West Midlands Police had made some progress in improving
conditions in their custody cells, but further work was
necessary, said Peter Clarke, Chief Inspector of Prisons, and Dru
Sharpling, HM Inspector of Constabulary. Today they published the
report of an unannounced inspection.
The inspection was part of a national programme of joint
inspections of police custody which monitor the treatment of and
conditions for detainees and aim to prevent ill-treatment. It was
the second inspection of police custody in the West
Midlands. The first inspection was in 2010 when, despite a number
of issues that required attention (including ligature points, the
use of force and risk assessments), inspectors found a reasonably
positive picture.
On this more recent inspection, inspectors visited the custody
suites at Bournville, Coventry, Perry Barr, Oldbury,
Solihull and Wolverhampton, as well as contingency suites at
Bloxwich, Stechford and Willenhall. They looked at strategy,
treatment and conditions, individual rights and health care. A
number of older custody facilities had closed and two large,
modern suites had opened, providing clean and bright
environments. It was disappointing that only one of three
significant areas raised at the last inspection, relating to risk
assessments, had been addressed adequately.
Inspectors were concerned to find that:
- there were a substantial number of potential ligature points,
presenting a risk to detainees and the force;
- there was a lack of comprehensive performance information and
monitoring, making it difficult for the force and others to
assess how well custody services were performing, including a
lack of oversight of the use of force in custody;
- despite good engagement by the force with safeguarding
boards, too many children were detained overnight when
alternative accommodation should have been provided by local
authorities;
- the health care contract was not being delivered
effectively;
- in some instances, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)
codes of practice were not complied with; and
- arrangements for securing appropriate adults for vulnerable
detainees and for releasing detainees safely were not always good
enough.
Inspectors were, however, pleased to find that:
- there was appropriate governance in place and clear
accountability for the safe delivery of custody;
- the force paid good attention to its Public Sector Equality
Duty and focused on identifying and managing vulnerability and
risk;
- custody was rarely used for the detention of people held
under the Mental Health Act; and
- detainees were generally treated compassionately and with
respect.
Peter Clarke and Dru Sharpling said:
“The findings from this inspection were mixed. Many of the
existing strengths remained and there had been clear progress in
some areas. However, it was disappointing that over a third of
the recommendations made at the previous inspection had still not
been achieved. Nevertheless, the force had a clear vision for
custody and we were confident that if the strategic impetus was
sustained, this would result in further improvement.”
Notes to editors:
1. A copy of the full
report can be found on the HM Inspectorate of Prisons website
from 21 June 2017 at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons
2. HM Inspectorate of
Prisons is an independent inspectorate, inspecting places of
detention to report on conditions and treatment, and promote
positive outcomes for those detained and the public.
3. Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) is an independent
inspectorate, inspecting policing in the public interest, and
rigorously examines the efficiency and effectiveness of police
forces to tackle crime and terrorism, improve criminal justice
and raise confidence. HMIC inspects all 43 police forces
in England and Wales.
4. Custody suites are
occupied by those suspected of committing crime, and may also be
used to temporarily accommodate people in need of medical
attention or intervention under Section 136 of the Mental Health
Act 1983. This enables a police officer to remove, from a public
place, someone who they believe to be suffering from a mental
disorder and in need of immediate care and control, and take them
to a place of safety – for example, a health or social care
facility, or the home of a relative or friend. In
exceptional circumstances (for example if the person’s behaviour
would pose an unmanageably high risk to others), the place of
safety may be police custody. Section 136 also states that the
purpose of detention is to enable the person to be assessed by a
doctor and an approved mental health professional (for example a
specially trained social worker or nurse), and for the making of
any necessary arrangements for treatment or care.
5. This joint inspection
was carried out from 30 January – 10 February 2017.
