Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:33 am
Time: 3:33 am
Results for remand prisoners (u.k.)
2 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Remand Prisoners: A Thematic Review Summary: At any one time, remand prisoners make up about 15% of the prison population – about 12,000–13,000 prisoners. Women and those from black and minority ethnic and foreign national backgrounds are over-represented within the remand group. In 2010, 17% of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts or tried at the Crown Court were acquitted or not proceeded against, and 25% received a non-custodial sentence. In total, approximately 29,400 prisoners were released after trial. This review examines the experience of young adult and adult remand (unconvicted and convicted unsentenced) prisoners in local prisons against the Inspectorate’s four healthy prison tests: safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. It incorporates findings from survey data and inspection reports for 33 local prisons. Fieldwork was also conducted at five prisons and included focus groups with remand prisoners. Interviews with residential and resettlement managers gave an establishment perspective. We found that remand prisoners enter custody with multiple and complex needs that are equally, if not more, pervasive than among sentenced prisoners. However, despite a long-established principle that remand prisoners – who have not been convicted or sentenced by a court – have rights and entitlements not available to sentenced prisoners, we found that many had a poorer regime, less support and less preparation for release. Remand prisoners are at an increased risk of suicide and self-harm and nearly a quarter (23%) in our survey said they had felt depressed or suicidal when they arrived at prison. Over three-quarters of remand prisoners reported a welfare problem on arrival, and a third or more said they had a drug or mental health problem. Some prisoners in our groups had experienced high levels of stress and anxiety while their trial was in progress and they were uncertain about the outcome. However, in both the survey and focus groups, remand prisoners showed little awareness of support services available at the prison. Although most said they had received an induction, many prisoners in our groups felt that they had been given too much information to absorb at such a turbulent time. The Prison Rules 1999 set out legally binding entitlements for remand prisoners which recognise they have not been convicted or sentenced. However, within Prison Service policy a considerable amount of discretion is permitted to governors on implementing these entitlements. There is also an unresolved disjuncture between the Prison Rules and Prison Service policy, with the latter permitting remand prisoners to share cells with sentenced prisoners if they have consented, and the former appearing to suggest that remand and sentenced prisoners should under no circumstances be required to share a cell. Although sharing residential accommodation and cells with sentenced prisoners was the norm, few in our groups recalled being asked for their consent. Those in our groups felt that staff were unable to distinguish between remand and sentenced prisoners on the wings, and prisoners in our groups and staff we spoke to had limited or no knowledge of their entitlements. The right of remand prisoners to vote had not been facilitated at two of the five prisons visited. Remand prisoners were allowed to wear their own clothes at most establishments, but this was often hindered by complicated and prohibitive processes. Few in our groups knew about the bail information officer at their establishment, and nearly half of remand prisoners in our survey reported difficulties with obtaining bail information. Bail services varied considerably between establishments and in many cases were not visible or active enough to ensure all who needed the support received it. Remand prisoners also reported difficulties in maintaining contact with solicitors, which was mainly due to difficulties accessing phones and affording calls. The video link facility for court appearances was considered a positive development by prisoners in our groups, although they felt more use could be made of it. Remand prisoners are, other than in exceptional circumstances, held within the local prison estate. Many local prisons are large, old buildings within urban locations. This and the transient nature of the local prison population – for example, the average period spent on remand is nine weeks – make it harder to offer a decent and purposeful regime. Remand prisoners reported poorer access than sentenced prisoners to services and an inferior regime. In our survey, over half of unconvicted prisoners said they spent less than four hours out of their cell on a weekday. Although unconvicted prisoners have the right to choose whether to attend work or education, they should all be offered the opportunity to do so. Most in our groups said they wanted to take part in activity as this increased their time out of cell and ability to earn money, but a lack of places and/or the prioritisation of sentenced prisoners meant some were unable to do so. Remand prisoners have certain entitlements for state benefits intended to mitigate the impact of their imprisonment while they are awaiting a verdict (which can, of course establish innocence) or sentence (which may not be custodial). Again, remand prisoners in our groups had little or no awareness of this and there were examples of where they had been misinformed by staff or were excluded from accessing services until sentenced. In our groups, some prisoners said they had lost or relinquished their housing arrangements and faced homelessness on release – in our survey, 39% expected to face housing problems on their release. Some also reported losing employment during their remand period, and of those who had their own businesses, none had received help or been made aware of the entitlement to receive assistance to maintain business activities. Although remand prisoners' welfare needs were assessed on arrival into custody, little was done to follow these up and address identified needs. In the majority of local prisons there was little or no case management or custody planning for remand prisoners. Remand prisoners were initially to be included in the layered offender management model and there were good examples of remand custody planning in prisons piloting it. However, remand prisoners have now been excluded from this process, which continues to leave a gap in their case management. There is also a marked lack of key data collected by the National Offender Management Service on the needs and outcomes for remand prisoners. There has been little focus on the remand population since we published the Unjust Desserts thematic review in 2000, which highlighted similar findings: that remand prisoners have a distinct set of needs and receive poorer provision than sentenced prisoners. Remand prisoners have very similar needs to unsentenced prisoners. They have either not been convicted or are yet to be sentenced and there is a long standing principle that they should be accorded rights and entitlements that are not available to convicted and sentenced prisoners. Yet far from being treated more favourably, this thematic review has shown that they all too often receive less support and help than convicted and sentenced prisoners. The specific circumstances and needs of remanded prisoners need to be much more clearly and consistently recognised, both in policy and operational practice, so that they are held in custody for the shortest time possible and while there are given at least the same support as convicted and sentenced prisoners. This is not just a question of addressing injustice in the treatment of the individuals concerned, but ensuring that costly prison places are not used unnecessarily and that everyone is given the chance to leave prison less likely to commit offences than when they arrived. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisoners, 2012. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 3, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf Shelf Number: 125852 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionRemand Prisoners (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Remand Prisoners: A Thematic Review Summary: At any one time, remand prisoners make up about 15% of the prison population – about 12,000–13,000 prisoners. Women and those from black and minority ethnic and foreign national backgrounds are over-represented within the remand group. In 2010, 17% of defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts or tried at the Crown Court were acquitted or not proceeded against, and 25% received a non-custodial sentence. In total, approximately 29,400 prisoners were released after trial. This review examines the experience of young adult and adult remand (unconvicted and convicted unsentenced) prisoners in local prisons against the Inspectorate’s four healthy prison tests: safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. It incorporates findings from survey data and inspection reports for 33 local prisons. Fieldwork was also conducted at five prisons and included focus groups with remand prisoners. Interviews with residential and resettlement managers gave an establishment perspective. We found that remand prisoners enter custody with multiple and complex needs that are equally, if not more, pervasive than among sentenced prisoners. However, despite a longestablished principle that remand prisoners – who have not been convicted or sentenced by a court – have rights and entitlements not available to sentenced prisoners, we found that many had a poorer regime, less support and less preparation for release. Remand prisoners are at an increased risk of suicide and self-harm and nearly a quarter (23%) in our survey said they had felt depressed or suicidal when they arrived at prison. Over threequarters of remand prisoners reported a welfare problem on arrival, and a third or more said they had a drug or mental health problem. Some prisoners in our groups had experienced high levels of stress and anxiety while their trial was in progress and they were uncertain about the outcome. However, in both the survey and focus groups, remand prisoners showed little awareness of support services available at the prison. Although most said they had received an induction, many prisoners in our groups felt that they had been given too much information to absorb at such a turbulent time. The Prison Rules 1999 set out legally binding entitlements for remand prisoners which recognise they have not been convicted or sentenced. However, within Prison Service policy a considerable amount of discretion is permitted to governors on implementing these entitlements. There is also an unresolved disjuncture between the Prison Rules and Prison Service policy, with the latter permitting remand prisoners to share cells with sentenced prisoners if they have consented, and the former appearing to suggest that remand and sentenced prisoners should under no circumstances be required to share a cell. Although sharing residential accommodation and cells with sentenced prisoners was the norm, few in our groups recalled being asked for their consent. Those in our groups felt that staff were unable to distinguish between remand and sentenced prisoners on the wings, and prisoners in our groups and staff we spoke to had limited or no knowledge of their entitlements. The right of remand prisoners to vote had not been facilitated at two of the five prisons visited. Remand prisoners were allowed to wear their own clothes at most establishments, but this was often hindered by complicated and prohibitive processes. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2012. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/remand-thematic.pdf Shelf Number: 126290 Keywords: Pretrial DetentionPrisonsRemand Prisoners (U.K.) |