deaths in custody

'Still Nothing to See Here' Follow Up Report

On 30 November 2022 a follow up report (‘Still Nothing To See Here’) from the University of Glasgow on Deaths in Custody and Fatal Accident Inquiries (FAIs) was published. It found that there were more deaths in Scottish prisons over the past 3 years than in any other 3 year period on record; that the chance of dying in prison in 2022 was twice that of someone who was in prison in 2008; and that there had been a 42% rise in suicides since SPS’ suicide prevention policy (TTM) was introduced.

It was followed on 14 December 2022 by a follow up report to the Independent Review of the Response to Deaths in Prison Custody: Progress Report, published by the Scottish     Government.

Independent Review of the Response to Deaths in Prison Custody

On 30/11/21 HMIPS, Families Outside and SHRC published the Independent Review of the Response to Deaths in Prison Custody. It contained a great number of recommendations under the following 5 themes: Family contact with the prison and involvement in care; Policies and processes after a death; Family contact and support following a death; Support for staff and other people held in prison after a death; and SPS and NHS documentation concerning deaths. Its key recommendation was “that a separate independent investigation should be          undertaken into each death in prison custody. This should be carried out by a body wholly independent of the Scottish Ministers, the SPS or the private prison operator, and the NHS.”

Allan Marshall FAI Recommendations

On 21 January 2021 (18 months after the FAI), the SPS advised Allan Marshall’s family of their decision not to implement three of the 13 recommendations from the FAI. One of the recommendations not implemented referred to the use of feet by prison officers when restraining prisoners. As we know there is no legal imperative for the SPS (as with other organisations) to adopt the recommendations of this or any other FAI.

This tragic case continues to give rise to various questions about past and current practices within the prison service: as early as the preliminary hearing, control and restraint documents required by the inquiry were knowingly withheld and unnecessarily redacted by SPS. Vital evidence was destroyed, and on multiple occasions, statements given to the FAI by both prison officers and senior management were flatly contradicted by CCTV evidence, leading Sheriff Gordon Liddle to describe prison staff as "mutually and consistently dishonest". SPS then went to great lengths to try to keep the CCTV footage out of public sight. In an extremely rare move, the officers called to give evidence at the FAI, were granted immunity from prosecution. 

All the prison officers, bar one, initially told the inquiry that they were unaware of any officer using their feet during the restraint. When confronted by the video evidence, most of them changed their position, with one officer describing his own behaviour in using his feet to "stamp on" Mr. Marshall, as "totally out of order". Officers used their feet on more than ten occasions, which were clearly seen in video evidence. Expert witnesses confirmed that the use of a foot was not a recognised control and restraint technique and were quite clear that the use of feet was not justified. Both of the expert witnesses advised of the particular risks to breathing associated with the use of feet.

However, SPS has chosen not to implement the recommendation to provide specific training on the use of feet as a control and restraint technique, or to specifically disallow it. Instead, "in exceptional circumstances" SPS will allow its staff the scope to use dangerous and unapproved control and restraint techniques for which they haven't received specific training. Our belief is that Allan Marshall's death occurred in such "exceptional circumstances" - exactly the type of circumstances in which prison officers needed to know how to mitigate the potential consequences of their unapproved actions, either through thorough training or by being prevented from using such potentially life-endangering actions at all. 

In October 2019, SPS advised that they would be unlikely to implement Sheriff Liddle's recommendation that a clear policy be put in place where prisoners presenting with symptoms of psychosis must not be placed under physical restraint until they had been assessed by healthcare professionals and it having been deemed safe for the prisoner to be restrained. It has taken until January 2021 for SPS to reiterate that this would "be challenging to implement ... given SPS' duty of care that requires prison officers to respond immediately where an individual is at risk of harm to themselves or others" and that "[t]here is a section within the revised manual designed to begin to address these challenges ... with a focus on de-escalation". Almost six years after Allan Marshall's death, there isn't a clear policy to prevent this happening to someone else in the future, merely a section in a training manual which "begin[s]" to address these challenges and a statement that "SPS is giving further consideration to prevention strategies and managing behaviour in order to avoid the need to use restraint". 

In much the same way that the FAI determined that it can't be left to SPS to choose what evidence to redact, Howard League Scotland believes that it shouldn't be up to SPS to decide which of the recommendations they're going to implement and which they're not. Their conduct in this case suggests a wish to actively avoid external scrutiny, and in some circumstances, to behave with impunity. SPS's long-overdue response to the recommendations of the FAI is far from satisfactory and should not go unchallenged. 

 

Independent Review of the Handling of Deaths in Custody

On 7 November the Cabinet Secretary announced the formation of an independent expert review of the handling of deaths in custody. It will be led by Wendy Sinclair-Gieben (HMIPS) and include Professor Nancy Loucks (Families Outside). The review is designed “to improve arrangements and communication with families of prisoners after their death, as well as looking at preventing suicides. It will also examine the operational policies, practice and training in place within SPS and NHS. Findings are due to be published in Summer 2020.

UN Committee Against Torture - Key Concerns

The UN Committee Against Torture will shortly conduct a review of UK progress in implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment . (For background, the Scottish Government published an update on the UN Human Rights Council recommendations from the last review.) Alongside our partners in Human Rights Consortium Scotland, we have raised the following key concerns to the UN Committee Against Torture:

1. Deaths in police and prison custody

Each year for the last several years a significant number of prisoners have died whilst in SPS custody.[1] Various factors, including both the poor physical and mental health experienced by many people on entry to the prison and the rising number of old people in prisons, combine to produce these outcomes. In Scotland, deaths in custody are subject to a mandatory Fatal Accident Inquiry (FAI) chaired by a judge.[2] However, there is no statutory time limit on this process and there is a substantial backlog in completing these.

Our analysis of information on the 50 most recent FAIs provided by Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, shows that whilst most take place within 12 months of the date of death, there are instances where this has taken up to 4 years. None of the resulting determinations included recommendations for improving systems or processes, and there was much variance in time taken to publish i.e. from a matter of days to over a year.

In Scotland, remand prisoners make up 18.7% of our prison population, but account for 27% of the deaths in custody, thus being on remand disproportionately increases a person’s chance of dying whilst in custody.

Actions

The UN Committee Against Torture may wish to seek further information on these matters in discussion with the Scottish Government, including consideration of the following: increased scrutiny of health care and management of older prisoners; the implementation of effective suicide prevention strategies in Scottish prisons; management of the investigations of deaths and associated delays being more transparent; and the Scottish Government ability to restrict the courts’ use of remand.

2. SPS overuse of long-term segregation which amounts to solitary confinement

Scottish prisoners whose behaviour is judged to be prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the institution may be removed from association and located in a ‘Separation and Reintegration Unit’ (SRU) under Rule 95 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institution (Scotland) Rules 2011.Although such orders are initially made for a period of up to 72 hours they can be repeatedly extended with reference to the delegated authority of Scottish Ministers.

Concerns include that such extensions arise recurrently in the case of certain prisoners such that they come to be removed from ‘the mainstream’ for many months in succession. There has been a limited (though notable) amount of prisoner litigation on this issue[3] but little or no current research or recent public discussion on policy. Statistics provided by the SPS in response to a Freedom of Information request[4] showed that on 1 January 2017 one prisoner had spent over 800 consecutive days in a SRU in one prison (Grampian), one over 700 days (in Edinburgh) and another 7 over one year.

Actions

The UN Committee Against Torture may wish to pursue these matters in discussions with the Scottish Government and SPS.

3. Imprisonment of women

In 2015 the Scottish Government decided not to proceed with plans for a new women’s prison at Inverclyde. Instead, it resolved to create five small ‘community custody units’ in Scotland’s larger cities and one national facility with places for 80 women to replace the existing women’s prison at Cornton Vale.It was advised that the new female prison estate would hold 230.

As at 15 January 2019, the female prisoner population stood at 381, with women held in several locations, including a number of prisons formerly exclusively for males (Edinburgh, Greenock, Grampian, Polmont).

Two of the three community custody units (circa 36 places), are due for completion by the end of 2020, with no details as to when the remaining three will come on-stream. In answer to a Parliamentary Question re the women’s estate on 15 January 2019[5], the Cabinet Secretary for Justice advised that fuller detail would be provided.

Given the significant changes currently in hand, confirmation of the consequences for women in custody during the current transitional period would be timely.

Serious concerns have arisen recently about the use of restraints especially as applied to women and searching practices. We have received reports, which we are not in a position to investigate further, of intimate body searches of women by teams including male officers.

The safe and appropriate treatment of persons in custody who are transitioning/ transgender is a question that has recently come into sharp focus, and it is one with which the UN Committee Against Torture should rightly be concerned. 

In our view the safety of all persons in custody is a non-negotiable priority which imposes clear duties on the responsible authorities. All prison services should be held accountable for their performance in this respect. All persons have the right not be victimised or re-traumatised in prison or detention. 

In Scotland, the vast majority of trans/transitioning people in custody are m2f, the majority of them have not yet had gender reassignment surgery.

The Scottish Prison Service is currently consulting on their approach to the care of transgender people in custody. Their current approach allows anyone who self-identifies as transgender to be recognised as such, regardless of medical or psychological certification which supports this. This reflects the national approach to gender recognition taken by the Scottish Government.

The English and Welsh approach on the other hand, only recognises transgender people after a process of being granted a Gender Recognition Certificate which takes at minimum two-years and which has been criticised by the Scottish Government, amongst others, as being overly intrusive and onerous.

Significant and complex problems may arise however where transitioning /transgender prisoners elect to be housed in women's prisons. Women in custody are an especially vulnerable group, many of whom have also been the victim of sexual violence in their lives. The rights of women to be safe and to feel safe - including their rights to be housed in female-only settings - whilst in the care of custodial institutions cannot be compromised for any reason. The views of women prisoners should be specifically sought in consultation processes. 

Actions

We recommend that the UN Committee Against Torture seeks further information on interim plans for the women’s estate and evidence of the possible use of restraints.

We urge the UN Committee Against Torture to attend to the issues re transitioning/transgender prisoners with some urgency with a view to providing clear guidance of good practice for prison services in this area. This should include the Committee’s own investigation into international best practice - including the differences between the Scottish and English and Welsh approaches - and careful ethical consideration. 

[2] Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Act 2016 (asp 2)

[4] http://www.sps.gov.uk/FreedomofInformation/FOI-5783.aspx

[5] http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=11885&i=107462

Pages

Archive

2021

2020

2018

2015

2014

Subscribe to deaths in custody