Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660
- 679)
THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2003
MR MARK
LEWIS AND
MR JAMES
DUFFY
Q660 Mr Barnes: The Steele review
panel found that the morale amongst staff was very low. To what
extent is this a consequence of the prisoners' campaign for separation,
and to what extent is this a product of other factors, such as
the acknowledged problems with staffing levels and sickness absence?
Mr Lewis: The expression in the
prison is "Your jaw is on the floor" and everybody uses
it. It is a combination of things, but the final straw came when
the staff could not even feel safe when they went home. What is
that famous euphemism, "An Englishman's home is his castle",
we have got the same mentality, it is the one place you should
be able to go and feel safe and we do not and our wives' do not
and our kids do not.
Mr Duffy: Since you were across
to see us we have had an incident where 50 prisoners were duly
charged with refusing to go to work in Bann House and refusing
to obey a direct order. The 50 charges were then subsequently
dropped. The senior officer and the officer went around delivering
those charges at the cell doors for each individual prisoner,
but one of our members, a member of our committee, has received
death threats and he has been taken out of that landing and we
have been led to believe the same is liable to happen with the
senior officer. If a prisoner breaks a prison rule then the Governor
must be seen to uphold the rule and the prisoner must also himself
be taken into account and he must have the award served on him.
Q661 Chairman: The 50 who refused
to go to work were Paramilitary prisoners, were they?
Mr Lewis: Some were.
Q662 Chairman: They were not in any
separated regime?
Mr Lewis: No, sir. Some of them
are waiting to go into the separated regime.
Q663 Chairman: From which side of
the divide did they come?
Mr Duffy: Both. That is the second
time that has happened now.
Q664 Chairman: So you had a mixed
wing. Were they all in the same wing?
Mr Duffy: Same house.
Q665 Chairman: You had a mixed house
with some Republican paramilitaries, some Loyalist paramilitaries
and some ordinary prisoners and that 50 comprised all three?
Mr Duffy: Yes, sir.
Q666 Chairman: Are you aware of where
the decision was taken not to prosecute the charges?
Mr Duffy: Yes, sir, Governor Dave
Kennedy talked to their spokespersons and had the charges dropped.
Q667 Chairman: Who is he?
Mr Lewis: One of the governors
nominated to work with the separated prisoners.
Q668 Chairman: That decision was
an internal Maghaberry Prison, do you think?
Mr Duffy: Yes.
Q669 Chairman: It was not referred
up?
Mr Duffy: I do not believe so,
sir, and if it was it is outside the prison rules. That is the
second time in six months the same thing has happened. Do we find
now that if prisoners do not want to go to work because they allege
they have been threatened and no proof has come forward for that
we do not send them to work? Any prisoner can make an allegation
about a threat. They do not go to work, they do not get disciplined
and we would never win a judicial review if a prisoner was to
take us for one.
Q670 Chairman: Fifty of them say
they were threatened. By whom?
Mr Duffy: They never clarified
it. All they said was that they received a threat.
Q671 Chairman: All 50?
Mr Duffy: Yes.
Mr Lewis: Mr Chairman, in the
last six months I have watched prisoners who have engaged in rooftop
protests having their charges dropped, I have watched prisoners
who have smeared their cell walls with excrement having their
internal disciplinary charges dropped, I have watched prisoners
who have assaulted members of staff having their charges dropped,
and I have watched 50 prisoners who systematically universally
refused to go out and work having their charges dropped.
Mr Duffy: We have dissident prisoners
who we were not allowed to charge. Anything that happened with
a dissident prisoner, if he broke a prison rule, had to be referred
to headquarters for them to decide.
Q672 Chairman: When you say a dissident
do you mean a paramilitary?
Mr Duffy: Yes, it had to be referred
to headquarters. For what reason I do not know.
Q673 Chairman: When did this rule?
Mr Duffy: At the very start when
they were initially segregated.
Q674 Chairman: After Steele?
Mr Duffy: After Steele, yes.
Q675 Chairman: Before Steele this
was not happening, was it?
Mr Duffy: I believe even then
there were questions.
Mr Lewis: If we go back to the
rooftop protest, those charges were pending, but after the implementation
of Steele everything was quietly dropped.
Mr Duffy: The Governor should
be allowed to govern.
Q676 Mr Barnes: Are you saying that
essentially the low morale and the staffing levels and sickness
absences arise essentially from the prisoners campaigning for
separation or are there some other factors that should be taken
into consideration? And if you could tell us what those are.
Mr Duffy: We have a submission
here from one of our principal officers. We are finding staff
are receiving code of conduct discipline charges for the most
minor offences when, with all due respect, a good rollicking would
be better for them than going through the whole judicial offence
procedure.
Q677 Chairman: For what kind of offences?
Mr Duffy: Failure to report your
absence on the day of absence or failure to turn in for work on
a first occasion.
Q678 Chairman: AWOL?
Mr Duffy: Yes, that type of thing.
That type of thing was happening, but the trouble is the charges
do not get dealt with speedily. The charges are there and we know
grievance procedures are going on for two years hanging over the
heads of people. That does not do anything for morale. We fully
agree that if somebody has done something wrong they should go
through the COCD and receive the award.
Mr Lewis: Let me tell you why
my jaw is on the floor. On Sunday I was working as an ordinary
prison officer in Maghaberry Prison. I was in charge of the area
where the paramilitary prisoners receive their visits. At approximately
11.15 I received a telephone call to tell me that the head and
second in command of an organisation called the UPRG had arrived
at the jail, this is the political wing of the UDA. I was told
that they had asked to come in and visit a well known Loyalist
paramilitary, a prisoner called Ihab Shrouki. I checked my computer
to check that no visits had been booked. I rang my superior to
say that no visits had been booked and therefore the visit could
not be allowed, and my superior was in agreement. The two political
representatives then used mobile telephones and in front of the
staff in the visits reception allegedly rang the Director of Operations
and the Director-General of the Northern Ireland Prison Service,
Mr Peter Leonard and Mr Peter Russell. I was told that they asked
them to ring the jail and "clear the matter up". The
jail then received a phone call to allow Mr Frank Gallagher, second
in command of the UPRG, to come in on an unscheduled visit. Prisoner
Shrouki had had two visits more than he was even entitled to as
set down in the procedures. Mr Gallagher was duly admitted to
the prison on the instructions of the Director of Operations and
he was brought down into the area where the paramilitary visits
are conducted. Mr Gallagher had a pen on his person, he had managed
to get it into the prison and in front of the staff he proceeded
to make notes.
Q679 Chairman: Is that not allowed?
Mr Lewis: That is what I am going
on to explain. I then arranged to have an internal camera locked
onto the visiting table to tape what was going on, the fact that
this pen had been hidden on his person and Mr Gallagher was sitting
with this prisoner making notes. I had walked past the visiting
cubicle and I had seen the words "prison officer" on
this paper, so I was concerned. I asked for the visit to be taped
by close circuit television camera. I passed my concerns onto
my superior, I said that this man must be stopped and thoroughly
searched and these items must be removed from him, and my superior
was in complete agreement. We kept Mr Gallagher's visit back until
the very end. We then cleared the area of prisoners and visitors
at approximately one o'clock and we asked Mr Gallagher to hand
over the six pages of notes and the fountain pen he smuggled into
the prison. Mr Gallagher refused. He said "I have permission
from your Director General", in fact the exact terminology
was "I have permission from Peter to bring whatever I want
in here". I said "I am sorry, sir, you must hand those
items over, you should not have done this and you know you should
not have done it". He refused. My superior asked him to hand
the items over. Normally under these circumstances the police
would be informed amd they would be brought out to the jail. The
day manager was informed, the duty manager was informed and they
both asked Mr Gallagher to hand over the paper notes and pen,
he refused. A further phone call was made to Mr Peter Leonard,
Director of Operations and we were instructed to allow Mr Gallagher
to leave the prison without seeing his notes or taking them off
him. If that is not undermining me or my superiors as a prison
officer I do not know what is.
Mr Duffy: Another example that
is affecting morale is we find that we have middle managers and
senior managers apparently unable to make decisions, everything
appears to be having to be sent back to Mr Maguire for him to
make a decision. I am sorry, whilst we are waiting for Mr Maguire
to make a decision on things it is too late, the situation has
generally changed by the time he has come back to us, if he decides
to come back at all.
| 
