DOCSLIB.ORG

DEEP CUSTODY: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in England and Wales

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DEEP CUSTODY: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in England and Wales DEEP CUSTODY: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in England and Wales Dr Sharon Shalev and Kimmett Edgar Dr Sharon Shalev: Centre for Criminology University of Oxford, Manor Road, OxfordOX1 3UQ, UK. E: [email protected] www.solitaryconfinement.org The Prison Reform Trust works to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, government, and officials towards reform: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk © Dr Sharon Shalev & Prison Reform Trust Cover image: White Noise and Shadow, HM Prison Lindholme, G4S Silver Award for Oil or Acrylic 2010 - image courtesy of the Koestler Trust ISBN: 978-1-908504-97-5 Printed by Conquest Litho Contents Acknowledgements i Foreword / Preface: Lord Woolf iii Executive Summary v 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Segregation units and close supervision centres 1 1.2 The study 2 Terms of reference Areas of inquiry Study overview and methods 2. Segregation in England and Wales: capacity, costs and staffing 5 2.1 Legal and administrative basis 5 2.2 The segregation estate: capacity, costs, and staffing 7 Capacity Staffing Training Information sharing 2.3 The CSC estate: capacity and costs 12 2.4 Prisoner demographics 13 3. The decision to segregate or to house in a Close Supervision Centre (CSC): classification, allocation, safeguards 15 3.1 The functions of segregation units: why segregate? 15 3.2 Orchestrated segregation 20 3.3 Segregation placement: procedures and measures of initial and continued segregation 23 Initial and continued segregation 3.4 Adjudication hearings 25 3.5 Safeguards: the Segregation Safety Screen, IMBs, and recording requirements 27 Segregation safety screen The role of Independent Monitoring Boards Recording requirements 3.6 Close Supervision Centres: Functions, reasons for placement and procedures 46 Procedures and reasons for placement in the Close Supervision Centre system 4 Segregation and CSCs: conditions, provisions, regime and support 37 4.1 Physical conditions 37 4.2 Regime 39 Exercise and fresh air Showers Food and meals Canteen (shop) 4.3 Provisions 44 Education Smoking 4.4 Conditions and regimes in CSCs 50 4.5 Segregation and CSCs: time, problems, and practical benefits 52 Time in segregation / CSC Problems in segregation/ CSC The practical benefits of segregation / CSC 4.6 Health care 58 4.7 People with learning disabilities or learning difficulties 60 5 Inside segregation and CSCs: culture, relationships and risk 63 5.1 Culture and ethos 63 5.2 Staff prisoner relationships 69 5.3 Security, risk and the use of force 78 Security levels Use of force 5.4 Relationships and risk in CSCs 85 6 Mental health and well-being 91 6.1 Prevalence of mental health needs among segregated people 91 6.2 The negative health effects of segregation 92 6.3 Safeguards to minimise the exposure of very vulnerable prisoners to segregation 95 6.4 Prisoners at risk of self harm 97 6.5 Support for prisoners’ mental health in segregation 101 Medication 6.6 Removal from segregation on mental health grounds and prisoners who should have not been segregated 103 6.7 Individuals who found normal location unbearable 106 6.8 Protective measures and mental health support 107 7 Leaving segregation and CSCs (avenues out) 109 7.1 Segregation review boards 109 7.2 Negotiating return to normal location 113 What was at stake? Tactics (managers) Tactics (officers) Tactics (prisoners) Good practice recommendations 7.3 Reintegration 123 7.4 Leaving the CSC 126 8. Deep Custody Findings and Recommendations 131 8.1 Findings 131 8.2 Good practices we observed 133 Arrival Staff communications Conditions Maintaining order Activities Reintegration Segregation unit culture Safeguarding mental health Close supervision centres 8.3 Recommendations 137 Appendices 140 Acronyms and abbreviations 140 Methods 145 Data gathering Literature Acknowledgements This study benefited from support, expertise and practical help from a wide variety of people and organisations. We want to thank everyone who contributed. We are grateful to the Barrow Cadbury Trust for enabling us to undertake the study. They shared our vision that there was a need for a thorough study of segregation units. We are grateful to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) for facilitating our data- gathering, providing advice, and enabling us to access prisons. In particular, we thank Karina Hay, Lesley Cuthbertson, Emma Prince, and Bob Waterman who were constant in their support. We also thank the National Research Committee, not just for giving approval for the project, but for their suggestions about how our methods could be improved. We are grateful to two expert groups we consulted: a prisoner group, convened by HMP Grendon, who provided us with insights from their personal experience of segregation, and a resource group, whose feedback helped us to make the story more coherent. Thanks are also due to Patrick Mandikate and Gerladine Akerman for kindly facilitating our meeting at HMP Grendon. Our resource group was expertly chaired by Silvia Casale and its members included: Colin Allen, Jill Berliand, Adrian Grounds, Monica Lloyd, Juliet Lyon, and Max Rutherford. We also consulted Kellie Reeve, Louise Finer, Gordon Riach and Kieron Taylor from HM Inspectorate of Prisons and benefited greatly from their experience and expertise. Jamie Bennett, governor of HMP Grendon, Daniel Craft from HMP Send, Claire Hodson, then Specialist Units Lead for NOMS, Kirsty Tempest, Claire’s successor, also contributed their time and helpful background. We are grateful to a great many prison service staff and prisoners for their immense contribution. The prison governors/directors and managers of segregation units facilitated our access and generously gave us their time. The people who were segregated tolerated our sometimes awkward questions, were conscientious in commenting on segregation, and taught us a great deal about their experiences. As they had been placed in segregation or a CSC, we approached them at a time that was potentially dispiriting and distressing for them, yet they were open and supportive of the study. The officers in the 15 segregation units and four CSCs were unfailingly welcoming, patient, and thoughtful. We were struck by the degree to which managers and staff, in all of the units we visited, were transparent about their work. For example, officers frequently invited us to see them engaging with prisoners, and managers welcomed us to meetings and reviews. Segregation unit support staff, including psychologists, nurses, and mental health professionals, were also helpful. We also thank Ben Crewe whose writing on the concept of “deep confinement” inspired the title of this report. i At the Prison Reform Trust, we are grateful to Juliet Lyon, Director, and Peter Dawson, Deputy Director, for their support and, in particular, for commenting on early drafts of the study. Geoff Dobson, former Deputy Director, brought us together and encouraged us to persist with the project in its initial stages. We thank Paul Addae Anderson, for expertly managing the finances for the project. Francesca Cooney joined the team for three of the prison visits, and added valuable evidence from PRT’s advice and information service. We also gained from targeted reviews of relevant literature, as Neil Cornish painstakingly trawled through prison inspection reports and IMB reports and Justin Elder summarised segregation policies. Jenny Talbot gave us expert advice about learning disabilities. And Tony Callaghan took the draft text and transformed it through the magic of desktop publishing. We take full responsibility for this report, but we know that completing the project depended on contributions from these individuals and we are extremely grateful to each and every one of them. Kimmett Edgar and Sharon Shalev, London, October 2015 ii Foreword In my report on the disturbances at Strangeways prison and elsewhere I was seeking to achieve a prison system imbued with justice and fairness. Security, control and justice in prisons must be set at the right level and achieve the right balance. A balance that would mean that fairness and justice did not stop at the prison door, but instead permeated the whole system. The way prisoners are treated in segregation can frequently be a barometer for their general treatment in an establishment. The prison service principles of decency must surely apply especially to segregation units and close supervision centres. These are that: prisoners should not be punished outside of prison rules; promised standards within the prison are delivered; facilities should be clean and properly equipped; there should be prompt attention to proper concerns; prisoners should be protected from harm; prisoners’ time should be actively filled and prisoners should be fairly and consistently treated by staff. It says much for the commitment of the prison service to those principles that researchers were given full access to these places deep within some of our most challenging prisons. That has made possible this thoughtful, detailed report reflecting many hours of candid conversations with prisoners and staff . It offers the prison service and the Ministry of Justice the opportunity to learn from their experience, build on the good practice which undoubtedly exists and act on legitimate concerns about impoverished regimes and the need to ensure that the decision to segregate, and the experience of segregation, are governed by guiding principles of fairness and justice. The complexity of segregation brings many challenges to already beleaguered prison staff and prisoners who for whatever reason, cannot manage or be managed in, the main body of an establishment. Segregation, though it may sometimes be necessary, must not be prolonged or indefinite. Care must be taken to avoid, as far as is possible, the damage to mental health that exclusion will bring. Equally, care should be taken to avoid the use of segregation as a holding operation for people who should be transferred swiftly and humanely to a secure hospital or psychiatric unit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders
    Introductory Handbook on The Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES Cover photo: © Rafael Olivares, Dirección General de Centros Penales de El Salvador. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders CRIMINAL JUSTICE HANDBOOK SERIES UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2018 © United Nations, December 2018. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. Preface The first version of the Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders, published in 2012, was prepared for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) by Vivienne Chin, Associate of the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Canada, and Yvon Dandurand, crimi- nologist at the University of the Fraser Valley, Canada. The initial draft of the first version of the Handbook was reviewed and discussed during an expert group meeting held in Vienna on 16 and 17 November 2011.Valuable suggestions and contributions were made by the following experts at that meeting: Charles Robert Allen, Ibrahim Hasan Almarooqi, Sultan Mohamed Alniyadi, Tomris Atabay, Karin Bruckmüller, Elias Carranza, Elinor Wanyama Chemonges, Kimmett Edgar, Aida Escobar, Angela Evans, José Filho, Isabel Hight, Andrea King-Wessels, Rita Susana Maxera, Marina Menezes, Hugo Morales, Omar Nashabe, Michael Platzer, Roberto Santana, Guy Schmit, Victoria Sergeyeva, Zhang Xiaohua and Zhao Linna.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Focus on Reducing Women's Imprisonment?
    why women.qxp_Layout 1 03/02/2017 15:43 Page 1 Why focus on reducing women’s imprisonment? Prison Reform Trust briefing February 2017 Key points • The women’s prison population in England and Wales more than doubled between 1995 and 2010 - from under 2,000 women to over 4,000. The numbers have since declined by over 10% – from 4,279 women in April 2012 to 3,821 in April 2016. But the UK still has one of the highest rates of women’s imprisonment in Western Europe. • Women are a small minority of those in the criminal justice system, representing less than 5% of the prison population, and are easily overlooked in policy, planning, and services - they have been described as 'correctional afterthoughts'. • The drivers and patterns of women’s offending are generally different from men’s. • Most of the solutions to women’s offending lie in improved access to community based support services, including women’s centres. These enable women to address underlying problems which may lead to offending but which the criminal justice system cannot solve. • The impact of imprisonment on women, more than half of whom have themselves been victims of serious crime, is especially damaging and their outcomes are worse than men’s. • Most women have neither a home nor a job to go to on release. • Women are much more likely to be primary carers, with children far more directly affected by a prison sentence as a result. The real battle started when I got out. Everything - home, re-establishing relationships, job. Imprisonment just exploded a bomb into every aspect of my life..
    [Show full text]
  • NO WAY out a Briefing Paper on Foreign National Women in Prison in England and Wales January 2012
    No­Way­Out_Layout­1­­09/01/2012­­12:11­­Page­1 NO WAY OUT A briefing paper on foreign national women in prison in England and Wales January 2012 1. Introduction Foreign national women, many of whom are known to have been trafficked or coerced into offending, represent around one in seven of all the women held in custody in England and Wales. Yet comparatively little information has been produced about these women, their particular circumstances and needs, the offences for which they have been imprisoned and about ways to respond to them justly and effectively. This Prison Reform Trust briefing, drawing on the experience and work of the charity FPWP Hibiscus, the Female Prisoners Welfare Project, and kindly supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, sets out to redress the balance and to offer findings and recommendations which could be used to inform a much-needed national strategy for the management of foreign national women in the justice system. An overarching recommendation of Baroness Corston’s report published in 2007 was the need to reduce the number of women in custody, stating that “custodial sentences for women must be reserved for serious and violent offenders who pose a threat to the public”. She included foreign national women in her report, seeing them as: A significant minority group who have distinct needs and for whom a distinct strategy is 1 necessary. No­Way­Out_Layout­1­­09/01/2012­­12:11­­Page­2 However, when the government response2 and This comes at a time when an increasing then the National Service Framework for percentage of foreign women, who come to the Improving Services to Women Offenders were attention of the criminal justice and immigration published the following year, there were no systems and who end up in custody, have been references to this group.3 living in the UK long enough for their children to consider this country as home.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPPTIVE3.Qxp Layout 1 15/01/2021 10:43 Page 1
    CAPPTIVE3.qxp_Layout 1 15/01/2021 10:43 Page 1 CAPPTIVE Covid-19 Action Prisons Project: Tracking Innovation, Valuing Experience How prisons are responding to Covid-19 Briefing #3 The prison service’s response, precautions, routine health care, disabilities, well- being, mental health, self-harm, and what helped CAPPTIVE3.qxp_Layout 1 15/01/2021 10:43 Page 2 About the Prison Reform Trust The Prison Reform Trust is an independent UK charity working to create a just, humane and effective prison system. For further information about the Prison Reform Trust, see www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/ About the Prisoner Policy Network The Prisoner Policy Network (PPN) is a network of prisoners, ex-prisoners and supporting organisations. It is hosted by the Prison Reform Trust and will make sure prisoners’ experiences are part of prison policy development nationally. Contact [email protected] or call 020 7251 5070 for more information. Acknowledgements Thank you to all of the people in prison that we spoke to including our PPN members who once again have gone above and beyond, making sure that not only are their voices heard in this discussion but that many other voices are included too. We are also grateful to prisoners’ families for their input. Thanks also go to our PPN advisory group, friends, colleagues and others who have offered comment on early drafts or helped to proofread before publication. © 2021 Prison Reform Trust ISBN: 978-1-908504-78-4 Cover photo credit: Erika Flowers [email protected] Printed by Conquest Litho CAPPTIVE3.qxp_Layout 1 15/01/2021 10:43 Page 3 Contents Introduction i Executive Summary iii 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Reform and Mental Health
    Prison reform and mental health Lord Douglas Hurd Prison, the UK’s most serious form of punishment, is effective at little or nothing to stop them offending again. The damage is incapacitating the person. Of course, a man locked up in his cell is made much worse when women are imprisoned far from their not going to be carrying out a burglary. But paradoxically, prison is homes and families and receive inadequate health care during and also a release from responsibility. Prisoners are released from after their time in prison. 6 responsibilities for shelter, food or children. Indeed, imprisonment No One Knows was a programme conducted by the Prison Reform prevents them from meeting their duties to the world outside; that Trust to draw attention, and prompt a response, to people with is, until they are released and return to society. Certainly, if their learning disabilities in prison. It found that 20 to 30 per cent of the mental health problems are not treated, they will emerge more prison population have learning disabilities or difficulties that dependent and less able to cope with the responsibilities of interfere with their ability to cope within the criminal justice citizenship. Then the prison experience – the stresses they have system, while 7 per cent have an IQ of less than 70. 7 No One endured as well as the lack of responsibility – may well render Knows described the challenges faced by these people from the them more of a risk to society than when they entered custody. moment they arrive in prison: poor literacy skills and difficulty expressing themselves complicate daily living and make much of The statistics the prison regime inaccessible.
    [Show full text]
  • Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile
    BROMLEY BRIEFINGS PRISON FACTFILE December 2007 For more information about the work of the Prison Reform Trust e-mail: [email protected] or call 020 7251 5070 or visit www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk www.innocentuntilprovenguilty.com or www.smartjustice.org These ‘Bromley Briefings’ are being produced in memory of Keith Bromley, a valued friend of PRT and allied groups concerned with prisons and human rights. His support for refugees from oppression, victims of torture and the falsely imprisoned has made a difference to many people’s lives.The Prison Reform Trust is grateful to the Bromley Trust for supporting the production of this briefing paper. Prison Factfile www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk Contents Introduction............................. .3 Prison overview.............................4 Prison overcrowding.......................... .7 Prison suicide. ...........................9 Sentencing trends ........................... 11 Remand prisoners............................12 Women in prison ........................... 14 Mothers and fathers in custody, prisoners’ children................ 16 Social characteristics of prisoners ......................18 Young people in prison (18-20 year olds). ................... 19 Children in prison............................21 Minority ethnic prisoners....... ..................23 Foreign national prisoners.........................24 Elderly prisoners.............................25 Mental health needs of prisoners. .................... 27 Drugs................................ 30 Alcohol................................33
    [Show full text]
  • Research Into Restorative Justice in Custodial Settings
    RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN CUSTODIAL SETTINGS Report for the Restorative Justice Working Group in Northern Ireland Marian Liebmann and Stephanie Braithwaite CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Full Report Introduction 1 Restorative Justice 1 Community Service 2 Victim/Offender Mediation 4 Victim Enquiry Work 8 Victim/Offender Groups 8 Relationships in Prison 13 Victim Awareness Work in Prisons 15 Restorative Justice Philosophy in Prisons 17 Issues in Custodial Settings 19 Conclusion 21 Recommendations 21 Useful Organisations 22 Organisations and People Contacted 25 References and useful Publications 27 Restorative Justice in Custodial Settings Marian Liebmann and Stephanie Braithwaite Executive Summary Introduction This lays out the scope of the task. As there is very little written material or research in this area, the authors of the report have, in addition to searching the literature in the normal way, made informal contact with a wide range of professionals and practitioners working in the field of Restorative Justice. The short timescale has meant that there is still material yet to arrive. Nevertheless a good range of information has been gathered. As part of this research, the authors undertook two surveys in April 1999, one of victim/offender mediation services’ involvement with offenders in custody, one of custodial institutions reported to be undertaking Restorative Justice initiatives. Restorative Justice We have used as a starting point a definition of restorative justice by the R.J.W.G. of Northern Ireland: “Using a Restorative Justice model within the Criminal Justice System is embarking on a process of settlement in which: victims are key participants, offenders must accept responsibility for their actions and members of the communities (victims and offenders) are involved in seeking a healing process which includes restitution and restoration." Community Service The Prison Phoenix Trust carried out two surveys of community work and projects carried out by prison establishments, in 1996 and 1998.
    [Show full text]
  • The Care Not Custody Coalition
    cnc2018.qxp_Layout 1 18/06/2018 14:53 Page 1 2018 The Care not Custody Coalition Providing the right interventions at the right time is vital to improving outcomes for vulnerable individuals within the criminal justice system, and to breaking the cycle of reoffending. I am pleased to see that NHS England’s roll out of Liaison and Diversion services is now operating across over 80% of the country. We continue to support this important work, which places clinical staff in police stations and courts to provide assessments and referrals to treatment and support for a range of vulnerable offenders. Further building on this approach, we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England and NHS England in setting out a clear plan for delivering community sentences with treatment requirements. This sets out how health and justice staff should work to ensure appropriate treatment is in place for community sentences, and in doing so reducing the number of vulnerable people in prison. Finally, I am also pleased to see that the National Police Chiefs Council strategy promotes simplification of the Out Of Court Disposal framework and an increased use of conditions attached to disposals. This provides an opportunity for early intervention and to see positive outcomes for vulnerable offenders. Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Rt Hon David Gauke MP cnc2018.qxp_Layout 1 18/06/2018 14:53 Page 2 Background The National Federation of Women’s Institutes (NFWI) has called consistently for the diversion of people with mental health needs from custody into treatment and care.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography ACMD (2008) Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs, Cannabis: Classification and Public Health (London: Home Office). Alcock, P. (1997) Understanding Poverty (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan). Allen, Lord (1995) ‘In Search of the Purpose of Prison’ in Prison Reform Trust, Gladstone at 100: Essays on the Past and Future of the Prison System (London: Prison Reform Trust). Allen, R. (2005) ‘Rethinking Crime and Punishment’ in Murray, C. Simple Justice (London: CIVITAS). Amadi, J. (2008) Piloting Penalty Notices for Disorder on 10- to 15-year-olds (London: Ministry of Justice). Anderson, P. and Mann, N. (1997) Safety First: The Making of New Labour (London: Granta). Andrews, K. and Jacobs, J. (1990) Punishing the Poor: Poverty under Thatcher (Basingstoke and New York: Macmillan). Archbishop of Canterbury (1985) ‘Commission on Urban Priority Areas’, Faith in the City: A Call for Action by Church and Nation (London: General Synod of the Church of England, Church House Publishing). Ashworth, A. (2004) ‘Social Control and “Anti-Social Behaviour”: The Subversion of Human Rights?’, Law Quarterly Review, 120, 263–91. Ashworth, A. (1997) ‘Sentencing’ in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 2nd edn (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press). Ashworth, A. and Hough, M. (1996) ‘Sentencing and the Climate of Opinion’, Criminal Law Review, 776–87. Ashworth, A. and Gibson, B. (1994) ‘Altering the Sentencing Framework’, Criminal Law Review, 101–9. Ashworth, A. (1989) Custody Reconsidered: Clarity and Consistency in Sentencing, Policy Study n°104 (London: Centre for Policy Studies). Asquith, S. and Docherty, M. (1999) ‘Preventing Offending by Children and Young People in Scotland’ in Duff, P.
    [Show full text]
  • International Good Practice: Alternatives to Imprisonment for Women Offenders
    International good practice: alternatives to imprisonment for women offenders An information resource to inspire and support efforts to reduce the unnecessary imprisonment of women Contents Introduction 1 International standards 5 Early intervention and diversion 8 Sentencing 14 Case management 15 Community women’s centres and one-stop-shops 19 Community residential facilities 24 Small custodial units 30 Resettlement in the community 36 Mothers and children 43 Mental health 50 Substance use 55 Homelessness 60 Acknowledgements The Prison Reform Trust is very grateful to Ruby Moshenska who researched and compiled this report whilst working from April to September 2013 as a volunteer with the Prison Reform Trust’s programme to reduce women’s imprisonment. We would also particularly like to thank the Irish Penal Reform Trust for their helpful information regarding Irish policies, Janet Cobb for putting Ruby in touch with people about women with learning disabilities (although unfortunately there is very little information available), Joy Doal who runs the Anawim women’s centre and generously shared both information and insights and Olivia Rope of Penal Reform International (PRI). Alternatives to imprisonment for women offenders Introduction This report presents a wide range of international examples of alternatives to custody for non- violent women offenders. It profiles a number of dynamic projects in different jurisdictions, some of which have proven to be particularly successful in reducing reoffending in women offenders. Due to both time constraints and the availability o f research evidence, the report uses information from predominantly Western countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. European examples are used where available and relevant The women’s prison population in England and Wales more than doubled between 1995 and 2010 and, although numbers are starting to decline somewhat, approximately 13,500 women are sent to prison each year in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • A Call to Action Paula Harriott with Andreas Aresti CONTEXT
    Voicelessness: A Call to Action Paula Harriott with Andreas Aresti CONTEXT I (Paula) am a prisoner activist desiring social change at a systemic level. I seek to live in a society that is more equitable. I work, and lead on prisoner engagement at, the Prison Reform Trust (PRT), a voluntary sector organisation (VSO) in the criminal ‘justice’ system, working to create a just, humane and eff ective penal system. At the PRT, a primary objective is to ensure that the prisoner’s voice is at the heart of its work. Having worked for a variety of voluntary sector organizations in the criminal justice sector, for a number of years, it is apparent that in most instances, the prisoner’s voice is not central to the work that they do. This is also the view of the second named author, Andy Aresti, who whilst an academic, has worked with a variety of these voluntary sector organisations in varying contexts. A recent article by Aresti and colleagues (2016) has highlighted this issue, arguing that the prisoner’s voice is often silenced or at least diluted. Historically, whilst VSO’s have, and do acknowledge that current and former prisoners are a useful resource, they have typically utilized their expertise at a grassroots level. Specifi cally, very few have been employed at a senior level or held managerial positions, and this of course has a number of implications in terms of knowledge production, organizational focus and direction (Aresti et al, 2016). This will be discussed in more detail later, but suffi ce to say that it is only more recently, that the prisoner’s voice is being brought to the foreground, by VSO’s, in criminal ‘justice’ discussions and debates.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Sheet for Women in Prison for the First Time
    Information sheet for women in prison for the first time This information sheet contains information for women who may be going to prison for the first time. It covers what happens after court and when you arrive at prison. It may also be helpful to families, employers and people working with women in prison. The journey from court You will be transported from court in an escort vehicle. You may be escorted in the same vehicle as male prisoners. The journey can be long and uncomfortable. You should be permitted toilet breaks on long journeys, although this does not always happen. They should stop more often if you are pregnant or withdrawing from drugs. If you are pregnant, you should only be transported in the usual escort vehicles if it has been assessed as safe by a health professional. Where will I be taken? Women are held in separate prisons from men. You will be usually taken to the local women’s prison that serves the court you are sentenced or remanded at. These prisons are often busy, with lots of people going in and out. If you are unsure where you will go you can call the court and ask them which women’s prisons people normally get sent to. The following prisons accept women from court: • HMP/YOI Bronzefield, Surrey • HMP/YOI Peterborough, Cambridgeshire • HMP/YOI Eastwood Park, Gloucestershire • HMP/YOI Low Newton, County Durham • HMP/YOI Foston Hall, Derbyshire • HMP/YOI New Hall, West Yorkshire • HMP/YOI Styal, Cheshire Unless you have a very short sentence it is likely that you will be transferred to another prison soon after this.
    [Show full text]