Centenial Celebration

Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.

Date: April 29, 2024 Mon

Time: 9:48 pm

Results for maghaberry prison

1 results found

Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection

Title: Report on an Announced Inspection of Maghaberry Prison 19 - 23 March 2012

Summary: Maghaberry Prison is a complex and challenging establishment. It holds 1,000 men including remand prisoners, fine defaulters, lifers and a small number of separated paramilitary prisoners. A significant number have mental health problems and learning difficulties, while others are vulnerable because of their offences or disputes with other prisoners. Previous inspections have been very critical of the way Maghaberry responded to these challenges. On this occasion significant weaknesses remain, but we found areas of improvement and assess the prison as having progressed by one level in three out of the four healthy prison tests, while respect remained the same. Despite these improvements the prison still has a long way to go. The number of self-harm incidents was not high and arrangements for the support of those at risk of suicide or self-harm had improved, though were inconsistently applied. The Donard Day Centre opened in 2011, and its multi-disciplinary team provided excellent care for some very vulnerable prisoners, and in many ways it was the jewel in Maghaberry’s crown. Record-keeping by staff was poor but professional relationships between staff and prisoners were better and delivered more dynamic security intelligence. While the Care and Support (Segregation) unit regime was reasonable for those who were there for short periods, it was completely inadequate for prisoners who stayed for longer periods. There was a good induction programme for new arrivals, but some were missed. Some important features of prison life, such as the Progressive Regime and Earned Privileges scheme, were overly-punitive. Security could be overbearing and did not sufficiently relate to individual risk assessments. Nevertheless the introduction of ‘free flow’, which enabled most prisoners to move freely within the prison during the core day, was a major improvement and helped to normalise the atmosphere. The Dedicated Search Team, which we had grave concerns about during the last inspection, was no longer the pernicious influence it had once been. Many prisoners told us they had felt unsafe in the prison at some time. There was no effective monitoring of violent incidents to identify when and where they were likely to occur or how they could be prevented. Despite high staffing levels, association and exercise areas were not adequately supervised. We remain concerned that the prison does not provide a sufficiently safe environment for those held there. The introduction of mandatory drug testing was a good initiative and the structural arrangements for delivery of health services had improved. Unfortunately Maghaberry’s health care department was disorganised and beset by staff shortages when we inspected, and this was having an adverse impact on clinical outcomes. We were concerned about the lax management of divertible medication and managers told us this was a significant cause of bullying in the prison. Very poor drug treatment processes were dangerous for prisoners. At the time of the inspection, some separated Republican prisoners in Roe House were engaged in a dirty protest. The resulting conditions posed a threat to the health of prisoners and staff, but hygiene arrangements were being carefully managed and nobody had suffered any ill effects at the time of writing. The rest of Maghaberry was clean but suffered from considerable overcrowding. At the time of the inspection, 538 prisoners (more than half of the population) were sharing small, cramped cells that were designed for only one person. Maghaberry’s own statistics confirmed there were unequal outcomes for Roman Catholic prisoners in several important respects, yet this sensitive issue was not being effectively addressed. There were insufficient activity places available and prisoners spent too long locked in cells. A fully-employed prisoner could spend about nine hours a day out of cell on weekdays, but too many of those working were employed in unchallenging orderly roles, which offered nothing like a normal work environment. It was unsatisfactory that the 50% of prisoners who were unemployed spent up to 20 hours a day in their cells. The new Learning and Skills Centre is an excellent resource so it was frustrating that staffing shortages meant it was considerably under-used. The learning and skills curriculum was too narrow and was not aligned to local labour market needs. Otherwise, there were more hopeful signs – the quality of teaching, training and learning was generally good, as was the provision of basic literacy and numeracy and English for Speakers of Other Languages; there was some innovative use of mentors in education; the library was a good resource and physical education was very good. Resettlement was the most positive aspect of Maghaberry Prison. Despite the range of prisoners held, there were good attempts to address the behaviour of both short and long-term prisoners including some prisoners on remand, and to meet the basic practical needs of those who were about to be released. Public protection arrangements were functioning better than when we last inspected. Some aspects of provision for lifers had improved, although the closure of the Belfast ‘step down’ facility for testing long-term prisoners in a less secure environment was a big loss and should be urgently redressed. Provision of offending behaviour programmes had improved since the new Offender Management Unit took over co-ordination, but not all needs were met. The visitors halls were cramped and noisy and visits did not start on time, although other support for prisoners’ families such as the Quakers Visitor Centre, was very positive. Maghaberry remains a prison which does not yet provide a sufficient level of safety and respectful treatment, with too many prisoners having little purposeful activity to do. Nevertheless, this inspection found signs of real improvement. Some excellent work was being done by individual staff in a context where professional relationships overall were improving, and investment in new facilities had created opportunities for further improvement. At a time of major reform throughout the Northern Ireland Prison Service, these improvements now need to be embedded in the culture and processes at Maghaberry so that the progress that has been made is built on further.

Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2012. 174p.

Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/b5/b561aa96-c6b8-417f-9c70-a736713315e8.pdf

Year: 2012

Country: United Kingdom

URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/b5/b561aa96-c6b8-417f-9c70-a736713315e8.pdf

Shelf Number: 127692

Keywords:
Maghaberry Prison
Prison Administration
Prisoners
Prisons (Northern Ireland)