Scotland’s top prison official has told the families of two young people who died by suicide in custody that she supports removing Crown immunity, a legal shield preventing the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) from facing criminal prosecution over deaths in custody.
Families Demand Justice for Young Lives Lost
The parents of Katie Allan, 21, and William Brown, 16, have fought for years to hold authorities accountable for their children’s deaths at Polmont Young Offenders Institution in 2018. In a significant shift, Teresa Medhurst, the head of Scotland’s prison service, acknowledged their concerns in a meeting and agreed that SPS should no longer be exempt from prosecution.
“For the first time, we didn’t feel demonised by the prison service. We felt listened to,” said Linda Allan, Katie’s mother. “That was very restorative.”
The meeting came after a 2023 Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) into the deaths at Polmont made 25 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the SPS and the Scottish government.
A Long Battle Against Legal Protection
Under existing laws, Crown immunity prevents the prosecution of government bodies like the SPS, even when their actions—or inactions—contribute to deaths. This legal principle shields the prison service from criminal charges, though civil cases remain an option for grieving families.
The Crown Office ruled in 2022 that Polmont’s failure to meet health and safety standards “materially contributed” to Allan and Brown’s deaths. Despite this, no legal action was possible against the prison service due to its immunity.
Aamer Anwar, the families’ lawyer, called the situation “unacceptable,” pointing out that there is broad agreement across Scotland to end the exemption. “Now it’s up to the UK government to act,” he said.
Political Pressure on Westminster
The Scottish government has been pressing Westminster for legislative changes, as removing Crown immunity would require UK government approval.
Anwar stated that the next step is a meeting with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the UK Justice Minister. “The power to change this law rests with them,” he said. “When the prison service itself agrees that Crown immunity should go, what’s stopping Westminster from acting?”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the Lord Chancellor has received a request from Scottish ministers and will respond “in due course.”
The Fight for Equal Accountability
Campaigners argue that Crown immunity creates an imbalance between public institutions and private entities. In the private sector, a company could be prosecuted for workplace deaths, whereas government bodies remain legally protected.
Exceptions to Crown immunity exist but are rare. For example, prison staff in Scotland can be prosecuted if they are caught supplying a mobile phone to an inmate. However, this does little to address broader systemic failures that put vulnerable prisoners at risk.
A table comparing accountability in public vs. private sectors highlights the disparity:
| Sector | Criminal Prosecution | Civil Lawsuits |
|---|---|---|
| Private | Possible for deaths due to negligence | Possible |
| Public (Crown bodies) | Not possible due to Crown immunity | Possible |
| Public (individual employees) | Rare, only in specific cases | Possible |
Will Westminster Act?
The political landscape could determine how quickly—or whether—change happens. While the Scottish government and opposition parties within Holyrood agree that Crown immunity should end, Westminster holds the final say.
Angela Constance, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, reaffirmed that her government would “continue to pursue” the issue, emphasizing that all FAI recommendations were being implemented at speed.
For the families of Katie Allan and William Brown, however, legal reforms cannot come soon enough. “We don’t want another parent to go through this,” said Linda Allan. “Accountability saves lives. It’s that simple.”
