NIACRO works to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities

NIACRO’S RESPONSE TO PRISONER OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND REVIEW OF THE USE OF PASSIVE DRUGS DOGS

1          Introduction

1.1       NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, is a voluntary organisation, working for 35 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities.  NIACRO provides services under the headings of: promoting safer communities; working with children and young people who offend; providing services to families and children of offenders; supporting offenders and ex-prisoners in the community; working with prisoners. 

1.2       NIACRO has links with, receives funding from, and/or works in partnership with all the main criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland.

1.3       NIACRO is pleased to contribute comments as requested by The Prisoner Ombudsman for NI, as part of the review into the use of passive drugs dogs in the three prisons in Northern Ireland. 

1.4       NIACRO has extensive experience of working both in the prisons and in providing family support services in the community.  We base our comments on the wealth of that experience and the ongoing relationship we have particularly with families and children of prisoners through our Visitor Centres, Family Links and associated services services.

2.         Impact on Children and Visitors

2.1       The use of the passive drugs dog continues to be a source of discomfort, anxiety and distress for children in particular, but for visitors in general.  Visitors report that they feel that the dog can be manipulated to indicate by the handler which restricts them to a closed visit. While this is most often a complaint made by the families and visitors of separated prisoners it is a complaint by other visitors.

 

2.2       The use of passive drugs dogs is a blanket indication that families and children of prisoners are not trusted by the prison authorities. It tars all visitors with the same brush -that of as being “potential drug smugglers”.  This is blatantly unfair and has a negative impact on how families and children experience visiting prisons and their views of prison staff. It is counter productive.

2.3       Visitors can be distressed by the use of the passive drugs dog and its impact on their children.  Children are often afraid of dogs in general and the close proximity of a large dog that walks around them can be frightening.  While babies and toddlers can be held in their parents arms, children standing in front of their parents while the dog sniffs around them are often just about the same height as the dog.  This is extremely frightening for children who also pick up on their parents’ anxiety about the dog.  We do specifically question the necessity for children to be subjected to the passive drugs dog as if the main reason for deployment is the detection of drugs when small children are least likely to be used to carry drugs into prison.

2.4       A recent visitor to a prison with her five year old son has refused to visit the prison again because of the impact the passive drugs dog had on her son who is terrified of dogs. He was totally unprepared for the presence of the dog on the way into visits.  This visitor was traumatised by the whole experience but is particularly adamant that she will not subject her son to the passive drugs dog again.  Her decision means that her son has not visited his father in prison for over 9 months

2.5       The surveillance available in the Visits area is a major safeguard against visitors trying to pass anything to the prisoner and is much less intrusive for families and particularly, for children. 

2.6       As prisoners are searched following visits it would be preferable, if dogs are to be deployed, that consideration be given to them being sniffed by the passive drugs dog rather than visitors and children.  We understand that some groups of prisoners have stated that they would prefer to be drug tested after visits rather than have their visitors subjected to the dog.  This might also reduce the pressure that some prison visitors may feel to try and carry drugs into the prison as the likelihood of the prisoner being able to conceal them in such a scheme would be minimal.

2.7       Prisoners are routinely subjected to a risk assessment and if that assessment indicates that they are a drug user and may try to influence visitors to carry drugs into the prison for them, the family should have that information given to them and be advised of the serious consequences of attempting to do so.  Family Links and the family liaison officers can play a key role in supporting families who are under pressure to understand the consequences both for them and the prisoner and what help and support the prisoner can receive within the prison to help them deal with addiction issues. 

2.8       Where a visitor has been given a closed visit on the basis of an indication of the passive drugs dog alone and with no corroborating intelligence, the next visit should be allowed to be an open visit.  This is particularly important where family members are bringing children on visits as the use of closed visits impacts most negatively on the children.  The visit of a family member and children should be so facilitated because of their right to a visit and to maintain family life and not be dependent on the behaviour or risk taking of the prisoner.

3.         Detection of Drugs

3.1       The use of passive drugs dogs to prevent drugs entering prisons is controversial for a number of reasons.  Firstly, passive drugs dogs react to the scent of drugs and not to the actual presence of drugs on the person.  Therefore, if someone has been previously using drugs, in particular, smoking them or in the company of someone who was smoking drugs, then the dog is likely to indicate on them.  Young people are more likely to be using cannabis or other drugs themselves and therefore are more likely to have the scent of these substances on their clothes.  That does not mean however that they are attempting to carry drugs into the prison but can mean that they are denied open visits with a sibling, parent, partner or friend.

3.2       Secondly, the assertion that the use of passive drugs dogs prevents drugs being smuggled into prisons by visitors is not very convincing given that the authorities admit that drugs are widely available in most prisons.  Indeed, the recent report into corruption in the UK Prison Service August 06, produced evidence that prison officers are one of the main conduits for drugs and other banned substances into prisons and yet staff are not subjected to the passive drugs dogs.  NIACRO are sympathetic to the view of staff that they cannot all be blamed for the actions of a very few staff but we would point out that this is exactly how prisoners families and children feel as stated above 2.2.

 

3.3       The prison authorities use a variety of methods to attempt to prevent the entry of banned substances into prisons including searches, metal detectors, cell searches among others and we do not feel that the negative atmosphere created by the use of the passive drugs dog within the visits area is worth the small amount of actual drugs either seized or detected by this route.

3.         Conclusion

3.1       The Northern Ireland Prison Service is making great efforts to make visiting prisons as family friendly and engaging as possible .However we feel strongly that the use of the passive drugs dog creates a frightening, untrusting and disrespectful atmosphere which it is then difficult to counteract.  NIACRO and others work closely with NIPS to improve the visiting experience for families and children and the use of the passive drugs dog tends to undermine some of the other positive work.

3.2      NIACRO would want any decision to retain the passive drug dogs to be kept under review and will commit to recording all incidents reported to it that refer to them and will pose a structured question in relation to their deployment in relevant customer surveys.

7^th September 2006