He's doing what he's told, but they restrained him anyway
In 2015, a young man named Allan Marshall died four days after being restrained face-down by up to seventeen prison officers at HMP Edinburgh — a death that, for a decade, was explained away by accounts of aggression, erratic behavior, and a dirty protest. Newly obtained CCTV footage, secured by the BBC only after a legal battle with Scottish ministers, shows something quieter and more troubling: a calm, clean man walking compliantly through prison corridors, offering no resistance, moments before he entered a room with no cameras. The distance between what was claimed and what was recorded asks an old and difficult question — not only about what happened inside that shower room, but about who is trusted to tell the truth when the powerful and the powerless give different accounts.
- For over a decade, prison officers' testimony about Allan Marshall's agitation and dirty protest went largely unchallenged — until BBC-obtained CCTV footage exposed a four-minute walk that contradicts nearly every detail of that account.
- The footage shows Marshall calm, clean, and compliant, with officers behaving as though nothing is amiss — a stark collision with sworn testimony describing erratic behavior, excrement, and the need for overwhelming force.
- All seventeen officers involved were granted lifetime immunity from prosecution in exchange for their inquiry testimony, a decision the Crown Office later admitted was a mistake, leaving Marshall's family with a human rights case as their only remaining path.
- After ten years of resistance, the Scottish Prison Service finally admitted the death was unlawful last year, joining Police Scotland and the Crown Office in a public apology — but the question of damages remains unresolved, with a judge expected to rule next month.
- The footage, released only under legal pressure, now sits at the center of that damages decision — a silent, four-minute record of a man doing what he was told, before he walked into a room no camera could see.
In 2015, Allan Marshall — a 30-year-old held on remand for unpaid fines and a minor breach of the peace — died four days after being restrained face-down by up to seventeen prison officers at HMP Edinburgh. The official account held for years: staff said he had smashed his cell, covered himself in excrement, and was behaving aggressively and erratically, requiring forceful intervention. Some officers used their feet. Now, CCTV footage obtained by the BBC after a court battle with Scottish ministers tells a different story.
The footage covers the four minutes before the restraint began. At 7:25 a.m., Marshall left his cell with three guards — topless, barefoot, wearing only tracksuit bottoms. He walked calmly down several flights of stairs. He was clean. At points, no officer touched him at all; at others, a light wrist hold was used. He entered the shower room at 7:29. There are no cameras inside. Officers followed at 7:48, and the restraint began.
Marshall's aunt, Sharon MacFadyen, who has spent years campaigning for accountability, watched the footage and said plainly that it does not match what officers claimed. She believes Marshall, who had pressed his emergency buzzer repeatedly through the night, had irritated the staff — and that the unmonitored shower room was chosen deliberately. Criminology professor Sarah Armstrong, who also reviewed the footage, said she saw no sign of resistance, no visible excrement, and no behavior among the officers suggesting they detected any smell. "I don't see anything in that video suggesting that use of force is required," she said.
All officers involved were granted lifetime immunity from prosecution in exchange for giving evidence at the fatal accident inquiry — a decision the Crown Office later acknowledged as an error. Marshall's family instead pursued a human rights case, the first in Scotland under Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, protecting the right to life. Police Scotland and the Crown Office agreed to pay compensation. The Scottish Prison Service did not — until last September, ten years after Marshall's death, when it finally admitted the death was unlawful. All three authorities apologized publicly and acknowledged that the force used exceeded what was necessary and that the state had failed to investigate adequately. A judge is expected to rule on damages next month, with the newly released footage likely to weigh heavily in that decision.
In 2015, a 30-year-old man named Allan Marshall died four days after being restrained by prison officers at HMP Edinburgh. He was on remand, held for unpaid fines and a breach of the peace charge. For more than a decade, the official account of what happened that morning has stood largely unchallenged: prison staff said Marshall had smashed his cell, covered himself in excrement, and was behaving erratically and aggressively. They said they needed to restrain him, face down, using up to 17 officers. Some used their feet. Now, newly obtained CCTV footage tells a different story.
The BBC fought Scottish ministers in court to access this footage, which shows the four minutes before the restraint began. What it reveals is stark. At 7:25 on the morning in question, Marshall left his cell accompanied by three guards. He was topless and barefoot, wearing only tracksuit bottoms. He walked down several flights of stairs. He was clean. He was calm. At points, he walked with no hand on him at all. At other points, officers used what is called a "come along hold"—a light grip at the wrist. The footage runs until 7:29, when he entered the shower room. There are no cameras inside the shower room. Officers entered at 7:48, and the restraint began.
The contrast between what officers claimed and what the footage shows is difficult to reconcile. Prison staff had testified at a fatal accident inquiry that Marshall was agitated, aggressive, and possibly under the influence of a legal high. They said he needed a shower after a dirty protest. Yet the video shows no sign of excrement. Officers do not behave as though they smell anything. Marshall does not resist. He does not fight. He does what he is told.
Sharon MacFadyen, Marshall's aunt, has spent years campaigning for accountability in her nephew's case. When she saw the footage, her reaction was direct: it does not match the story officers told. "If he was kicking off or if he was fighting fair enough, but he's doing what he's told," she said. She believes Marshall, who had pressed his emergency buzzer several times during the night, had irritated the officers. Taking him to the shower room—a space with no cameras—was, in her view, a way to teach him a lesson. What happened inside that room, no one outside can verify.
Sarah Armstrong, a criminology professor at the University of Glasgow, reviewed the footage and said she was shocked by how composed Marshall appeared. "I don't see anything in that video suggesting that use of force is required," she said. "There's no sign that he was resisting." She noted the absence of any visible excrement and observed that the officers' behavior did not suggest they detected any smell. The decision to move him into an unmonitored space, she said, raises serious questions about necessity.
All the officers involved in the restraint were granted lifetime immunity from prosecution in exchange for giving evidence at the fatal accident inquiry. The Crown Office later admitted this was a mistake. Rather than pursue criminal charges, Marshall's family brought a human rights case—the first in Scotland to invoke Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects the right to life. Police Scotland and the Crown Office agreed to pay compensation. The Scottish Prison Service did not.
In September of last year—ten years after Marshall's death—the prison service finally admitted the death was unlawful. All three authorities apologized publicly for the first time, acknowledged that the force used exceeded what was necessary, and accepted that the state had failed to investigate adequately. A judge is expected to rule next month on how much the prison service should pay in damages. The footage, released only after months of legal pressure, may yet shape that decision.
Citas Notables
If he was kicking off or if he was fighting fair enough, but he's doing what he's told— Sharon MacFadyen, Marshall's aunt
I don't see anything in that video suggesting that use of force is required. There's no sign that he was resisting.— Sarah Armstrong, criminology professor at University of Glasgow
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did it take the BBC going to court just to see what happened before the restraint?
The Scottish government initially claimed the only CCTV they had was the restraint footage itself—the part that had been public for years. Lawyers said that repeatedly. But the footage existed; it was lodged with the Court of Session during the relatives' legal case. Getting it released required months of fighting.
What's the significance of the shower room having no cameras?
It's the crux of it, really. Marshall is calm and compliant in the corridors. Then he enters a room with no surveillance. Twenty minutes later, officers go in and he's being restrained by up to 17 people, face down. No one outside that room knows what triggered it or what happened inside.
The officers claimed he was covered in excrement. The footage shows he wasn't. How do you explain that gap?
You can't, not easily. Either the officers were mistaken about what they saw, or they were describing something that didn't happen. The footage is clear—he's clean, he's calm, and there's no visible sign of what they claimed.
Why did it take ten years for the prison service to admit the death was unlawful?
Partly because of the immunity granted to the officers. Once you've given people lifetime immunity from prosecution, it's harder to then say what they did was wrong. It took a human rights case and sustained pressure from the family to force the admission.
What happens now?
A judge decides damages next month. The prison service still hasn't paid anything, while the other two authorities have. The footage may influence how much they're ordered to pay.