concern in custody, during the time I wasworking with him. Therefore, at that time, there was nothing which ledme to consider that he posed any high risk of immediate harm whilst incustody.6. With regardto risk assessmentwhich I undertookon 8thJuly 1999which led me to assessing the risk posed by Mr Stewart as"High/Medium" on a RM1 and RM2 form. (IB 998-t002)7. Given the passage of time, I cannot be certain of the material which Iconsulted in preparing this assessment. I do recall that I had sight of aPre-Sentence Report prepared by Probation Officer, Patrick Davisonon 9thOctober 1998 (IB 983-985. The RM1 risk assessment formindicates that I had not had the opportunity of viewing an up to datecopy of Mr Stewart's previous convictions, nor Crown ProsecutionDocuments relating to the most recent offences (IB 998-1002). Mycontact log records, the fact that on 8thJuly 1999, I had requested that Ibe sent a copy of these documents. (IB 1005).4 -1638-

8. I do not believe I was aware of the Lancaster Forms DischargeReport(IB 978-979). That Report was prepared in 1997 and is likely to haveremained in Probation files relating to the relevant Sentence. I wasworking with Mr Stewart in 1999, with a case file which is unlikely tohave included such previous documents. At the time of preparing thisrisk assessment, I was working with a case load of around eightyyoung offenders. Given this workload, it was not standard procedurefor me to read through archived files, unless I had specific cause forconcern. I did not have specific cause for concern in this case. Almostcertainly I would therefore not have had sight of the Lancaster FormsDischarge Report. If I had seen this report, I believe that it is unlikely tohave affected my judgement, but I would have regarded it as relevant,despite the fact that it was prepared some eighteen months previously.In undertaking a thorough risk assessment all information which comesto light should be considered as relevant. However,the report isunlikely to have affected my judgement for the following reasons:-• FirstlyI had notseen any other evidence or observedany behaviour,whichindicatedto me that he was mentallyill. The DischargeReportrefersto Mr Stewart being'disturbed',however,I was workingat thetimewitha large numberof youngoffenders,who couldlooselybedefinedas 'disturbed',with a highproportionof themself harming,abusingdrugsand comingfromdysfunctionalfamilies.• The report alsorefers to Mr Stewartas being'dangerous'. Whilethis isof concern,there was no real evidencewhichcame to my attention,oranythingin his behaviourwhilstI supervisedhim,to substantiatethis.At the time of completingthis riskassessmentI was workingwithalargenumberof youngoffenderswho were overtlyaggressiveand hadcommittedsedous offencesof violence. Incemparisonto thisgroupofoffenders,Mr Stewart'shistoryof violencewas limitedand it is unlikelythat I wouldhave acted any differently,had I seenthe DischargeReport.5 -1639-

9.i)9. ii) There was nothingtOsuggest,in records,that Mr Stewart had ever hadany intentionof activelybecominginvolvedinthe murder. Mr Stewartwas notconvictedof any offencewithregardto this murder. Myknowledgeof Mr Stewart was of a youngmanwho regularlyassociatedwith peerswho were activelyviolent,butwhomdid notcommitthesame deliberateoffencesof premeditatedviolencehimself. I knew himo -as a personwho may have been onthe 'side lines'when actsofdeliberateviolenceagainstpeers were committed,buttended to take amore passiverole inthis. It is likelythat I wouldhave assessedtheoffenceof the murderof 'PrisonerA' inthiscontext.10. I cantranscribethe lastentry on the ContactSheet page (IB 1005) asI do notbelieve I was aware of Mr Stewart'sinvolvementinthe eventsleadingto the murderof 'PrisonerA'. The reason I say this isthat Irecall beingsurprisedwhen this informationcameto my attention,afterthe murderof Mr Mubarek. If I had been aware of his implicationin themurderof 'PrisonerA' I believeit isvery unlikelythat it wouldhave hada significanteffect on myjudgement. The reasonfor thisbeingasfollows:-follows:-"Discussed initial high/high risk assessment done by PSR writer.Appears high/medium, but Fiona to check with Roz Hamilton."I can explainthisentry as follows:-At the timeof makingthisentry, FionaJohnstone,Senior ProbationOfficer,was my LineManager and Roz Hamiltonwas DistrictManager.The Contact recordsa meetingwhichI had withmy LineManageron15 July1999 to discussMr Stewart'sRiskAssessment. Mr Stewarthad been assessed ina mostrecent PSR by PatrickDawsonas beinga highriskof causingseriousharm.6 -1640-

Frommy assessment of this individualI believed this risk should bereduced to him being at medium risk of causing serious harm. Thelevel of risk was identified as high due to Mr Stewart's previous offenceof Arson with Intent to Endanger Life. The likelihood was identified asmedium on the following grounds:-• While in custody,prior to release,Mr Stewart appearedto havebegunrespondingmore positively.I can recallthat he wasengagingingroupworkwhile in Prisonand had was actingin amore positivefashion. Mr Stewart presentedas beingina moreconfidentand settledstateof mindon release. He did notexpressanyfeelingsof angeror distresswhichwouldalert meto be concerned.• While he had twopreviousoffencesof assault,these werecommittedwhen he was challengedduringthe commissionof atheft. I had no informationto suggestthat he had everdeliberatelyset outto harm others.• He was livingat a stableaddresswitha supportivemotherandwas expressingintentionsof avoidingre-offending.11. Havingdiscussedthis RiskAssessmentmy LineManager, FionaJohnstonagreed that hisrisk couldbe reducedto high/medium,butthat for thisto happenshe wouldhave tOconfirmthe changewiththeDistrictManager,Roz Hamilton.While I do nothave a recordof thisdiscussionhavingtaken place, I can onlyassumeit did as my LineManager subsequentlysignedthe RM1 and RM2 (IB 998-1002) riskpapersregisteringhisas high/medium. My knowledgeof FionaJohnstonis thatshe workedina verythoroughand professionalwayand that shewouldnothave signedthe papersunlessshe had had thisagreedwith Roz Hamilton.7 -1641-

12. With regardto an entryonthe ContactSheet dated 25thJune 1999 (IB1004):-12. i) My understandingisthat the authorof thisentry is HeatherJoss,aProbationOfficerwho wasworkingfor GreaterManchesterProbationarea a that time.12. ii) My readingof the illegiblewordis that it mostlikelyto be "remorse",althoughI cannotbe certainof this.13. I did notconsideritappropriatefor Mr Stewartto receivesome form ofpsychiatricassessmentor treatmentat that time. The reasonfor thisbeingthat there was nothingin hisbehaviourwhichgave me causetobelievethat he may be sufferingfroma mentalillness(as relatedinearlierparagraph5 -page 3). In addition,I do notbelievethat therewas any additionalevidencewhichwas substantialenoughtojustifyrequestingpsychiatricassessmentand/or treatment. As previouslymentioned,Mr Stewart presentedas an immatureand impulsiveyoungman, butsuchtraitsare notuncommonamongstoffendingyouths.There was nothingwhichI had sightof whichgave me causeforconcernthat he mightbe mentallyill. To askfor a psychiatricassessment,giventhe demandsonpsychiatricservices,I wouldhaveto have real evidencethat he may have been _entally ill,whichI didnot.14. With regardto the Pre-SentenceReport,whichI completedon 10thJanuary 2004 (IB 1007-1010).14. i) There are mattersrelatingto Mr Stewart'smentalhealth,whichI didnotmentionbecause I was unawareof them,notbecause I thoughtitunnecessaryor inappropriateto doso. The matters previouslyraised "abouthis mentalhealth,whichI was unawareof includea previouspsychiatricassessment,the previousLancasterFormsDischargeReport and a previousreportof himhavingself-harmedby attemptingto swallowrazor blades. Because] was unawareof these issdes,I did8 -1642-

notincludethem inthe Report. However,as previouslymentionedthese factswouldnothave substantiallyaffectedmyjudgement.14. ii) At the timeof preparingthe Report I was notaware of Mr Stewart'sinvolvementinthe events leadingto the death of 'PrisonerA'. Had Ibeen aware of this I may have thoughtit appropriateto includethis inthe Report. However,the inclusionwouldhave hadto take accountofthe fact that Mr Stewart was notchargedor convictedof any offenceinrelationto the deathof 'PrisonerA'.15. With regardto the interview,whichI conductedbytelephonewithMrStewart,at HMP Felthamon 10 January2000, I can rememberspeakingwith My Stewart and that he presentedas beingof normalmoodduringthis conversationand did notappear to be particularlydistressed,agitated or angry and was relativelyco-operative,respondingto the questionsI asked himwithoutmakingany otherparticularcomment. There was nothingthat he saidwhichgave meparticularcause for concernover his stateof mind. He didnotsayanythingabouthis reactionto beingat HMP Feltham.THIS WITNESS STATEMENT IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MYKNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF........................................................ (signature)AMY JENNIFER POULSON....................................................... (date)9 -1643-