Court custody was an accident waiting to happen and conditions were some of the worst inspectors have seen, said Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons. Today he published a thematic review of court custody in England and Wales.

The review draws together findings from inspections of 97 courthouses with custody facilities between August 2012 and August 2014. Inspectors’ expectations of court custody are modest. Inspectors expect to see a clear strategy for and leadership of the custody function, that detainees are held for the shortest time possible and that their rights are respected. While they are in custody, detainees should be safe and treated decently according to their individual needs, and any health needs should be dealt with effectively.

Of most concern to inspectors was the lack of any meaningful risk assessment when detainees arrive in custody or are released. The concerns identified have been repeatedly made known to HM Courts and Tribunal Service through the publication of individual reports and inspectors are not satisfied that they have been adequately addressed. The pockets of good practice inspectors found, and the fact that most court custody staff tried hard to treat people in custody decently, shows it is not inevitable that poor conditions and degrading, unsafe practices will prevail.

Overall, inspectors found that:

• no single organisation exercised any effective leadership for court custody provision at local or national level;
• no organisation has a good overall picture of the situation and physical conditions were poor, with deep cleaning and decorating clearly neglected for years;
• the valuable insights of Lay Observers, whose independent scrutiny of court custody is of pivotal importance, are often overlooked;
• contract management is focused on the timely delivery of detainees to court and little priority is given to ensuring detainees to do not spend long periods in court cells after their appearance is over;
• deficits in aspects of detainee care, such as risk assessment, where poor care could result in serious harm to detainees themselves, staff or others, are allowed to remain almost entirely unaddressed;
• established practices that are applied unquestioningly often cause the greatest disadvantage to the most vulnerable detainees, such as the handcuffing of disabled detainees in public;
• while a few custody staff did attempt to ask detainees how they were feeling, it was often clear that they lacked training in risk assessment, meaning serious risks – that detainees might harm themselves or others, lapse from sleep into a coma, or become ill while in custody – were not managed;
• pre-release risk planning was unusual with, on most occasions, only a travel warrant given to vulnerable detainees, in sharp contrast to police services, who recognise they have a duty of care;
• often, HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) managers were unaware of how bad conditions in the cells were or claimed that detainees only spent a couple of hours in them, while in reality, many detainees spent eight or 10 hours in a tiny cell with no natural light, sometimes no heating, that might be filthy;
• provision for people who were pregnant, elderly or disabled was almost always inadequate and custody staff had little awareness of the needs of children; and
• physical health care was poor, with treatment and medication often delayed in the belief it would be provided later in prison or police custody, though mental health was better.

Nick Hardwick said:

“The treatment of detainees and the conditions in custody suites were very low priorities for the different organisations involved, which failed to adequately coordinate their custody roles. Inspectors could find almost no-one at local or national level who accepted overall accountability or saw it as their responsibility to address the inspectorate’s recommendations. The treatment and conditions we found were the consequence. We found filthy, squalid cells covered in old graffiti. The needs of women, children or other detainees with particular needs were often not understood or addressed. Routine security measures were often disproportionate or inconsistent. Health care was inadequate. Of most concern and despite, in many cases, the best efforts of custody staff, we found a dangerous disregard for the risks detainees might pose to themselves or others. Court custody is an accident waiting to happen.”

Notes to editors:

1. Read the report.
2. HM Inspectorate of Prisons is an independent inspectorate, inspecting places of detention to report on conditions and treatment, and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public.
3. HMI Prisons’ inspections of court custody are part of the UK’s obligations arising from its status as a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), which requires state parties to establish a system of independent, preventive inspection of all places of detention. Inspections began in 2012 and HMI Prisons developed expectations (inspection criteria) and an inspection methodology that reflect the methods used in other places of detention.
4. Since the review was drafted, there has been the first death of a detainee in court custody for many years and the apparent homicide of DCO Lorraine Barwell at Blackfriars Crown Court in July 2015. Investigations into these matters have not yet concluded and inspectors cannot make any link between the concerns identified in this report and those events. Whether or not the tragedies that occurred are related to these concerns, inspectors are clear that there is a real risk of further serious incidents in future.
5. Please contact Jane Parsons at HMI Prisons press office on 020 3681 2775 or 07880 787452 if you would like more information or to request an interview.