Mark Pryor death in custody - Derbyshire Constabulary

Read information about our investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mark Pryor, aged 46, who died in hospital on 5 September 2020 after being found unresponsive in his cell following his arrest and detention by Derbyshire Constabulary the previous day.

• Update following inquest in February 2024

An investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found flaws in the way that Mark Pryor was assessed and treated by two healthcare professionals before his death, following his arrest by Derbyshire Constabulary.

Mr Pryor, aged 46, was detained by police on 4 September 2020 and found unresponsive in his cell at the St Mary’s Wharf custody unit the following day. He died the same afternoon after being ambulanced to the Royal Derby Hospital.

An inquest which ended on 1 February 2024 concluded that an alcohol withdrawal-related seizure led to his death and that deficiencies in the assessment and treatment he received for alcohol withdrawal from two healthcare professionals (HCPs) probably made more than a minimal contribution to his death.

The IOPC investigation, following a referral from Derbyshire Constabulary was completed in July 2021.  

Evidence we gathered suggested that contrary to guidelines, both HCPs may not have enquired into Mr Pryor’s substance abuse history or adequately assessed him before administering medication. The evidence also indicated that one of them may not have accurately identified and assessed signs of his worsening physical health, while the other may not have kept clear and accurate records, and failed to   appropriately share relevant information with others also responsible for his care.

IOPC Regional Director Derrick Campbell said: “Our sympathies remain with Mr Pryor’s family and all those affected by his death. The investigation we carried out highlighted flaws in the care Mr Pryor received from two HCPs working for the police as contractors.

“We found a case to answer for misconduct for both, although one had resigned and so no further action could be taken against them. We were satisfied that the deficiencies identified for the other HCP were being addressed through an improvement plan following an internal review by their employer, and therefore we felt separate proceedings were not required.”