Security of Prisoners at Court

National Security Framework Ref: NSF 7.1 EXTERNAL ESCORTS FUNCTION

This instruction applies to :- Reference :-

NOMS Headquarters AI 12/2015 Prisons PSI 26/2015 Issue Date Effective Date Expiry Date Implementation Date 23 July 2015 23 July 2015 22 July 2019

Issued on the NOMS Agency Board authority of For action by (who is All staff responsible for discharges to court including initial risk this instruction for) assessments, completion of PER, including those in contracted prisons. NOMS HQ Public Sector Prisons Contracted Prisons* Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) Governors Heads of Groups PECS * If this box is marked, then in this document the term Governor also applies to Directors of Contracted Prisons For information All HQ Prison staff and HMCTS Provide a summary of The aim of this policy is to provide instruction and guidance to prisons the policy aim and in identifying and managing risks relating to prisoners attending court. the reason for its development/revision It supports the need for risks to be identified and key stakeholders advised at the earliest point of the prisoner’s entry into prison in order for processes to be put in place at court to reduce risk of violence or escape. Contact Ceri Mortimer [email protected] 0300 047 6203 Associated PSO 1025 – The Person Escort Record (PER) documents PSI 24/2014 – AI 18/2014 – PI 18/2014 Information Assurance Policy PSI 05/2013 - The Identification, Initial Categorisation and Management of Potential and Provisional Category A / Restricted Status Prisoners PSI 09/2013 - Management and Security of Category A prisoners -External Movement PSI 74/2011 – Early days in Custody PSI 10/2015 Management and Security of Escape list (E-List) prisoners Related Service Specification Related Operating Models Related Direct Service Costs and Assumptions paper Related Cost Spreadsheets NOMS directory of service specifications can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/noms-directory-of-services- specifications Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelled: None

Audit/monitoring: Compliance with this instruction will be monitored by Audit and Corporate Assurance and through internal self-audit.

Notes: All Mandatory Actions throughout this instruction are in italics and must be strictly adhered to.

2 PAGE 3 CONTENTS

Hold down “Ctrl” and click on section titles below to follow link

Section Subject Applies to 1 Executive Summary 2 Operational Instructions  Required Actions  Late applications  Productions to civil, family, immigration and coroners courts All staff  Prisoners giving evidence from witness box  Procedures for escort contractors  Review process Annex A Court Risk Identification email template Annex B Court Security factors to consider Annex C Custody Management Directions Form for HMPS PECS Annex D Custody Management Directions Form for Escort Contractors All Staff Annex E Custody Management Directions Form Internal Guidance Notes for HMPS Annex F Custody Management Directions Form Internal Guidance PECS Notes for Escort Contractors Annex G National Offender Management Services (NOMS) and Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) All Staff Protocol document

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 4 1. Executive Summary

Background

1.1 This instruction is derived from the agreed protocol between the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) which sets out the processes for maintaining the security of prisoners at court.(Annex G)

1.2 The PSI sets out instructions on the identification and management of risk when prisoners attend court hearings. The instructions apply to Magistrate and Crown Courts, the Court of Appeal and all civil, family, immigration and coroner’s courts.

1.3 NOMS is at its most vulnerable to prisoner escape when prisoners are taken outside the secure perimeter of the prison and, in particular, when they are produced to locations with little physical security to prevent their attempting to escape or causing harm to the public.

1.4 Escapes from court represent the majority of escapes from custody and not only present a potential risk of harm to the public but damage public confidence in the Criminal Justice System.

Desired Outcomes

1.5 Public protection, the efficient delivery of justice and the maintenance of public confidence in the Criminal Justice System is supported through ensuring that prisoners committed into custody do not escape or cause harm whilst at court

1.6 The use of video link is maximised as far as is legislatively possible

1.7 The risks associated with individual prisoners during a production to court are identified and managed appropriately, including through targeted use of secure court buildings, secure docks and application of approved restraints

1.8 There is an effective means of communication, information sharing and co-operation between NOMS, HMCTS and the judiciary

1.9 There is a clear understanding of respective responsibilities and accountability

1.10 Prisoners are taken outside the secure environment of the prison only when absolutely necessary in the interests of justice

Application

1.11 This PSI incorporates mandatory requirements derived from the External Movements specification, which are highlighted in the shaded boxes.

Mandatory Actions

1.12 This PSI incorporates mandatory requirements derived from the External Movements specification, which are highlighted in the shaded boxes.

1.13 Governors / Directors of contracted prisons must ensure staff working in the Offender Management Hub (Custody Offices), Receptions and Security Departments are aware of the contents of this PSI and systems are in place to meet the mandatory requirements.

1.14 Establishment Security Departments are responsible for ensuring all sections within this PSI that are relevant are reflected within the establishment’s Local Security Strategy.

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 5 1.15 This applies to all prisoners being produced at court by HMPS and within the PECS contract and to ALL staff responsible for producing prisoners to court. Managers will need to amend local instructions as necessary to meet the mandatory actions.

Resource Impact

1.16 There may be some resource implications for establishments in updating procedures and local security strategies to ensure that they are in line with the requirements set out in this PSI.

(Signed)

Digby Griffith Director National Operational Services, NOMS

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 6 2. OPERATIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

Court Escorts

External Movements of Prisoners are risk assessed, authorised and conducted reflecting prisoner and movement type. Prisoner records and personal property are kept secure and accounted for when external movements are undertaken.

2.1 For the majority of prisoners produced at court, NOMS standard escort security measures will be sufficient to ensure the safety and security of the proceedings. However, in a small minority of cases, the risks presented by an individual prisoner will be so great that heightened security measures must be considered.

2.2 In the main, the prisoners for whom heightened security measures will be necessary are:-

 Category A prisoners  Restricted Status (RS) prisoners  Prisoners on the Escape List (E-List)

2.3 Exceptionally, there are a very small number of prisoners who are not Cat A, E-List or RS but may still be identified as presenting a high risk of significant harm prejudicial to the safety of the escort, and any other person in and around the court and who will require heightened security at court. This may include prisoners who have made explicit threats to the court or the jury.

2.4 High risk prisoners identified to the court as presenting a significant risk of escape, violence or danger have priority for the use of Prison Court Video Link (PCVL) or have their case allocated to a secure court building and court room with a secure dock. NOMS staff must make every effort to assist the Court in making its decision.

Required Actions

Prisoners are managed to ensure their safety, the safety of staff and the public

2.5 Prisoners must be assessed on reception into custody to identify those who may present a heightened risk of escape or of causing significant harm, i.e. potential violence or disorder in the Court setting. These will be prisoners identified as Cat A, E List, RS and those outside of these categories who have been identified as presenting a significant risk of harm i.e. potential violence or disorder in the Court setting.

2.6 Establishments must maintain records denoting as a minimum the prisoners name/number Court and outcome for all Custody Management Direction Forms submitted (CMDF’s, see Annex C). This will enable establishments to present data to their regional Court user group and also enable HQ to monitor and conduct a review post implementation.

2.7 The court List Officer will be advised by the establishment of those prisoners who have been identified as Cat A, E List, RS or as presenting significant risk of harm i.e. potential violence or disorder in the Court setting. Annex A provides a suggested standard format email which requests prioritisation of listing for hearings via PCVL or a secure court.

2.8 The notification must be sent via designated functional email box, to the court, copied to the Prisoner Escort Contractor Services (PECS), within 4 days of the prisoner’s reception into custody or at any subsequent stage at which information or intelligence becomes available that identifies a heightened risk.. It must be sent on the authority of the Head of Security.

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 7

2.9 The court List Officer will provide the establishment and PECS Contractors with a response within 1 week outlining the arrangements for listing the case.

2.10 There is a working assumption as detailed in the HMCTS/NOMS protocol that all prisoners notified as high risk i.e. Cat A, E-List or RS and exceptionally those presenting a significant risk of harm i.e. potential violence or disorder in the Court setting, will be allocated PCVL and/or secure dock facilities, where legislation allows. Where a secure listing cannot be provided, the court List Officer will provide the reasons to the establishment so that alternative security measures can be considered. Annex B provides a list of factors to be considered when requesting additional security measures.

2.11 Where it is necessary to consider alternative security measures, a Court Management Directions Form (CMDF, Annex C) must be submitted by the establishment via the designated functional email box to the court List Officer and PECS Contractors at least 1 week before the commencement of the hearing.

2.12 The CMDF must set out evidence of the prisoner’s identified risk of escape or violence and request the court’s approval for security measures to mitigate the risks. The CMDF (Annex C) must be informed by a full risk assessment of the prisoner include details of current custodial behaviour. (Annex E provides a guidance note for the completion of the CMDF which must not be sent to the court). Where a request is made for mechanical restraints, healthcare must be consulted to identify if there are any existing medical conditions which may be exacerbated by a prolonger period in mechanical restraints. It is essential that the CMDF form is completed as fully and accurately as possible. In the past courts have rejected cases for additional security because of inadequate evidence of risk presented to the court.

2.13 The application requests consideration of additional security measures. These are:

 Use of approved mechanical restraints.  Use of approved discreet restraints. These are a new type of restraint specifically designed so as not to be visible to a jury when the prisoner is in the witness box and are less obtrusive than other measures and are therefore less likely to prejudice a fair trial. Policy for discreet restraints is being developed and will be published shortly.  Deployment of additional escort staff or police in the courtroom or armed police in the court building (the decision to deploy armed police is the responsibility of the police and the decision to allow this measure is for the Senior Presiding Judge).  Securing the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings.  In exceptional circumstances, moving the hearing to the prison.

2.14 The application must be supported by current, specific and credible evidence that the security measures being requested are both necessary and proportionate to the identified risk and that the risk cannot effectively be managed in any other way. The CMDF must be signed by the Head of Security or a more senior manager and sent to the Court List Officer.

2.15 The CMDF must be passed via the court List Officer to the Judge hearing the case. The Judge will make a decision after consulting with the relevant parties, including the defence and the CPS. It may prove prudent for Prison staff to at an early point, liaise with the CPS consideration should be given to doing so through the Police.

2.16 An application for the use of approved restraints will normally be granted only:

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 8  Where there are good grounds for believing that the prisoner poses a significant risk of trying to escape from the court and / or a risk of causing serious harm towards those persons in court or the public generally should an escape attempt be successful

 Where there is no other viable means of preventing escape or serious harm.

2.17 The court List Officer will advise the establishment and PECS contractor of the outcome of the application.

Late Applications

2.18 There will be occasions when it is not possible to submit a CMDF one week prior to the commencement of the hearing. In particular, when intelligence or information indicating a heightened risk is received only a short time in advance of the production.

2.19 In those circumstances, the process will be:-

 The PER must be endorsed by the establishment identifying the nature of the risk  The PECS contractor must be advised by Reception staff that a CMDF will be submitted to the court prior to the start of proceedings  Security Department must complete a CMDF at the earliest opportunity on the day of the production (identifying the request for approved restraints / approved discreet restraints) - this must be emailed to the court as soon as it is completed and prior to the court commencing hearings.

It is accepted that limited information may be available in these instances, but it remains the establishment’s responsibility to provide the court with a completed CMDF giving as full a picture as possible of identified and potential risks.

Productions to civil, family Immigration and coroner’s courts

2.20 The instructions in this document apply equally to the production of high risk prisoners to civil, family, Immigration and coroner’s courts. It is unlikely that these venues will provide either secure holding facilities or court rooms and therefore the production of any prisoner to these courts carries additional risks.

2.21 Consideration should be given to the use of PCVL or moving the hearing to a more secure court. If this is not possible, arrangements must be requested to ensure the security of the production, including the availability of secure holding room facilities.

2.22 For prisoner productions outside of the Criminal Courts Prison staff must identify the need and requirement for the prisoner to attend court. The risk assessment will form part of the decision making process and set out the security measures required to manage the risks identified. Prisons should make early contact with Court managers to discuss security measures such as court room security, use of approved restraints and secure holding rooms or any heightened risks regarding the prisoner and where required liaise to make alternative arrangements.

2.23 In all circumstances where prisoners identified as a heightened risk are required to appear in civil, family Immigration or coroner’s courts – early contact and consultation with the relevant Court staff is required.

Prisoners giving evidence from the Witness Box

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 9 2.24 Higher risk prisoners required to give evidence from an insecure witness box pose a significant security risk.

2.25 Where a prisoner is required to transfer from a secure dock to an insecure witness box, in circumstances where it is judged that there is a significant risk of escape or of significant harm an application must be made by the establishment for the court to consider additional security measures over and above standard escort procedures This must be done via a CMDF following the process detailed at 2.12.

2.26 These measures will be:

 Use of approved restraints, including discreet restraints particularly where the prisoner is giving evidence in the witness box (including clearing the court room while the prisoner in restraints moves between the dock and witness box)  Deployment of additional escort staff or police in the courtroom or armed police in the court building  Securing the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings  Giving evidence from the secure dock  Use of PCVL, where the prisoner is not the defendant

Procedures for Escort Contractors

2.27 There may be circumstances where risk is only identified en route to the court or at court when the prisoner is produced by the police.

2.28 Where this is the case, PECS Contractor will make a request for additional security via a CMDF- Escort Contractor (Annex D) an guidance note for completion is given at Annex F which must not be sent to the court.

2.29 PECS Contractors must ensure that there are procedures in place to produce Custody Direction Management Forms when a risk is identified whilst the prisoner is in the custody of the escort contractor.

Review Process

Relevant stakeholders are able to contribute to the security and safety of the external movement of prisoners

2.30 In the event that the court refuses an application for heightened security measures, the court will provide reasons for the refusal to enable the Governor of the dispatching prison to resubmit the CMDF with additional information that may persuade the court to reverse the original decision. Additionally, with the approval of the relevant DDC, the Governor may also make further representations to engage in direct dialogue with the court regarding the application.

2.31 In the event that the Court refuses an application made by PECS Contractors for heightened security measures the PECS Contractors must ensure that there are procedures in place for re-submission of the Custody Direction Management Form.

2.32 Regular (at least quarterly) meetings will be held locally including representatives from the judiciary, court (court operations manager), establishment (custody and security departments) and escort contractor.

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 10 2.33 These meetings are a forum to discuss issues pertinent to the safe secure and smooth running of court productions and provide an opportunity for all parties to raise any operational concerns including over the quality of CMDF paperwork submitted.

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 11 Annex A Court Risk Identification Email - Suggested Standard Format

Court Risk Notification

Prisoner Name Prisoner Number

The above remand prisoner was received into HMP………………….on…xx / xx / 20xx.

She/He has been identified as a *Cat A / *Restricted Status / *E-List Prisoner or posing a * serious risk of escape / *risk of serious harm others due to (*delete as appropriate and provide details):-

and therefore we request the following measures for future court proceedings and appearances in order to reduce these risks.

 Hearing via Prison-Court Video Link facility

 Hearing held within a secure dock

We await your response.

Head of Security & Intelligence

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 12 Annex B

Court Security

Due the variations in design and facilities available at each court room, the following issues should be considered.

There are a range of docks in use in courts, in broad terms these are:

 Enclosed (fully secure) dock – the dock is a sealed unit, a protective screen is either ceiling height or the dock has a false ceiling  Partial screened (partially secure) dock – the dock has a protective screen, normally 3.2m from the floor of the dock to the top of the screen. There is a gap between the top of the screen and the ceiling  Unscreened (insecure) dock – there is no protective screen to prevent the defendant from jumping out  No dock – youth courts and non criminal courts do no generally have docks, instead the defendant will stand or sit at a desk

As far as reasonably possible, all prisoners and especially Category A prisoners, produced at court for criminal hearings should be produced to courtrooms with fully or partially secure docks. However if a serious risk is identified, there may be a request for a fully secure dock.

Witness box

Prisoners required to give evidence will normally use the witness box which provides no protection to prevent escape or violence. The risk posed by the prisoner when using the witness box, including while exiting the secure dock and crossing the open court, is to be managed by escorting staff. This can normally be achieved by positioning the escorting staff at strategic points, if the risk of escape or violence is assessed to be so serious it cannot be managed through standard escort procedures locally, alternative measures must be requested via the CMDF.

Custody area

The majority of courts hearing criminal matters have a secure custody area; there is a risk when prisoners are produced to non criminal courts where there are no secure facilities. When a prisoner is to be produced to such a court, the contractor will identify in advance, a waiting area to use, ideally away from other public areas and in a secure location. If the prisoner to be produced is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.

Link between court and custody / cells area

The majority of criminal courts have a secure link direct from each dock to the custody area; many of these are a series of tunnels under the court building. In some locations, more so in courts hearing non criminal matters, prisoners may have to be escorted through public areas. As public protection is paramount, escorting staff will normally use restraints to minimise any risk of escape or violence. If the prisoner to be produced is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.

Transfer from escort vehicle to court

Many criminal courts have a secure vehicle lock with direct access to the custody area. However there are a number of courts where this is not possible; either there is no vehicle lock, or not all vehicles are able to access a lock due to their size. In these circumstances the prisoner will

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 13 normally be transferred from the vehicle using public access and the escorting staff may use mechanical restraints to minimise the risk of escape or violence. If the prisoner to be produced is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.

Annex C CUSTODY MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS FORM – HMPS

Application to court for improving security arrangements to be completed by the dispatching prison and submitted to the Court at least 7 days before the prisoner is due in court

For the Attention of:

Section A – Prisoner Details

1. Request from HMP: 2.Escort provider : HMP………………………….. / SERCO – WINCANTON /GEO AMEY (Delete) 3. Prisoner Name: 4. DOB: 6. Date of 5. NOMS No: Appearance: 8. Reason: 7. Court Appearing: E.g. – Administrative /Trial/Witness/ 9. Offence: 11. Current Escape 10. Security Category: Yes/No list Status:

Section B – Request Details

12. Reason for Request : (Please refer to the guidance and set out the grounds for making the request with risk assessment. The nature of the offence is not a ground to support the application) 13. What action is the Prison Service seeking: (Use of Video Link/Secure Dock/approved Restraints/Discreet Restraints, change of court, extra staff)

Section C – Supporting Information

14. Previous or current escape history or heighten risk 15.Prisoner behaviour in Prison or on Escort (IEP warnings, Adjudications, violence, Self Harm, Dirty Protest 16. Has the prisoner recently been refused Parole, or not been downgraded after a Category A review:

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 15 17. Relevant up to date Risk Information

18. Any medical condition which may be exacerbated by the use of cuffs in the court setting for lengthy periods. Healthcare professional to consider: 19. Completed by Name:/Grade 20. Endorsed by Name/Grade 21. Date: 22. Telephone No: 23. Designated secure email:

Section D – Court Decision

Application GRANTED/REFUSED/PART ACCEPTED* (Delete as appropriate)

*Reason (where application refused or part acceptance): Resident Judge/Case Judge over the case informed: Resident Judge/Case Judge comments: Signed by Officer of the Court: Date: Any further comments:

Following the decision this is to be copied to the court custody contractor

For the Attention of: Court Custody Contractor designated email:

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 16 Annex D

CUSTODY MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS FORM – ESCORT CONTRACTOR

Application to court for improving security arrangements to be completed by the Escort Contractor due to an incident that occurred on route to the court that may require enhanced security at court.

1. Request from Escort SERCO – WINCANTON / GEO AMEY (Delete) Contractor: 2. Prisoner Name: 3. DOB: 5. Date of 4. NOMS No: Appearance: 7. Reason: 6. Court Appearing: E.g. – Administrative /Trial/Witness/ 8. Offence:

9. Reason for Request : (Please refer to the guidance and set out the grounds for making the request due to the incident that occurred on route. The nature of the offence is not a ground to support the application)

10. What action is the Escort Contractor seeking: (Secure Dock, Restraints/Discreet Restraints, change of court and / or extra staff)

11. Has any supporting information been asked for from the prison? If so what? Provide details.

12. For requests to use approved restraints in court Healthcare to be consulted. 13. Contactor Name: 14. Contractor Signature: 15. Date:

*Reason (where application refused or part acceptance):

Resident Judge/Case Judge over the case informed:

Resident Judge/Case Judge comments:

Signed by Officer of the Court:

Any further comments:

Section E - Contractors Actions

Following the decision this is to be copied to the court custody contractor area office

For the Attention of: Court Custody Contractor Fax No: Attach copy to PER and mark PER accordingly : Contactor Name: Contractor Signature:

Annex E

This Guidance on completing the Custody Management Directions Form is for prison management use – To strengthen the argument as much detail as possible must be shared. This guidance must not be sent to the Court.

Section A – Prisoner Details 1. Prison name 2. Who is providing the escort 3. Prisoner Full Name 4. DOB 5. NOMS No 6. Date of Appearance 7. Destination and type of Court appearing - i.e. Crown Court, Magistrate Court, Coroner Court, County Court, Youth Court or Family Court. 8. Administrative (Pleas and Directions/Trial/Witness) 9. Offence either convicted or charged with. 10. Category of Prisoner (If Category A – Exceptional ,High Risk or Standard) 11. Currently on E List or Previous E List – Yes or No (With Dates)

Section B - Request Details 12 This should be the key argument for the request; Considerations:  Is the access to the court insecure? e.g. Debus from street, no secure cells  Is prisoner being moved across a public area?  Is the hearing held in an insecure dock?  Could the case be moved?  Is the journey necessary? (Refer to Prison Court Video Link Guidance) 13. Considerations:  Could the case be moved?  Could Video Link be used?  Application of Approved Restraints - Dock or Witness  Use of Secure dock, Secure court room

Section C – Supporting Information 14. Any dates, and details – was it attempted escape or actual Escape – from Police, Court or Prison or Hospital. Any heighten risks – has prisoner received any bad news lately. 15. Evidence of Custodial Behaviour or on Escorts - (IEP warnings, Adjudications, Violence, Self Harm, Dirty Protest or erratic Behaviours ) 16. Any recent changes in circumstances i.e. a parole refusal, Cat A review, ROTL, Re categorisation or Categorisation refusal. 17. Include details of any risks including sanitised information from the Intelligence System, ensuring the source is protected. Consider intelligence for external agencies but refer to the handling code before sharing.(PIO, SBPIO, Local Police) 18. Any medical condition which may be exacerbated by cuffing in the Court setting for lengthy periods. - Prison healthcare will need to be consulted for all requests for cuffing in court. 19. Name/grade of person completing the form 20 Name/grade of senior manager endorsing the form 21 Date of application 22. Your direct telephone contact details 23. Confirm your designated functional email box

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 PAGE 19 Annex F

This Guidance on completing the Custody Management Directions Form is for PECS Contractors management use – To strengthen the argument as much detail as possible must be shared. This guidance must not be sent to the Court.

Section A – Prisoner Details 1. Who is making the request and providing the escort 2. Prisoner Full Name 3. DOB 4. NOMS number if relevant 5. Date of Court Appearance 6. Court details 7. Reason for attendance; Pleas and Directions/Trial/Witness/First appearance 8. Offence either convicted or charged with

Section B - Request Details

9. This should be the key argument for the request and contain details of the incident that occurred en route.

PECs should also consider:  Is the access to the court insecure? e.g. Debus from street, no secure cells  Is prisoner being moved across a public area?  Is the hearing held in an insecure dock?  Could the case be moved?

10. What additional security measures are you requesting?  Secure dock – reasons for  Could alternative court be considered?  Application of Approved Restraints/Discreet Restraints - Dock or Witness  Use of Secure dock, Secure court room  Deployment of additional staff

Section C – Supporting Information 11. Detail any supporting historical information supplied from HMPS; previous incidents – any previous relevant category details. 12. If requesting use of approved restraints in Court then a healthcare professional must be consulted for all requests; they will consider and advise if there are/maybe medical conditions that will be exacerbated by prolonged use of restraints in the court setting. Colleagues should consider consulting healthcare at the sending prison establishment or the medical staff at the discharging Police station. 13. Contractor details and person submitting form identified. 14. Contractor signature. . 15: Date of application

PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015 ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015 Annex G

Security of Prisoners at Court

Protocol between:

 National Offender Management Service  Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service

Not Protectively Marked Contents

1. Introduction 1 2. Background 2 3 General Principles for the Management of Court Proceedings for High Risk Prisoners 3 4 Productions to Civil, Family and Coroner’s Courts 4 5 Process 5 6 Actions to Mitigate Identified Risk 6 7 Prisoners Giving Evidence from the Witness Box 7 8 Procedures for Escort Contractors 8 9 Review 8 10 Timings 9 11 Responsibilities 9 12 National and Local Level Meetings 11 13 Signatories 11

Annex A Court Productions of Category A and Restricted Status Prisoners 12 Annex B Escape List 15 Annex C Court Risk Identification Email - Suggested Standard Format 16 Annex D Restraints 17 Annex E Court Management Direction Forms 19 Annex F Court Security 23

1. Introduction

1.1. This document sets out the framework of procedures agreed by Michael Spurr CB, Chief Executive Officer of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) and Natalie Ceeney CBE, Chief Executive Officer of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) for the safe and secure management of court proceedings involving the small minority of prisoners who present a high risk of escape or of causing serious harm when outside prison. The procedures ensure that adequate security measures are in place to mitigate risk without compromising delivery of justice or the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

1.2. This protocol applies equally to proceedings in Magistrate and Crown Courts, the Court of Appeal, High Court and all civil, family and coroner’s courts.

1.3. The Criminal Practice Directions have been updated and include the procedures laid out in this protocol (see CPD General Matters 3L Security of Prisoners at Court.

1.4. The desired outcomes are:

 Prisoners are taken outside the secure environment of the prison only when absolutely necessary in the interests of justice.

 The use of video link is maximised as far as is legislatively possible.

 The risks associated with individual prisoners during a production to court are identified and managed appropriately, including through targeted use of secure court buildings, secure docks and application of approved restraints.

 There is an effective means of communication, information sharing and cooperation between the National Offender Management

22 Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court

Service, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary.

 There is a clear understanding of respective responsibilities and accountability.

 Public protection, the efficient delivery of justice and the maintenance of public confidence in the Criminal Justice System is supported through ensuring that prisoners committed into custody do not escape or cause harm whilst at court.

2. Background

2.1. NOMS, and by extension the Ministry of Justice, is at its most vulnerable to prisoner escape when prisoners are taken outside of the secure perimeter of the prison and, in particular, when they are produced to locations with little physical security to prevent their attempting to escape or causing serious harm to the public. Escapes from court represent the majority of escapes from custody and not only result in a risk of harm to the public but damage public confidence in the Criminal Justice System.

2.2. For the majority of prisoners produced at court, NOMS’ standard escort security measures will be sufficient to ensure the safety and security of the proceedings. However, in a small minority of cases, the risks presented by an individual prisoner will be so great that heightened security measures will be needed to ensure the prisoner remains in secure custody and/or to ensure the safety of staff and others in the vicinity of the court and the general public at large.

2.3. In the main, the prisoners for whom heightened security measures will be necessary are:

 Category A and Restricted Status (RS) prisoners (see Annex A),

 Prisoners on the Escape List (E-List) (see Annex B).

23 2.4. Prisoners in these categories represent a significant risk of escape or, would be highly dangerous to the public, the police or the security of the state if they were to escape even if there is no evidence of a raised escape risk.

2.5. Exceptionally, there are a very small number of prisoners who do not meet the general criteria of Category A, E-List or RS but may still be identified as presenting a high risk of violence prejudicial to the safety of the escort or those in and around the court or of posing a danger to the public and will require heightened security at court. This may include prisoners who have made explicit threats to the court, jury, etc.

3. General Principles for the Management of Court Proceedings for High Risk Prisoners

3.1. Court listing is a judicial responsibility and function. The overall purpose is to ensure that all cases are brought to a hearing or trial in accordance with the interests of justice, that all resources available for criminal justice are deployed as effectively as possible and that, consistent with the needs of victims, witnesses and defendants, cases are heard by an appropriate Judge or bench with the minimum of delay.

3.2. High risk prisoners identified to the court as presenting a significant risk of escape, violence in court or danger to those in the court and its environs and to the public at large will, as far as is possible, have administrative and remand appearances listed for disposal via a Prison Court Video Link (PCVL) and will have priority for the use of video equipment. In some cases this may require temporarily lodging the prisoner at an alternative prison that has appropriate facilities for the duration of the proceedings, or for the case to be moved to a court where PCVL can be facilitated. The use of prison video link technology is strongly supported by HMCTS and the judiciary, and List Officers will work with the judiciary to ensure this is used appropriately.

3.3. In all other proceedings that require the appearance in person of a high risk prisoner, the proceedings will be listed to an appropriately secure court building and to a court room with a secure (enclosed or ceiling high) dock.

3.4. Where it is not possible to provide either a PCVL or a secure dock, or where the prisoner has to move between the dock and an insecure witness box, an application will be made to the court for consideration of additional security measures including:

 Use of approved restraints. This includes mechanical restraints and discreet restraints. The latter are specifically designed so as not to be visible to a jury when the prisoner is in the witness box. They are less obtrusive than very large numbers of escort officers in the court room and therefore less likely to prejudice a fair trial;

 Deployment of additional escort staff or police in the courtroom or armed police in the court building; NB. The decision to deploy an armed escort is for the Chief Inspector of the relevant borough/police area; the decision to allow the armed escort in or around the court room is for the Senior Presiding Judge.

 Securing the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings;

 In exceptional circumstances, moving the hearing to the prison.

4. Productions to Civil, Family and Coroner’s Courts

4.1. The processes in this document apply equally to the production of high risk prisoners to civil, family and coroner’s courts. Unless co-located with criminal courts, it is unlikely that these venues will provide either secure holding facilities or court rooms and therefore the production of any prisoner to these courts carries an additional risk of the prisoner’s escape or of causing harm In order to mitigate this, consideration should be given to the use of PCVL if appropriate, or to moving the hearing to a more secure court. If the hearing

25 cannot be moved, then arrangements must be put in place to ensure the security of the production including the availability of secure lodging facilities for periods when the prisoner is not required in the courtroom.

4.2. Production requests to civil, family and coroner’s courts may be made at short notice and court List Officers and NOMS staff need to ensure a flexible approach to requests for additional security.

5. Process

5.1. All prisoners will be assessed on reception into custody to identify those who may present a heightened risk of escape or of causing serious harm on being taken outside the secure perimeter of the establishment. While the majority of Category A, E-List and RS prisoners will be identified on reception, a minority will be identified later following emerging information or intelligence. Assessments may therefore change at short notice.

5.2. All Category A, E List and RS prisoners, and those small number otherwise assessed as presenting a significant risk of violence or harm, and who have a court hearing pending, will be notified to the court List Officer. A suggested standard format email is provided at Annex C.

5.3. The email provides details to the court of the risk presented by the prisoner and requests prioritisation of listing of future proceedings for hearing via a PCVL or in a secure court. The email will be sent on the authority of the Head of Security at the establishment and will be sent to the court List Officer, copied to the Prisoner Escort Contractor Services, within 4 days of the prisoner’s reception into custody or at any subsequent stage at which heightened risk during production to court is identified.

5.4. The court List Officer receiving the email notification must provide the establishment with a response within one week outlining arrangements for listing the case. There is a presumption that all prisoners notified as high risk (Category A, E-List or RS and exceptionally those presenting serious violence

or harm) will be allocated PCVL and/or secure dock facilities. Where the court cannot provide a secure listing, the reasons for this must be provided to the establishment so that alternative security measures can be considered.

6. Actions to Mitigate Identified Risk

6.1. In some cases, it may be possible to manage the risks identified by deployment of additional numbers of dock officers. Where the nature of the risk is so serious that an increased deployment of staff is insufficient to manage the identified risk, or would in itself be so obtrusive as to prejudice a fair trial, then the following measures may be required:

 The case to be reconsidered for hearing via PCVL including transfer of the hearing to a court where PCVL is available;  The case to be transferred to an alternative appropriately secure court;  The use of mechanical restraints or discreet restraints on the prisoner for all or part of the proceedings.  Securing the court room for all or part of the proceedings;  Use of (armed) police in the court building.

6.2. Having identified the alternative measures necessary for the security of the court production, the establishment must submit a Court Management Directions Form (CMDF, see annex E) setting out evidence of the prisoner’s identified risk of escape or risk of violence and requesting the court’s approval of security measures to mitigate the risks. This form will be informed by a full risk assessment of the prisoner.

6.3. The CMDF must be sent to the court List Officer and escort contractor responsible for the escort.

6.4. The CMDF will clearly set out the risks associated with the individual prisoner, the security measures that are being requested and details of the contingency arrangements (including financial implications, and the implications for

27 delivery of a fair trial for the prisoner) for dealing with the risk should the application be denied. The application must be supported by current, specific and credible evidence that the security measures requested are both necessary and proportionate to the identified risk and that the risk cannot effectively be managed in any other way. The CMDF must be signed by the Head of Security at the establishment.

6.5. If the court approves transfer of the case, the court List Officer, in accordance with the Criminal Practice Direction XIII Listing will liaise with the establishment, prosecuting authority and the defence regarding witness issues.

6.6. An application to the court for the use of restraints or any other security measures that may affect the conduct of a trial must be passed immediately to the Judge having conduct of the case. The Judge will make a decision after consulting with the defence and the Crown Prosecution Service. An application for the use of approved restraints will normally be granted only:

 where there are good grounds for believing that the prisoner poses a significant risk of trying to escape from the court (beyond the assumed motivation of all prisoners to escape) and/or a risk of causing serious harm towards those persons in court or the public generally should an escape attempt be successful and;

 where there is no other viable means of preventing escape or serious harm.

7. Prisoners Giving Evidence from the Witness Box

7.1. High risk prisoners required to give evidence from an insecure witness box pose a significant security risk. In circumstances where such prisoners are required to move from a secure dock to an insecure witness box, an

application will be made for the court to consider approving additional security measures including:

 Use of approved restraints. This includes mechanical restraints and/or discreet restraints. The latter are specifically designed so as not to be visible to a jury when the prisoner is in the witness box. They are less obtrusive than large numbers of escort officers in the court room and therefore less likely to prejudice a fair trial;

 Deployment of additional escort staff or police in the courtroom or armed police in the court building; NB. The decision to deploy an armed escort is for the Chief Inspector of the relevant borough/police area; the decision to allow the armed escort in or around the court room is for the Senior Presiding Judge.

 Securing the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings;

 Giving evidence from the secure dock;

 Use of PCVL, where the prisoner is not the defendant.

8. Procedures for Escort Contractors

8.1. There may be some circumstances where risk is only identified after the prisoner has left the prison in the custody of the escort contractors or when the prisoner is received at court from the police. Contractors may make requests themselves for additional security in court.

8.2. Requests by escort contractors for additional security must be made on the CMDF –contractors form (Annex E), and submitted using the process described above.

9. Review Process

29 9.1. In the event that the court refuses an application for heightened security measures, the Governor of the dispatching prison may re-submit the application with any additional information that may persuade the court to reverse the original decision and may, with the approval of the relevant senior regional manager (DDC, NOMS) make further representations to engage in a direct dialogue with the court regarding the application.

10. Timing

10.1. All prisoners will be assessed in terms of the security of court productions within 4 days of reception into custody and the relevant court notified of any security issues as soon as these are identified. The court will send a response outlining provisional arrangements for the listing of the proceedings within a week of receipt of this information and will confirm arrangements at least a week prior to the hearing date.

10.2. If required, the CMDF must be submitted to the court and escort contractor as soon as possible following receipt of confirmation of the listing of proceedings and ideally a week in advance of the proceedings. However, there will be occasions when this is not possible. In particular, when intelligence or information indicating a heightened risk is received only a short time in advance of the production. In such circumstances, the court will require a full explanation of why a late application has been made.

11. Responsibilities

National Offender Management Service

11.1. It is the responsibility of NOMS to ensure that any prisoner due to be produced at court, and who has a heightened risk of escape or risk of causing serious harm to persons in the court or its wider environs, has his or her risks

identified at the earliest possible stage. These risks must then be notified to the court so that procedures can be put in place to manage the risk.

11.2. In exercise of this responsibility, the establishment will carry out an initial sift of all prisoners received into prison followed by a full risk assessment of any prisoner identified by the sift as presenting a significant risk. As far as possible, risk will be managed by NOMS through deployment of sufficient numbers of escort staff. Where this is assessed as inadequate to the identified risk, then NOMS will request heightened security measures including PCVL, secure dock, or other additional security at court. An application for heightened security measures will be submitted only for those prisoners for whom PCVL or a secure court is not available and who present such a serious risk that the safety and security of the production cannot otherwise be assured. An application for heightened security will be supported by clear evidence of the risk and will be authorised by the Head of Security of the establishment from which the prisoner will be produced.

Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunals Service

11.3. In any case where a prisoner is notified to the court as presenting a heightened risk of escape or risk of serious harm, the court List Office will endeavour to list the case for hearing via a PCVL at their court or will make alternative arrangements to accommodate this at a court within their cluster. As far as possible, court List Officers will ensure that all prisoners notified as being categorised as Category A, E-List, RS or otherwise presenting a high risk of violence or danger to the public, will have preliminary and PCMH hearings listed via PCVL. If the nature of the proceedings precludes listing for hearing via PCVL the case will be moved to a court with a secure dock and the court List Officer will engage with the Regional Listing coordinator as appropriate.

11.4. In cases where the establishment has submitted a Court Management Directions Form requesting heightened security measures in court, the court List Officer will liaise with the judiciary, defence and prosecuting authorities

31 and will inform the establishment of the decision as soon as possible by secure email, and ideally within one week prior to the court hearing.

Consideration by Court

11.5. The court will give due consideration to the evidence provided in support of an application for heightened security measures in court. Where the application is refused, the court will provide the establishment with reasons for the refusal to enable the establishment to make a revised application or to put in place alternative measures to secure the production.

12. National and Local Level Meetings

National Prisoner Productions Strategy Group

12.1. A quarterly meeting will be held with representatives from NOMS, HMCTS and the judiciary. This will take a strategic overview of the relationship and joint working arrangements. [The Group will agree terms of reference]

Local Level Meetings

12.2. Regular (at least quarterly) meetings will be held on a local basis. Attendees at this meeting are to include representatives from the judiciary, court (court operations manager), establishment (custody office and security department) and escort contractor. These meetings are a forum to discuss issues pertinent to the smooth running of court productions and provide an opportunity for all parties to raise any operational concerns including concerns over the quality of entries or nature of Court Management Directions Form.

13. Signatories

Michael Spurr CB, Chief Executive Officer of the National Offender Management Service

Natalie Ceeney CBE, Chief Executive Officer of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service

33 ANNEX A COURT PRODUCTIONS OF CATEGORY A AND RESTRICTED STATUS PRISONERS

Definitions

Category A

A prisoner whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public, or the police or the security of the State, and for whom the aim must be to make escape impossible.

Categorisation is predicated on dangerousness. However, once a prisoner has been categorised as Category A, he or she is then placed in one of three escape risk categories.

Standard Escape Risk: No specific information or intelligence to suggest that there is a threat of escape.

High Escape Risk: As Standard Escape Risk, however, one or more of a number of factors are present which suggest that the prisoner may pose a raised escape risk. The factors include:

 access to finances, resources and/or associates that could assist an escape attempt  Position in an organised crime group  Nature of current/previous offending  Links to terrorist network  Previous escape(s) from custody  At least one of the above factors plus predictable escorts to be undertaken (e.g. court production, hospital treatment).  Length of time to serve (where any of the other factors above are also present)

Exceptional Escape Risk: As High Escape Risk, however, credible information or intelligence received either internally or from external agencies would suggest that an escape attempt is being planned and the threat is such that the individual requires conditions of heightened security in order to mitigate this risk.

Category A status may be applied to adult male prisoners, women and young offenders (18-21), although prisoners in the latter two categories are rarely placed in Category A. Remand prisoners who meet the criteria for Category A are held as provisional Category A prisoners. Their categorisation is reviewed following conviction and sentencing. Unlike other prisoners who are categorised by the holding establishment, the Deputy Director of High Security is responsible for the categorisation and allocation of Category A prisoners.

All Category A prisoners are held in the High Security Estate. This estate comprises 8 establishments, of which 3 have a remand function and a further 3 can exceptionally hold remand prisoners. It is possible therefore that the escort of Category A prisoners to court may involve greater distances (and therefore be at increased risk of an assisted escape attempt).

Restricted Status

A Restricted Status prisoner is any female, young person or young adult prisoner, convicted or on remand, whose escape would present a serious risk to the public and who is required to be held in designated secure accommodation.

Unlike Category A prisoners, Restricted Status prisoners do not have escape risk classifications. The designated secure accommodation and security procedures are deemed sufficient to achieve the aim of making escape impossible for these prisoners. The Deputy Director of High Security is responsible for the categorisation of Restricted Status prisoners (but may delegate decision-making as with Category A prisoners).

Although Restricted Status prisoner can be managed outside the High Security Estate while in custody (because of their small numbers), such prisoners are treated as Category A prisoners on each occasion they leave the secure perimeter of the establishment.

Category A and Restricted Status productions are not carried out under the standard prisoner escort and custody contract but by escorts and vehicles from the High Security Prisons Estate. Prior to each production, the prisoner and court to which the

35 prisoner is to be produced are risk assessed in order to identify appropriate risk management strategies.

Category A and Restricted Status prisoners are held in one of 12 designated establishments. The majority of unconvicted male prisoners will be held in HMP Belmarsh, HMP Manchester or HMP Woodhill rather than in the closed establishment, and as such some court productions may involve longer journey times increasing the security risks and costs involved. The productions use specialist vehicles and prison staff. Substantial additional costs will be incurred by the police should a firearms escort be required.

ANNEX B ESCAPE LIST

A prisoner identified as posing a risk of potential escape is assessed to establish if additional security requirements are required to manage the risk. Where the risk is considered sufficient to merit additional security, the prisoner is placed on the escape list (E-list).

The prisoner will then be subject to certain processes, including restricted activities and increased monitoring whilst in the secure custody of the establishment, and high visibility clothing and additional restraints or staff if outside the establishment on escort.

The prisoner is subject to regular reviews and will remain subject to E-list provisions for the duration that the risk of escape is assessed to be present.

From Spring 2015, there are three classifications of E-list, these are described below.

E-list-Standard is for those prisoners assessed as presenting a risk of escape both from a closed establishment and from escort. The processes to be applied to E-list- Standard prisoners offer additional security both inside and outside the establishment.

E-list-Escort is for those prisoners who are not assessed as possessing the ability or determination to escape from a closed establishment but who require increased security during escort outside of the establishment.

E-list-Heightened is for the very small number of prisoners who do not meet the criteria for Category A / Restricted Status but the nature and extent of their escape risk requires that they are held in the High Security Estate.

E-list prisoners produced to court will generally be escorted under the PECS contract with the exception of E-List-Heightened who will be escorted by staff and vehicles from the High Security Prisons Estate.

37 ANNEX C Court Risk Identification Email - Suggested Standard Format

Court Risk Notification

Prisoner Name Prisoner Number

The above remand prisoner was received into HMP xxx….on…xx / xx / xx……..

S/He has been identified as a *Cat A / *Restricted Status / *E-List Prisoner or posing a * serious risk of escape / *risk of serious harm others due to (provide details) :-

and therefore we request the following measures for future court proceedings and appearances in order to reduce these risks.

 Hearing via Prison-Court Video Link facility

 Hearing held within a secure dock

We await your response.

Head of Security & Intelligence

ANNEX D RESTRAINTS

There are three types of approved mechanical restraint that are in use at courts; ratchet cuffs, standard cuffs and escort chains. Ratchet and standard cuffs appear similar and both comprise of metal bracelets linked together. Ratchet cuffs are adjustable bracelets and are relatively lightweight. There are three types of ratchet cuff in use; a standard ratchet and a thin wristed ratchet cuff are used by prison staff, Hyatt cuffs are used by PECS. Standard cuffs are fixed size bracelets, using inserts where necessary and relatively heavy, these are only used by NOMS staff. The escort chain has two bracelets, similar to ratchets cuffs linked by a metal chain, which is approximately two metres long. NOMS does not use the police style rigid handcuffs on its prisoners. A risk assessment will indicate the type and formation of restraint to be used.

Restraints may be used in the following formations:

 Single cuffed prisoner One set of restraints (either ratchet or standard) is applied to the prisoner linking both wrists together.

 Single cuffed prisoner to officer One set of restraints (either ratchet or standard) is applied to both the prisoner and escorting member of staff. Both the escorting member of staff and prisoner have a free hand.

 Double cuffed prisoner to officer Two sets of restraints (either ratchet or standard) are applied, one linking both the prisoner’s wrists, the second linking the prisoner to the escorting member of staff.

 Escort chain The escort chain is applied to both the prisoner and escorting member of staff, both have a free hand. The escort chain can be used as part of double cuffing described above.

39 Discreet restraints

Discreet restraints comprise of a Velcro strip wrapped around the prisoner’s ankle with an additional plastic locking mechanism over the ankle strap. The ankle strap is connected to the escorting member of staff by a two metre heavy duty webbing strip. The webbing strip is attached to the belt buckle of the escorting staff by a heavy duty plastic clip.

Discreet restraints, as the name suggests offer a discreet method of restraint; the ankle strap is not constrictive and barely visible if applied under trousers. There are no metal fittings, other than the belt clip which is attached to the escorting member of staff. The webbing strip allows freedom of movement, including using stairs, within a two metre radius of the member of staff and can be lifted to prevent trip hazards. While it will not prevent a prisoner from attempting to escape, the noise made by any attempt to remove the strap will alert escort staff while also acting as a hindrance which will enable escorting staff to restrain the prisoner, either by approved use of force methods, or mechanical restraints.

ANNEX E COURT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FORMS

CUSTODY MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS FORM – ESCORT CONTRACTOR

Application to court for improving security arrangements to be completed by the Escort Contractor due to an incident that occurred on route to the court that may require enhanced security at court.

1. Request from Escort SERCO – WINCANTON / GEO AMEY (Delete) Contractor: 2. Prisoner Name: 3. DOB: 5. Date of 4. NOMS No: Appearance: 7. Reason: E.g. – 6. Court Appearing: Administrative /Trial/Witness/ 8. Offence:

9. Reason for Request : (Please refer to the guidance and set out the grounds for making the request due to the incident that occurred on route. The nature of the offence is not a ground to support the application) 10. What action is the Escort Contractor seeking: (Secure Dock, Restraints/Discreet Restraints, change of court and / or extra staff)

41 11. Has any supporting information been asked for from the prison? If so what? Provide details.

12. For requests to use approved restraints in court Healthcare to be consulted. 13. Contactor Name: 14. Contractor Signature: 15. Date:

*Reason (where application refused or part acceptance):

Resident Judge/Cas e Judge over the case informed:

Resident Judge/Cas e Judge comments:

Signed by Officer of the Court:

Section E - Contractors Actions

Following the decision this is to be copied to the court custody contractor area office

For the Attention of: Court Custody Contractor Fax No: Attach copy to PER and mark PER accordingly : Contactor Name: Contractor Signature:

CUSTODY MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS FORM – HMPS

Application to court for improving security arrangements to be completed by the dispatching prison and submitted to the Court at least 7 days before the prisoner is due in court

1. Request from HMP: 2.Escort provider : HMP………………………….. / SERCO – WINCANTON /GEO AMEY (Delete) 3. Prisoner Name: 4. DOB: 6. Date of 5. NOMS No: Appearance: 8. Reason: E.g. – 7. Court Appearing: Administrative /Trial/Witness/ 9. Offence: 11. Current Escape 10. Security Category: Yes/No list Status:

12. Reason for Request : (Please refer to the guidance and set out the grounds for making the request with risk assessment. The nature of the offence is not a ground to support the application) 13. What action is the Prison Service seeking: (Use of Video Link/Secure Dock/approved Restraints/Discreet Restraints, change of court, extra staff)

14. Previous or current escape history or heighten risk

43 15.Prisoner behaviour in Prison or on Escort (IEP warnings, Adjudications, violence, Self Harm, Dirty Protest 16. Has the prisoner recently been refused Parole, or not been downgraded after a Category A review: 17. Relevant up to date Risk Information

18. Any medical condition which may be exacerbated by the use of cuffs in the court setting for lengthy periods. Healthcare professional to consider: 19. Head of Security Name: 20. Head of Security Signature: 21. Date: 22. Telephone No: 23. Designated secure email:

*Reason (where application refused or part acceptance): Resident Judge/Case Judge over the case informed: Resident Judge/Case Judge comments:

Signed by Officer of the Court: Date:

Following the decision this is to be copied to the court custody contractor

For the Attention of: Court Custody Contractor designated email: ANNEX F COURT SECURITY

Due to the variation in design and facilities available at each court room, the following issues should be considered.

There are a range of docks in use in courts, in broad terms these are:

 Enclosed (fully secure) dock – the dock is sealed unit, a protective screen is either ceiling height or the dock has a false ceiling.

 Partial screened (partially secure) dock – the dock has a protective screen, normally 3.2m from the floor of the dock to the top of the screen. There is a gap between the top of the screen and the ceiling.

 Unscreened (insecure) dock – there is no protective screen to prevent the defendant from jumping out.

 No dock – youth courts and non criminal courts do not generally have docks, instead the defendant will stand or sit at a desk.

As far as reasonably possible, all prisoners and especially Category A prisoners, produced at court for criminal hearings should produced to courtrooms with fully or partially secure docks. However if a serious risk is identified, there may be a request for a fully secure dock.

Witness box

Prisoners required to give evidence will normally use the witness box which provides no protection to prevent escape or violence. The risk posed by use of the witness box, including exiting the secure dock and crossing open court, is to be managed by

45 escorting staff. This can normally be achieved by positioning the staff at strategic points, using additional staff if necessary. If the risk of escape or violence is assessed to be so serious it cannot be managed by additional staff, alternative measures will be requested via the CMDF.

Custody area

The majority of courts hearing criminal matters have a secure custody area; there is a risk when prisoners are produced to non criminal courts where there are no secure facilities. When a prisoner is to be produced to such a court, the contractor will identify, in advance, a waiting area to use, ideally away from other public areas and may even use an alternative secure location. If the prisoner to be produced is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.

Link between court and custody / cells area

The majority of criminal courts have a secure link direct from each dock to the custody area; many of these are a series of tunnels under the court building. In some locations, more so in courts hearing non-criminal matters, prisoners may have to be escorted through public areas. As public protection is paramount, escorting staff will normally use restraints to minimise any risk of escape or violence. If the prisoner to be produced is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.

Transfer from escort vehicle to court

Many criminal courts have a secure vehicle lock with direct access to the custody area. However there are a number of courts where this is not possible; either there is no vehicle lock, or not all vehicles are able to access a lock due to their size. In these circumstances the prisoner will normally be transferred from the vehicle using public access and the escorting staff may use mechanical restraints to minimise the risk of escape or violence. If the prisoner to be produced is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.