HMP Kingston
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report on an announced inspection of HMP Kingston 16–20 August 2010 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Crown copyright 2010 Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 1st Floor, Ashley House Monck Street London SW1P 2BQ England HMP Kingston 2 Contents Introduction 5 Fact page 7 Healthy prison summary 9 1 Arrival in custody Courts, escorts and transfers 17 First days in custody 17 2 Environment and relationships Residential units 21 Staff-prisoner relationships 23 Personal officers 24 3 Duty of care Bullying and violence reduction 27 Self-harm and suicide 29 Applications and complaints 30 Legal rights 31 Faith and religious activity 32 Substance use 33 4 Diversity Diversity 35 Race equality 36 Religion 38 Foreign nationals 38 Disability and older prisoners 39 Sexual orientation 41 5 Health services General 43 Clinical governance 44 Primary care 45 Pharmacy 46 Dentistry 47 Secondary care 48 Mental health 48 HMP Kingston 3 6 Activities Learning and skills and work activities 49 Physical education and health promotion 53 Time out of cell 55 7 Good order Security and rules 57 Discipline 58 Incentives and earned privileges 60 8 Services Catering 63 Prison shop 64 9 Resettlement Strategic management of resettlement 67 Offender management and planning 68 Resettlement pathways 71 10 Recommendations, housekeeping points and good practice 77 Appendices I Inspection team 86 II Prison population profile 87 III Summary of prisoner questionnaires and interviews 89 HMP Kingston 4 Introduction Kingston is a small specialist prison for life- and other indeterminate-sentenced prisoners. This very positive report, of a full announced inspection, is testament to the benefits that can flow from having a small-scale niche prison, with a settled population. The inspection reaffirmed previous findings that Kingston is a safe and decent place, and also applauded the purposeful regime and sound focus on addressing the risks posed by the very serious offenders in the prison’s care. Kingston continued to provide a safe environment for staff and prisoners. Safer custody arrangements were good, with little bullying or violence and few instances of self-harm and most prisoners reporting feeling safe. There had been a successful drive to combat the misuse of prescribed medication. Security was well managed and proportionate, and staff rarely had to resort to use of force or segregation. Despite its Victorian architecture, the environment at Kingston remained clean and bright. Relationships between staff and prisoners were positive and supported by an effective personal officer scheme. Diversity was generally well managed, although black and minority ethnic prisoners reported more negatively about the prison than white prisoners. The prison also lacked a permanent Muslim chaplain. Health services were much improved. Prisoners tended to stay for lengthy periods at Kingston, and it was therefore positive that all of them could access some form of purposeful activity and there was regular association and exercise. Education provision was satisfactory and there were good library and PE facilities, but some work was menial and there was a need for more vocational training. There was a sound focus on resettlement and on addressing the risks posed by prisoners. Offender management was good, with timely assessments and suitable interventions, although still more could be done to involve wing staff in supporting prisoners to address their offending behaviour. Kingston is a small and very specialist prison holding only indeterminate-sentenced prisoners, often with very long sentences to serve. It is commendable that we are once again able to endorse the success of staff in delivering a safe, decent and purposeful prison committed to addressing offending behaviour. However, this success is also a reflection of the benefits of having small-scale specialist prisons focused on their core task and it is to be hoped that this small pocket of excellence will not be lost in the Prison Service’s search for efficiencies and economies of scale. Nick Hardwick October 2010 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons HMP Kingston 5 HMP Kingston 6 Fact page Task of the establishment The prison holds male category B life-sentenced prisoners with a wing for category C life-sentenced prisoners. Area organisation South East Number held 16 August 2010: 195 Certified normal accommodation 199 Operational capacity 200 Last inspection Short follow-up inspection: 3-5 November 2008 Brief history The prison was built between 1874 and 1876 by French prisoners of war and is a listed building with many of the original Victorian architectural features. Portsmouth’s city arms are evident in numerous places, a reminder of the prison’s original role as a city jail holding men, women and children. It has fulfilled its current role since 1968. Originally the prison accommodated domestic life-sentenced prisoners. However, the population are now more general category B life-sentenced prisoners, including a wing for category C life-sentenced prisoners. Description of residential units The main prison consists of three wings in the radial design with single cell accommodation. A wing - 69 prisoners C wing - 56 prisoners D wing - 50 prisoners E wing is the category C unit and holds 24 prisoners in a mixture of single and shared rooms. HMP Kingston 7 HMP Kingston 8 Healthy prison summary Introduction HP1 All inspection reports carry a summary of the conditions and treatment of prisoners, based on the four tests of a healthy prison that were first introduced in this inspectorate’s thematic review Suicide is everyone’s concern, published in 1999. The criteria are: Safety prisoners, even the most vulnerable, are held safely Respect prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity Purposeful activity prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them Resettlement prisoners are prepared for their release into the community and helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. HP2 Under each test, we make an assessment of outcomes for prisoners and therefore of the establishment's overall performance against the test. In some cases, this performance will be affected by matters outside the establishment's direct control, which need to be addressed by the National Offender Management Service. - outcomes for prisoners are good against this healthy prison test. There is no evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in any significant areas. - outcomes for prisoners are reasonably good against this healthy prison test. There is evidence of adverse outcomes for prisoners in only a small number of areas. For the majority, there are no significant concerns. Procedures to safeguard outcomes are in place. - outcomes for prisoners are not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test. There is evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in many areas or particularly in those areas of greatest importance to the well-being of prisoners. Problems/concerns, if left unattended, are likely to become areas of serious concern. - outcomes for prisoners are poor against this healthy prison test. There is evidence that the outcomes for prisoners are seriously affected by current practice. There is a failure to ensure even adequate treatment of and/or conditions for prisoners. Immediate remedial action is required. Safety HP3 Reception and first night arrangements were welcoming and induction promoted responsibility. Safer custody arrangements were sound. Prisoners mostly reported HMP Kingston 9 feeling safe, and levels of violence were low. Security was well managed and proportionate. The use of force was low and the segregation unit used rarely. The prison had responded effectively to the misuse of prescribed medication. Overall, outcomes for prisoners were good against this healthy prison test. HP4 Relationships between escort staff and prisoners were respectful and effective between escort and prison staff. The vehicles we inspected were exceptionally clean. HP5 Reception staff were friendly and welcoming. The physical environment was bright and clean. Holding rooms contained reading material and a television, and prisoners were moved through swiftly. There were arrangements to receive prisoners during the lunchtime period when notice was given. Prisoners were interviewed in private by reception and health care staff. All new arrivals were strip searched but with sensitivity. The reception orderly was also a Listener but was not easily identifiable as such and had little engagement with new arrivals. HP6 Prisoners were mostly allocated to one of three designated induction cells on D wing which were only basically equipped but from which they moved relatively quickly. The induction orderly gave a comprehensive introduction to generic issues and a tour of the prison. Comprehensive first night assessments, if not completed in reception, were completed by an induction officer or senior officer on the first night. Access to showers and telephone calls was facilitated on the wing if requested. Most prisoners reported feeling safe on their first night HP7 Induction was innovative. It included all relevant information and gave prisoners the responsibility to get out and about to meet relevant people and have appropriate assessments. The process was supported by staff. New arrivals had a two-week period when they were unlocked and could be paid £15 a week to cover all aspects of the induction programme, after which they were usually allocated