Esr Trustees Annual Report 202>26 BEST. Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals In HMP Wand8worlh Registered Chwty No: 1177625 AlthowJh BEST'S acivities to an erKI in (kxober folbwing wr exclusion from HMP Wandsworth, we have kept tharTlable status as we irrterwj to discover true reasons why. after seven years of full-time unpaid servits in prison, our DireLXor Geoff Smith was suddenly excluded. escx)rted to the gate and, in a ZOOM call on 22 December. Deputy Governor Cathy Panigel told us he 111 never be allowed to work in the prison again.. The official informatKm so far provid&J is irwtsistert with our evidence aThJ appears to rely on claims the exclusion follJw8d nUMerS 0)rmS about Geoff Smrth's [j(l. indudirvJ: he represerrted a threat to se(xirity both in arKI outsKJe the prison he made ccxitradi(aory arKJ misleadirKJ representaliorts about BESTE tX)rtacts with senior management when ifrterv1ewj by GOVeK Panigel two days prior the exdusion he failed to (A>serve ts terms of a MeKyar1Urn of UrKlerstandirvJ with the prison BEST had no real c(xitacs with senior management and was. therefore, runnirKJ a rogue operation in the pris( BEST 'had started to eX(d ils remif, arxl after eXdLxIi him, t1 two GoveryK)rs told him exdusion was rN)t final and remained subject to review. but he made attern to irtct them All the evidence we have indicates ttHt mne allegations have any basis in fact. Our eVIde unmistakabty wints to the corKYusion tsse allegatnS were concctted purely in order to show Geoff Smith in the poorest tM)ssible liglrt lo make his exdusion from the prison seem necessary - the true reason, we belie. beiNJ kepi secret because Justi Ministry knows Ihe exclusion involved wrongdoir¥J and has used its powers lo keep this (x)nceakd arKI so prote itself and the officrals invofved from a(tountabilty. thereby placirNJ itself above the law rather than adhering to its primary duty of uphokliNJ the law. AttIM)h we cannot be rtain this is ryht. it is onty corMSusi(M we are able to reach in light of the wnsiderable body of evbderKe available to us. which explains wtry we mt only believe Ihese are well-founded nms, but also thal lY way to establish truth is for the Just Secretary to authorise an open arKI irKlepeThJent assessment. as requested by Dr Rosena Allir Khan MP in May 2025. FUrthenore. we believe that. if Ihe Just Ministry is honestly conVind our 1X)nMS are misplai%d, it s)uld wekome this as the onty way to reffK)ve these Welfnded concerns and sFK)W they are right.
Eight months after he was exduded from the prison. Geoff Smith was awarded an MBE for °outstanding SeNis. to HMP Wandsworth in the King's Birthday Honours List in June 2024 - raising t1 question: if off icial records indi(xted tIse allegations against him were true, why did tt due diligence pre(%dirMJ this trK)fKr fail to dete(X this? In its °substantive reSnSe. to the Subject Attess Request Gecrff Smith submitted on behalf of BEST in January 2024 venTj 1 September - 30 December 2023 relatirKJ to four members of staff, the Justi{% Ministry refused to disclose anhIng about BEST on the implausible grourKls it was 'a third partf, shared lY 42 wcyds frfyn arKMymised emails by onty two members of staff (dearty the top two Govemors), daiming said we would review [the exclusion] and the decision wasnl final" {althoLMJh neither Gecrff Srnith nor anyorp else in BEST ever received this message), and a harKlful of heavily blacked out emails, as shown belthy: Sent To: SubJ•rt Fr¢m: Sent.. Wednesda To: October 25 ?071 9 l! p Subiert". ImiMxtalKe'. High We will devote this annual rep(Jt to explaining the eviden that came to light in 2025. fdlowed by the case for BEST which Geoff Smith prepared when on 28 May his MP Dr Rosena AlliTrKhan wrote to the then Jusiice Secretary, Shabana Mahmod. reqIng what we regard as the only way in whid) our ¢X)ncems about the exclusion and biased and, we believe. lawlessly secretive way in which ttr Justice Ministry has ttrwarted our attempts to shed light on tIse matters - narrÉty. an independent and transparent assessment to establish ttr truth. 1. Significant events in 2025 Governing Governor's Andy Davy's email to the BEST Trustees - 17 February 21Y25 On 17 February 2025 in reply to an email from the BEST TrUStS seeking clarty about why BEST had been exclLKled from the prison arKI whether it might resume its a¢Xivities there, we received a short email from the current GovemirwJ Govemor ArKly Davy, saying: Ihere were a number of cOnmS with Geoff and his behavK)urslaLtions both in and out of the workpla.
here was also some un(%rtainties as to the exaLX work that was being done in line
with the Memorandum of UrKlerstandirKJ", arKI
here were several recorded rlI$ with Geoff and the Deputy GoverrK)r to. discuss
cOnms. but this eventually led to him being exduded."
We believe Govemor Davy wrote this in good faith relying on prison redS (x what he had been
lold by his Deputy Govemor Cathy Panigel, arxl comment as follows:
We doubt the accuracy of the first claim because, on the day of the exdusion in his last
hour in the prison Geoff Smith went to Se(xJrity Department to see rf they could shed
any Iht on why GoverrM)r Panigel had ordered his exdusion. Tf*re he met the most
senior officer in Security who invited him into his crffi and explained that, earlier in the
day. the top two Governors had ordered the exclusion because BEST'S contract with
ttrE prison °dS rKrt allow BEST to work in the prtson". which they fourKJ particularly
Conrning as rt was a weakness swe to be picked up in a fOrtming securty audit
due shortly after Daniel Khalrfe's es(w. Hcwever, clause 2 BEST'S ntract with the
prison sirroly requires BEST staff and volurrteers to be security-vetted key-trained
before working in the prison, raisiThJ the question: rf securty a)ncems were the real
reason, why did Ihe Govermrs WIK) ordered the exclusion fail to say anything about this,
instead tellir¥J Securty BEST'S corrtra(X "dS not allow it to work in the prison.?
We doubt a(xuracy of ts se(d daim because there rEver was a °MeMoralum
of UThJerstandirKJ" in Wren or ary (Aher fomi. and no previous COnmS or uncertainty
about Ihe exact work beiTh3 dorE in lir£ with" this Memorandum or BEST'S off la1 remit
had been repted to Geoff or anyorE else in BEST: he routinely submttted monthly
details of his aixivities to the Equaliiies DepartnEnt and was always entirely transparent
in his activities.
We doubt the accuracy of the third daim because there was only one netIng between
the BEST Dire(Xor arKI Deputy Govemor Panigel, prior to which he was for the first and
only time throughout his years working al the prison lod
has advised me that his Freedom of InfoTmation reqtS and appeals to the Miniry of Justice have failed to provide darty on t reasons for exdusion. Mr Smith has provided me wilh the followiNJ reasorE for exclusion cited in internal rerds, which l understaThJ are krM)wn via sources including ts INlepeTrJent Monitoring Board arKI the current HMP Wandsworth Govemor. Andy Davy: Being a security threat inside a1 outside the prison Lyir¥J to the Deputy Govemor OperatirKJ without a cx)Mection to senicK management Exceeding the remit of the role Failing to respond to an irniitation to review the exdusi( The existen of rnuftiple meetirKJs with the Deputy Govemor before tIE exclusion to discuss it Mr Smith strongly denies all alations and believes rea)rds May have been altered to justfy exclusion. Mr Srnith has pointed lo his award of an MBE in June 2024 for ServIS lo foreKJn national prisoners - wÉth letters of support from senior Ministry of Justice and royal figures- suggesting no 1X)rns We raised duriry due diligen. As Sh, Mr Smith has raised his belief with me that his exclusion may be linked to polit1 pressures. l understarKI that Mr Smith is rerned that his exclusion amounts to mis(X)nduct within the prison servi(%. l appreciate that these are serious allegations and I would be thankful rf. as a result. a transparent and irMpendent assessment of Mr Smith's case wuld be provided as soon as possible. Tre is no doLA)t, regardkss of the exdusK)n, Mr Smith and his organisation have provided an invaluable Servi to the Prison arxl its inmates and it is in the interesl of all involved parties to see an objective ar fair resolution to these IXIrMS. l am very grateful for any assistan you could provide with this Iss. Best wishes, Roserkq Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP Labour Member d Parliaffent for TootirYJ On 30 May. Geoff Smith sent a representalion of BEST'S case to Dr Allin-Khan's Offi asking for it to be forwarded to the Justi Secretary and her team dealing with this. Unfortunately, as the person handling the case at Dr AllirFKhan's off ic£ was then on leave, it was not forwarded and the Just Ministry has not yet seen this. thoLKJh the d(Kument is reproduced urKler 3 below. A copy of Lord Timpson's reply to Dr AlliTrKhan's is shown below.
12
Lord fimpson's reply to Dr Rosena AlliTrKhan's email
On 17 June 2025 Lord Timpson, the Prisons Minister, replied lo Dr Rosena Allin-Khan's email as
follows:
Lord fimps
Mnster of State Justi
Ministy
of Justice
Dr Rosena AlhIFKh MP
House of C
1.4 Articles in Private Eye and Inskle Tlme
Private Eye No. 1661- 31 October - 13 November 2025
WANDSWORTH PRISON
. LocJ
Inslde Tlmo188ue 318 - December 2025 16 Banned from helping prisoners - 2. response to Lord fimpson's letter Lord Timpson has cleaty reld on inf0mtK)n given to him by the Justice Ministy. repeating the official line summarised by tr official spokesperson who told Private Eye: Trse caaims are mpletely false." This cannot. however, be seen as an adequate response to the eviden set out in this report. which clearty irKlicates thal our Corrrs are reasonable and fact-based. Nor, in a courrtry govemed by the ru of law, can it be seen as proper prcx%dure to dismiss this relying on ltr off icial claitn Ihat il is "(x)rrpletely false." Contrary to what Lord Timp9)n says in his letter, the
Justi Ministry has stlouS1Y wJrK)red, ratsr than 7horoNY nsK1ered", concems raised by BEST, as set out more fully in Annex A bek)w. Let it also be stressed that norE of the eVIder in Annex A the prison's °substantive response. to the Subjert Actess Request our DirectcK smItted in January 2024 or the subsequent appeal to the Justi Ministry. whth yielded nothiThJ meaniryful on the basis of what we believe to be the spurious grounds that the law gives it effectivety total powers of secrecy to answer ary of the questions raised in Annex A. We SLth3gest this is also at variance with the two most fundamental principles of natural law - namely. that r¥) one sh)uld be a judge in their own case and that justi demarnls a fair hearirKJ of the otIr side. As Lord Timpson's letter says the services °offered" by BEST were bel "delrvered by amther organisation contractualty engaged to do so.. we draw attention to the faix that BEST also had a corrtract wtth the prison, and the serVIS we °cAfere(r for seven years were delivered under a ¢X)ntract no less valid than the other contrart to which he refers. BelieviTh3 t1 eviden ¥UkI point ary reas(YHble person to same COrlusIOnS we tAve reathed, and that a we114ounded suspicion of c(Ner-up woukl othemise cause lastirwJ damage to the Justi Ministry's repUtiOn. we ask ministers responsible for upholding our o)untry's law and safeguarding its juslice system to recmsider the matter a1 authorise an indepeThlent and transparent assessment of the case, as reqsted by Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP in May 2025. 3. Annexes A and B Annex A sets out ttr eVIder prepared by Ge(rff Smith in suppcyt of BEST'S case, explainiThJ why we Ihink: a) the MOJ'S version of events carnot be seen as reliable. fair. and truthful b) the MOJ has ex(wded its lawful powers by layirwJ claim to selyecy as a pretext for hiding wrongdoirKJ of which it is aware c) the has failed to answer questior6 of fact whth dearty go the heart of this case d) the allegations against Geoff Smith were rtt)t made in good faith e) the true reason for his exdusion was tIHt was blamed lor Ihe high number of asylurn daims in HMP Wandsworth, and the MOJ has done its utmost to keep this cOnaled. krM)wirwJ that letting in daylight would lead to cOnseqr it thought better to avoid. Annex B is a singltrpage diKument settirKJ out BEST te&irnonials. Annex A Concerns about the exclusion of BEST from HMP Wandsworth in October 2023 Backgrou1 Allegations made in support of 8EST's exdusion 2.1 Geoff Smith lied to the Deputy Govenv l BEST had no (x)nne(*ion with prison management 2.2 BEST'S Ix)ntra¢# did rK)t allow it to work in prison 2.3 BEST was a(Xing beyoThJ its remit
2.4 Geoff Smith represented a threat to security in the prison 2.5 Geoff Smith represented a threat to securty outside the prison BEST'S Subject A¢xess Request (SAR): COnmS relatIj lo the prison's Substantive Response and the Justice Miniw's halling of our appeal Relevance of the threat to wilhyraw Geoff Smith's keys in a)22 corlusK)n 1. Background On 26 October 2023. after workiThJ in the prison for nearly seven years. my keys were abrupty withdrawn and l arnl BEST were pernnently exclLKled for reasons that were rK)t made clear. On 17 January 2024. 1 submitted a Subject AsS Request {SAR) f(x "all emails, faxes, letters and other forms of communication ... that refer to Geoff SrnFth or BEsf from 1 September to 30 Dernber 20Z3 relatiThJ to four EMberS of staff, irludIT3 the theTrGoveming Govemor, Katie Pric£, and Deputy Govemor. Cathy Panigel. As the prison's Sthstanlive Response failed to yield any meaningful informat40n. l appealed to JLtICe Ministry. but this shed rK) furtlr light on the InfonatIon requested. However, throL¥Jh various other SoUrs. iluding the Independerrt Monitoring Board arKJ an email received by orE of BEST Trustees earlier this year12025] from the current Goveming GOVer. Andy Davy, we have been able to find out sKJnificantly more about what prison rerdS irKlicaie as reaS{S for the exclusion. We, the BEST Trustees and l. are deeply Conrned this new infomation swS prison records indrcate that. prior to the exdusion. I committed varK)us acts miscond. irlUding lying to the Deputy Govermr. acting outside BEST'S remit, that BEST had no connection with senior managemerrt arKI, therefore. rK) legitimate pla in prison. ar¥J that I represented a threat to se(xirity °both in arKI out of the workplatx". I regard these alleglOnS as oirtrageous and believe tre is eviden to disprove them. and appeal for the appropriate authorities to irniest3ate: a) the integrty of records ¢)ntainIng these allegations b) whether they can honestly be nsidered to have been made in good faith, and r8qU8St c) their official withdrawal and correction of all sh reu)rds, arxl d) BEST'S reinstatement in HMP Wandsworth. We are also colemed by tfE Justi Ministry's halI1J of the case, assumirNJ sweepirKJ powers of secrecy over the information reqLSted in BEST'S SAR. These ccYTrms are also eviden based arKI, we believe. suff lenty serN)us to merit investigalion into wttsr Ministry arted properfy and impartially e.g. as aLrthorty for non-disctosure it cited parts of the Data Protection Act 2018 headed "Legai Professional Privi" which applies only where "a duty of confidentiality {is] owed by a professiorkgl legal adviser to a ¢Inf. and refused to disdose any infomiation aul BEST on the grounds it was a party." Ac)rdinglY. this appeal exterKls to clEd(irKJ wIr the Ministry's intery)retation L4 the law was sound, and non-disck>sure was daITrd prq)ety or for purposes of CCKK*alment. A few weeks after Daniel Khalrfe's escape from HMP Wandsworth in September 2023, Govemor Cathy Panigel arrived as its new Deputy GOVerr. prison nditior6 were. as Confir by HMIP in April 2024, sufflentlY p(K>r lo merli an rgent n(Aification" callirvJ for it to be put into special
rneasures. Given the scale of the task facing senior management, it is notable that she chose to prioritise eXcldIng me after neaty seven years of full-time work in the prison. during which BEST establisfEd a good repution with staff a1 prisorErs alike, enjoyiNJ consient support from senior management. inding the previous two Goveming Govermrs, Jeann Bryant a1 Graham Barrett. Govemor Panigel. was clearly the drivirvJ force behind the exdusion, ordered rny exclusion within jusl 4 days tr arrival. The speed with which she carried this CMJL her lack of consultation with prison staff (my understandiro frcKn several SoUrS is Ihat th refused to discuss anythirNJ about me or BEST with anyone, senior mark2gement irtlLKled. ottr than Katie Price). the perfundory procedures preceding the exdusion, call into q10n whetFEr she reached this decision independently. based on knowledge acquired in her very first days at Ihe prison. Had she consulted staff, she would have realised Ihey overwhelmirKJly cyposed the idea - as shcmn ty their reaction following the exclusion when. in t9 words of one GoverTK)r who (xught the general mood. it came as °devastatiNJ rEws°, aNI was seen as harmful for mrale. eff iciencaes aTrJ general prison welfare. From aGtual events. li seetrE likety she arrived hawrKJ been previously tasked with a) exdudir¥J BEST and myself from the prison ASAP. and b) maximisirg secrecy to {x)nal the true purpM)se of the exclusion (see 4 below), and the ntroversia1 aryl dubious manrEr in which it was executed. As I have only rentty leamed of the gravty of ltr allegations against me, evidently meant to make the exclusion appear rSssary, I wish to make clear that l always tried to serve the prison's interests and mairrtain its se¢)Jrity to best of ry abilty. rK)r do I have ary reason to think I did anything that coukl have gtven rise lo reasonable suspicion l ever acted other4vise. Accordingty. I regard allegations that I may have intended to harm the prison, undennine tts securty, d1ve its senior management. or exed BEST'S remit as (mrtrageo8. In explaining the case background, I think it is esserrtial to draw attenti¢M to the wider, politi1 ImplitIons. Daniel Khalrfe's escape in September 2023 and the publiaty it attracted raised awareness of PCXJf a)tKlitions not (Mly in Warhjsworth. bLrt also otlEr prisons. which was unwelcome to the Conservative govemment then in power be¢2use of the forthcoming general elertiox). I mention this because tt lends plasIbilty to my hypothetical assumption the order for my exdusion came from a higlFranking political Sou, ralPer than HMPPS: rf true, Ihis would explain why order for my exclusion was never challenged and, lower down the (x)mmand chain, was seen as a duty to be carried out, regardless of legal cx)nstraints. the injustice (aused. and the harm to both prison staff and prisoners - secrecy beirg paramount to exclude scrutiny and the risk of light ever falliThJ on t1 d10% rnetlK)ds involved, r#)t to mention legal implitionS and their potential cor6equerKS. As part of this appeal. I would, tIrefCffe, like to ask the appropriate aullK)rities to establish wtrere Ihe order lor BEST'S exdusion originated and sujgest it will be in the public intere* to make clear wtEttEr Justice Minisby: a) acted lawfulty, property a1 imwtalty b) was InfInd by a desire to protect its (Ywn lleagUeS aNI pr(h%dures from scrutiny c) interpreted the law rightty in good faith, and d) adhered to its primary duty of upholdir¥J the law. Allegations made in supp<t ol BEsfs eXcluSk from HMP Wandsworth
I lied to the Deputy Governor thout BESTS ConctIOnS wlth senior management I BEST had no such connections and was a rogue operatlon in the prison FollowirvJ my meetirKJ with GoverrK)r Panigel on 24 Cttober 20¥J, she rerded that I dairned connections with senior management which, havirKJ cCked. she fourKI to be false. That morning I was for the first time after workirKJ there for nearly seven years. thked out of the prison and without being allowed to withdraw keys. let in by CM Brian Mansaray from the Securty Department, who also escorted me to the meetirwj. This was only time l Govemor Panigel and l am nfIdent the followirwJ account of qStIonS and my answers is accurate: When she aske(J WIK) Trnanaged" BEST. I tokl Steve Johnstore was ihe Govemor responsible for BEST When she asked what I did in the prison, I described rny work and said l also wothed closely with CFwlaiw and the Equalibes Department: the words wort8d closely bvilh have been ilalicised because l am sure ttrK)se are the words l used Regarding the first poirrt, in her ernail to me dated 25 Odober 2023. Govemor Panigel wrote: %teve LX)nfim)ed to me t(Ilay that he has rKJt been managirM3 BEST - this will be reviewed ... . This was surprising: Steve Johnstone was not onty the GoverrK)r responsible for BEST. but also always very supportive both of me and BEST. In previoLLS year I met with hiffl to discuss my corKerns after a meeting wrth a Goverrjor wh) threatened to ensure my keys were withdrawn il I repeated Irtain aLXs whith I reither did, rK)r was even pable of doiTh3 (see 4 below). It would have been inappropriate for to ask for ttis et1Thj had Steve Johnstone not been the Govemor for BEST, nor would have seen it as appr(wriate to meet privately with rne in his office [then on Trinty] to discuss this. Nor am l aware of anything prior to my exclusion to indicate Steve Johnstone stopped being the Govemor for BEST: as the Equalities Department keeps records of such matters. and these appear rKX to have been cy)nsulted, verification would be possible by cx)ntacting the Department aThJlor verrfying with Steve Johnstone himself. Regarding the second point. in her letter of 7 NoveffA)er 20Z3 to BEST'S lawyer George Hepbume-scott, Govemor Panigel wrote: W also told me that was rnanaged by our Diversity and Inclusion Lead along with chaplairw- again when I checked with them. they denied managing him or the Servi that provided." As well as beirKJ sure I said l worked dosely with. Equalities arKJ Chaplaincy, there would be no reason on this or ary other cKcasion for me to use such plainly inappropriate laThJuage as to say I was °Ma2ged. by Pauline Singfield. who was usually referred to as Manager of tTr Equalities Departmert. rather than °our Diversty arKI Ilusion Lead.. Pauline had no Trkgnagemert involvemerrt whatsoever with me BEST. which can also be verrfied by askirKJ her. Regarding Chaplaincy, I worked especialty dosely with entire Chaplaincy Team throwJlN)ut my years in the prison. They generously allowed IT to work in their offices on Heathfield and I usually shared the smaller Chaplairry Off with Ibrahim Lewis. then Head of Chaplairw at HMP Wandsworth. I clearly recall a short Convers*1 wilh him speaficalty aboLrt Govemor Panigel's email to me dated 25 OG%ober 2023: neither then nor at ary other time did he mention she had contacted him to ask if I was °managed by Chaplaiw. I have also disCed my exdusion with t1 main members of the Chaplairw team and has mentioned Govemor Panigel ntaCted ttrrn to ask rf I was "manage(r by ChaplairKy. which l think th8y would have mentioned had she done so. Furthermore, any etNuiry whether they "manage(r me would, I think, have o)me as a surprise, eliciling a response to the effe that it was mt tsir furrtion to "manage" me. l therefore ask for darity on the following: a) who in ChapLqincy did Govemor Panigel (x)ntaGt ?
b) how did she phrase enquiry . c) how did they answer ? The impression given is that. as a result of due diligence. she established that l answered her questions diS1K)rstty. bringiry to Iyht )methi[J i[XplICablY overlooked over the previous seven years. namely that BEST had no connection to prison's senior managemenl and, therefore, no legitimate pla in the prison. As words I never uttered were put into ry a1 Govemor Panigel must have known th would portray as dIStrnest, I would like to krTh why she put these words into my mouth. Also, rf these enquiries were. as str clairr£d, simpty to firKI out more aboul BEST, why did order Security to lock me out of the prison before Str had even me ? AItFK)ugh I had only one meetiTh3 of about 20 minutes with her, Govern Pane1'S a)nduc towards me was incomparably more hostile than anything I had previoty experien(d frorn senior managerrEnt (subje¢X to 4 below), forang me to rlUde Ihai. even before tirj rne, her intentions were hostile and she was lookiFYJ for a reason to exdude me. In an email of 18 February 2025 to one of BEST Trustees, the prison's current Governir¥J Govemor, Andy Davy. Wre. Yhere were several re(x)rded meetings with Geoff and the Deputy Govemor to discuss the rns, but this eventualty led to him being exdLMJed.° No, there were r1 "several recorded meetir<Js°: ttrre was only one. as deslyibed above. indicating an0ttrr inac£uracy in prison re(ths. Govemor Andy Davy also wr(Xe. I1re were also some unrtainlIeS as to the exact work that was being done in line with MemorarKlum of UnderstarKling." Again, no: there was no Memorandum of UThJerstarKlirMJ, netther in written or any otrEr form: everything I did was transparent and in line with BEST'S SLA with the prison. IndJ1j ItiOn of Foreign Nationals twi a week and regular attendance at ACCT reviews, all urKlertaken in response to calls from CMS. Safer Custixly. SOS as well as unrfornd and healthcare staff with the full kTh)wledge and approval of senior management. After the lockdown ended, l aSso started submitting monthty reports of all ffly interventions to the Equalities DepartffEnl and never received negatNe feedbad or any suggestion I was exceeding BEST'S remii or operating in unauthorised areas. ACrd1ngty, I would ask for se rec(yds to be checked as t1Y appear to (J)ntain material errors of fart which led to foreseeable arKI extremely damaging nseqUenC*S for BEST, myself arKI, above all, the prison. If InauracieS are found, I respeLtlulTy suggest it will be necessary to establish how and why they found their way into records that are meant to be honest, arate, and fact-based. 22. BEsf8 contract did not allow it to work in the prison In a o)nversation that took pla in the prison's Sealrity Department with CM Mansaray slK)rtIy after 5pm on 26 October 20Z3. he told me that eartier that day Goveming GoverrM)r Price arKJ Deputy Governor Panigel told him ttrEy had deoded to exclude me because BEST'S servi Level Agreement did rx)t allow me to work in the pris. I went up to Ihe Security Department be(xuse, when leaviTh3 the prison. my tiThJerprirrt was r reco3nised and l (x)uld not return my keys to Ihe key pboard in Ihe usual manner. W COnmS about Govemor Panigel's intentions were fvrther hehted by ts tore of the email I reived when, after sending her a pY of BEST'S SeNice Level Agreement. as requested at our meeting, she replied without addressing rne by name, saying Ihis is very out of date ... this will be reviewed and you will be infOed Onrrf the seNices can <thinLE.° In view of all that tkqd happened over ttrE previous two days, I realised my exdusion had been ordered.
Aware these were my last moments in ttr priscm, I went to Securty Department to see rf Ihey could shed light on a srtuation I could not understand. I found CM Brian Mansaray alone in the end off 112: after askir¥J lo come in arvj sit down. h8 explained that, al a meeling earlier in the day, Governors Pri and Panigel lold him I was io be exduded for the reason gNen above. I will expaThl on this conversatK)n as l thi it raises questions that call for ar6wer. I said rf BEST'S corrtract was ttrE reason for the exdusion. obvious solution was to chaTr3e tl wording so it aLrthorised me to work in the prison i.e. reflected what had been happenirKJ for the last seven years. CM Mansaray shrugged. as rf this was not a decision lor him. He werrt on to say tfEre would soon be a rnajor security aLKlit whmth was sure to dete(a prison was allowing someone to work in the prison in a way that was auttr%)rised in the SLA: allhough CPA Mansaray did rM)t say so, I think he was repeatirYJ wlwt two Govemcxs had told him, intelIng to highlight BEST'S contract as the reason for t exclusion. Shortly after this - and I remember it clearly because I was surprised that l just blurted it out, unable to hide my i1gnan. I said: "I8 given you guys a lot of IR'S over the years, inclLKling some really important stuff." CM Mansaray was silerrt for a moment, a1 tIn said: "I know.. The fact CM Mansaray was so candid ab(rt whal GoverrK)rs Pri a1 Panigel told him lends credence to my belief Securty did rKrt see as a threat to prison security, but a regular sou of Intelligen i.e. an asseL a liability. It prison re(x>rds now irKlicate "a number of nCernS about Imy] actionslbehaviours both in and OLrt of tt Workpla., there must have been a major change in prison records and I think it reasonable to ask for clarification what caused this. because l am not aware of any reason why the Security Department or aryone else would have any reason or credibl8 evidence to suggest I was, or migfrt bec(xne. a threat to security. Acrd1ngty, l ask for it to be established wtrn prison records SLqrted Inditil¥j I was a threat to security. aThJ on what eVIder ? l am not askiNJ io kn(Nv whal prison re(x)rds say, as l UlerStand that. for entirety prcper reasons, this is r#)t dkmed: but l ask for a check on the followi. a> that such rec£)rds exist b) the plausibilty of t evide8 on which such re(x)rds are based. armj c) whether t1Y (xn rEStty be considered as having been made in gcK)d faith. If the recorded cOnmS first appeared in or after September 2023. 1 suggest it shoukl also be established what explains S(h a sudden a1 radi1 change from my previousty good record to a record indicating my ndUL% gave rise to numerous cOnmS t)oth in a1 out of the Workpla." To be clear about the wordirMJ of BEST'S servi Level AgreemenL dause 2.1 provides: °Any of the provider's staff arKI volunteers w1 wish to (x)me lo the pris more than three times, not induding the use (rf swalnegal visils. will all go throwjh vetting and attend eitlEr key training or security aWaresS iraiThThJ before the Se1 (x1mn*ns, or before they join the service if it has already commered.° As I was security vetted and key trained in earty 2017. 1 would like to krKM why Governors Pri and Panigel told CM Mansaray that BEST'S contract was the reason tor my exclusion ? Ttr most pffiausible answer appears to be the fflost Obvio$, naty. it never (xcurred to Ihem I would Ikqve oaxsion to talk with anyone in Security ever again. lei alone discuss the reason for my exclusion with one of its most senior and respected offirS
unaware he was disclosirKJ highly sensitive irrformation I was never meant to ktK)w, CM Mansaray shared this information with me because he trusted me enough to do so aThJ saw reason rK)t to Gov8mors pri arKI Panigel said ts coftract was the reason for my exclusion because tIEy realised Seojrity. better than anyone. kW I was not a threat to security, so they tIK)ught Ft better to indicate to Serity that my exclusion was in no way securty related AcrdinglY, l ask for explanation why, on 26 Oct(¥er a). Govemors Price and Panigel told prison Security I was being excluded beuse BEST'S (x)rrtra(X did rKX allow rrE to work in the prison, arKI trKJW this can be recorlled with records indi(xting my "actionslbehavFours" represented numerous Serity (x)rM%ms both in and outside ts prison. 22. BEST was "acting beyond their contracttwl remit" This was the reason given to tr IrKleperxlent MonitorirMJ Board by forrner Goveming Governor, Kakn'e Price viz. page 22 of the IMB repjrt published in August 2024: bttpLOL- Prior to this, no one in BEST had any idea this was reason tor exclusion. As the IMB report indicates, the BEST Trustees arKI l are rM)t alore in thinkirg BEST'S exdusion was ill- advised aThJ harmed the prison, as irKlicated below: he amount of support and (xre provided to FNS [Foreign Natiorkqls] dropped Signrfintty as a direct resuh of prison's decision to tenninate the BEST contrad in October 2023. T Board had rx)ted its admiration for work of BEST in last year's report and there was widespread surprise and disappointment at ts decision, whith the Board was told by the Governor was because Ihey were a(irNJ beyorKI their IntracUaI remit.. An eXtrenlY valuable and effecaive resou. admired by men and staff, had been lost to tIE prison.. The allegation BEST was also"actirvJ beyond its remif raises fr questions, namely: in what way(s) was BEST )nSidered to be "artiThJ beyorKI° its remit ? why dKlnl GoverrK)r Pri or anyone else in prison ever tfy me ol this ? why did she tell ttrE IMB this was the reason for the exdusion, without mentioning the surety weightier reason that l also posed a threat to prison secuiity ? even if true. would this justty immediate with(Irawal of my keys and permanent exclusion ? Everything I did in the prison was undertaken in response to requests from senior management, CMS, SOS. Saler Custody, or- in Infreqnt siiuations of emergew - Chaplaincy or HeaftlThre: also, all my interrfentions were reported to the Equalities Department each month senior management were kept fully informed and, prior to O¢Xct)er 2m, swportive and positively en(XJuraging. including Goveming Govemors Jeannie Bryant and Graham Barrett, George Pugh, Rob Grimes, and Steve Johnstone (the latter three beirKJ fOner Govemors responsible for BEST). and George Clay. who was fomierty Govemor for Foreign Nationats. As re)rdS indi¢2te so mary different (x)ncerr6 about my conduct, l am forced to wonder rf it was ttK)ught the sheer number of allegations woukl make the txse f exclLKling me seem overwhelmirKJ - it beiNJ perfediy well-krTh4n that, in all truth, there was r¥) jUstrf1tIOn. I represerted a threal to securty inside the prison
In his email of 18 February 2025 lo BEST Trustee Isobel Smallacwibe, the rrent Govem1j Governor at HMP Wandsworth. Andy Davy. said had 1)een advised . . there were a number of n{rns with Geoff and his behavioursladions tth in arKI out crf the w(xkp1a." This was the first tirne anyone in BEST knew of COnrrE relating to my cOndt In the workplace", and I will resporKI to this before ConswJerir daims l also represerrted a threat to extemal security. I think the fact that l always did rny best to serve prison security is evKJerKxd by rry reputation with prison staff, and reflected by frequery (rf Intelligere Rep(xts I sent to the Security Department via Mercury. These IRS related to matters that were clearly important for prison safety and wellbei, oaS1or11Y IndlIr Intelligen about staff ccfftption. As it is neSSary to spell this out in answer to the very serious allegations atM)Ut my conducl, rf prison records indicate I represented a threat to internal security, I wish to make clear: I think these allegations have w factual tourKlation whatsoever. rK)r do I believe there can be any credible eviden to support them Subject to the eXoi0n only of Goverrx)rs Price arKI Panigel. l am rM)t aware of anyo working in the prison who tIK)ught l ever had been or might ever become a security threat Of those in Ihe prison who contacted me afterwards. all expressed astonishtnerrt al my exclusion e.g. Ihis is devastating news. (Head of HealtIre), "a massive blo (one of the Govemors). "disgustiThJ" (a CM), °gc>-smackiNJ° (anolfEr CM). "devastating ... lyou have been] a fountain of knowledge [wtK)] eated vital links between unrformed staff aTKI some of our vulnerable priSOr£r (Safer cst(ty) al the end of the week before my exdusion. in a private conversation after IndtIonS with one of the longest-serving arKI most reSpted Govemors, why did he tell me tK)W appreciative staff were of my servIs, nClUdIng by urging nE to "keep it up.: this Govemor had renty [and perhaps was stilq headiThJ the pils,$ anti-drug strategy and, had there been C{KmS my 7)ehaviouralons. posed a threat to prison securty, he would have known and tt seems I[On1Vable he would have spoken to me in suth temis outside the prison. l am not aware of anyone w1 gives ary eden to these allegatioThs: instead, they are co[erned ttE exclusion slThed the sinister side of prison lrfe, indudir(J contempt for the law atKI doakirwJ irregular procedures in secrecy to hide the tnrth and shield tse involved from scrutiry all)Untab11ty On the handful of 0(asionS Security spoke to about c¢XlMs, ltr£y were minor e.g. thal on one (caSIon in 20191 passed through a gate and faled to lock it. or when l inadvertently entered the prison wrth a passport. aThY in 2020 [1 CM John Bailey, one of the prison's Irst respected unrformed offirS working in Security, suspeded a CD I had brought in for a prisoner on an ACCT May have corrtained drugs: which of (x)urse it did arxl, after making it abundantly clear that everything brought in for prisolrS to pass security checks and p throLKJh the X-Ray machine, was satisfied ry actions were certainly fcK)lish, bul in way fflalicious or a continuitwJ threat to securtty. I honestty believe that whenever I had ary dealing with Securty, they saw as truthful arKI well-intended, not as a security threal. I represented a threat to security "outslde the workplace" In a letter daled 7 November 2023 to IFE pro Lkmo lawyer acting for BEST. Deputy Govemor Panigel wrote: .1 was made aware by our security departrrEnt of several nrnS arourKI Geoff Smrth crossing lirS between support inside the jail and bourmlaries orK prisoners were released. This inclthed lleCtIng prisorers in his own vehide to drive them to vari(K destinations On released amongst ott*r wider seClIty rern$ whith l am Th)t prc4)osing to share or disclose to you as a &d paty."
11 is rM)table she made no mention of the securty threat that, as I discovered for the first time in February 2025, 1 supposedly also represented to security inside prison, which seems odd as such a threat would rK)rmalty be seen as huher-risk Ihan a threat to se(writy Outside the prison. AIttrK)LNJh G¢)vermr Panigel alldeS to °several rNms. I failed to d)serve proper boundaries "once prisoners were release(r, she ntior lY one which I will briefly describe to sW tt circumStanS ar¥J tW it was resolved by the SecLffity Departrnent immediately after it occurred. When leaving the prison on evenirvJ in qLion, I witnessed a Fated exchange between gate staff and a prisoner who had just been released witlv)ut his prq)erty, which was still inslde the prison. This was clearly developiry into a daJerouS situation. as staff kept telling him to go away and come back next day, which he COU rttx afford to do as he had a travel pass only valid on the day of release. As this was about to lead to Violer and rwlless arrest al the gate. I said I would go back into ts prison, reVer tf pr(pety, and briFYJ it out - whh I duly did. However, he had to get to Clapham JUrtIOn to ¢2tch a train but had no idea to gel there. so I drove him to the station. Unbeknown to me at the time. driving him in my car was a breach of security procedures a1 I was. entirely properly, reported ar¥J interviewed by Securty - splfICally. Martin Lavender arKI CM Mansaray. They wanted to know rf my invofvement with the priSorf had been pre-arranged (it had not), and Whettrr I was paid or received ary benefit in retum (I was not, either on this or any other 0S1>. Securty explained the prr prolxlures viz. prior pemiission from tIE Duty Govemor is needed when helping a prisoner Ihrough the gate. like this. and in emergery a prisoner can ask to spernl a further nbght in the prison. I promised to observe the proper prOdureS in future and, as Securtty allowed me to continue working in ttr prison, this indicates they apted I told the truth arKI trusted to keep my promise, whith l of )urSe did. Why trEn did GovemcK Panigel (ite ths incidert, resolved by Security months earlier and deaty seen as historical, as the only eviden SUPPMINJ her claim I represented a threat to securty outside the prison ? As she sought to leThl weight to this by referriTr3 to 'other wider security corterns" she was not prepared to share with 'a 3rd party", this gives rise to further questions: why didnl the Security Department, on this or ary other OlOn, ever raise any of these "other wider rns. diredty with ? why do I have not tr slightest idea what any of tfÉse "Cthr wider conms. migm be? rf I truty represented a threat to prison security, why she tell serity the reason for my exclusion was that BEST'S contract dtd mt all(M me to work in the prison ? In view of the gravty of the allegations against n, l think it is reasonable to call for honest answer to these questions. My C(yrnS are deepened by the way in which tl Justi Ministry imwsed effectively total secreGrf on the information requested in my SAR. citiNJ dearty inapplicable provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018. Regrettably, I must make it dear I have no (thIdee in the integrity of prison records and cannot recover my nfIden until it is irKlependenty e*ablished whether these very serious allegatior6 against me were fair, fa¢Xual and made in gocxl faith. BESTS SAR: concerns relating to HMPW'S Substsntive Respon8e and the Justlce Ministry's handling of BEST'S subsequent appeal Over /. of the document purpcxting to be EubstantNe Response" to ry SAR in January 2024 was the tsxt d the last email I sent from my prison acUnt before being exclLbJed on 26
October 2023. Ttr rest comprises just over 40 words from avIlY redacted emails which, though arK)nymised, were dearly between Governors Price arKI Panigel. As concerns I raised about Substantive Response in corresporKlerM% wilh the Justi Ministry were clearly crf fundamental Importan to appeal. but entirely ignored, I repeat some of the more important corterns raised by wirKJ from the email I sert on 17 May 2tr24: .1 am doubtful that the words disclosed in ttrEse emails aC[aIety reproduce the text of the emails sent al the time and, as part of this appeal, I want the authenticty of whai was (xmtained in the "substantive response. to be checked by a trustworthy independent source. such as HM Inspectorate of Prisons .... because it appears evident to rne and would, I believe, be equally evident to any reasonable aThJ impartial person, that HMPPS BriefirKJ & CorresponderM% Team has cooperated with prison authorities in HMP Wandsworth in seeking to keep the requested infornialh)n secret, a1, as I think tl MOJ is biased in favour of HMPPS Briefing & corresponden Team, I wish to stress the need for this check to be independent, a1 wouSd ask the MOJ to re(xJse itsett of any involvement in this because, regrettully, I think it would do all it possibly (an to suppc¥t HMPPS Briefing & corresponden Team arKI the prison autlKKities, aiming to keep secret anything that might stK)w Ministry, HMPPS Briefing & Correspolence Team, or the prison aUt)ritIeS in anylhing other than a favourable light. l also request that, as part of this irKlependent check. it slN)uld be establislEd whetfEr. after 580 pm on 26 OctcA)er 2023, Deputy Goverrnr Panigel al/or Goveming Govemor Katie Pri emailed me via my prison alxount - otf. milh2 k . I request this because correspondence and remarks SL)seqLntly made by Deputy Govemor Panigel suggest that. after ordering my exdusion. she invited me for further discussion with a view to allowing rrE back into Ihe prison to resume the work I was doing as the Director of BEST prior to exclusion. but I failed to resporKI: lThever. I never r1Ved any such invttation a1 am curious as to the reason: should it transpire SIE an(Vor Katie Price emailed me via k after exdudirKJ they must trk2ve known I Uld receFve ary email sent to that address, arKI r&]uest. a) these emails to be fully disdosed, as they dearty relate to me perSorlly. and b) an explanation of why ary emails were sent to this address. as it musi have been ktTh)wn I c(xJk1 rK)t receive them.. In a ZOOM call with ItrE BEST Trustees on 22 December 2023. Govemor Panigel said: eoff will never be allowed to work in the prison again." I firKI il impossible to re0)rlIe this remark wilh the corrtents of the Sthstantive Reskx)nse. sgeStI3 she and Govemor pri made dear to me the exclusion was r#X final and remained open to review. but I never responded. I therefore request for ttr above ()ecks to be (2rrd out to make sure the text disclosed in the Substantive Response is identical to ttrE lext LX)ntained in the emails the Govemors sent at the time, and for clarification of Pk)w I was. supposedty, infonned their decisicx) io exdude me was rK)t final and remained open to review. 4. Relevance of the threat to whhdraw my keys in 2022 In early March 2022 GoverTh)r Mark Whynwnt (now retired). (2lled me into his office and, in the presence of Custodial Manager Sonya Hunter. WIK) remained silent throLKJhout, told me I "need lo remember W'S in ctrkqrge rourKJ Ire°, arKI then afxused me of "contacting the authorities in Budapest and the NCA, causirKJ me ry colleagues a great deal of extra worlf. adding Y you do this again, I personally will make sure you have your keys witlKlrawn, is that dear V
As there was not a shred of eviden to support this allegation, arml I saw it as an attempt to bully me, I tried to raise a grieva but was tdd l o)uld not because I was not employed by HMPPS. l eventually saw Deputy GoverrM)r at the titne, Mia Motter, wtrm) said she thoLKJht this was a °misuThJerstandir¥J° arKI felt GoverrK>r Whyrnent arKI I slK)uld gel tCyJetIr to resolve the matter, after which it seerrEd pointless to pursue. so I dropped it. This was the irIdent about which I spoke with Steve Johnstone as GoverrK)r reSpObIe for BEST, as mentioned in 2.1 above. The most like explanation for this ffetIng - irKleed. t1 only explanation I can find - is that its true purpose was to wam rne to stop supportirNJ prisoners with asylum daims. because saw asylum as a hindran to his work extradits0 and deportations. If this was his irrtention, he would have been disapwinted to see that l igrK)red his waming and (X)ntinued supportiTh3 prisorers in this way. I mention this because it may have led to nsequenS, Con1vab undertaken with like-mirKled lleagueS. of whith I will IVer krthy. What I do kW is that a colleague in OMU subsequently tokl me that. WTrn the Latvian authorities flew over to 0)Ile a prisOr and could not as he had clairned asyluffl, the poli were"absdutely fuming. aThJ, though I have no idea WIK) this prisorer was or whether I was in any way involved in the case. their arKJer was aimed personally at rne. In these murky circUmstans. I feel it is appropriate to make dear: a) asylurn is a lawlul hurnan right arKI an any (Kganisatt)n wOrj wltn POren Nationals in a British prison is bouTrJ to erKx)urrter b) my involvement in asylum was invariabty confined to supportiThJ those who asked for help preparing t1r daim arKI submitting it to the prison's Home offi Immigration Team c) I worked closely with ttE Immigration Team and always enjoyed good relations wtth them d) rf I had denied this support to prisoners. this would have been unlawful and. I believe. ¢xJntrary to the rK)ffns a1 traditicffis d Briltsh justi e) work on asylum tcK)k appreciably less than 5% d my time. as can be verified by t monthly reports I sent to the EqqlitIeS Department surnmarising my interrfentions l) I was never paid in Mo[Y, kind or otIrWIse for this or any ottrr swport I gave prisorrS g) I never encouraged prisoners to daim asylum or did anything to promote asylum h) aware bad faith may have been attributed. I stress that l always cperated in gcx)d faith Asylum has lorNJ been a c(xknersial area of the law. But ts legal right to claim asylum is universal and does rM)t exdude people held in prison. Brttish or loreign. No matter how strongty some may oppose rt. only parliament has the right to change the law arKI, rf this fundamental principle is ignored, the rule of law ceases lo exist. threat is particularly dangerous if it comes from within the ju#1 system, especially when secret pr(dureS be used to conal inwroper corKluct arKI law interpreted to serve"iTrhouse" interests, sh as hidiThJ wroThJdoirKJ and presenting tr£ outcome as due prosS. With this said, it is onty realistic to accept that some working in the justice system dislike prisoners clairning asylum and, for what it is wc¥th, l also think the law on asylum needs to be tightened. Furthermore. rf some thowJht I caused r[lICatIOnS this leads to, they may also have seen my exdusion as desirable. However, I was disthargiryj my duty property arKI in accordano WFth the law. Nevertheless, some may have thwght my exdusion would yield sh advantages it jtrfled whatever mear6 were needed to achieve it and, knowirrfJ there was rK) genuine reason to exdude me, sought to r0cl 0)rmS that would make my exclusion appear a) necessary, and b) the out¢X)me of proper procedures and due prsS - believirwJ all would be well so lor¥J as the truth was kept secret amng tke few treded to know."
However understandable trt may be. the poirt I wish to stress is that the law cannot be over- ruled. especially by people the justice system relies on lo uphold it. It would have been possible to tell rrE to have further dealings with asylum and refer all such cases to the Immigration Team, bul this was not done. Even nirE mcxtths after the exdusion, the IMB reported that BEST was seen as °an exlremely valuable arbd elf&#iv8 resourc8. adrnired by men and staff tbut was rK)w] lost to the prison-. It is striking trK)W the arrNal of Governor Panigel marked a change from years of support and gcx)d relations with staff aThJ senior management to such SLKlden and catastrophic deterb0rat1( ttk3t with immediate effec# it led to my exclusion and termination of all BEST activities, I[ludirKj prison scKial visiis by our team of two dozen volunteers. ft is, thus, feasible some in the juSte system may have seen my exdusion as desirable, especialty when lIS had to be urgenty freed to cope with OVerOWd1ng crisis: to tIEm my exclusion rnay have appeared Yhe right thing to do". arKI any injusti(* caused to a small prison charity was more than off-set when compared to tr bigger picture" and the pra¢Xi¢21 benefits that - l think wrorYJW - were expected from this. To anyone unfamiliar with prison realities - lack of such familiarty is partty what indines me to think the order for my exclusion originated from a high-ranking polttical sour, rather than HMPPS - the number of asylum daims at HMP Wandsworth rnusi have been sfxxking viz. at Ihe t1£ of my exclusion. there were just over 140. equivalent to nearly of prison lI-Spa. Subjee( to eviderKE not yet provided, this still appears to rne the rnost plausible reason f(x my exdusion from the prison - and is, indeed, onty ratM)nal explanation l (xn fsnd. 5. Conclusion tt is hard to uThlerstand why, rf the allegalions against me are true, I was awarded an MBE in the King's BirtfKlay Honours list in JU 2024. 1 was JratUlated in a letter from Darne Antonia Romeo DC8 at the Justi Ministy arKI received a card trom Phil Copple, DG General Operations HMPPS, and Cobnel (Ret'd) John Boyd OBE wrcrte expressing Her Royal Highness the Priroess Royal's view that the award was knll deserved re(wnition of Imy] oulstanding services to Foreign National Prisoners.. I rnention this as it seems unlikely the due diligen predir¥j the award failed to dete(x ary indication of my allegedly improper (X)r¥JU. or that suth hh-rankln9 and welkinformed people would have written in these temis had they krKJwn of them. I would ask those who have read this far to bear in mind how easy it can be to preserrt evidence in a way that points to a seemiT¥Jly Unanerable corKausion. particularty when records are secrel and all thal is known of the allegations against which l am defeThJing BEST and myself derives from sources such as the IMB report and a short email to a BEST TnJste8 from the prison's current Goveming Govemor. In this (xse. for example. it would be possible to ask the Security Department to prepare a report on me, making dear it was meant to show me as a threat to security because my exclusion was (x>nsidered desirable reasons that (x?d Th)t be disdosed - (. if disclosed, had to be kept secret: thus drawing attention from ts person commissiIng the report and making it seem Security had produced it independently arKI in urgent response to ts c(cernS raised. It therefore seems nSSary to establish when prison re(x)rds first indicated I represented a threat to securtty and, rf re(X)rds were later redacted or altered, to establish when such changes were made. Furthernre, do prison records <x)ffoborate claims of °several incidents. I
represented a threat to sewrity outside the priwn? If concems about my °actionsft)ehaviours° first appeared shortly before or at any time after my exclusion. it seems reasonable to ask". a) what made my gocKI record over ts preCIng seven years SLKldenly so bad it lled for instant dismissal and pernnent exdusion Irom pris ? b) can it honestly be said records casliro me in this light were made in good faith ? As evidence of BEST'S arKI my (wln previously g¢x)d reputation in ts prison, l attach testimonials by Jeannie Bryarrt, former GovernirKJ GOverr al HMPW, George Pugh. former Residential Govemor at HMPW arKI Govemor for BEST. Su)tt Deao)n, CustcKlial Manager at HMPW. and Ibrahim Lewis, fonner Head of Chaplairy at HMPW, rx)w Head (A Chaplaincy at HMP Pentonville - ptease refer to Annex B. Finally, I would like to stress that I will extend full Ix)operation to any investigation into Ihese matters and do all I can to ensure, in our prisons as elsewhere, the law is upheld and Justi is defended. 32. Annex B BEsr i. Staff testimonials for BE5f, HMP Wandsworth I have worked in HAIP Wandsworih since 2018 and had noihing bui P()silivefeedbackfrom si< andpri.soners. We in Chaplain(y derive greal enjoymemfrom having BEST a workingparlner and I trnly hope your charity goesfrom slrengih io .slrength and cun realise ils hugely beneficial lential - Ibrabim IEwis* Head of Chaplaincy HMP Wvandsworth, February 2023 Thankyoufor ihe work iha¢ YOIJ and BEST do... il's so imporlanl andadds a richness and hope lo the very difficuli life offoreign nationals living wiihin ihLS environmen¢. I wish you all ihe very besi for the fviure. and ihai you go from slreng¢h io .%trerth - Jeannie Bryan( Governing Governor 2017-19 Your service is invaluable lo ihis vulnerable cohort ofprisoners. J know (hai ihey appreciate your independence. J¥n4r holi.slic approach io iheir wellbeing, and your drlensive knowledge boih pri.son and Home Office ProcSe5. The pre.sence ofwur service as an independent advocate i.s e,ypecially valuable, providingforeign nalionalprisoners wilh a,sense ofhupe und support, which i,$ all too often in shorl supply - George Pugh, Residential Governor HMP Wandsworth and fornierly Governor responsible for BEST typrofessional opinion a Cttstodial Alanager on a re.Yidenlial unil. Is thai BEST is offering an cellent ,gervice lo ihe Foreign NalionalpopulaiIo and hf0rnI ways lo overcome issues t11 may affeci iheir work. for arample. langt4age and culiural barriers. prison regimes andpolicies. and the occasiop1 incidenls......." CM Seott Deaeon, Custodial Manager C Wing
Prisollers, and former prisoners, testimonials for BEST I can'¢ speak highly enough of whai B£ST have donefor me. Their help has been uncondilionul und wiihoui ihe assistance of BEST I would have been relurned io prisorL The work ihey do i.¥ immeasurable. Without ihem and their aid. Ihe world would be a lesserplace... Jobn BEST treaf us wilh respecl- Mariusz BEST has stayed wilh me and ihai has meant every¥hing - Said When I seewu I see J hope - Osama They don't nuh w. they lislen lo what we say arnl then they gei ihings done- Robert Mayyour charity Itveforever l Bianca Bosni4 relative of a forn)er pri8oner In our a41¢ure if)vu sayyou'll do somdhins 1¢ s imporlanlwu keepN)w word.. when BFST.say.¥ they'll do it. they do it.. it means o lot- Damian BEST Trustees". Isobel Smallac(XT Christine Julian-Huxley Caroline Ayerst The Trustees declare that they have approved tl* Tiustees. Report atK)ve. Signed on behalf CA Ihe Trustees Christine Julian-Huxley, Tntee 2911 January 2026
BEST Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals in HMP Wandsworth
REGISTERED CHARITY NUMBER: 1177625
Independent Examiner’s Report Financial Statements for the Year Ended 5 April 2025 for BEST Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals in HMP Wandsworth
1
BEST Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals in HMP Wandsworth
CONTENTS OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5 APRIL 2025
| Page | |
|---|---|
| Independent Examiner's Report | 3 |
| Statement of Financial Activities | 5 |
| Detailed Statement of Financial Activities | 6 |
2
BEST Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals in HMP Wandsworth
INDEPENDENT EXAMINER’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEES OF BEST BEFRIENDING AND SUPPORT TEAM FOR FOREIGN NATIONALS IN HMP WANDSWORTH
In accordance with the Charities Act 2011 Chapters 1 and 3, I report on the charity’s financial statements for the year ended 5 April 2025, set out on pages 5 and 6.
The respective responsibilities of trustees and examiner
Section 130 (1) The charity trustees are responsible for the preparation of the accounting records kept in respect of the charity, which are sufficient to show and explain all the charity's transactions, and which are such as to disclose at any time, with reasonable accuracy, the financial position of the charity at that time.
In applying Section 133, the charity's gross income for the financial year ended 5 April 2025 did not exceed £250,000, therefore the charity trustees, in respect of that year, elected to prepare a receipts and payments account, instead of a statement of accounts under section 132(1).
In applying the Section 133 (b) the charity's gross income in for the year ended 5 April 2025 did not exceed the accounts threshold as specified in section 133 (account and statement an option for lower-income charities), in accordance the charity’s trustees consider that an audit is not required for the year ended 5 April 2025 under section 144 (2).
It is my responsibility to:
-
Examine the financial statements under section 145,
-
to follow the procedures set out in the general directions given by the Charity Commission (under section 145(5)(b) of the Charities Act), and
-
to state whether particular matters have come to my attention.
Basis of independent examiner’s statement
My examination was carried out in accordance with general Directions given by the Charity Commission. An examination includes a review of the accounting records kept by the charity and a comparison of the accounts presented with those records. It also includes consideration of any unusual items or disclosures in the accounts, and seeking explanations from the trustees concerning any such matters. The procedures undertaken do not provide all the evidence that would be required in an audit, and consequently no opinion is given as to whether the accounts present a ‘true and fair’ view and the report is limited to those matters set out in the statement below.
3
BEST Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals in HMP Wandsworth
Independent examiner's statement
In connection with my examination, no matter has come to my attention
-
which gives me reasonable cause to believe that in, any material respect, the requirements:
-
to keep accounting records in accordance with section 130 of the Charities Act; and
-
• to prepare accounts which accord with the accounting records and comply with the accounting requirements of the Charities Act
have not been met;
or
2. to which, in my opinion, attention should be drawn in order to enable a proper understanding of the accounts to be reached.
Signed
________ Emma Ekwegh 10 Allesley Road Olton Solihull B92 7ED
11 January 2026
4
BEST Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals in HMP Wandsworth
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5 APRIL 2025
| 5thApril | 5thApril | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unrestricted | Restricted | 2025 | 2024 | |
| funds | fund | Total funds | Total funds | |
| INCOMING RESOURCES | ||||
| Incoming resources from generated funds | ||||
| Voluntary income | 137 | - | 137 | 28,607 |
| Investment income | - | - | - | - |
| 137 | - | 137 | 28,607 | |
| RESOURCES EXPENDED | ||||
| Charitable activities | ||||
| Resources Expended on Charitable Activities | - | - | - | 13,660 |
| Support costs | 271 | - | 271 | 15,220 |
| Governance costs | - | - | - | - |
| 271 | - | 271 | 28,880 | |
| NET INCOMING/(OUTGOING) RESOURCES | (134) | - | (134) | (273) |
| RECONCILIATION OF FUNDS | ||||
| Total funds brought forward | 189 | - | 189 | 462 |
| TOTAL FUNDS CARRIED FORWARD | 55 | - | 55 | 189 |
5
BEST Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals in HMP Wandsworth
DETAILED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5 APRIL 2025
| 5thApril | 5thApril | |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 2024 | |
| INCOMING RESOURCES | £ | £ |
| Voluntary income | ||
| Donations | 60 | 28,236 |
| Gift aid | 77 | 371 |
| Sundry | - | - |
| 137 | 28,607 | |
| Investment income | ||
| Interest on savings | - | - |
| - | - | |
| Total incoming resources | 137 | 28,607 |
| RESOURCES EXPENDED | ||
| Charitable activities | ||
| Help to Detainees and Mentees | - | 13,287 |
| Post-release support | - | 259 |
| Prison Visitor Expenses | - | 114 |
| Membership fees | - | - |
| - | 13,660 | |
| Support costs | ||
| Bank charges | - | - |
| Salaries | - | 14,000 |
| Website fees | 271 | 603 |
| Printing | - | - |
| Office expenses (incl. Postage and stationery) | - | 188 |
| Sundry | - | 429 |
| 271 | 15,220 | |
| Governance | ||
| Accountancy fee | - | - |
| Other professional fees | - | - |
| - | - | |
| Total resources expended | 271 | 28,880 |
| Net (expenditure)/income | (134) | (273) |
6