Does the government believe that it has more to gain from inaction over six young, unconvicted prisoners currently starving themselves to death, than it does from acting to prevent an avoidable tragedy?
I am finding it more and more difficult to avoid answering “yes” to this question.
The six prisoners – all on remand awaiting trial – have been charged with various offences related to a break-in at a defence firm in Bristol and a separate break in at RAF Brize Norton.
All six, ranging in age from 20 to 31 years old have been, at the time of writing, on hunger strike for between 13 and 47 days.
In a letter to the Justice Secretary, David Lammy, lawyers for the hunger strikers warned that their deaths were “increasingly more than a mere possibility. It is a likelihood”.
The letter goes on to argue that the Justice Secretary is “uniquely placed” to “bring about a resolution of the situation, such that the increasing deterioration of our clients’ health does not lead to their death”. Moreover:
All have lost a significant percentage of their body weight, and, with the hunger strike in its second month, are reaching a critical stage and nearing the point of no return.
Prison Service policy emphasises the importance of safety and suicide prevention. In relation to those prisoners refusing food, staff “must make every effort to try and find out why the prisoner is refusing food and/or fluids and address the reasons for their refusal”.
Suicides in prison are currently at a record high, and when it comes to prisoners refusing food there are limits to what individual prison or health care staff can do.
Yet while staff are required to make every effort to understand why prisoners are refusing food, those in a position to act – notably those in the Ministry of Justice and Downing Street – have shown a complete lack of curiosity.
Ministers have repeatedly refused to meet with MPs, lawyers of family members to discuss the situation. Indeed earlier this month David Lammy gave the impression that he was unaware that the hunger strike was taking place.
The wider politics at play in the alleged actions of the prisoners, the rights or wrongs of their alleged actions, are not the issue here.
The question is: are MPs and the public prepared to allows ministers to continue to avoid taking even the most minimal steps to establish what options there may be to resolve the situation before someone dies.
There will be those who argue that the solution is easy: the hunger strikers can start eating again. And while there is reason in this view, there are many situations where the weight of circumstances can leave individuals feeling overwhelmed and in despair.
At such times, there is a vital, and honourable, role for the state to intervene. And this is particularly the case when an individual is detained and has little or no say over what happens to them.
If ministers do not act, it will be difficult to avoid the conclusion that they just do not care, or that they care more about gaining clout points for appearing tough, than about demonstrating what a compassionate and empathetic politics looks like.
The alternative explanation is that they are simply incompetent and out of their depth.
This feels like one of those moments where we risk passing the point of no return, not only for the six prisoners, but for what it says about how the state exercises its power when life is at risk.
