A prison officer jailed for relationship with inmate is the blunt conclusion of a case that has left a modern Northamptonshire jail facing uncomfortable questions about boundaries, security and how quickly a private line of contact can become a serious public risk.
Alicia Novas, 20, formerly employed at HMP Five Wells in Wellingborough, was sentenced to three years in prison after admitting six offences including misconduct in public office. The court heard she formed a sexual relationship with prisoner Declan Winkless, 31, and brought cannabis and mobile phones into the jail.
UK News — More from EyeOnLondon
Three recent stories offering context and insight from across the UK.
Storm Chandra brings snow and flood risk
What forecasters are warning about, where disruption is most likely, and how conditions may develop.
Read the storyMore UK News
Amelia AI meme sparks online debate
How a viral image spread, what it reveals about AI culture, and why the reaction matters.
Read the storyMore UK News
Pimblett and Gaethje set for interim UFC title bout
What is at stake in the lightweight division and how the matchup came together.
Read the storyMore UK News
Winkless was jailed for three years and four months after admitting he encouraged and assisted her offending. His sentence will run on from an existing prison term.
Judge Rebecca Crane told Novas that her actions had consequences beyond the two of them. “You failed to consider the seriousness of your actions and the potential impact on the security and safety of the staff and prisoners and how it undermined the work of the prison,” she said.
How the relationship unfolded
The court heard Novas began working at the prison in July 2024, aged 18. Winkless had arrived the month before.
By early November 2024, they were in direct electronic contact after she provided her personal phone number. The relationship became sexual later that month, and they used additional numbers to continue communicating.
Prosecutor Matthew Rowcliffe said there were 2,873 contacts between them during the indictment period, from August 2024 to March 2025. The scale of that contact, the court was told, showed persistence rather than a brief lapse.
Novas admitted bringing cannabis and two mobile phones into prison, unauthorised communication inside the jail, and passing on the name of a prisoner informant. The prosecutor described the disclosure as a serious breach of her responsibilities.
Arrest, resignation and continued contact
On 23 December 2024, Novas was arrested after a phone was seized from Winkless’s cell. She was released on bail and resigned three days later.
The court heard that she resumed contact almost immediately, with around 400 further calls after her arrest.
The judge acknowledged her age and lack of experience, and said she was vulnerable to manipulation. “However, you could easily have reported matters to the prison authorities and sought assistance,” Crane added. “You persisted in having contact over a significant period even after your arrest.”
Novas was told she will serve half her sentence in custody before being released on licence.
The offences in plain terms
Misconduct in public office is a serious offence used when a public official abuses the trust placed in them. In a prison setting, that trust underpins safety, discipline and the integrity of staff decisions.
For readers who want a clear outline of how this offence is assessed in criminal cases, there is guidance on misconduct in public office.
As for Winkless, Judge Crane said his age and life experience mattered. She told him: “You were older and had more life experience and used that to manipulate Novas.”
He admitted two counts of encouraging misconduct in public office, unauthorised communication within the prison, using cannabis in prison and unauthorised possession of communication devices.
The case was heard with both defendants appearing via separate video links from custody.
A prison officer jailed for relationship with inmate is becoming a familiar headline in British courts, but the details in this case, the volume of contact, the smuggled items and the naming of an informant, show why prisons treat these breaches as far more than personal misconduct.
For more independent coverage of London’s crime and justice stories, follow EyeOnLondon. If you have views on prison security and staff protections, we’d like to hear them in the comments.
Follow us on:
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for the latest videos and updates!
We value your thoughts! Share your feedback and help us make EyeOnLondon even better!



