‘PRISON OFFICER FRACTURED INMATE’S SKULL IN ATTACK’
TWO prison officers assaulted prisoners who were lying prone on the floor of an exercise yard by hitting them with their shields, with one prisoner suffering a fractured skull and bleeding to the brain, a court was told.
David Potts and Nathan White are standing trial at Newport Crown Court following an incident at HMP Parc, Bridgend, when two inmates were injured during a “yard clearance” in which nine officers in protective clothing went to take them back to their cells.
Ruth Smith, prosecuting, said prisoner Michael HastieDavies suffered a bleed to the brain and was still having difficulty with his hearing after being struck by Potts’ shield on August 7 last year.
She said: “The officers charged into the yard, immediately using their shields on those individuals causing those injuries.”
The court heard Potts, 25, of Coity, Bridgend, who is accused of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so and an alternative count of inflicting grievous bodily harm, struck Mr Hastie-Davies within seconds of entering the yard.
Ms Smith said White, 28, of Mill View Estate, Maesteg, used his shield to strike a second complainant, Ryan Madden, who suffered “bruising and cuts” in the incident.
White, who is accused of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and an alternative charge of common assault, told police he struck Mr Madden in a bid to get him to open his hands in case he had a concealed weapon, the court heard. Both men deny the charges. Ms Smith said Mr HastieDavies, Mr Madden and another inmate were allowed into the yard of the Phoenix Unit, which is a segregation unit for prisoners who “hadn’t always obeyed the rules in prison”, at around 3.10pm.
They were accompanied by a prison officer, who was called away soon afterwards when another inmate started a fire in his cell.
Ms Smith said: “The prisoners were asked to come in.
“At that stage they had not had their full yard allowance ... they said they did not want to come in because their full yard had not finished.
“It appears that that conversation was translated into a belief that they were refusing to come in.”
The court heard the three prisoners remained in the yard for the next hour or so and could be seen on CCTV knocking on the windows and asking to come back in.
“The prison service however decided that they had refused and would have to be forcibly removed from the yard,” said Ms Smith.
“At about 4.20pm nine officers in protective clothing entered the yard.
“By then the three prisoners had lain down to show, say the prosecution, that they were not a threat.”
She added that the two alleged assaults took place within seconds and that the three prisoners were returned to their cells where Mr HastieDavies complained he was losing his hearing and having problems with his balance.
The court heard he was taken to hospital where his fractured skull was discovered and he spent four days as an inpatient.
Both Potts and White were interviewed by police voluntarily.
Ms Smith said: “They explained that they had been given certain information before they went on to the yard.
“They had been told that the prisoners on the yard were non-compliant, that they had refused to come in and that they may have concealed weapons. Both said they had been given instructions that if the prisoners did not move, they could use force for the protection of others and to get them off the yard.
“Mr Potts said he had shouted at the prisoners to get up and they did not respond.
“(The prosecution says) they were lying down and the guards were on them before they had an opportunity to obey any commands.”
Jurors were told that Potts did not dispute striking Mr Hastie-Davies.
Ms Smith said: “The dispute between the prosecution and the defence is whether at the time of striking the blow Mr Potts intended to cause Mr Hastie-Davies serious bodily injury and whether what he did was unlawful.”
Ms Smith said a person was entitled to use lawful force to defend themselves but that it must be reasonable force.
She added: “The prosecution case is that at the time the shield was used on Mr HastieDavies he did not present a threat to Mr Potts, he was in fact laying on the ground in a position of surrender and there was no need to use any force on him at the time it was used.
“Mr Potts’ case is, that is not correct.”
The case continues.