5. Major Custody Issues

Introduction

5.1 In his initial briefing at the start of our inspection, the Governor referred to two major areas of concern:-

5.1.1 There was an urgent need for the basic fabric of the four residential Halls to be refurbished and the original proposal had been to have a rolling programme which involved emptying one Hall at a time. That scheme had started in the summer of 1996 but at the same time as prisoners were being decanted from 'D' Hall, the prisoner population began to rise nationally. That had greatly exacerbated the temporary loss in design capacity which had been created by the Hall closure and most prisoners were now having to double up - indeed if prisoner numbers continued to increase, three to a cell was a distinct possibility in the not too distant future. It had, therefore, been necessary to modify the refurbishment programme which would now extend over many more years and could be further affected by any continuing rise in the prisoner population.

5.1.2 An increase in violence amongst prisoners had occurred at much the same time as 'D' Hall was being closed. A number of reasons was thought to be involved, including drug debts and the possible settling of scores amongst prisoner factions, though a variety of counter measures had recently been introduced which were beginning to have some effect. More recently, a serious escape attempt, a lone roof-top protest and a hostage taking attempt had all helped to increase media anxiety, despite the fact that staff had acted commendably in all cases.

5.2 Comments on these and other major custody issues are shown below.

Prison Fabric/Overcrowding

5.3 We were in complete agreement with the assessment given at paragraph 5.1.1 and it was clear that there had been no substantial investment in the prison fabric for many years, though there had seen some re-decoration and some new out-buildings had been added from time to time. This issue pervaded almost every aspect of the prison including its fundamental security - as demonstrated by the recent escape attempt, which had involved two prisoners attempting to burrow their way through a wall.

5.4 The closure of 'D' Hall and the rise in prisoner numbers had led to record levels of overcrowding, with the prison being over capacity at the time of inspection by 50%. The conditions which resulted, especially in 'C' Hall where there was a great variety of remand and convicted prisoners, were nothing short of disgraceful - see paragraphs 3.11-13.

5.5 Continued investment for the refurbishment of the remaining Halls is greatly needed but with an expected continuing escalation in the prisoner population, it has to be accepted that the previous well-thought out programme will now have to be piece meal and extended over much longer periods of time. However, we hope that part of the capital sums which had previously been ear-marked for the Halls could now be used for more immediate needs - for example, in the construction of new separate cells unit to replace the present facilities which have frequently been described as unacceptable (see paragraphs 4.13-15).

Violence/Safety of Prisoners

5.7 Levels of serious assaults for 1993, 1994 and 1995 had been averaging 14 for each full year but rose to 25 in 1996.

5.8 Recent attacks had taken place as shown below:

5.9 Included in the assaults noted at paragraph 5.7 are two incidents in which prisoners had died in violent circumstances. In November 1995 a prisoner had died in a stabbing incident and the assailant was eventually convicted of culpable homicide. A further violent death had occurred in September 1996 and a number of prisoners was currently awaiting trial on a charge of murder.

5.10 It is difficult to make an accurate assessment of all the various factors which might be involved in this recent escalation. However, we believe that overcrowding, the decanting of prisoners from one Hall to another or drug debts might have been contributing factors; changes in prisoner factions and the settling of mainly outside scores could also be pertinent. An increase in the use of knives (which had been smuggled into the prison) had also led to a recent increase in the severity of the wounds sustained, including two fatalities. This increase in the use of knives to settle scores is of great concern as the outcome of the use of such weapons can result in tragedy, as in the two cases described at paragraph 5.9. A comparison of the figures for ‘reportable assaults’ for the period April-December 1996 revealed that at 46, Perth had more than double the rate of any other establishment - eg Shotts 19, Edinburgh 18 and Polmont 18. There had also been two serious assaults on staff within the previous 12 months, whilst three Officers had been convicted jointly of a prisoner assault in 1996 though their convictions were subsequently quashed on appeal.

5.11 In the light of these incidents, the Governor had instituted a review following which a number of counter-measures had been introduced, including intensive staff supervision, further restrictions on various aspects of security and the installation of CCTV surveillance in ‘C’ Hall together with grilles on the landing where vulnerable prisoners were located - see photograph below.

Suicide

5.12 Since mid 1993 there had been 16 deaths in custody, as follows:-

5.13 By way of comparison, throughout the SPS there had been 15 fatalities from all causes in 1995-96.

5.14 Specifically as regards suicides, in the three years preceding our 1993 formal inspection there had been two such deaths. However, as noted above, since then there had been 10 over a similar period - including two which had occurred on the same day in ‘C’ Hall in July 1996. We were, however, encouraged to note that there had only been one serious attempted suicide in the 12 months immediately prior to our inspection.

5.15 We noted that most of the suicides had occurred amongst convicted prisoners, which was unusual given that in most other prisons the rising trend appears to have concentrated amongst remands. Nevertheless, we were impressed with the Psychiatrists’ approach to suicide risk assessment and its management; the Psychologists had also made a considerable contribution.

5.16 Meetings of the Suicide Risk Management Group were due to have been on a quarterly basis since 1993 but an inspection of the various minutes revealed an impression of fragmentation and until 1996 there appeared to have been an apparent lack of the realisation of coherent, practical multi-disciplinary working in this area. We also noted from one recent document that "suicide observations were not always being seen by the Medical Officer".

5.17 A three tier management system had, however, recently been formed and involved:

5.18 Other commendable developments included the recent creation of a Day Care Unit for vulnerable prisoners which had been established in the Health Centre - more details are contained at paragraphs 8.39-46. Additional guidance on suicide management was also now being discussed following the independent reports which had been commissioned by the SPS into the operation and effectiveness of its suicide prevention strategy - ie the Gunn and Power reports, which had been available since May and early Summer 1996 respectively; this included possible changes in policy surrounding the issue of isolation versus integration for prisoners who were considered to be suicidal.

5.19 The Samaritans had been involved with the prison for three years and comprised two teams, each of two volunteers, who visited the prison once a week on Monday evenings. In total, they could call on eight members if necessary. During their visits, members would circulate in the accommodation areas and speak to prisoners. Specific requests for more in-depth discussion or counselling could come from the prisoners themselves or individuals could be referred by staff or other prisoners. A good working relationship appeared to exist between the Samaritans representatives and staff at all levels.

5.20 The work of the Samaritans depended on establishing relationships and the team would make a particular point of seeing all prisoners who happened to be on any form of suicide supervision. Some prisoners would be seen regularly and if concern existed about any individual, additional visits could be arranged. Recently, the Governor had had some discussions concerning the establishment of a Listener Scheme with visits being made to HMP Edinburgh to examine the system as it worked there.

Drug Abuse

5.21 In the report of our 1993 inspection the main references to drug abuse were mainly related to health concerns and AIDS. By 1997, however, it was apparent that drug abuse was much more established amongst both remand and convicted prisoners before they ever arrived at the prison. The scale of drug abuse had grown in the outside community and in turn, within all four of the prison’s accommodation Halls. The Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Medical and many other staff were all of the view that drug use within the prison was quite commonplace and even prisoner groups offered their own observations, stating that upwards of 80% of their number were resorting to illegal drugs at some stage during their sentence.

5.22 The Governor took the view that the problem was no worse than in any other comparable prison. That conclusion was based on recent MDT results which had shown that the number of prisoners providing a positive sample was now standing at 45% over a three month period - at HMP Edinburgh, for example, the comparative rate was 46% over six months.

5.23 Based on those figures, we were inclined to agree with the Governor’s conclusion though we assessed that the overall number of actual drug users was probably higher than the 45% who had tested positive as a result of MDT. Three probable levels of abusers were identified:-

5.24 Other evidence of increasing drug abuse included:-

5.25 There was also anecdotal evidence to indicate that some prisoners might now be moving away from cannabis towards heroin in order to avoid MDT detection, though we also understand that this mirrors recent trends among drug users in the community at large.

5.26 Prior to the introduction of MDT the main sources of drug education and rehabilitation had been:-

5.27 The total of 125 prisoners who had been through some form of drug rehabilitation programme ought, however, to be compared with the overall prisoner throughput. For 1996 this totalled 2067, of whom approximately 1500 were or ultimately became convicted prisoners. Projected figures for 1997 were that there would be a total of 40 each on the rehabilitation and detoxification courses.

5.28 There was a view from a number of quarters throughout the establishment that a full time addictions worker was required to deal with the growing number of abusers in the prison - a suggestion to which we give our full support.

Mandatory Drug Testing Unit

5.29 The MDT Unit had been operational since October 1996 and was being run by a Supervisor and three Officers including one relief, which ensured that two members of staff were always present when prisoners were being tested.

5.30 Since opening, the Unit had tested 166 prisoners, of whom 75 had produced positive results. Of 76 prisoners tested under the risk assessment protocol, 30 had been reported as being positive. During the same period two prisoners were tested under the frequent test programme and one of them had produced a positive result. Six prisoners had been tested on the grounds of reasonable suspicion and of those, five were positive. Eight prisoners had refused to provide a sample.

5.31 At the time of our inspection, 96 prisoners had appeared before the Governor as a result of a positive test. Nine of those prisoners had pleaded not guilty though seven of the tests had later produced confirmatory laboratory reports.

5.32 Prisoners were selected for testing at random by computer and when summoned, were required to come straight to the Unit from their place of work or from wherever they were. Sampling then took place one prisoner at a time but before doing so, an Officer in the waiting area explained the procedures and obtained a signature on an authorisation form. Individuals were then searched to ensure that they were not concealing a prepared substance, following which a sample was obtained in the sampling area and placed in two separate sealed containers. Bar codes were used to identify them, so that complete anonymity was maintained; to ensure fairness, special kits were used to seal and pack the specimens which were then sent to an outside laboratory for testing. Individuals also had to witness and verify each step and were provided with duplicate copies of all documentation.

5.33 Results were normally available within two to four days and if the test was positive, the prisoner could be brought before the Governor. If substance abuse was denied, a further confirmatory test was carried out by the laboratory to confirm the original findings and the nature of constituent drugs. If a prisoner pleaded guilty, he was given an appropriate punishment suspended for three months (unless his liberation date was less than that period of time). All prisoners who were given a suspended sentence were required to provide at least one negative test result before the suspension could be lifted. If further testing did not produce a negative result, the initial punishment was then effected together with any new punishment for the second offence. A prisoner who sustained two positive tests was placed on a frequent test programme.

5.34 Tests were also carried out as part of a risk assessment process - ie, when prisoners were being considered for transfer to a less secure environment or if there were other changes in the conditions of their imprisonment. Where a prisoner's behaviour gave rise to 'reasonable suspicion', a urine test could also be ordered but that application had to be supported by both a Supervisor and the MDT Coordinator.

Comment

5.35 Staff had made every effort to make the introduction of the MDT programme as smooth as possible, with prisoners being well informed prior to its introduction. This had been further assisted by an initial three week amnesty period. The number refusing to take a test - ie eight - was testimony to the way staff in the Unit had been dealing with prisoners and the high correlation of positive results when repeat tests were carried out suggested that the process was both accurate and fair. The computer programme which had been provided to assist the work of the Unit was being fully used though an aggregation of statistics was not available at the time of inspection. We have suggested to the Governor that a photocopier would greatly help the operation of the Unit.

5.36 Staff had achieved the required monthly target of 10% for random testing and we were pleased to be told that when prisoners tested positive or were found guilty of an offence, the Unit’s staff were able to provide information on the various support services which were available to help. Similarly, Personal Officers were also able to offer advice to prisoners in that regard.

Drug Rehabilitation Unit

5.37 The Drug Rehabilitation Unit was situated in a closed off section of 'E' Hall and had been operational since September 1995. It consisted of a large room for group work, an office for administration and nine single cells. Officers involved in the programme had received considerable training, not only in relation to drugs and alcohol but also in the field of HIV and AIDS. They were also trained in group working skills and were in contact with various outside agencies including Narcotics Anonymous, Phoenix House in Glasgow, Fife Community Drugs Team, Govan Addictions, Gorbals Addictions and Tayside Prisons Group. In recent times, however, there had been no clinical input to the programme.

5.38 Prisoners were admitted to the Unit on the basis of self-referral, with those requesting admission first being seen by an Officer from the Unit before being interviewed later by a multi-disciplinary group. During the first full year of the Unit's operation, there had been 59 such referrals of whom 32 had been accepted for a programme, though one third of that number had failed to complete the full course.

5.39 Until recently the group work programme had lasted 12 weeks and involved topics such as harm reduction, HIV and AIDS, management of emotions, addiction and alcohol information, fitness and health. Discussions were led mainly by prison staff, though there was input from outside agencies where appropriate. At the end of each course, prisoners were returned to their original Hall.

Comment

5.40 Staff in the Unit were enthusiastic and worked with care and professionalism. Nevertheless, there had been recent pressure to increase prisoner throughput though staff had felt that it might not be cost effective to run shorter programmes - unless prisoners could be discharged into a drug free area for at least two or three months. We believe that the lack of such a facility is currently a major weakness in the prison’s anti-drug strategy and is further exacerbated by present levels of overcrowding. We suggest, therefore, that Management must continue to try and find ways round that difficulty - which also applies in the case of prisoners going through the drug detoxification programme (see paragraph 5.46).

5.41 A recent staff evaluation of courses had shown a 50% short-term success rate, whilst attempts were now being made to assess longer term outcomes. Separately, we noted that there had been no family involvement with any of the programmes, nor was any planned - unlike the situation at HMP Shotts where consideration was being given to such involvement. After completing their course, prisoners were encouraged to maintain contact with Unit staff and to attend weekly meetings of the Drug Support Group and Narcotics Anonymous.

5.42 Concern was expressed that staff working outside the Unit were not always aware of what was involved and we suggest, therefore, that in order to provide a better awareness of what was going on, staff not directly involved should be briefed from time to time on current developments within the Unit.

Drug Detoxification Programme

5.43 Drug detoxification programmes were also run in the Drug Rehabilitation Unit and lasted for two weeks. Early detoxification programmes had been based on the use of benzodiazopines and dyhydrocodeine but more recently lofexidine britaflex had been used. Perth Healthcare staff had recently become involved for the first time with support for the courses, their number having been augmented by a member of the nursing staff from HMP Edinburgh.

5.44 Six out of seven prisoners had successfully completed using lofexidine, with an assessment that withdrawal symptoms had been effectively controlled during the two week period.

Comment

5.45 We were pleased to see the introduction of a controlled trial such as this and that assistance from clinical staff had been obtained; both factors should help reassure prisoners not only on the course but also elsewhere in the prison. One major drawback was that lofexidine is comparatively costly though efforts were being made to obtain it more cheaply.

5.46 The major limitation experienced was that prisoners were obliged at the end of the programme to return to their former Halls rather than to a drug free area which was essential to the follow-up process. That requirement was fully supported by the Psychologists and at paragraph 5.40, we have suggested that efforts should be made to identify such an area.