Niacro

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

NIACRO’s response to the Northern Ireland Prison Service consultation on “Amendments to Prison Rules, July 2009”

• Healthcare Amendments:

NIACRO supports the NIPS “drive to more fully integrate our healthcare service with the wider Health and Social Care (HSC) system“and wants the entire health and social care element within the prison estate to be informed by its external environment.  NIACRO also believes if the healthcare environment within the prison estate is “closed”, this could lead to a lessening of standards and quality for prisoners.

One solution to consider is the rotation of the medical staff to occur on a secondment basis. Additionally all references through the rules should be changed from Medical Officer to Medical Professional to ensure professional accountability for decisions taken or confirmed.

• Rule 32 (Restriction of association): 

NIACRO is concerned with the plan “to change the initial period of confinement from 48 to 72 hours” as it appears to be proposed for the organisational benefit of NIPS, without considering the effects on the prisoner. This level of confinement will be particularly detrimental to the significant number of the prisoner population with mental health issues. 

NIACRO believes this should not be introduced.  The statement that this is “consistent with the position in England and Wales” is not a valid basis for amending the rule. 

Should the decision be made to go ahead, NIACRO calls for bodies such as the IMB’s and the Prisoner Ombudsman to be given the opportunity to scrutinise any checks and balances in place in England and Wales, before any further changes are implemented in Northern Ireland.

• Rule 38 (Offences against prison discipline):

NIACRO welcomes the amendments to this rule and in particular supports the “defences to alcohol and drugs offences to allow for accidental, unknown or coerced consumption of both” as a protection mechanism for vulnerable prisoners.

• Rule 39 (Governor’s awards):

 NIACRO welcomes the amendments to this rule.  However, we recommend decisions should be made through the court system, not locally within the prison estate.

• Rule 45 (Petition against awards):

NIACRO disagrees with the statement “this rule is an anomaly given that we now have a complaints system that covers all admissible complaints made by a prisoner”. This would suggest that NIPS believes that the current complaints system is sufficient.

The procedure employed by NIPS needs have an independent element to it from the outset and the complainant should have “ease of access” to a complaints system, without fear of negative repercussions. This independent element might be delivered though engaging the IMB’s locally and this could include a reference to the IMB’s liaising with external service providers who receive initial complaints/concerns as well.

To achieve this, any complaints system needs to be well publicised, transparent and regularly reviewed.  Anecdotal evidence provided by NIACRO clients suggest this is not currently the case.

Past NIPS Inspectorate Reports have drawn attention to the fact that few complaints are made within the current system.  NIACRO believes it is important that a culture be created within NIPS where prisoners and staff alike can raise issues of concern.

• Rule 47 (Temporary Confinement):

NIACRO is of the view that a support and care package should be put in place very quickly “for violent and refractory prisoners.”  NIACRO also seeks clarification on what is meant by “temporary confinement” as we are concerned this will be perceived by prisoners as a form of punishment.

• New Rules 48B and 48C (Compulsory testing for alcohol and controlled drugs)

NIACRO emphasises the need for “a suitable degree of privacy” to be maintained during the provision of samples.  This suitable degree should be determined by a set of standards and accompanied by clear guidance for the staff who are required to undertake this duty.  The standards should also contain gender-specific arrangements for female prisoners.  

Finally, prisoners should not be subject to an unreasonable time limit in order to produce their samples.

• Rule 68A (Interception of communications):

 In order to protect confidentiality and reduce any risks of misuse of information, those who intercept personal communications should be properly trained and not working on a day-to-day basis with prisoners.

Relevant information should only be shared on a “need-to-know” basis with appropriate managerial staff.  Evidence provided by NIACRO clients suggests it has been the case that NIPS staff have ridiculed prisoners regarding the content of their mail.  Such practice is not acceptable.

• Rule 69 (Police interviews):

NIACRO recommends in order for “a member of the Serious Organised Crime Agency’s staff, an officer of HM Revenue & Customs or a member of the Security Service to have the same access to prisoners as police officers have” they need to produce an order or some form of written reasoning to gain access in the same way as a police officer currently does.

Young people should not be interviewed without the knowledge of their parents and always in the presence of an appropriate adult.

• Rule 73 (Control of visitors to prisoners):

NIACRO supports this amendment.  It is our experience that it is preferable for such situations to be dealt with locally so that lines of responsibility and accountability are clear and accessible to the people concerned. 

However, we are concerned about imposing closed visits on a prisoner when a particular visitor may have breached rules. We understand that the visitor concerned may need to be restricted, but a broader view needs to be taken of the prisoner’s situation.

Innocent family members should not be punished and closed visits are more likely to have a negative impact on the children of prisoners.

NIACRO urges Governors to use this opportunity to exercise some flexibility in dealing with such breaches of security, especially as prisoner perception is that the closed visits are often imposed for little reason.

• Rules 75 to 79 (Complaints by prisoners and former prisoners):

NIACRO welcomes the amendment to “reduce the stages involved in the prisoners’ complaints process from three to two”, as long as the changes in the process are not to the detriment of the person making the complaint. For example, the time period of 11 days between stages is too long for a prisoner to await acknowledgement of their complaint. The complaints process should be better publicised, as well as regularly monitored and reviewed.

NIACRO calls for complaints boxes to be accessible on landings as well as in visitors’ centres.  There should also be an opportunity for service users to monitor and review how complaints are being dealt with by the IMB.  This could be achieved through references to them in their annual reports.

It should become standard practice for NIPS to receive complaints in the cell and not in public areas such as the dining room.

• Rule 79J (Complaints to the Ombudsman: subject matter of the complaint):

NIACRO supports the amendments to this rule.

• New Rules 79HA to HH (Ombudsman’s powers to investigate complaints by prisoners’ visitors)

NIACRO calls for the immediate implementation of a complaints procedure for prisoners’ visitors, which is well publicised and easily understood. The procedure should be regularly monitored and reviewed.  Prisoners and their families should be given all the necessary information in an impartial manner.  NIACRO believes there is a role for IMB’s in this process.

It is not clear at exactly what point “new internal complaints procedure has been exhausted”, which is a critical requirement of a good complaints process.  NIACRO seeks clarification on this issue.

• New Rule 83A (Smoking):

NIACRO agrees it is possible and desirable to facilitate smoke breaks in designated outside areas.  It is unreasonable for staff to have such opportunities which are denied to inmates. All those working and living in the NI Prison establishments must adhere to the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and it is considered unreasonable if staff are allowed to flaunt the rules whilst prisoners are required to follow it.

• Rule 88A (Prisoners at risk of suicide or self harm):

 NIACRO supports the amendment to this rule, particularly in the case of Maghaberry prison, where the temporary confinement cell is based in the punishment unit.

• Rule 94A (Inquiry into charge: minor offences):

NIACRO seeks clarification on what will constitute a “minor breach of discipline” as well as the frequency of minor breaches which would see a young person appear before a House Manager on disciplinary charges. We would require that disciplinary process should be subject to scrutiny, with all details being monitored and recorded.

We also believe the new procedures while providing for “the hearing of the report in a swift and timely manner, preferably on the day that the alleged offence occurred and certainly within 48 hours of the alleged offence occurring” could mean that a prisoner is punished without an opportunity for a proper investigation.

Those prisoners who are unable to prepare their own defence or make representation in a disciplinary process, such as those with a learning disability, must be entitled to representation by a third party.   

In addition, NIACRO calls for the right of appeal for prisoners and the right for representation for all throughout the entire process.

In line with previous inspection reports, the process requires a formal impact assessment in terms of how it effects the nine specified groups   NIACRO recommends that the assessment be available for scrutiny by IMB’s and the Prisoner Ombudsman, where appropriate.

• Independent Monitoring Boards:

NIACRO supports the amendments to this rule, but would highlight that the name change to Independent Monitoring Boards be reflected more in practice.