A female prison officer who became pregnant with an inmate’s baby after starting a relationship with him while he was on overnight release has avoided jail.
Sarah Barnett, 33, who worked as a member of operational support staff at HMP Sudbury in Derbys, spent two nights with Scott Taylor after he was temporarily freed from the Category D prison in August 2023, a court heard.
Taylor then stayed with Barnett following his full release days later, remaining unlawfully her home after he was recalled to jail in early September.
00:05
02:24
Derby Crown Court was told he was finally arrested on October 3, 2023 – with Barnett revealing to police she was six weeks pregnant with his child.
She subsequently admitted they were in a relationship, and said that while she knew it was ‘frowned upon’, claimed she was ‘struggling with her mental health’.
Barnett admitted misconduct in a public office during an earlier hearing.
When she returned for sentencing on Thursday, she was handed a two-year community order, and told she must attend 25 ‘Rehabilitation Activity Requirement’ days.
+2
View gallery
Sarah Barnett, pictured on Thursday, who pleaded guilty to misconduct in a public office after allegations of an illicit relationship with a male inmate from HMP Sudbury in Derbyshire
+2
View gallery
Former prison officer Sarah Barnett, 33, (pictured) pleaded guilty to misconduct in a public office at an earlier hearing
TRENDING
Switzerland falls silent to remember inferno victims
13.8k viewing now
The Truth about Beard Meats Food and his ‘unconventional’ lifestyle
65.6k viewing now
New video shows ICE shooting victim Renee Good block road FOUR MINUTES
3.6k viewing now
Judge Shaun Smith told Barnett that taking into account the reduction she would be due for pleading guilty, it would be ‘pointless’ to impose a prison sentence because it would only total around two months.
He added: ‘While initially it was my view that this is something so serious that a custodial sentence has to be imposed, a court has to be very aware at the end of the day that when it comes down to what the likely length of that sentence might be, as to whether or not in all those circumstances, the best course of action is to impose a community order.
‘You have complex needs and issues that need addressing.’
Philip Cowburn, prosecuting, earlier told the court that at the time of the offending, Barnett worked with inmates at HMP Sudbury ‘effectively in a trainer/supervisor/instructor role’, with the responsibility of supervising prisoners within the prison’s internal workplaces.
He added: ‘That varied from working in the industrial cleaning department, the gardens, and the carpentry workshop.
‘Prior to her suspension, she was mainly stationed in the industrial cleaning workshop where she had the responsibility of supervising groups of prisoners who would deep clean areas around the establishment.
‘It is said by the Crown that Scott Taylor was one of those prisoners supervised by her between July 24 and August 8.
‘He was released on August 12 on resettlement overnight release.
‘Following another release on August 23 – his full release – he was recalled on September 15.
‘At that time, he was staying with the defendant and remained unlawfully at large within her address until he was arrested on October 3.
‘When Scott Taylor was arrested, this defendant drove away from the address and was stopped by police officers.
‘At that stage, she denied she was in a relationship with him, and denied knowing he was at her address.
‘She returned to her address and disclosed at that stage she was six weeks pregnant with his child.’
Mr Cowburn said Barnett was subsequently arrested and questioned, and gave a prepared statement in which she admitted the pair were together, and had allowed him to stay with her – despite knowing he’d been recalled to prison.
He added: ‘She intimated it had not started until August 2023, after he had been released.
Read More
Why do so many female prison officers fall for violent criminals they’re paid to guard?
‘She stated she had encouraged Taylor to hand himself in, and accepted it was, to quote, ‘frowned upon’ for her to have a relationship with a former serving prisoner, but advanced, quite properly with the served defence material, that she was struggling with her mental health.’
Referring to Taylor’s initial overnight release, which was designed to smooth his transition back into the community ahead of his full release 11 days later, Mr Cowburn added: ‘On August 12, sent a message from his phone giving the defendant his number.
‘They made arrangements to meet in Kidderminster. The messages disclosed they had spent the nights of August 12 and 13 together, and there are a number of personal messages between them between August 23 and October 10.’
The court heard that the following November, Barnett told the custodial manager at HMP Sudbury that she had lost the baby the couple were expecting together.
However, Mr Cowburn said Barnett was now pregnant again with Taylor’s child – although the pair had since separated.
Mark Nicholls, in mitigation, said Barnett had suffered with mental health difficulties since the age of eight, and while working in the prison service had provided a document to bosses to say she wasn’t fit to work.
He added that despite this, Barnett had wanted to carry on with her job, because she found it ‘helped her’ – but asked to be placed in a ‘prisoner-facing role’.
However, this was refused, and she was placed in a workshop with one other staff member – who subsequently went off on full-time sick leave – leaving her to supervise 58 inmates on her own in a workshop.
Mr Nicholls added: ‘This left her alone, and in my submission vulnerable to corruption.’
He said a subsequent meeting between Barnett and managers revealed that in six years in her job, she had had no ‘corruption awareness’ training, telling the court: ‘She didn’t have any training and is left on her own.
‘She was feeling stressed because she was alone at work, and in September when this happened there were suicidal thoughts because of the stress she was under.’
He added that Barnett, of Rugely, Staffs, wasn’t currently working.
Judge Smith said he accepted she had a ‘lack of support’ at work, adding: ‘Over a period of 11 days in August 2023, you threw away your good character and your job which you had been doing for six years because when a prisoner who you were familiar with was allowed out on pre-release release, you allowed him – when he was still technically a prisoner – to stay with you, and you had a relationship with him.
‘It is restricted in a way which had no impact on other prisoners, or the smooth running of the prison.
‘When one takes into account your mental health at the time, which is not only well-chronicled but in writing and there for the prison to see and accommodate, they did the opposite, and you were put in situations where you were clearly inexperienced and untrained.’
