Racial Equality in Prisons

Racial Equality in Prisons A formal investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality into HM Prison Service of England and Wales Part 2 © Commission for Racial Equality St Dunstan’s House 201 Borough High Street London SE1 1GZ December 2003 ISBN: 1 85442 544 7 2 CONTENTS Foreword 5 The Nominated Commissioners 7 Names, Quotations and Terminology 7 Summary 9 Background 15 Reasons for the investigation 15 Scope of the investigation 18 The investigation process 20 HM Prison Service policies on race equality 21 Challenges facing the prison system 24 Overrepresentation of ethnic minority groups in the prison population 26 HMP Brixton 30 HMP Parc 37 HMYOI Feltham 41 The areas of failure 43 Failure area 1: The general atmosphere in prisons 45 Failure area 2: Treatment of prison staff 55 Failure area 3: Treatment of prisoners 71 Failure area 4: Access to goods facilities and services 83 Failure area 5: Control of the use of discretion 97 Failure area 6: Prison transfers and allocations 107 Failure area 7: Discipline for prisoners 117 Failure area 8: Incentives and Earned Privileges 123 Failure area 9: Access to work 131 Failure area 10: Race complaints by prisoners 135 Failure area 11: Investigation of race complaints 147 3 Failure area 12: Correcting bad practice and spreading good practice 157 Failure area 13: Protection from victimisation 167 Failure area 14: Management systems and procedures 181 Conclusion: Findings of unlawful discrimination 193 Appendices: A Terms of Reference for the Formal Investigation 209 B Glossary of terms 211 4 FOREWORD Agencies within the criminal justice system have to set themselves the highest standards as a priority in the way they work. Custodial care on the part of HM Prison Service did not only fail to achieve that goal: it was carried out in ways that were unlawful, both in specific instances and in general. It is the conclusion of this formal investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality that the Service committed acts of unlawful racial discrimination. This happened against individual members of staff and individual prisoners. It also occurred in respect of the overall standards of delivery for the job it was created to perform, the care of prisoners, and in its employment practices. This report brings together evidence from those areas of our investigation other than the circumstances leading to the murder of Zahid Mubarek. A report on those matters was published in July 2003. The evidence ranges from acts of intimidation and gross racial harassment to what may appear to some to be small matters but which can be of great significance of prisoners: whether or not a prison shop stocks particular items or a meal fits a particular diet. Small or large all these failings contradicted the commitment by HM Prison Service to care for those in its employment or custody according to clear standards of decency and respect. They were wrong in themselves; were barriers in the way of the proper functioning of the Service and prevented it from securing the most positive possible attitudes on the part of prisoners to turning their backs on crime. The events we examined and upon which we have exercised judgement took place up to the summer and autumn of 2000 in and around three establishments, HMP Brixton, HMP Parc and YOI Feltham. We are assured by HM Prison Service that much progress has been made in the three years since the end of the period covered by our investigation. We are not in a position to judge upon the extent of that progress but we are pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between the Service and the Commission. An agreed action plan has been drawn up for changes and developments in the way HM Prison Service will work. This provides for monitoring and reporting systems which will make public the evidence as to what problems persist and what changes have been achieved. As this process unfolds, it will be possible for the Service itself, ourselves and the public at large to see exactly what progress is being made and how effective it is in 5 delivering a changed and improved custodial practice, one that delivers race equality outcomes for its staff and those in its care and which, as a result, can play a more successful part in reducing crime across society. Since HM Prison Service has been prepared to commit itself to such a process it has not been necessary for us to consider whether or not to serve a Non-Discrimination Notice upon the Service. The Commissioners nominated to conduct this investigation have therefore suspended consideration of such a Notice. The Commission will only need to return to the issue if HM Prison Service fails to live up to its commitments. Ray Singh, CBE Chair of the panel of Nominated Commissioners 6 The Nominated Commissioners The panel of Commissioners nominated by the Commission for Racial Equality to conduct the formal investigation into HM Prison Service of England and Wales was Ray Singh, Kamaljeet Jandu and Patrick Passley. Beverley Bernard was a member of the panel when it was first constituted in 2000 but resigned from it in February 2003 when she stood down as Acting Chair of the Commission. Names Individuals have been anonymised wherever possible in the preparation of this report. Reference is made to the office rather than the individual holding the office when identifying particular actions or statements. The report speaks of, for example, ‘the Governor’ without indicating a particular individual who held the office at a particular time, unless that is absolutely necessary to explain the point being made. Aside from Zahid Mubarek and Robert Stewart, only two individuals who were employees of HM Prison Service or inmates in its establishments have been named. One is Mr Alexander. His successful case proving unlawful racial discrimination in his treatment as a prisoner by HM Prison Service in the 1980s stimulated the production of its 1991 Race Relations Manual. Had the provisions of that Manual been followed, this investigation would have been unnecessary. The second is Claudius Johnson. His Employment Tribunal cases in the decade after that Manual was promulgated led directly to this investigation. Behind the two findings of unlawful racial discrimination against the Service, lay years of wrongful treatment of a fine employee. Our intention in conducting this investigation, and in working to see that out of it comes a clear, publicly accountable action programme on the part of HM Prison Service, is to ensure that such things do not happen again. Quotations In the text of a quotation ‘…’ is used to indicate that a phrase or phrases not relevant to the meaning of the text has been dropped. Where words are included between square brackets as in ‘[the officer]’ this is to indicate that a name or some other identifying term not necessary to the purpose of the quotation has been replaced or that an explanation as to the meaning of a term has been inserted. Terminology Where the term ‘black’ is used in this report to describe a person’s ethnic origin it covers those staff or prisoners who have ticked one of the ‘Black’ boxes (Black Caribbean; Black African or Black Other) in ethnic monitoring forms. 7 8 SUMMARY Under sections 48 to 52 of the Race Relations Act, the Commission for Racial Equality is empowered to conduct formal investigations into possible unlawful racial discrimination. This investigation into HM Prison Service of England and Wales was launched in November 2000. It concluded in November 2003 with findings that the Service committed acts of unlawful racial discrimination during the periods covered by the investigation’s terms of reference which ran up to November 2000. The Commission has the power to impose a Non-discrimination Notice upon a respondent found to have breached the Act in this way. The Notice would require the respondent to do what would be necessary to ensure that it delivered a standard of service and employment practice which fulfilled the provisions of the law. The Commission has suspended consideration of such a Notice on the basis that HM Prison Service has committed itself to fulfil an Action Plan equivalent to what would have been required of it had a Notice been served. The investigation uncovered the following areas of failure across the operations of HM Prison Service in regard to the three prisons examined: HMP Brixton, HMP Parc and YOI Feltham: 1: The general atmosphere in prisons • Prison ‘cultures’ among prison staff meant race equality procedures could be ignored, staff operated in a discriminatory way, and racist attitudes and behaviour were tolerated. • Racist abuse and harassment and the presence of racist graffiti were persistent features of prison life for many staff and prisoners. • Action in response to such expressions of racism was generally limited to dealing with the immediate problem rather than rooting out its causes. 2: Treatment of prison staff • Ethnic minority staff had to work in an atmosphere of racist taunting and intimidation. • The onus was on ethnic minority staff to make formal complaints about discrimination and harassment. • These complaints were often not taken seriously and not properly investigated. • Ethnic minority staff who spoke up about these matters were subsequently victimised. 9 • Senior managers failed to ensure that perpetrators of acts of racial discrimination, harassment and victimisation were disciplined. • Senior managers failed to act on Employment Tribunal findings even when a commitment to action had been made by HM Prison Service. • Senior managers failed to deal proactively or systematically with the problem of racial discrimination against staff. 3: Treatment of prisoners • Prisoners have written to the Commission alleging a wide range of racial discrimination.

Load more