PAS Case Studies

"I served four months in Wetherby Young Offender Institution (Sep 06-Jan 07) which was something of a nightmare. It was my first time in trouble and I consider myself a "first and last" (first time in Y.O.I. and the last time as well). Prisoners' Advice Service were really helpful and sympathetic (not a lot of sympathy on offer in Wetherby!) I needed advice about getting books to continue my A level studies which Y.O.I. were reluctant to let me have brought in. Anyway, after phoning your advice line I was able to get it sorted. Thank you." S

Case 1. Mother and Baby Unit. Ms A spoke to PAS when we visited HMP Holloway for an advice session. She had been arrested carrying drugs into the country. She was pregnant at the time and her baby was born whilst she was in custody. She asked for assistance with gaining a transfer away from Holloway as she had concerns about the mother and baby unit there, including the level of hygiene and the amount of time she had to spend in her cell. We contacted the prison. In the meantime, our client was threatened by another prisoner on the mother and baby unit and a verbal argument took place. Our client was then informed that she had to either hand her baby out to her family or social services would intervene. She therefore felt she had no option but to hand her baby to her parents, although she was reluctant to do this. We contacted the prison again and our client had lengthy discussions with the head of the Mother and Baby unit. Shortly afterwards our client was transferred to another prison with her baby.

Case 2. Mr S was charged with fighting.  He told us that he was in fact the victim of an assault and that five other prisoners had entered his cell and attacked him.  The case was referred to an independent adjudicator.  We faxed the prison setting out Mr S ’s grounds of defence; however the prison did not pass this on to the adjudicator, who went ahead and found Mr S guilty, awarding him a punishment of 21 extra days imprisonment.  As this was a private prison the route of appeal was to contact the Office of Contracted Out Prisons, who without reviewing the full details of the case, found that the adjudication was fair.  We then appealed on Mr A’s behalf to the Prisons Ombudsman, who investigated and issued a report recommending that the adjudication be quashed. The Ombudsman also noted that there was a ‘disappointing standard of record-keeping’ during the procedure and commented that even had the adjudication finding been safe, the Ombudsman believed that the punishment was far too harsh.

Case 3. Mr D was held in segregation for his own protection and had been told that his personality was “suitable” to be referred to the DSPD unit, or at the very least to the Closed Supervision Centre in HMP Woodhill. These comments had been made to him by a prison governor several times, with an explanation that relied on Mr D’s family situation outside prison. Mr D contacted us to intervene on his behalf, as he believed strongly that he should not even be in segregation, let alone either of the units. His numerous requests for clarification had been ignored. We made representations to the prison on behalf of Mr D that they had no reasonable or lawful grounds on which to transfer him to such conditions, especially since a psychiatric evaluation had not been undertaken and his behaviour since entering prison had given no cause for concern. The prison contacted us and to reassure us that at present there are no plans to transfer Mr D, and that they will contact us directly if there is any change. Mr D’s file has been kept open in the event that this issue should arise again.

Case 4. The client was a lifer who began a relationship with a determinate sentence prisoner while they were both in HMP Cookham Wood. When the client’s partner was released she was barred from visiting the client due to ‘security concerns’. The client was then transferred to HMP Send where her partner visited her twice before receiving a ban. The ban was imposed because of the original security concerns from HMP Cookham Wood and further new allegations. After some investigation we were able to show that the allegations were false.  We also showed that HMP Cookham Wood’s decision to ban the client’s partner was irrational as the ‘security concerns’ stemmed from an incident prior to the client’s partner’s successful risk assessment for release on temporary licence. The ban was lifted and normal visiting arrangements resumed.

Case 5. A black prisoner was charged with racially abusing a black prison officer, using extremely peculiar racist language eg. Alabama porch monkey. The prisoner maintained that he had referred to the black prison officer as an Uncle Tom, and nothing else. His version of events were supported by 4 prisoners, two of whom were Asian and black. The matter was referred to the police who investigated and decided not to proceed with the matter, however the prison pursued the charge. The prisoner was found guilty of having used the racially offensive language in the absence of the reporting officer and witnesses. We appealed the adjudication which was quashed.

Case 6. The client was an inmate at HMP Askham Grange. She had repeatedly requested a transfer to a prison nearer her fiancé who was 74 years old and disabled. Although the client was disabled she regarded herself as self-caring. HMP East Sutton Park refused to accept the client because of her medical issues and because they erroneously believed she would need a ground-floor room. After representations from us acceptable first-floor accommodation was found. The client was successfully transferred.

Case 7. Mr G is a foreign national prisoner serving five years for a non-violent offence. He is a model prisoner and was hoping to go to a Category D prison. He submitted an application for his categorisation to be reviewed to which the governor replied that ‘any move to Cat D in your case would depend heavily on advice from the immigration dept’ and that therefore ‘at the moment Cat D is not appropriate for you’. We wrote to the prison pointing out that the Prison Service, not the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), makes decisions on transfer of prisoners to Category D establishments, although in the case of foreign national prisoners it is clear that IND’s view must be sought prior to making such a decision, and that it did not appear that this process had not been carried out in Mr G’s case. We asked for his security category to be immediately reviewed. Instead of replying the prison immediately moved Mr G to another establishment, meaning that we are now having to pursue the argument by corresponding with two different prisons, asking one to agree its decision was faulty (which it does not accept) and the second to conduct the fresh review.

Case 8. Mr C, a Jewish prisoner was terminated from his prison employment for refusing to work on Saturday, which is his Sabbath. Previously, staff had complied with this but a new officer decided that religious reasons for refusing to attend work were not acceptable. The prison upheld the prisoner’s complaint that Mr C was discriminated against on racial grounds. We are now seeking damages under the Race Relations Act.

Case 9. Mr B, an Afro-Caribbean prisoner informed staff of a verbal racial abuse and threats to kill by a white prisoner, which took place in front of witnesses. Staff took no action and the following day Mr B was assaulted in an unprovoked attack by the white prisoner, who used a broken ceramic mug in a sock, and again made racially abusive comments to him. Two members of staff witnessed the attack. Mr B required outside hospital treatment. Mr B complains of a catalogue of negligent acts by the prison, which he believes to be motivated by the fact that it was not a white prisoner who was assaulted by a black prisoner. For example, the assault was reported to the police, but before the police could take action the prison conducted a governor’s adjudication (where additional days cannot be awarded) against the perpetrator, so that police could no longer proceed with an investigation which could potentially have resulted in a custodial sentence for the perpetrator; none of the evidence of the attack, such as the weapon and blood splatters in the cell, were preserved; witnesses were not interviewed. The prison refused to uphold Mr B’s complaint of their negligence, and the Ombudsman is currently investigating the complaint.

Case 10. Ms M is a foreign national prisoner. In 2002 she was sentenced to 9 years for a non-violent offence. In October 2005 she applied for release on temporary licence (ROTL). It was granted and Ms M completed a successful town visit. Shortly after the ROTL the prison received a letter from the IND stating that they ‘did not give permission’ for ROTL because Ms M was to be considered for deportation. The prison promptly rescinded permission for ROTL despite the impact this had on Ms M’s educational and sporting activities. We applied for a review of the decision to refuse ROTL on the grounds that the decision to grant it lay with the governor of the prison. Information from IND could only form part of that risk assessment. The only information IND had on Ms M was the recommendation she be deported, of which the prison was already aware. Finally under threat of judicial review proceedings the prison reversed their decision.