Esr Trustees Annual Report 202>26 BEST. Befriending and Support Team for Foreign Nationals In HMP Wand8worlh Registered Chwty No: 1177625 AlthowJh BEST'S ac*ivities 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 nUMer￿S 0)r￿mS 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 ifrterv1ew￿j by GOVe￿K￿ Panigel two days prior the exdusion he failed to (A>serve ts terms of a Me￿Kyar￿1Urn of UrKlerstandirvJ with the prison BEST had no real c(xitac*s 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, t￿1 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 allegat￿nS 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 beli￿e. 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 ￿n￿ms, 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. FUrthe￿nore. we believe that. if Ihe Just￿ Ministry is honestly conVin￿d our 1X)n￿MS are misplai%d, it s￿)uld wekome this as the onty way to reffK)ve these Wel￿f￿nded concerns and sFK)W they are right. Eight months after he was exduded from the prison. Geoff Smith was awarded an MBE for °outstanding SeNi￿s. to HMP Wandsworth in the King's Birthday Honours List in June 2024 - raising t1￿ question: if off icial records indi(xted tI￿se allegations against him were true, why did tt￿ due diligence pre(%dirMJ this trK)fK￿r fail to dete(X this? In its °substantive reS￿nSe. to the Subject Attess Request Gecrff Smith submitted on behalf of BEST in January 2024 ￿venT￿j 1 September - 30 December 2023 relatirKJ to four members of staff, the Justi{% Ministry refused to disclose an￿hIng 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. req￿￿Ing 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 tI￿se 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 TrUSt￿S 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 cOn￿mS 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 r￿lI￿$ with Geoff and the Deputy GoverrK)r to. discuss cOn￿ms. but this eventually led to him being exduded." We believe Govemor Davy wrote this in good faith relying on prison re￿￿dS (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 I￿ht 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 °d￿S rKrt allow BEST to work in the prtson". which they fourKJ particularly Con￿rning as rt was a weakness swe to be picked up in a fOrt￿ming 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 "d￿S not allow it to work in the prison.? We doubt a(xuracy of ts se(￿d daim because there rEver was a °MeMora￿lum of UThJerstandirKJ" in Wr￿en or ary (Aher fomi. and no previous COn￿mS or uncertainty about Ihe exact work beiTh3 dorE in lir£ with" this Memorandum or BEST'S off ￿la1 remit had been rep￿ted 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 n￿etIng 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 lodnstitiEncy. tt is my urKlerstandiTh3 that Mr Smith was excluded from the prison in October 2023, shortly after tfE arrival of a new Deputy Govemor followiry the Daniel Khalrfe escape. Mr Smith has advised me that his Freedom of InfoTmation req￿tS and appeals to the Mini*ry 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 re￿rds, 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 a￿1 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 al*ations 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 ServI￿S 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 S￿h, Mr Smith has raised his belief with me that his exclusion may be linked to polit￿1 pressures. l understarKI that Mr Smith is ￿r￿erned 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 irM*pendent assessment of Mr Smith's case wuld be provided as soon as possible. T￿￿re 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 IXIr￿MS. 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 so. Mr Smith vrns invited to discuss his Mr Smrth. as you TKts. has rw4uested w}frx￿￿tsOn atKxrt his exdusion unthr Freedcrfn of lrforniatm Act and via a SW access re￿￿$t (SAR). The Muitsty of Justice has reSpo￿d to all these rewests arKI corKlucted a revitsv of the SAR decision. It has been dea ewained to Mr Smilh that data protection legislation prohibits disdosure of Ihe personal infcKmation of third pa￿es. He was also infonned of his n￿t to corn￿￿n to InfcYmab"(xi I assured that Mr Smith's CLynplaints have be￿ tr￿r￿Y consKlered by officials. If he remans unsatisfied, it is OP￿ to hirn to seek fixlher legal advice. Ministw for Prisons. Probakn and R•duclng R•oifending 1.4 Articles in Private Eye and Inskle Tlme Private Eye No. 1661- 31 October - 13 November 2025 WANDSWORTH PRISON . LocJrttng immigraiion applications.- or ￿l(l)d￿W sep* ices if ihey prescnl risk Deputy governor Cathy Panigel had been ai seLUriiy. saf¢guarding or compliance or are no the prison just four days when shc decided Geoff longer suithbl¢ for thc prison." was workÉng ixryond his remii and constiiuied a Cthlrsought further explanation ihrwgh security ri%k. Aft¢r having him throw'n OUL she fTee(lom ofinfomwiivn requests. but the called him w a mecting and ￿ld him $0. r¢stKinses came bAL.k h￿VIlY redacted and The decision was greeted with widespread offercd no clue. He is appealing for a trdrÈsparYni shock and dismay. The Eye has seen emai15 view of the decision btrt is ktng stonewalled. from 5cninr 5￿ff who wrotc io iell him he had '￿V¢￿ countless lives" BEST is not the only inde￿￿￿1 prison 'C￿led vital Itnks beiween unifnrmed and some of our charity ￿ hav¢ had its services rejected xross Tr¥ulnerable prisoneT5" and 'laken #n immense the PTison e$tatr. Th¢ ClinL which has helsKd amount uf pr¢45urc off froni-line prison staff... reduce reoffending wnong ihc ihousands li all ofTihe back (bf Ihisl own funding and time-. hos trained in culinary at)d hospilality skill& is A report publish￿ hy the IndeF*ndeni fighting to keep the of its pri50n restaurants Monitoring Board said.. 'The amount of support and care provided io FNS [foreign nationalsl dropped %ignificanily as a direct result of the prison's decision to lerminate the BEST ¢ontrdCt... The Board had nntcd its admiration for the wi)rk of B Tr.ST Trn18st year's rewrt and ihere was widespread %urpris¢ and disapwinlment at th¢ decision.- HMP Wandsworth was heavily critlLis¢d after thc escape of Daniel Khalife while awaiting trial for spying for Irdn in 2023. A Unl(*ked which recrui*d highly 4ualified In￿ PTisons. lo￿ its Ministy of Justice contract I￿ ycar. And earlier (his year MOJ axed TesioY81iv¢ justicc charity Sycamore Trrc. saying it did Mi MLY Tniernati(mal stsndaTd& despite re4eaTch showing ii had a major imw on pris(M￿ anitudes. With prisons ai bursting ￿InL Tnmates kept in Lells and excluded from meaningful activities and reoffending rates continuing io climb. the Moj can hardly afford to tum down chariiy. Inslde Tlmo188ue 318 - December 2025 16 Banned from helping prisoners - 2. response to Lord fimpson's letter Lord Timpson has cleaty rel￿d on inf0m￿tK)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 Cor￿rr￿s 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 st￿louS1Y wJrK)red, ratsr than 7horo￿NY ￿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 s￿mItted 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 otI￿r 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 serVI￿S 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 COr￿lusIOnS we tAve reathed, and that a we114ounded suspicion of c(Ner-up woukl othemise cause lastirwJ damage to the Justi￿ Ministry's repU￿tiOn. we ask ministers responsible for upholding our o)untry's law and safeguarding its juslice system to recmsider the matter a￿1 authorise an indepeThlent and transparent assessment of the case, as req￿sted 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 cOn￿aled. krM)wirwJ that letting in daylight would lead to cOnseq￿r￿ 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 Backgrou￿1 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): COn￿mS relatI￿j lo the prison's Substantive Response and the Justice Miniw's ha￿lling of our appeal Relevance of the threat to wilhyraw Geoff Smith's keys in a)22 cor￿lusK)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 pern￿nently exclLKled for reasons that were rK)t made clear. On 17 January 2024. 1 submitted a Subject A￿sS 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 De￿rnber 20Z3 relatiThJ to four ￿EMberS of staff, ir￿ludIT￿3 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 JL￿tICe Ministry. but this shed rK) furtl*r light on the Info￿natIon requested. However, throL¥Jh various other SoUr￿s. i￿luding the Independerrt Monitoring Board arKJ an email received by orE of ￿ BEST Trustees earlier this year12025] from the current Goveming GOVe￿r. Andy Davy, we have been able to find out sKJnificantly more about what prison re￿rdS irKlicaie as reaS{￿S for the exclusion. We, the BEST Trustees and l. are deeply Con￿rned this new infomation s￿wS prison records indrcate that. prior to the exdusion. I committed varK)us acts ￿ miscond￿. ir￿lUding 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 alleg￿lOnS as oirtrageous and believe t￿re is eviden￿ to disprove them. and appeal for the appropriate authorities to irniest*3ate: 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 s￿h reu)rds, arxl d) BEST'S reinstatement in HMP Wandsworth. We are also col￿emed by tfE Justi￿ Ministry's ha￿lI1￿J of the case, assumirNJ sweepirKJ powers of secrecy over the information reqL￿Sted in BEST'S SAR. These ccYTrms are also eviden based arKI, we believe. suff ￿lenty serN)us to merit investigalion into wt*tsr 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 ¢I￿nf. and refused to disdose any infomiation a￿ul BEST on the grounds it was a ￿ party." Ac￿)rdinglY. this appeal exterKls to clEd(irKJ wI￿r the Ministry's intery)retation L4 the law was sound, and non-disck>sure was daITr￿d 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 GOVer￿r. prison ￿nditior6 were. as Confir￿￿￿ by HMIP in April 2024, suff￿lentlY 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 eXcl￿dIng me after neaty seven years of full-time work in the prison. during which BEST establisfEd a good reput*ion with staff a￿1 prisorErs alike, enjoyiNJ consi*ent support from senior management. ind￿ing the previous two Goveming Govermrs, Jeann￿ Bryant a￿1 Graham Barrett. Govemor Panigel. was clearly the drivirvJ force behind the exdusion, ordered rny exclusion within jusl 4 days t￿r arrival. The speed with which she carried this CMJL her lack of consultation with prison staff (my understandiro frcKn several SoUr￿S is Ihat th refused to discuss anythirNJ about me or BEST with anyone, senior mark2gement irtlLKled. ott*r than Katie Price). the perfundory procedures preceding the exdusion, call into q￿￿10n 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 t￿9 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)n￿al 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 re￿ntty leamed of the gravty of ltr￿ allegations against me, evidently meant to make the exclusion appear r￿Sssary, 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, d￿1ve its senior management. or ex￿ed BEST'S remit as (mrtrageo￿8. In explaining the case background, I think it is esserrtial to draw attenti¢M to the wider, politi￿1 Impli￿tIons. 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 pla￿sIbilty 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￿ d￿10￿% rnetlK)ds involved, r#)t to mention legal impli￿tionS and their potential cor6equerK*S. As part of this appeal. I would, tI￿refCffe, 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 a￿1 imwtalty b) was InfI￿n￿d 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 Con￿ctIOnS 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 re￿rded that I dairned connections with senior management which, havirKJ c*￿Cked. 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 q￿StIonS 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 I￿rtain 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 °Ma￿2ged. by Pauline Singfield. who was usually referred to as Manager of tTr￿ Equalities Departmert. rather than °our Diversty arKI I￿lusion 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 disC￿ed my exdusion with t1￿ main members of the Chaplairw team and has mentioned Govemor Panigel ￿ntaCted ttr￿rn 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)r￿stty. 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 a￿1 Govemor Panigel must have known th would portray as dIStr￿nest, 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￿ Pan￿e1'S a)nduc* towards me was incomparably more hostile than anything I had previo￿￿ty experien(*d frorn senior managerrEnt (subje¢X to 4 below), forang me to ￿r￿lUde Ihai. even before ￿￿tir￿j 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. Wr￿e. 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 r￿1 "several recorded meetirrds 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. Ac￿rd1ngty, l ask for it to be established wtr￿n prison records SLqrted Indi￿til¥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 U￿lerStand 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￿ evide￿8 on which such re(x)rds are based. armj c) whether t1￿Y (xn ￿rEStty be considered as having been made in gcK)d faith. If the recorded cOn￿mS first appeared in or after September 2023. 1 suggest it shoukl also be established what explains S(￿h a sudden a￿1 radi￿1 change from my previousty good record to a record indicating my ￿ndUL% gave rise to numerous cOn￿mS t)oth in a￿1 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 w￿1 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 aWare￿sS iraiThThJ before the Se￿1￿ (x1mn*n￿s, or before they join the service if it has already commer￿ed.° 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￿$, na￿￿ty. 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 offi￿rS 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. k￿W I was not a threat to security, so they tIK)ught Ft better to indicate to Se￿rity that my exclusion was in no way securty related Ac￿rdinglY, l ask for explanation why, on 26 Oct(*¥er a)￿. Govemors Price and Panigel told prison Security I was being excluded be￿use BEST'S (x)rrtra(X did rKX allow rrE to work in the prison, arKI trKJW this can be recor￿lled with records indi(xting my "actionslbehavFours" represented numerous Se￿rity (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 Signrfi￿ntty 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 ￿Intrac*UaI remit.. An eXtren￿lY 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 f￿r 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 Infreq￿nt 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 fO￿ner 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¥) jUstrf1￿tIOn. I represerted a threal to securty inside the prison In his email of 18 February 2025 lo BEST Trustee Isobel Smallacwibe, the ￿rrent Govem1￿j 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 COn￿rrE relating to my cOnd￿t 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 Intelliger￿e Rep(xts I sent to the Security Department via Mercury. These IRS related to matters that were clearly important for prison safety and wellbei￿, o￿aS1or￿11Y Ind￿lIr￿ Intelligen￿ about staff ccfftption. As it is ne￿SSary 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 eX￿oi0n 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 HealtI￿re), "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 c￿st(￿ty) al the end of the week before my exdusion. in a private conversation after Ind￿tIonS with one of the longest-serving arKI most reSp￿ted Govemors, why did he tell me tK)W appreciative staff were of my servI￿s, ￿nClUdIng by urging nE to "keep it up.: this Govemor had re￿nty [and perhaps was stilq headiThJ the pils￿,$ anti-drug strategy and, had there been C{K￿mS my 7)ehaviour￿a￿lons. posed a threat to prison securty, he would have known and tt seems I[￿On￿1Vable he would have spoken to me in suth temis outside the prison. l am not aware of anyone w￿1 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 t￿se involved from scrutiry all￿)Untab11ty On the handful of 0(￿asionS Security spoke to about c¢Xl￿Ms, 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 Ir￿st respected unrformed offi￿rS 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 prisol￿rS 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 ￿n￿rnS arourKI Geoff Smrth crossing lir￿S 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 seC￿lIty ￿r￿ern$ 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 all￿deS to °several ￿rN￿ms. I failed to d)serve proper boundaries "once prisoners were release(r, she ￿￿ntior￿ ￿lY one which I will briefly describe to s￿W tt circumStan￿S ar¥J t￿W it was resolved by the SecLffity Departrnent immediately after it occurred. When leaving the prison on evenirvJ in qL**ion, I witnessed a F￿ated 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 da￿JerouS 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, re￿Ver tf* pr(pety, and briFYJ it out - wh￿h I duly did. However, he had to get to Clapham JUr￿tIOn 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 a￿1 I was. entirely properly, reported ar¥J interviewed by Securty - sp￿lfICally. Martin Lavender arKI CM Mansaray. They wanted to know rf my invofvement with the priSor￿f had been pre-arranged (it had not), and Whettr￿r I was paid or received ary benefit in retum (I was not, either on this or any other 0￿S1￿>. Securty explained the pr￿r 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 prO￿dureS in future and, as Securtty allowed me to continue working in ttr￿ prison, this indicates they a￿pted 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 O￿lOn, ever raise any of these "other wider ￿￿rns. diredty with ￿ ? why do I have not tr￿ slightest idea what any of tfÉse "Cthr wider con￿ms. migm be? rf I truty represented a threat to prison security, why she tell se￿rity 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(y￿rnS 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 (thIde￿e 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 ac￿Unt 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, a￿1, 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, a￿1 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 & Correspo￿lence 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 a￿l/or Goveming Govemor Katie Pri￿ emailed me via my prison alxount - otf. milh2 k . I request this because correspondence and remarks SL*)seqL*ntly 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 r￿1Ved any such invttation a￿1 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 perSor￿lly. 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)r￿lIe this remark wilh the corrtents of the Sthstantive Reskx)nse. s￿geStI￿3 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 (2rr￿d 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 I￿re°, 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 tCyJetI￿r to resolve the matter, after which it seerrEd pointless to pursue. so I dropped it. This was the ir￿Ident about which I spoke with Steve Johnstone as GoverrK)r reSpO￿bIe for BEST, as mentioned in 2.1 above. The most like￿ explanation for this ff￿etIng - 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 ￿nsequen￿S, Con￿1vab￿ undertaken with like-mirKled ￿lleagueS. of whith I will I￿Ver krthy. What I do k￿W is that a colleague in OMU subsequently tokl me that. WTr￿n the Latvian authorities flew over to 0)Ile￿ a prisO￿r 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 circUmstan￿s. I feel it is appropriate to make dear: a) asylurn is a lawlul hurnan right arKI an any (Kganisatt)n wOr￿￿j wltn POre￿n 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 t￿1r 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 a￿1 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 Eq￿qlitIeS Department surnmarising my interrfentions l) I was never paid in Mo[￿Y, kind or otI￿rWIse for this or any ottr￿r swport I gave prisor￿rS 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 con￿al inwroper corKluct arKI law interpreted to serve"iTrhouse" interests, s￿h as hidiThJ wroThJdoirKJ and presenting tr£ outcome as due pro￿sS. 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 s￿h advantages it j￿trfled whatever mear6 were needed to achieve it and, knowirrfJ there was rK) genuine reason to exdude me, sought to ￿r￿0cl 0)r￿mS that would make my exclusion appear a) necessary, and b) the out¢X)me of proper procedures and due pr￿sS - believirwJ all would be well so lor¥J as the truth was kept secret amng tke few tr￿eded to know." However understandable tr￿t 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 juSt￿e system may have seen my exdusion as desirable, especialty when ￿lIS had to be urgenty freed ￿ to cope with OVer￿OWd1ng 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￿ pre￿dir¥j the award failed to dete(x ary indication of my allegedly improper (X)r¥JU￿. or that suth h￿h-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 Unan￿￿erable 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 commissi￿Ing the report and making it seem Security had produced it independently arKI in urgent response to ts c(￿cernS raised. It therefore seems n￿SSary 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. Furthern￿re, do prison records