IndyMedia - Vrij Media Centrum Nederland

Hier kun je discussieren over Engelse gevangenis zeer slecht blijkt uit inspectie.
Report on an unannounced inspection of
HMP Woodhill by HMCIP

Inspection 3/13th January 2012,
report compiled March 2012. published Friday 22nd June 2012

Inspectors had concerns:

- use of force was high and
the use of special accommodation was excessive

- The number of self-harm
incidents had risen considerably over the previous 12 months and we
sensed a lack of focus in addressing this trend

- there was evidence that some
prisoners were unnecessarily subject to suicide and self-harm
processes rather than being supported with alternative
measures.

- The close supervision centre
(CSC) was, however, concerning: A wing, for example, essentially
constituted a locked down regime despite being described as an
assessment facility. Risk assessments and unlock protocols meant that
prisoners were usually only unlocked singly and under heavy
supervision. We were not fully assured about all aspects of these risk
assessments or that adequate quality assurance and safeguards were in
place.

- Most prisoners however,
expressed negative perceptions about the quality of health
care

- Primary mental health
provision was inadequate and there were long delays in transferring
patients to mental health hospitals.

- We also had concerns about
the accessibility of mental health services for those held in the
CSC.

- provision of
vocational training was limited and had reduced since our last
inspection

- too few benefitted from
meaningful sentence management. Public protection arrangements also
required improvement.

- too few benefitted
from meaningful sentence management.

- Public protection
arrangements also required improvement.

Introduction from the report

Woodhill is one of the more complex establishments in the prison
system and a significant management challenge. As one of three core
local prisons in the high security estate, Woodhill combines a normal
local prison function serving courts in the South East Midlands with
an additional responsibility holding high risk and category A
prisoners, many either unconvicted or only recently convicted. Added
to this, on house unit 6, the prison has a number of smaller more
specialist facilities, including two protected witness units and two
close supervision centres holding some of the country's most
disruptive prisoners.

Recent inspections acknowledged the prison's success in managing these
competing pressures: in maintaining a proportionate approach to the
very real challenges of security at this prison and in ensuring
reasonable standards of safety and respect. Our principle criticism
was the lack of sufficient activity to occupy prisoners. This
inspection found, to a great extent, that the situation remained much
the same.

The prison had solid systems in place to
tackle bullying and violence and few prisoners reported feeling
unsafe. Vulnerable prisoners, in contrast, expressed more qualified
views about their safety, which was not helped by the weak induction
arrangements they experienced. Risk assessments for young adult
prisoners located on the vulnerable prisoner wing and more generally
around the establishment needed to be more robust. The prison
continued to successfully manage the balance between the security
requirements of the high risk minority without needlessly impacting on
regime outcomes for the majority. Segregation usage was low but use of
force was high and the use of special accommodation was excessive. In
both situations management supervision needed to improve and specific
incidents required further enquiry.

The number of self-harm incidents had risen
considerably over the previous 12 months and we sensed a lack of focus
in addressing this trend. A number of procedures aimed at supporting
those in crisis were just adequate and there was evidence that some
prisoners were unnecessarily subject to suicide and self-harm
processes rather than being supported with alternative
measures.

The quality of accommodation generally at
Woodhill was among the best in the estate and relationships across the
prison continued to be a strength. The close supervision centre (CSC)
was, however, concerning: A wing, for example, essentially constituted
a locked down regime despite being described as an assessment
facility. Risk assessments and unlock protocols meant that prisoners
were usually only unlocked singly and under heavy supervision. We were
not fully assured about all aspects of these risk assessments or that
adequate quality assurance and safeguards were in place.

Equality was well promoted and there were
useful initiatives concerning nearly all the various strands of
diversity. Most prisoners however, expressed negative perceptions
about the quality of health care. Access to some services was
reasonable but staff shortages had impacted delivery. Primary mental
health provision was inadequate and there were long delays in
transferring patients to mental health hospitals. We also had concerns
about the accessibility of mental health services for those held in
the CSC.

A structural problem at Woodhill remained
the lack of sufficient activity to occupy prisoners. More places had
become available since we last visited but we still found about half
of the population not engaged in any purposeful activity. The
provision of vocational training was limited and had reduced since our
last inspection and the education places on offer were
underused. The quality of learning and skills generally was just
satisfactory but the reasonable amounts of time out of cell mitigated
some of the worst effects of this situation on individual
prisoners.

Offender management for higher risk
prisoners and those who could access it was reasonably good although
the profile of offender management generally in the prison needed to
increase. Resettlement need was identified early among those arriving
at the prison and provision across the strands and pathways that
contributed to effective resettlement was reasonably good. Prisoners,
however, claimed limited knowledge of the services on offer, arguably
linked to the fact that too few benefitted from meaningful sentence
management. Public protection arrangements also required
improvement.

Overall this inspection describes a prison
little changed from when we last inspected. The complexity of the
establishment is managed reasonably well and the vast majority of
prisoners are not disadvantaged because of the additional security
needs of the few. The prison is stable and generally safe but more
management attention is required across a number of high risk areas
such as self-harm prevention, segregation and the CSC. The need to
occupy the prisoners more fully and purposefully remains
unaddressed.

Nick Hardwick
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

Source for this message:
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons