november 2013 • issue 110 independent monitormonitor november 2013 • issue 110 the association...

INDEPENDENTMONITOR

november 2013 • ISSUE 110

THE ASSOCIATION OF MEMBERS OF INDEPENDENT MONITORING BOARDS

PRISONERS SCARED, MONITORS ANGRY:INSPECTIONS, CLOSURES, CUTS

SENTENCING • TOP JUDGE VISITS HOLLOWAY

JOHN THORNHILL INTERVIEWED • FRONTLINE REPORTS

EDITORIAL CONTENTS

2 Independent Monitor • November 2013

Association of Members of Independent Monitoring Boards • amimb.org.uk registered charity number 293384 Membership of AMIMB is open to serving members of IMBs in prisons and immigration removal centres in England and Wales. Associate membership is open to anyone interested in penal affairs. AMIMB represents board members by presenting their views wherever they need to be known. AMIMB campaigns for change, both through its own efforts and by liaising with other groups, including via the Criminal Justice Alliance. Membership of AMIMB allows board members to have a say in the direction of boards and penal policy generally.

Annual subscription to AMIMB is £20. Join online at amimb.org.uk or complete the form on page 19.

Independent Monitor

EditorBrian Guthrie (Norwich) [email protected] House, Thrandeston, Diss, Norfolk IP21 4BU 01379 783678

Views expressed in the Independent Monitor are not necessarily those of AMIMB.

ISSN 1746–1197

Patron Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers

President Baroness Vivien Stern

Vice-President Michael Watson MBE (IMB Preston)[email protected]

Chair Angela Clay (East Sutton Park) [email protected]

Treasurer Jenny Budgell (Ashfield) [email protected] Natural Numbers Ltd, Syms Yard, Chippenham, Wiltshire SN14 6LH 01249 660035

Other executive committee membersDavid Atkinson (Dovegate) [email protected] Bell (Pentonville) [email protected] Boothman, Secretary (Littlehey) [email protected] Gordon Cropper, (Pentonville) [email protected] Tamsin Lucchesi (The Verne) [email protected] Christopher Padfield, Vice-chair (Bedford) [email protected] Peacock (Gartree) [email protected] Catherine Sanderson (Northumberland) [email protected]

Politics ................................................. 3Vicky Helyar-Cardwell and Vivien Stern

AMIMB ................................................. 4The chair and vice-chair, the conference, communications from members, training visits

Sentencing ........................................... 6John Samuels QC and Richard Monkhouse on court reforms

Prison closures .................................... 9Michael Cadman on why Blundeston shouldn’t be closed

The judge pays a visit ........................ 10Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger goes round Holloway prison

Applications – frustrating or fun? ...... 11The IMB diary

Managing difficult prisoners .............. 12Bronzefield IMB chair Jan Sambrook wants proper care for challenging women prisoners

IMB NVQ ............................................ 13Hannah Moore from Littlehey goes to IMB college

Dispatches from the frontline ............ 14Maria McNicholl of St Giles Trust on the way cuts are affecting rehabilitation

Koestler ............................................. 15A page of award winners

Prison inspections ............................. 16Michael Peacock looks at HMIP and IMB reports; Nick Hardwick has six messages for IMBs

I don’t look back .................................. 8National Council president John Thornhill interviewed

Why I’m leaving the board ................... 9A board dispute goes wrong

Last word ........................................... 20Tail-end tales

Credits Front cover and page 15: images courtesy of the Koestler Trust. Cartoons by SEG

Most of the editorial material for the Monitor arrives electronically – emails, online reports, material from websites, fevered pulses within the editor’s brain. So the desk in Monitor hq is less littered with the sort of newspaper cuttings that were a staple ingredient ten

years ago. But there are a few items with headlines so arresting that the scissors instinctively come to hand. These are from the Guardian.

Inquiry launched after man dies in custody A 39-year-old father, Leon Briggs, was detained in Luton police station under the Mental Health Act. There had been ‘concerns about his behaviour’. He became ill, was taken to hospital and died. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating. Police detention under the act is controversial, should be exceptional and isn’t. There’s more on this subject in the February Monitor.

Judge accuses G4S staff of ‘shocking’ forgery This refers to three G4S staff from Brook House immigration removal centre who may have forged documents about a detainee’s claims of torture overseas. The case has been referrred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Following accusations of sexual harassment at Yarl’s Wood (Serco) and the investigation of both Serco and G4S by the Serious Fraud Office over alleged tagging fraud, it is hard to welcome their bids to run ‘reformed’ probation services.

Wormwood Scrubs on knife edge, says watchdog This is the IMB, getting the sort of coverage usually reserved for the prisons inspector. They report a 50% growth in the use of force or restraint, with the now skeleton staff fearful for safety, yet facing further cuts. When HMIP delivers a critical report, the normal response from Noms boss Michael Spurr is along the lines of: ‘noted, tough times, improvements already in hand’. His response to the publicity about this alarming IMB annual report? ‘The prison provided a safe and decent regime.’

There is more on the important relationship between monitors and inspectors on page 16, including some wise words for Monitor readers from HMCIP Nick Hardwick.

IMB members are probably not, as a breed, optimistic about detention. There seems little on the immediate horizon to temper that perspective. But let’s see what the February issue brings. Happy new year.

Independent Monitor • November 2013 3

For the first time that I can remember, the main party leaders made no mention of crime and justice in their set piece party conference speeches. In fact, the usual law and order knockabout was notable by its absence. So what does this tell us about current political priorities and what could

POLITICS

Criminal justice at the party conferences

Meanwhile in the House of Lords

Vicky Helyar-Cardwell is

director of the Criminal Justice

Alliance, a coalition of 70

organisations that works to

establish a fairer and more

effective criminal justice

system. AMIMB is a member

it mean for the 2015 general election?First, although many commentators

predict the election will be fought tooth and nail, it seems that criminal justice policy may not be a key battleground. This is borne out by recent Ipsos Mori polling which shows that law and order has dropped to 8th place on the public list of concerns – the lowest it has been for 20 years. This could mark a real shift from the ‘criminal justice arms race’ politics of the 1990s and 2000s where the parties seemed locked in a bidding war of who could be the toughest. Of course things can change, but public concern about crime has been steadily dropping since 2008 and seems a wider trend.

There are lots of reasons why this might be the case. Most important, concerns about the failing economy, unemployment and living costs have overshadowed all other issues. But it may also be the case that falling crime rates are now starting to have an impact on people’s experiences and feelings of safety. It is certainly true that recorded levels of crime, and violent crime specifically, are at their lowest levels for 30 years and both have dropped dra-matically since their peak in 1995 when they were twice as high as at present. Despite this startling fact, the public (at least up until now) have not believed it. Most people (60%) think crime is rising nationally, although only a minority (28%) think it is rising in their local area. But these stats may be starting to shift as evi-denced by the decreasing concerns.

On 29 October the House of Lords had the second reading of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We found ourselves once more debating a bill into which many unrelated matters had been thrown, from the appointment of chief con-stables to dangerous dogs. Complaints came from the House of Commons that they were not given enough time and so it would be up to the House of Lords to see that there was proper consideration of some very important matters that affect the liberty of the citizen and the rule of law.

The bill has been the subject of much criticism from a range of organisations. It brings in changes to the anti-social behav-iour order framework which will permit civil injunctions to be

imposed on anybody aged 10 and over if they have engaged or threaten to engage in ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person’ and it is ‘just and convenient’ to grant the injunction – a power that Liberty describes as ‘breathtak-ingly wide’. The court can decide that a child receiving such an order can be named in public – with modern technology, creating an indelible record for life. The Children’s Commis-sioner has described this measure as not in accord with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Very controversial is a clause to reverse a recent decision of the Supreme Court about the test to be applied when deciding whether or not a person whose conviction has been quashed is entitled to compensation. The new proposal would allow com-pensation ‘if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence’. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has pointed out that ‘requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt as a condition of obtaining compensation for wrongful convic-tion is incompatible with the presumption of innocence’ and proposed the new clause be deleted from the bill.

It seems a number of late-night sittings may be in prospect.

Baroness Vivien Stern, International Centre for

Prison Studies and AMIMB president

Back to businessAway from the leaders’ crime-free speeches, criminal justice was of course up for debate and two different stalls were set out. The Justice Secretary outlined his vision, defin-ing the Conservative position on law and order issues as ‘still tough, but it is also compassionate.’ Chris Grayling detailed many of the changes the government has made over the last year, in particular to prison regimes. He also outlined plans, currently underway, to reshape probation services across England and Wales and his intention that every prisoner will be met by a mentor on release from custody.

The Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan focused on Labour’s plans to intro-duce a new Victims Law if they were to win in 2015. He attacked the govern-ment for undermining public confidence and putting public safety at risk with its reforms. At an earlier event, hosted by the Criminal Justice Alliance, Khan responded to challenge from fellow panellists not to move to the right on criminal justice but to take the opportunity of falling crime rates to build cross-party consensus. His response was that he could deal with Ken Clarke but not Chris Grayling who he described as a ‘right-wing justice secre-tary’. At another CJA event, Prisons Min-ister Jeremy Wright defended government plans and criticised Labour’s record on reoffending rates.

So while law and order did not feature in the leaders’ speeches, when it comes to the 2015 election it will be game on.


There was considerable food for thought at AMIMB’s Conference and AGM on 29 October in London. Our thanks go to conference chair, Rod Morgan, and all our excellent speakers – Professor Lawrence Sherman of the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University, Wyn Jones from Serco, Dr Graham Durcan of the Centre for Mental Health, Nick Le Mesurier of Recoop and Gillian Baxter, the mother of a sex offender with Aspergers syndrome. You can get a flavour of the day on www.amimb.org.uk.

We were pleased to welcome the new NC President John Thornhill to our event, and AMIMB’s Executive Committee is looking forward to discussions with him at our December meeting.

The announced closure of East Sutton Park, where I am a member of the IMB, wasn’t totally unexpected but still came as a bombshell for everyone involved. As a board, our immediate concerns were for the women, particularly the long-term pris-oners who will be most affected. Askham Grange is closing too and so there will be no open prisons for women.

I hope that the planned resettlement units for low-risk women, to be attached to existing prisons, will allow women to be closer to home with opportunities to undertake work outside the prison. You must forgive me for being sceptical when I look at how long it has taken for any of Baroness Corston’s 43 recommendations for women in the criminal justice system to become reality.

With so many closures and re-roles, effective monitoring and good communi-cation between IMBs is crucial if we are to pick up on problems and keep ahead of the game. We will be conducting surveys of those boards affected.

I was delighted to be invited to the AGM of Unlock, the charity for people with convictions, which has been a lifeline to so many people. The event was held in the House of Lords where President Lord David Ramsbotham welcomed guests and speakers. I was both impressed and moved listening to the speakers’ stories about how they came to be involved with the charity.

Finally, the AGM included elections to the executive committee. We welcome two new members – Catherine Sanderson and Emma Bell. We have also co-opted Tamsin Lucchesi. Details on page 2.

Angela Clay

AMIMB

View from the chair

Wyn Jones, ex-public sector prison gov-ernor and now Director of Prisons in SERCO, gave a sympathetic and enthu-siastic account of the beneficial impact payment by results is having under their management in Doncaster Prison. In this case the ‘results’ relate to metrics of recon-viction rates (calculated according to a specific methodology, evidently, but one that is currently being publicly contested) four years after release. In his presentation he argued that this focus, combined with the elbow room accorded by Minister of Justice Chris Grayling’s dictum: ‘Do what it takes to stop reoffending. We’ll pay you when you’re successful’ has allowed the company to create a culture that is exceptionally propitious for rehabilitation (admittedly of a selected cohort).

Professor Larry Sherman from Cam-bridge University’s Centre for Criminol-ogy gave a brilliantly customised address and exhortation to the assembly, on his specialist subject of well-chosen and attested numerical information. For us, he turned his attention to the impact a network of independent observers with free access to prisons could have on policy and practice, if (a) they were to add some carefully-chosen metrics to their current practice of mostly descriptive reporting; and (b) if they were to collaborate in the collection and analysis of such observa-tions. He ran out of time, but what he did say gave new enthusiasm to many in the audience.

Nick le Mesurier, of Recoop, a con-

Conference highlightsChosen by AMIMB’s new vice-chair, Christopher Padfield

tracted researcher-evaluator, painted an utterly tragic picture of the bind older mostly-sex-offender prisoners are in, after a very long period of incarceration and debilitating institutionalisation. He left us with the impression that there were few solutions in sight, other than the solu-tion that many individuals seem to take for themselves – to get back to prison after the purgatory of release, as quickly as pos-sible. In prison they have friendship, safety, warmth and food.

Long-term AMBoV and AMIMB supporter, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper (left) talks to conference chair Rod Morgan. Below: National Council president John Thornhill (left) and AMIMB’s Christopher Padfield

Communications from members


TenureThe 15-year rule is a good idea in princi-ple, but its implementation has not taken into account the impact on boards where recruitment is a major issue. Moorlands and Hatfield are currently running at six below our requirement. Three recruit-ment campaigns have provided two new members (still in the process of being appointed). We are scheduled to lose three board members in December 2014 and more the year after. Those members left are getting fed up with the lack of consideration to the impact this is having and I am sure in time it may lead to res-ignations out of sheer frustration.Jane Morgan

Prison expansionWe are quite worried about the fairly dramatic expansion to Parc. When it went up to 1,450 prisoners in 2010 we were told we could not have any more board members. It is a huge site and a struggle to get round in between the endless movements and lockdowns. Adding another 250 prisoners (mostly sex offenders who are quite application-prone) we do worry how we will cope, especially as the site will grow by a quarter.

The problem with the whole selection process is that the best IMB members, in terms of availability, are the healthy retired, and they by definition do require reasonably regular replacements.

As to this trend towards massive new prisons, there are pros and cons. The new Parc is likely to be more cleverly seg-regated so that vulnerable prisoners have their own prison, with its own visitor centre and therefore no contact with those who might seek to despise them.

This was my first time on an AMIMB training visit and I can thoroughly recom-mend it, especially if you are a relatively new board member like me. The visit was full of surprises as I expected Moorland to have more than just 80 young offenders

The administrative functions are likely to be more economical but probably less efficient than in a smaller establishment. There is always talk of re-roling some of the smaller older prisons or closing them altogether, leaving the slack to be taken up by new style prisons like Parc or the pro-posed mega unit at WrexhamJohn Homfray

Fair & sustainable and BenchmarkingThe prison management has been putting a brave face on it and doing amazingly well in maintaining standards and staff morale. There is I believe concern that if the MoJ’s cost-cutting targets are not achieved, it will incentive the MoJ to extend the privatisation of prisons – to which we are all opposed.

The board has identified and raised with the governor our concerns over rising numbers of unemployed prisoners, delays in completing sentence plans, delays in booking visits etc. We are also now con-cerned at the lack of transport for prisoner transfers; blaming the demands of prison closures seems a poor excuse.

It is also of concern to the governor, staff and IMB that reduced remuneration will make it difficult to recruit; already it is proving difficult to get instructors in the workshops.

We are aware that any business can make one or two rounds of cost cutting effec-tively, but there will come a tipping point when economies will seriously undermine prison management.Alan Toulson

There is a shortage of staff at Wandsworth which is impacting on the prison’s ability to operate the published regime. Prisoners

are complaining about cancelled and cur-tailed periods of association, exercise, gym and other activities. It is difficult to know whether this is the result of fair and sus-tainable and benchmarking. One problem Wandsworth has is that officers have been leaving on a package offered in response to a national surplus, but there is no surplus locally. We are told that the situation should improve as benchmarking profiles are introduced. We await to see whether this is the case.Julia Stallibrass

Re-rolesPrison re-roles are necessary and logical sequiturs to demographic change. On the ground however, such changes are not just matters of numbers: they are traumatic events particularly for staff but also for women prisoners who, as natural home-makers, often accept ‘their prison’ tem-porarily as home – the first place in which they have ever felt safe.

In 2002 Downview was re-roled to train and resettle adult women. The physi-cal side of this operation was so badly handled that the IMB briefed two MPs – the Conservative constituency member and the Labour son of a board member. Heads rolled, and the Prison Service plan was amended.

That re-role is currently being reversed – back to a male prison again. One cannot argue with the policy, but one can ask why it was sprung so suddenly, just after suc-cessful HMIP and OFSTED inspections and only weeks before hearing the results of the women`s custodial estate review. How can one expect staff to maintain their morale and enthusiasm when they are mucked about, as they have been ? Michael Reynolds

The Monitor has heard from AMIMB members on a range of topics

Training visitsCatherine Sanderson of

Northumberland IMB on a visit

to Moorland prison

out of a capacity of 1,006. They are mixed in with the adult Cat C prisoners and when they reach the age of 21 many are classi-fied Cat B. Sex offender prisoners are not referred to as VPs but Res 2s and have to complete their courses at other establish-ments as there appears to be insufficient resources to hold the relevant courses here.

I was impressed by the commitment of the prisoners in workshops. An amazing 80-90% of the rubbish from this prison and Lindholme is recycled in the waste recycling unit and prisoners can gain a rec-ognised qualification.


What do we mean by sentencer supervi-sion? The availability of the drug treatment and testing order from 2000 onwards, and the power routinely to review offend-ers subject to such an order, produced a step change in judges and magistrates who became accustomed to the beneficial consequences of an enhanced relationship between offender and judicial officer. The former, surprised to experience the active interest in their success being shown by the sentencer, became motivated ‘not to let my judge down.’ The latter became more acutely aware of the myriad prob-lems faced by those who struggle to escape from addiction, and developed expertise in referring offenders to appropriate services.

In some other jurisdictions, the label attached is ‘judicial monitoring’. In the

Two distinguished legal experts discuss the prospects for more enlightened justice

SentencingSentencer supervision

John Samuels QC on the need

to review the proposition

’Sentencers sentence: others

implement that sentence’

– faced with huge changes

in the prison and probation

services

US this involves regular hearings before a judicial officer for the express purpose of compliance monitoring. While such super-vision is typically after conviction, it can also be earlier, for example in tandem with required attendance in a pre-trial diversion programme.

Why it worksSupervision by the original sentencer, or a representative of the sentencing court, enables the development of trust between supervisor and offender. The sentencer, knowing far more about the progress made by the offender, becomes more keenly aware of the pitfalls in attempting to comply with the requirements of the court. The offender, perhaps for the first time, recognises that an authority figure,

the judicial officer, is not only concerned for the offender’s progress; but is willing the offender to succeed.

The lessons which have been learned in relation to those subject to community orders with a drug rehabilitation require-ment can be applied equally to other forms of non-custodial sentences, such as the sus-pended sentence order with a supervision requirement. Subsequent periodic reviews by the court or sentencer tend to build up a relationship between the offender and the sentencer which mirrors and may even enhance that between the offender and an experienced offender manager.

General supportSentencer supervision is a key element of the problem-solving approach to the type of low-level offending which is the staple diet of magistrates courts. Such summary jurisdiction courts deal with more than 95% of all criminal cases in England and Wales. Sentencer supervision underpins an approach that does not treat the criminal behaviour in question as the only element to be addressed. Its focus is also to address the social and societal problems faced by the individual; and then, by seeking to resolve those problems, to reduce if not eliminate the criminal behaviour which are its more visible signs.

The problem-solving approach in relation to magistrates courts is gaining general support following a recognition that effectively addressing and resolving


offenders’ problems will often avoid the need for the more expensive regime of state-enforced compliance. Anecdotal evi-dence is beginning to be underpinned by sound research evidence.

Besides, you would have to be a visitor from outer space not to have been actively alarmed by the huge changes which threaten to overwhelm our criminal justice system. Court closures, wholesale withdrawal of legal aid, (with its major impact on family disputes and housing law issues), falling morale in the Probation Service – all these developments suggest that the moment may now have come to seize the initiative, and deploy an under-used resource.

That resource is those magistrates and judges who embrace their role because of their fundamental belief that, in discharg-ing it, they are making a difference. For these, there is profound satisfaction in learning offenders you have supervised believe that, because of you, they have turned their lives around. It is no exag-geration when both offenders, and those who have mentored them through such supervision, describe the experience as life changing.

Not expensiveThe fundamental objection to any initiative within the criminal justice system is that it is potentially expensive. Sentencer super-vision can be cost neutral. This is because sentencers, at whatever level in the judicial hierarchy, can arrange to sit a little earlier than they otherwise would; they would need few, if any, supporting staff from the court service or the probation service; and the offender would come in informally, and give an account of his or her progress (or lack of it). If the lack of progress was attrib-utable to some social problem which might engage the concern of another agency, such as the mental health services, the supervis-ing court would rapidly develop its own expertise in signposting such offenders to the appropriate quarter. But if the offend-er’s lack of progress was plainly due to a failure to engage with the requirements of the court, the court would invoke its puni-tive sanctions.

Extending the reach of sentencer supervisionInitially it is envisaged that enhanced adoption of sentencer supervision would be most appropriately applied in magis-trates courts. However, given time and encouragement, it could be extended more generally to crown courts, which have had some 13 years experience super-vising those subject to community orders with drug rehabilitation requirements. Crown courts could also undertake the

periodic supervision of those serving cus-todial sentences. It might then be open to a sentencing court, following evidence of sustained application by the offender to the offending behaviour programmes provided in custody, and evidence of the kind of exceptional progress which justi-fies a High Court judge in reducing the minimum term which a life sentenced prisoner must serve before applying to the Parole Board for release, to reduce the determinate sentence initially imposed. Or the court might recommend that the prisoner is ready to progress to conditions of lower security. That function – while admittedly some way off – might engage the involvement of existing independent members of the Parole Board, who could sit with the sentencing judicial officer as a modified version of current Parole Board practice, at significantly reduced cost.

An exciting futureWhy should we encourage sentencers to assume that what happens to those on whom they have imposed punishment is no longer their responsibility? Is it just for the state and the organs of the state to execute the will of the independent judi-ciary? In this cash-strapped landscape that is cloud cuckoo land. My personal experi-ence of the positive outcomes which have been achieved through a developing dia-logue between judicial officer and offender lead me unhesitatingly to proclaim that, from small local initiatives, a patchwork of good practice and inspiration takes hold – and the best bit of news is that, properly applied and implemented, it costs virtually nothing.

An incremental application of this approach is capable of making profound changes, and achieving genuine rehabilita-tion. Having set out my stall, I need not further expand the value of the goods on offer, save to emphasise that over time, and with suitable training, a new dynamic would develop between offender and sen-tencer – continuity of supervision being key to that dynamic – which would in all likelihood lead to the reduction of reof-fending, a more positive outcome for the offender, and fewer victims.

His Honour John Samuels QC is a retired Crown Court Judge, the President of Pris-oners Education Trust, the Chairman of the Criminal Justice Alliance, Vice President of Unlock, a Trustee of the Howard League, a judicial member of the Parole Board for England & Wales, and a former Chairman of the Criminal Committee of the Council of HM Circuit Judges. The views in this paper are his own, and not necessarily those of the organisations mentioned

Magistrates deal with 95% of all criminal work that comes to court. Some confuse this with a statistic that says that magis-trates courts deal with 95% of all crime, but about half of reported crime never sees the inside of a courtroom. There is also said to be a significant amount of crime that goes unreported – clearly impossible to quantify, but the British Retail Consor-tium suggest that over 60% of shoplifting is not reported.

The amount of crime that is dealt with outside the courtroom has concerned the Magistrates’ Association for some time – particularly those cases that are either serious enough for a community penalty or so serious that the custody level has been passed. When these cases are diverted away from court, it seems that the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are jointly acting as accuser, judge, jury and sentencer. This doesn’t sound like open and transparent justice. Although many cautions are entirely appropriate, it often seems that decisions are being made to save money rather than on the basis of fair and open justice.

Reviewing practiceWhen the Justice Secretary announced recently that a review was to take place of what are termed out of court disposals, and that no indictable-only offences (that must be dealt with at Crown Court) can be disposed of by way of a caution, magis-trates were delighted. It is hard to under-stand how an offence as serious as wound-ing, for example, could ever be considered appropriate for a caution.

This announcement meant that the work that the Magistrates’ Association has been doing for over four years, to bring this to the attention of the public and the government, has yielded results. Along with this review, scrutiny panels that retro-spectively examine offences dealt with out of court are beginning to appear across the country with the aim of understanding how such offences might have been better dealt with, for the victim, for the offender and for society. These panels, another Magistrates’ Association idea, involve

Good practice in the courtroomRichard Monkhouse is chair of the Magistrates’ Association


police and magistrates, so that those dis-posing of cases this way can understand when such a disposal is appropriate and when it is not.

CutsMeanwhile courts have been closing and court staff have been decimated, to the point that any slack in the system, that enabled sensible decisions to be made about court usage, has long disappeared; the fabric of the court is now being affected. Courtrooms are often unavoid-ably closed because of lack of staff and this sometimes means the adjournment of court business simply through lack of resources. Try explaining that to a victim who has waited all day, only to be told that the trial has been put off to another day. Needless to say, it is the magistrates who are deemed inefficient as a result. As the only independent voice of the magistracy, the Magistrates’ Association has clearly been concerned that among all of these changes, there appears to be no strategy either for magistrates courts or for the magistracy.

We are expected to carry on uncom-plainingly as cut after cut bites deeper. Mag-istrates have the advantage of being able to walk away from a criminal justice system that is sinking, and many of the working magistrates are doing so. Court staff, pro-bation officers and lawyers do not have that luxury as it is their livelihoods that are being affected. Faced with these damaging changes, the Magistrates’ Association has been working on a strategy which includes the better use of magistrates, both inside and outside the courtroom.

In courtInside the courtroom most of our work is as sentencers. Of course we hear trials but they account for a relatively small amount of our caseload. Most offenders plead guilty which means a discount of one-third from their sentence. We have sentencing guidelines to assist us in this sentencing process. These are now set by the Sentenc-ing Council, but they are still occasion-ally referred to as the Magistrates’ Asso-ciation Guidelines. The guidelines were developed to eliminate, as far as possible, sentencing inconsistencies from court to court and area to area. We still believe that there need to be better consistency across England and Wales.

But sentencing is not just about rigidly applying guidelines. As every magis-trate knows, no combination of offence, offender or victim is the same. Some offenders will benefit from a positive approach and some won’t. Because of this, there are five statutory reasons for sen-tencing: punishment, reparation, protect-

SENTENCING

ing the public, rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. These considerations allow sentencers to match the sentence to both the offence and the offender.

In the more serious cases magistrates will call on the probation service to provide information about the offender. With young people, this will be given by the Youth Offending Service. But this happens only when an offence is serious enough for a community penalty or custody – less than 30% of the cases magistrates hear. So how do we know or find out about the offender whose offence does not reach that level of seriousness and where probation will not be troubled? The simple answer is that we communicate with them. Simple, you might think, but I have heard magistrates say ‘we’re not allowed to engage with the offender.’

When we enquired, we discovered that this disengagement was justified in the interests of efficiency and cost. The thought is that a five-minute conversation with an offender who has admitted their wrongdoing is going to multiply up into extra days’ sittings. In the Youth Court, such engagement is a fundamental part of the process, so by what logic does an offender reach the age of 18 and suddenly be excluded? The overriding benefit of having that conversation is that we might discover that the offender has, for example, an admitted substance abuse problem or an accommodation or finance problem – any of which could be leading to their offending. Knowing about this enables us to signpost towards some remedial action, in addition to the sentence given.

So this is one of our main strategic aims – to encourage magistrates to take back control of the courtrooms in which they sit. Increasingly they are becoming con-trolled by the executive and are focused

more towards cost and efficiency than towards justice.

We play our part in striving to be more efficient as well. Three years ago the Mag-istrates’ Association was involved in the development and implementation of the stop delaying justice initiative which has helped to reduce the number of hearings per case from five to just over two and has helped to make each hearing more focused toward completion.

Beyond the courtsOutside the courtroom we are ambassa-dors for the justice system in our local area. We already run the prestigious magistrates in the community programme. This pro-gramme was initially focused on sessions in primary and secondary schools. From this developed the magistrates courts mock trial competition run every year in con-junction with the Citizenship Foundation. This pits school against school in an enter-taining but instructive way. The target is not getting a verdict but understanding the way in which cases are prosecuted and defended. Anyone who has witnessed a mock trial event will tell you how marvel-lous it is, particularly for those taking part.

The schools work very quickly spread into the adult world with sessions about sentencing and explaining how the crimi-nal justice system works – often in contrast to the way in which the media portrays it. We wish to expand this particularly into the young adult age groups and into black, Asian and minority ethnic organisations, some of whom have said that they believe that the justice system does not engage with them. We believe this is work that magistrates can easily undertake as they are are far more representative of their com-munity than any other part of the criminal justice system.

‘Outside the courtroom we are

ambassadors for the justice system in our

local area’


PRISON CLOSURES

Blundeston is a good performing prison (top end of level 3 in the Noms scale of things) with an excellent staff prisoner rela-tionship – the backbone of all rehabilita-tion work within prisons. This relationship has been built up over many years, partly due to the low turnover of staff: it has been commented on in HMIP and IMB reports, and is irreplaceable. Blundeston has some excellent workshops: welding was recognised as the best prison work-shop in 2011-12; alongside woodworking and printing it has been re-organised for industrialisation and 36-hour working.

Blundeston has the only accredited therapeutic community in the cat C estate, runs healthy relations and thinking skills programmes and the Suffolk drug action team have this year invested huge sums of money to bring in a team of a dozen RAPt workers to help prisoner. There is an award- winning recycling unit. Healthcare has been refurbished and a new dispensary provided adjacent to support the work of the 60 prisoners on IDTS. About £6m has

One closure too many?

When the current round of prison closures

is completed, early next year, the coalition

government will have closed 21 prisons,

with the loss of 1,400 places. There has

been resistance at Blundeston – legal,

political and as ex-chair Michael Cadman

reports, from the IMB

been spent on new roofs for the workshops and central prisoner area, £4m on new heating and over £1m on a new laundry. New floors have been laid in many areas.

All this has been done within the past three to four years.

So why close it?Closure was announced in September, to be completed by the end of the year. Decanting of prisoners started almost immediately but then stopped – officially because they were ahead of schedule, unofficially because prisons are full and there is nowhere to put the prisoners. All this causes uncertainty.

There has been great concern about the therapeutic community and the sudden ces-sation in therapy and upheaval for the pris-oners. The unit’s future has been secured as it will go to Warren Hill after that YOI has been re-roled. Warren Hill lacks equip-ment for adults so will be supplied from Blundeston. At least that reduces waste, but there are no timescale for the changes

to Warren Hill and in the meantime it will go to Norwich which means two upheav-als for prisoners in therapy.

The nearest prisons for redeployment of staff are Norwich and Bure, both about 25 miles away, which will add to the working day for staff. The new governor arrived on detached duty about ten days before the announcement, and a new deputy governor had been in post about six weeks. Neither knew anything about the closure until the morning of the announcement, and we suspect that Noms’ local deputy director of custody was in the same position.

The reason for closure is presumably the long-term maintenance costs. That is hard to believe given all the work done recently and our understanding is that the govern-ment won’t provide the figures they used and any comparative maintenance costs with other prisons. The only real concern is over the lack of in-cell sanitation.

The IMB conclusion: madness when there are still prisons with overcrowding and so much will be lost in both material, but more important performance terms, which never will be replaced.

Prisons closed or closing since 2010Ashwell, Askham Grange, Blundeston, Brockhill, Bullwood Hall, Camp Hill, Canterbury, Dorchester, East Sutton Park, Canterbury, Dartmoor (not con-firmed), Feltham, Gloucester, Kingston, Lancaster Castle, Latchmere House, Northallerton, Reading, Shepton Mal-let, Shrewsbury, Wellingborough

A legal challenge to closureLorna Elliot is a barrister with EBR Attridge solicitors. Acting for a prisoner in Blundeston’s therapeutic community, she has written to the Secretary of State for Justice suggesting that the prison’s closure is unlawful. Her client is beyond the tariff of his indeterminate sentence and depends on therapeutic work to get release. She says: ‘ It is noteworthy that the prison staff who guide and moder-ate Therapeutic Communities have to be specially approved and trained. The programme cannot function without them. They are invaluable to the rehabilitation of prisoners in the therapeutic community and cannot be merely replaced. Prisoners cannot simply be moved to another prison with the expectation that there would be any continuity to the operation of the therapeutic community.

PERSPECTIVES ON PRISON LIFE


On the morning of 26 July 2013, after a ten-minute walk from Caledonian Road tube station, I passed through the doors of Holloway prison, checking in my phone to a businesslike, though not unfriendly officer.

After a metal door had been opened to let me in to the prison, the character of the place struck me as being like a forti-fied school – a somewhat characterless, 40-year-old building, in a good structural state, but cheaply decorated to a medio-cre standard, with wide corridors and a mixture of bossy notices and weird paint-ings on the walls. From most of these corridors, doors with glass panels in their upper halves opened into rooms, most of which had many cheap chairs or benches, sometimes arranged around tables.

Most of these rooms near the entrance were occupied by people working in the prison. The size of the administration is impressive. It is by no means only geared to running the prison: it is also directed to the well-being of the prisoners. The number of people involved made me realise why economies of scale might be thought to justify a drive to have fewer, larger prisons. But discussions with prison staff suggested to me that the more intimate, community-focused character of smaller prisons, coupled with their greater acces-sibility for family visiting, made the drive for bigger prisons more questionable. And I have always been sceptical about many of the claimed benefits of economies of scale.

Listening to the probation officers, to those responsible for prisoner welfare, as well as to the people responsible for dealing with prisoners who had just been admitted, and prisoners with mental and substance abuse problems, was an uplift-ing and humbling experience. They really cared about each of their charges, they were dedicated to their work, and they all worked hard and professionally. Those prison officers and police officers who were involved with running the more routine aspects of the prison, to whom I talked, also seemed genuinely humane and con-cerned about the prisoners.

The judge pays a visitLord Neuberger is President

of the UK Supreme Court, our

most senior judge. We invited

him to Holloway nick

Perhaps the most memorable meeting for me was listening to an intelligent, articulate and committed woman who was responsible for organising the people helping prisoners when they were first admitted – dealing with their shock, apprehension and ignorance. It took me ten minutes to realise that this woman was a prisoner not an officer. Although some may see this as a sign of my naivety, I prefer to see the enlightened approach of the prison authorities. The way in which prisoners were involved in helping to run the prison struck me as not merely eco-nomically efficient, but also good for those doing the work. Sitting in on an induction meeting, I was struck by the sensible and low-key way in which a great deal of practi-cal information was relayed by two young inmates to four or five new prisoners.

Short sentencesAs a judge, one message I took away was the highly questionable value of short sentences. The notion that a couple of months in prison will help bring a defend-ant to her senses, the so-called “clang of the prison gates”, has always had a real resonance for me. But, following my visit to Holloway, having listened to the proba-tion officers and others, I have a very dif-

ferent perspective. A short prison sentence can be disruptive for the prisoner’s job, home etc. And on the other hand, if an offender needs help for any reason, such as substance abuse or training for a job, there is no point in her being in prison for much less than six months. There are some poor souls who actually want to be in prison as it offers security, warmth in winter, and three meals a day, but it is a questionable use of an expensive commodity to put them in prison unless it is necessary to do so.

I was concerned by the fact that reduc-tions in staff, owing to the general eco-nomic problems and government expendi-ture cutbacks, were having a deleterious effect. The amount of time prisoners have to spend in their cells is increasing, and, bearing in mind the comparatively cramped conditions, this is a concern. More gener-ally, the cutbacks mean a reduction in the help and support given to prisoners and an increase in the hours of already hard-working staff.

My other impressions included concern that most prisoners were required to share a cell when the great majority wished to be on their own; astonishment that pris-oners could be fed sensibly for under £2 a day; regret that the excellent building used to help prisoners with mental problems


express themselves artistically is unlikely to be repeated in other prisons; disappoint-ment that a rather nicely laid out garden area did not appear to be used at all; the substantial added value of you prison monitors, who represent a convenient, trustworthy, devoted and independent source of support for the prisoners.

No prison is going to be a happy place – and many people believe that that is how it should be. Whether that is right or wrong, I would describe the attitude of most of the prisoners I met or observed on my recent visit as one of resignation, often coupled with a stated determination not to re-offend, rather than one of abject misery. However, there were one or two excep-tions, and I did not meet any prisoners who were being treated for substance abuse.

When I first visited Holloway 30 years ago, it was a deeply depressing place in almost every way. My recent visit suggests that things have improved markedly. When he was Home Secretary a century ago, Winston Churchill famously said that the public attitude to the treatment of crimi-nals was ‘one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country’. Compar-ing my two visits to Holloway I suggest that we have become a more civilized country, but we still have some way to go.

DIARY

Since my August diary entry I have undertaken two application rotas on my own. The first got off to a terrible start: difficulties leaving work and transport delays. So I arrived in a bit of a state which unfortunately set the tone for the afternoon. On the positive side I felt more confident walking round the prison on my own than I’d expected. On the negative, I had a number of rather unpleasant encounters with staff. At one point I had to walk through a group of officers who went silent, eyed me up and down then started laughing when I was still in earshot. It was like being intimidated by the bullies at school. Officers I approached to let them know I was on their wing acted like I was at best a nuisance, at worst the enemy. Coupled with the fact I was unable to find any of the right people to answer my queries I left feeling disheartened and unsure about my choice of volunteering.

Having done another rota since, where every staff member I spoke to was exceedingly helpful and friendly, I know my first experience was bad luck. On my second rota visit I arrived much earlier to give myself a fighting chance. I’m pleased to report that not only did I see every prisoner I needed to and found ways of helping each of them, I actually enjoyed being there.

My first two rotas rather neatly demonstrated the highs and lows of prison monitoring. At a large prison, with

Responding to applications – frustrating or fun?More from our new IMB recruit, barely a year in

Institute of Criminology Masters course (MSt) in Applied Criminology, Penology and Management

The Institute of Criminology, at the University of Cambridge, runs a part-time Masters course specifically for senior practitioners working in all areas of criminal justice, including prisons, probation, the judiciary and the magistracy. The course is taught in short, residential study blocks by internationally renowned Cambridge academics and guest speakers, in a setting with world class facilities. All candidates become full and life-long members of the University and of Homerton College. We would welcome applications from IMB members. The closing date for applications for the next course beginning in March 2014 is 31st December 2013. Please contact: Lucinda Bowditch email: [email protected] or telephone 01223 335373 for further information, or go to http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/courses/penology/

budget cuts biting, there will inevitably be less and less staff on landings or in back offices available to assist IMB members in responding to applications. At this prison the number of applications received by the board has drastically increased in the last year making the task that much more tricky for an inexperienced member, trying to fathom who does what and where.

Catch prison officers on a bad day, struggle with awkward queries and encounter endless empty offices and you can leave feeling overwhelmed and powerless. Visit the prison when, metaphorically speaking, the sun is shining, and you can leave satisfied that you’ve done something to help others.


IMB IN THE NEWS

For some years the IMB at Bronzefield have argued the case for a small number of difficult to manage women. These women can be volatile, violent, challenging and dangerous, but they are also vulnerable and many have self harmed. They are no different to the men who are held in close supervision centres (CSC) within the male estate where there is a greater investment in their management, supervision and care. They present the same complex and diverse behavioural, mental health and security needs. There are no CSC units within the female estate so these women end up being segregated.

Although Bronzefield has, especially recently, done some excellent work with these women, and even progressed some of them onto normal location, this is not always the case. A segregation unit is not provisioned or staffed to care effectively

The challenge of managing difficult prisonersBronzefield prison got a press battering after a recent HMIP

report: ‘female prisoner segregated for over five years’. The IMB

got pulled in: why had they not done more? There were letters to

the Guardian… Board chair Jan Sambrook explains

for difficult and potentially vulnerable women, especially long term. The result is they spend long periods isolated in their cells, which is damaging for their mental and physical health. Their daily lives and regimes are very restricted and compare poorly with the regimes and facilities avail-able to similar male prisoners held in CSCs. This is discriminatory and very unfair.

What the IMB has doneWe have highlighted this situation in every annual report since 2008. Our concerns have been stated clearly in the executive summary, and expressed as questions to Noms and to the minister. We have also written to ministers, Noms, and talked to whoever we can. Over the years we have heard from the Noms women’s team, from minsters and from MPs. Recently Crispin Blunt and Helen Grant, both

MoJ under secretaries, have written to us. There has been talk about promised policy, but nothing has emerged. The situation remains the same.

HMIP have raised the problem in the last two inspection reports. This year’s described the ‘squalid cell’ and ‘isolation’ that one woman has endured for the past five years. ‘Inhumane’ was the adjective used. Their report certainly generated some publicity but much of it was inaccu-rate and highlighted the situation of just one woman. But the IMB would empha-sise this is not an isolated problem. There has been more than one woman languish-ing in ‘Separation and Care.’

Frances Crook of the Howard League, when interviewed by the BBC about HMIP comments, talked only about the escape risk of these women as they ‘don’t have helicopters or guns’. There was no reference to the danger that these women may present, either to other prisoners, staff or to themselves. The IMB at Bronzefield were also criticised in the letters page of the Guardian suggesting that we had taken no action, to which I reacted to strongly in a letter published a few days later.

In spite of all the recent publicity, we see no action still. The problem remains. And our question remains: when will the inequality for these few very difficult, vola-tile but vulnerable women end? When will there be the equivalent of a close supervi-sion centre in the female estate?

Extracts from two letters in the GuardianThe independent monitoring board at HMP Bronzefield should have known about the situation and challenged the authorities repeatedly, up to and including the minister of justice. At its best, the IMB is a most effective organisation for ensuring that prisons are operated in a truly humane manner. But an IMB is only truly effective if it is a high-quality team operating in a professional manner, understands its role and possesses the drive and character to carry it out. The work of the IMB as a whole is, unfortunately, weakened by the lack of an effective system to monitor, assess and advise its individual prison IMBs. If poorly organised, staffed and led, they become little more than a fig leaf to cover weaknesses in the prison system.?Ken Ellis (ex-chairman of a prison IMB) Dereham, Norfolk

It has also been suggested in the press that the Bronzefield IMB has been remiss in monitoring, reporting and challenging this unfair situation (Letters, 26 August). This is inaccurate and unjust. I, previous chairs, and members of the IMB have raised our concerns repeatedly about the women held long-term in the segregation unit. This is in direct contravention of National Offender Management Service (Noms) guidance, falls well below what is fair, decent and humane, and discriminates against female prisoners, as the special accommodation available to men is not provided for women. These concerns have been

raised strenuously both in writing and at meetings for many years with ministers, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, those leading on the Optional Protocol for the Convention Against Torture and Noms, and also highlighted repeatedly in our annual reports.Jan Sambrook, Chair IMB Bronzefield


IMB CAREER DEVELOPMENT

The IMB Secretariat recently launched a pilot scheme which allows IMB members to receive a formal qualification to rec-ognise the continued commitment they make as board members. The IMB Skills for Justice Award is the equivalent of NVQ level 3 and is awarded by the accrediting body, City of Bristol College.

I am one of 11 members currently on the pilot scheme. Being a very young IMB member at the age of 21, I jumped at the chance for the work I was already doing within my establishment to become formally recognised – ideal for my future career.

At the launch event with the Secretariat in June, we were given a presentation by course leaders, which detailed what we should expect and what we would need to do to complete the qualification. Even though this is a pilot scheme, there was a great deal of support and information available before we had even started the assessment, which gave me confidence about doing it.

The curriculum – and beyondThe qualification is specifically designed to fit in with the day-to-day duties of IMB members and enables members to ensure that the work they are doing is correct. Members must produce evidence of the work they do. This evidence can include observations, formal discussions, reflective accounts, set question and answers and witness testimonies. There are four core modules which need to be undertaken designed around the IMB core duties. The learner must be able to:• conduct an inspection, monitoring or review• report and follow up outcomes of inspections, monitoring or reviews• respond to critical and serious incidents, concerns or complaints• contribute to the quality of team working.

I am now three months into the quali-fication and so far have met numerous learning outcomes for different modules, without needing to do much extra work. Evidencing the criteria can be straight-

IMB NVQ

Hannah Moore of Littlehey IMB

describes her foray into the

world of IMB qualifications

forward. For example, once I have con-ducted a rota visit, the follow-up report I write can be validated by a colleague who accompanied me, to confirm that what I have written is a true version of events. Other evidence can be a bit trickier to produce, with complicated wording and some need for research into legal regula-tions. Although this may take extra time, it has enhanced my knowledge of the legal system, which will in turn improve what I can do for the inmates.

Members have to complete the qualifi-cation within one year from start to finish, and based on what I have completed so far, I think this is a very reasonable amount of time.

Each member is allocated an assessor from City of Bristol College. The majority of these are ex-prison or immigration staff, with invaluable experience. My own asses-sor retired after over 30 years in the Prison

Service so knows a lot about the impor-tance of the IMB within establishments. He has been very supportive and is always on hand if I am unsure of something, not only relating to my assessments but to the prison environment as a whole.

My experience so far has been very pos-itive and the qualification is fitting in well with my busy work schedule. It has helped me to understand why things are done in certain ways and enabled me to delve deeper into the legal aspects of the Prison Service. I have no doubt that offering the qualification will encourage new vol-unteers to join an IMB and allow longer serving members to further develop and enhance their skills by confirming what they are doing is correct.

IMB members give up a great deal of time to monitoring prisons and immigra-tion establishments and it is great that this effort can now be formally recognised.

“I jumped at the chance for the work I was already doing

within my establishment to become formally

recognised – ideal for my

future career.”

REHABILITATION


By the frontline I’m referring to that well-trodden path from the prison gate back into the community – and sometimes back again. In the last year this journey has become increasingly hazardous, both for the offender and the community. The traditional resettlement support networks are disintegrating and dramatic changes to our welfare system have removed impor-tant statutory lifelines.

These changes come from many direc-tions: the implementation of the Localism Act devolving more control and power to local authorities; caps on housing benefit; the abolition of much of the government Social Fund, such as community care grants and crisis loans; the dismantling of Supporting People and reductions in the local housing allowance. All have affected the resettlement process and our ability, as a frontline voluntary community service organisation, to rehabilitate prisoners effectively.

Dispatches from the frontlineMaria McNicholl heads prison

and women services at the

St Giles Trust. She reports on

the effects of recent cuts

Our housing crisisThe dismantling of Supporting People, a vital funding stream within local authori-ties, has resulted in the closure of many of the hostels and supported accommodation projects that we relied on previously when housing some of our most vulnerable and problematic clients. At the same time changes to the local housing allowance shared accommodation rate have meant that, with a few exceptions, only people of 35 and over can now be considered for single person occupancy. So we are obliged to house the majority of prisoners on release in multiple occupancy privately rented tenancies. As you can imagine many of our clients have a wide variety of needs and issues that makes sharing accommoda-tion extremely challenging. The reduction of the local housing allowance has made housing people centrally a financial impos-sibility and led to the creation of ‘poverty ghettos’ in outer London boroughs.

As an organisation we were prepared for these changes and have been build-ing up a portfolio of private landlords who are trustworthy and prepared to offer tenancies to ex-offenders. However a key element of this service was our ability to access crisis loans that could be used for rent in advance. We now have to approach each local authority separately to try and secure support for rent in advance or a deposit, and each authority has its own systems and priorities that our staff have to tackle. Nowadays that journey from the prison gate back to the community – as well as the usual stops at the homeless persons unit, Job Centre Plus, probation etc – includes the food bank. The demise of community care grants have left most prisoners without any funds to clothe and feed themselves in the gap between release and their first benefit payment.

For any prisoners facing specific issues on release, such as mental illness and addic-tion, things can be even more distressing. Sourcing accommodation for female pris-oners on release, for example, is always more problematic. Multiple occupancy tenancies sharing with male residents is not always a viable option especially if they have faced exploitation or abuse pre-viously. Often landlords aren’t keen on accepting a woman in a shared house: to quote: ‘they cause trouble’, ‘they complain too much’ or ‘they form relationships’ – like men don’t!

We now have to resort to housing homeless prison leavers in suburban areas where existing local communities can be insular and resistant. Although prison leavers should absolutely have the right to live anywhere their licence conditions permit, in reality we have always preferred

areas where they will be able to fit in with the local community and relevant support services are easily at hand. Housing our clients in areas where they are made to feel unwelcome and are isolated from support can damage their chances of resettling effectively.

Alhough we will continue to work to ensure that no prisoner is faced with sleep-ing on the street after release, it is a con-stant and increasingly uphill struggle. To a great extent our success is the result of the genuine commitment of our ex-offender staff, who fully understand what it is like to leave prison without a home, and work unceasingly to access accommodation for our clients.

Left, Maria McNicoll on the landings and below, a prisoner is back in the community


KOESTLER AWARDS

This year’s Koestler exhibition was curated by the Mercury prize-winning musician, Speech De-belle and supervised by ex-prisoners. The Moni-tor is presenting a selection of images whose originals were monochrome.

Clockwise from above: Grandad, Michael, HMP Littlehey; Anon, Guernsey States Prison; Girl and Wolf, Daniel, HMP Thameside; Get Me Out of Here, Anon, HMP Inverness; Asking for Forgiveness, Anon, Rampton Hospital

Front cover: Perceptions, Anon, Knowsley Youth Offending Team

INSPECTION & MONITORING


Aylesbury (YOI) Aylesbury has two major problems: meaningful activity is inadequate for the numbers and menial in quality, and visiting arrangements for families travelling from all over the country are poor. This institution has a grim reputation for violence but has improved since the 2011 inspection even though there have been two deaths due to self-inflicted injuries and much self-harm. Although staff relationships have improved, violence against staff is still high, as is the use of force – with insufficient scrutiny of baton use.

Blundeston (Cat C)Improved since 2011, but still no in-cell sanitation (with troublesome electronic unlocking for toilets) and poor healthcare. About to close anyway (see page 9).

Bristol (Local)Progress reported in 2010 has not been maintained and the prison is struggling badly. Although the recent closure of Gloucester prison has put the staff under pressure some of the issues in the HMIP report are also in the 2012 IMB report – almost a year before. The first night reception facility is non-existent, but the IMB report mentions that it was

Prison inspections HMIP and IMB reports summarised by Michael Peacock of

Gartree IMB (and AMIMB executive)

discontinued deliberately as new prisoners were distributed throughout the wings. As a result prisoners feel unsafe and there is much bullying. Services are poor, prisoners have difficulty in obtaining clean clothes, bedding and cleaning materials, there is a cockroach infestation, some cells do not have windows and areas of the prison are dirty. Complaints against staff go un-investigated. What little work is available is menial.

Bronzefield (Women)The main findings were national issues. Women prisoners are still transported in the same vehicle as men, and have to stay in the van until all the men have been dropped off because women’s prisons will accept new arrivals at any time. This accentuates the fear that women prisoners have in travelling with men and prolongs their journeys unnecessarily. Second, the treatment of ‘restricted status’ women has led to cruel and inhuman punishment as illustrated by a prisoner at Bronzefield who has been in the segregation unit for six years living in an unkempt and squalid cell. The IMB has reported repeatedly on this (see page 12). It should be emphasised that the treatment of all other prisoners is good with substantial improvement since the 2010 inspection

Cardiff (Local)Experienced and caring staff make the best of an overcrowded prison with a transient, 50% remand population. Despite five suicides in a year, prisoners felt safe and healthcare was good. There must be a question mark against a wing devoted to basic regime prisoners

Cookham Wood (YOI)Improvement since 2010, well managed but violent, and measures to prevent self-harm and suicide are described as lacklustre.

Drake Hall (Women)Very positive report, especially about resettlement, but work is needed on the fabric, including the seg.

Feltham (YOI)Feltham is clearly incapable of effectively managing either offenders aged 16 to 17 (Feltham A) or 18-21 (B). The main areas of concern are staff relationships, use of force and disciplinary procedures. Feltham B has seen extendable batons used 25 times and drawn 108 times – unknown in other establishments. Accommodation was shabby and covered with graffiti, food was poor and in some cases served, very unusually, at the cell door. Young people complained of being hungry as meals were served so early. Fighting is endemic. The inspector completes his report by adding that it is one of the most concerning published recently.

Oakwood (Cat C)The IMB produced an excellent report on this G4S-managed prison, particularly as the board had only seven members against a full complement of 20. This report may have triggered off the unannounced inspection by HMIP.

The HMIP report focuses on the management problems and praises the design. But the IMB report makes it clear that many of the subsequent problems of drugs and the frustration of staff and prisoners were due to inadequate design – eg external fencing, ventilation in hub areas and cell furniture. The IMB report highlighted that the prison opened with contractors still active on site and not just ‘finishing off’.

The management and operational problems would appear to be due to the large number of untrained staff thrown into the deep end into a prison which rapidly filled almost to capacity with a mixture of sex offenders (300), lifers and other prisoners of determinate sentences of which a large percentage are, in the opinion of the IMB board, not suited for a category C prison but have been sent there as the original build design was for category B.

The most worrying areas of both reports are the lack of adequate healthcare provision from Worcester Health & Care NHS Trust, the lack of safety for vulnerable prisoners, and the

Rooftop protest at Oakwood (dubbed Jokewood)

apparent lack of any meaningful employment for prisoners as only 58% of the population are working and the remainder are banged up from 9am onwards.

The fact that the IMB had to wait for a year to get application boxes posted in the prison illustrates problems with complaints and applications.

From the chief inspector


Nick Hardwick’s annual report was published last month. He compared 2012/13 with 2011/13.• Self-inflicted deaths and self-harm fell by 22% and 14% respectively – but self-harm actually rose in men’s prisons (it fell in women’s prisons).• Assaults were down too – but it seems because less young people are imprisoned; violence in many adult male prisons is up.• Safety and respect were maintained – though half of the local prisons inspected were ‘poor’ or ‘not sufficiently good’ on safety.• The headline finding was a drop from 84% to 64% in prisons rated ‘good’ or ‘reasonably good’ on resettlement.

‘Our judgements about the quantity and quality of purposeful activity in which prisoners are engaged plummeted over the year. Put simply, too many prisoners spend too long

locked in their cells with nothing constructive to do, and when they are in classes or work, these are often of insufficient quality.’

Looking at areas outside prisons:• immigration removal centres were generally safe although some security procedures were disproportionate• individuals can be detained administratively under immigration powers for long periods by relatively junior officials without any routine independent scrutiny• while most detainees in police custody were held safely in decent conditions, too many people who were unwell were detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and taken to police custody as a place of safety• the conditions of some court cells was disgraceful.

The Monitor asked Nick Hardwick for six messages from HMIP to IMBs. Here they are

1 We are not independent of each other. The UK is a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punish-ment (OPCAT). OPCAT requires state parties to establish a system of independent inspection of all places of detention known as the National Preventative Mechanism (NPM). Both the inspectorate and IMBs are part of the UK NPM and the standards that apply to our work require us to co-operate and be consistent. Like it or lump it, we are family.2 But we are (or should be) independent of the establish-ments we inspect and monitor. This is not simply a question of organisational independence but a requirement to keep suf-ficient distance so that objectivity and clarity is not lost. They are never ‘our’ prisons.3 The OPCAT mandate creates a specific human rights

platform for our work. Our concern is with people not places - outcomes for prisoners, not the management of prisons. 4 Both I and IMB members have fixed term appointments. Rightly so. Neither of us should stay in our posts too long.5 ABC: assume nothing, believe no one, check everything. A healthy scepticism is an essential prerequisite for a good inspector or monitor. Where is the evidence to support what is claimed? Better to be pleasantly surprised than bitterly disappointed.6 Inspecting certainly and monitoring probably leads to the sin of pride. It is harder to run a prison than to inspect or monitor one. The best, it seems to me, are willing to consider that they may be mistaken and change their minds when that is what the evidence requires – but are also willing to stick to a minority, unpopular position when that is where the evidence leads. It is then, of course, that you need family.

Guy’s Marsh (Cat C)No improvement in respect: too many vulnerable prisoners were sheltering in the segregation unit, the quality of accommodation was poor, too many single cells were housing two prisoners with little toilet screening. Employment opportunities were largely underdeveloped.

Holloway (Women)Hugely improved since 2010; safe and decent now – but with some deficiencies in purposeful activity.

Huntercombe (Foreign nationals)Good support for this challenging population, though the seg is over-used and there is not enough support for those due to be deported.

Leeds (Local)A large, overcrowded Victorian local prison with a reputation for violence – yet now scoring well right across the board. The only criticism is that meals have to be

eaten very close to cell toilets – something also picked up by the IMB.

Lindholme (Cat C and D)Like the IMB annual report, HMIP criticised the Cat D wing: reception perfunctory, prisoners felt unsafe (28% against the norm of 5% in comparable prisons), drugs and alcohol were readily available and healthcare was virtually non-existent. (The D wing was closed shortly afterwards.) The rest of the prison was also criticised: vulnerable prisoners segregated, drugs and alcohol available, weak on diversity and behaviour management programmes.

NottinghamProgress since 2010 on education and training, but still poor on bullying, use of force and adjudications. The IMB annual report criticises three changes of governor, cost cutting problems and prisoners, including those on remand, being referred to in notices as ‘offenders’.

HMP WARREN HILL

Rochester (Cat C adults and young)The use of force and bullying are still too high despite improvements since 2011. A complex mix of prisoners, nevertheless activities and resettlement are satisfactory.

Thameside (Local)Serco opened the prison in January 2012; as a result of prisoner violence and inexperienced staff a complete lockdown was instigated that autumn, and when HMIP visited in January 2013 there were no plans to reinstate the normal regime. Over 60% of the prisoners were locked up during the day; some were spending 23 hours a day in a cell. There were inadequate activities, little decent work and not enough attention to resettlement.

Usk (Cat C) and Prescoed (Cat D)Two miles apart with the same managers, both prisons were rated highly.The IMB concurred in 2012. Food is an issue in both jails.


INSPECTION INTERVIEW

With hindsight, it wasn’t the best timing for this interview. Just four months into the job, John Thornhill was still taking stock of the outfit he has taken over after Peter Selby’s departure. And he is clearly a cautious man, an experienced manager of people and organisations. He chaired the Magistrates’ Association and has quite a legal background.

The venue was good though. The ninth floor of the old Home Office, now MoJ building overlooks St James’s Park and across beyond Westminster to the London Eye. John Thornhill is one of a handful in the whole, cost-cutting building not to share a desk (hot desking): he has his own, in his own office.

His background includes five years or so on the Altcourse IMB back in the 1990s; he was even AMBoV’s secretary. Has Peter Selby marked his card on what he could expect in the traditionally tricky post of NC president?. ‘I haven’t spoken to him. I wanted to come to the job with a fresh mind, not listening to my predecessor. I don’t want warnings, don’t want advice.’

He has though read a lot of relevant reports, been briefed by Secretariat boss Mick Robins, spoken to NC members individually, and been to three regional IMB meetings and two boards. ‘I’m happy to visit any establishment and to meet indi-vidual members. I want a broad perspec-tive.’

Any surprises so far? ‘Not really.’ It’s certainly not surprising for him to hear that boards want better responses to their annual reports and other communications with the MoJ. ‘We’re talking with Noms about improving that. But these are very difficult financial times, and it’s early days.’

What about criticisms of the national council for taking on too many initiatives at once, getting bogged down in working parties, reports etc? He seems to have taken that on and is initiating a rolling develop-ment plan. He wants board involvement in that: ‘there’s a lot of expertise out there.’

He resisted suggestions that the recruit-ment process was too centrally controlled. But he’s game to hear otherwise from boards. He was pleased that 40% of recent

Warren Hill (YOI)Apart from violent incidents and a poor seg, a good report – but the prison will become Cat C in the new year.

Winchester (Local)Since the last report in 2010, the prison has deteriorated badly and is now a cause for concern. In spite of getting a new governor in August 2012, the IMB report in May 2013 gives little indication that things are improving. The main issues relate to its category B prisoners.

The main problems in the October 2012 HMIP report revolve around poor leadership leading to a complete lack of safety for vulnerable prisoners, a total failure of the personal officer system, ready availability of drugs and insufficient activity leading to prisoners being locked up for very long periods in shared cells. Diversity and equality policies were non-existent, prison clothing is of poor quality as are the meals which are unappetising and served in small portions. Healthcare provision is weak and there are no arrangements for the treatment of chronic disease or support for mentally sick prisoners. To all of this, the IMB report seven months later added the issues of poor incentives and earned privileges management. And there is a lack of police involvement in serious offences; the police liaison officer refused to reveal statistics to the board.

Yarls Wood (IRC)The HMIP reports of June and October 2013 mention general improvements, but are mainly concerned with the treatment of the largely female population, in terms of dignity. Two staff were dismissed for having sexual relations with a detainee; there are not enough female staff for cell searches; and male staff enter female detainees’ cells without warning. Female detainees who have been involved in trafficking have not been referred to the national trafficking referral system. Too little thought has been given to the wider emotional needs of pregnant women, and women are barred from using Skype or social networking sites. Considerable distress is caused by the inordinate time taken in processing immigration cases.

The IMB report the previous year gave credit to a number of developments and service improvements but highlighted the problems with transport from UKBA which caused very long delays and wasted journeys and like the HMIP reports criticised the length of time in processing applications and the complete lack of understanding as to why individuals had been detained.

I don’t look backThe Monitor talks to the new

national council president,

John Thornhill

applications came from the MoJ website – though he conceded that this probably wasn’t the route to more diverse boards.

The wider issue of autonomy – both of boards and the whole organisation – brought a cautious response. He clearly sees very strict limit to boards’ autonomy: they can vary things to suit local condi-tions, but must toe the party line. Have boards gone too far in this area? ‘I’m told that, yes.’ And although he wants IMBs to be more effective, he was cagey about wanting to be independent of the MoJ.

On the tricky subject of the rift between AMIMB and the NC, John Thornhill clearly doesn’t share Peter Selby’s reluc-tance to see the need for a separate body. ‘I don’t like to look back; I’m not into recriminations. I’m looking forward to building the relationship and I’ve already had a meeting with AMIMB.’

Talk of sorting out poorly perform-ing board members (‘review more often than every three years if necessary, inter-vene as sure as shortcoming appear’) led to the tenure issue. All the appeals against forced retirement were famously rejected before he joined. This was clearly wrong, though all he will say about that is ‘we need to move on.’ Anyway, he intervened personally, reviewed them with NC repre-sentatives, and eight members have been reinstated for now. We’ll see what happens next year.

One final question: what about the blanket ban on prisoners’ voting? No comment from the president (unlike his predecessor). ‘It’s a decision for govern-ment.’ Boo.


Application for AMIMB membership

Name

Address

Postcode

Phone (home)

Phone (work)

Email

Establishment

I enclose my cheque for

£

I am a UK taxpayer and I would like AMIMB to reclaim tax already paid on this, and any future subscriptions and donations unless I notify you otherwise. My tax bill this year will be more than this gift.

Yes No

Signature

Date

Membership feesThe annual subscription is £20.

Send this form and a cheque, made payable to AMIMB, to the treasurer:

Jenny Budgell, Natural Numbers Ltd, Syms Yard, Chippenham, Wilshire SN14 6LH

If you would like to pay by standing order in future years please tick here

Troubled? Confused?Uncertain? Harassed?

For support or advice from AMIMB

[email protected]

AMIMB HELPLINE

BOARD DISPUTES

I became a Board member in August 2011 and quickly learned that it was a job that was suited to me. I am strong of character and enjoyed the new challenges that being a board member brought. In January 2013 I became Board Development Officer.

Working in a prison I was aware of everything I might come across – violence, manipulation and possibly bullying. I knew it was all possible from the prisoners, but when the bullying came from a fellow board member, who I will call X, it came as a complete shock.

Things start to go wrongIn April this year I was about to attend a meeting in the prison. As I would be going in when I was not on rota, I emailed X who was the duty member for that week, about my forthcoming visit. The board had a local rule at that time making it clear that was should happen.

I received an email by return from X stating that he didn’t expect my forthcom-ing visit to last more than an hour and that I ‘shouldn’t be inside the establishment unnecessarily just to claim extra finance.’ I was more than a little shocked.

Following that, an anonymous email was received by each board member. It was largely directed at me and was both ven-omous and vindictive.The email contained

Why I’m leaving the board

quotes from emails between X and myself. The quotes had been cobbled together and the whole email raved on in a very dis-turbing way.

Taking it upI informed the chair of all that was happen-ing and when he got back to me his reply was that ‘I and the members of the Board got frustrated by you not wanting to abide with the local rules which had been agreed by the Board members.’ I was surprised at the lack of support. I have abided to the letter the ‘local rules’ and have every bit of evidence to support this.

I contacted the Secretariat for their support and this is why I write this piece now. A representative came to visit and came again for a meeting with all parties. To date I have no knowledge that the Secretariat have done anything about this situation.

No resolutionI truly believed that X would at the least be asked to write an apology to me and even asked to leave. Instead I am encouraged by the Secretariat to ‘continue your work……where your efforts have been recognised and appreciated.’Am I wrong to feel badly treated?

In June I took a three-month sabbatical and extended it through illness.

I really am disappointed at the lack of support I have received and mostly though I cannot work with X – and why should I? I have decided to leave the IMB

Try and explain these figures. In 2010, 212 IMB members resigned; in 2011, 401 resigned; in 2012, 338; but only 210 so far in 2013. So that’s back to 2010 levels, despite (or possibly because of) uncertainty about tenure, closures, re-roling etc. And talking of tenure, all 29 of the appeals against forced exits in 2013 were turned down at first. Follow-ing a review by the new president, eight were reprieved – at least for the time being. Incidentally, the number resign-ing within the first year or two seems to remain pretty constant at about 38%.

Board turnover and tenure

Next time

Coming, in your February 2014 Monitor:The perils of police custodyWhy desistance is the new watchwordHow Leeds prison was transformed – by the governor who did itAn interview with the award-winning screenwriter whose film is based on his work in prison

‘an anonymous email ... was both venomous and vindictive’

LAST WORD from Carp

AMIMB works to maximise the effectiveness of its members by providing:• encouragement in the robust and efficient performance of their duties• training support• best practice advice on the treatment of prisoners and the administration of prisons• information on relevant developments in penal affairs• support for members who seek advice in times of difficulty.AMIMB also helps to enhance public awareness of the work of Independent Monitoring Boards.

Designed by Countrywide Publications, and printed by Micropress Printers Ltd

AMIMBstatementof purpose

Special measures?Ofsted inspectors have roundly criticised prison educational standards. In the last four years not one prison has been rated outstanding and only one in three gets even a good rating. An Ofsted director called this unacceptable. ‘If these figures related to our schools there would be a national outcry. Every prisoner costs the taxpayer the same as sending a child to Eton, around £34,000 per year. We must now focus on improvement of prisoners’ vocational and employability skills to ensure we support them on their journey out of prison and into employment to break the cycle of re-offending.’In January 2012 Ofsted stopped separate reports on prisons;

their findings are now to be found in the purposeful activity section of HMIP reports.

Criminals’ damageSince 1 November prisoners will, for the first time, be charged for any damage they cause. So wrecking a cell could be costly: £1,000 for the popular targets, the sink and toilet; £419 for a window. That doesn’t include labour. The prison will be able to take the money from prisoners’ accounts, but must leave enough for ‘necessary’ purchases and family contact – and the debt is cancelled after two years, or at the sentence expiry date. It’s not clear whether this is supposed to be a fund-raiser or a deterrent. Will it work either way? And will it incite further trouble?

Risk assessment re-assessedProfessional judgements about how dangerous psychopathic prisoners might be if released are no better than tossing a coin, according to a study by forensic psychiatrists. They looked at data from 1,396 sexual or violent offenders, before and after release. The standard assessment methods got it right about 75% of the time if there was no mental illness, 60% if there was – and 47% right if there was psychopathy. The researchers reckon that makes the process worse than useless; they say parole boards should note the results of tests but not act on them. If followed, this could be bad news for prisoners who already suffer in our risk-averse society.

Parole in personPrisoners should have the right to appear in person before a parole board in cases where the fairness of their detention is in question, the Supreme Court has ruled. This is likely to mean many prisoners who have served their sentence but are kept behind bars for reasons of public protection can appear in person to plead the case for their release. Good news for post post-tariff prisoners (indeterminate sentenced ones notably) who should now have their cases reviewed.

Maximum-sized securityAlmost half our prisoners could be in supersized prisons under current government plans. A 2,000-place prison is planned for Wrexham, and another similar in prospect for London. And about 20 prisons have closed or will fairly soon. Already 40% of prisoners are in the 28 prisons with over 1,000 places – the three largest of which are privately run. These figures come from the

the Prison Reform Trust’s latest Bromley File. As PRT points out, smaller prisons tend to be safer and more effective. That’s according to prisons inspectorate data. But don’t expect Serco, G4S etc – the ultimate beneficiaries of the move to larger prisons – to agree.

Children’s complaints will be heardAs the Monitor has reported in the past, children held in secure training centres (there are four – three run by G4S, one by Serco) are there because of their vulnerability, yet subject to regular use of physical force. There have been deaths. Yet until very recently there has been no formal mechanism for investigating complaints about the children’s treatment. As a result of a challenge by the Howard League, the MoJ has now conceded that the Prisons & Probation Ombudsman will take this on. Yet the MoJ takes away with the other hand: on the same day, it announced its intention to stop legal aid for children in detention to get help for anything except representation before the parole board.

Smoking privilegesIMB members will be monitoring the effect of the new, tougher rules on incentives and earned privileges (detailed in the February Monitor). Once they begin to bite, please let AMIMB know how you find it’s going. And if the government really means it about banning smoking behind bars, and if you’re at one of the prisons which will trial it in the spring, let us know how that goes too. ‘I can think of nothing more calculated to cause unrest says the Guardian prison correspondent Eric Allison, citing the estimated 80% of prisoners who smoke.

november 2013 • issue 110 independent monitormonitor november 2013 • issue 110 the association...

Documents