Written evidence from the Committee on
the Administration of Justice (CAJ)
The Committee on the Administration of Justice
(CAJ) is an independent non-governmental organisation working
to promote and protect human rights in Northern Ireland. We have
made numerous submissions to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
(NIAC) over the years, and welcome an opportunity to make a short
submission to this current inquiry.
CAJ has previously been in touch with Committee
staff recommending a range of personnel that we believe the Committee
might want to hear from in the course of this Inquiry. On the
assumption that the Committee will be receiving oral or written
evidence from a wide range of key agencies, we can keep our intervention
very short. The Prisons Service, the Prisoner Ombudsman, the Criminal
Justice Inspection (and HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Ms Anne
Owers), the NI Human Rights Commission, the NI Association for
the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the Law Centre, &
individual solicitors acting for prisoners will all have particular
contributions to make. Her Majesty's Coroners (especially the
Chief Coroner, John Lecky) and Professor Roy McClelland, who has
particular expertise in the area of people with mental health
problems, will also have specific expertise to offer, as will
political parties such as Republican Sinn Fein, which has been
publicly critical of the situation affecting the prisoners that
they represent.
In terms of issues that the Committee should
address in the course of its inquiry, we believe that some or
all of the above entities will want to raise the following kinds
of concerns:
— The extent of suicides and self-harming
in prison.
— The nature of medical care to prisoners
specifically in instances of suicide risks and more generally
practices surrounding medical prescribing.
— The treatment of specific categories
of prisoners (women, juveniles, asylum seekers, Travellers, separated
prisoners etc).
Assuming that most of these issues will be addressed
in detail by others, CAJ will concentrate in this short submission
on a few key issues and a number of questions that we have been
pursuing directly with the Prison Service in recent months.
(A) DEATHS
IN PRISON
Obviously, any death in prison is extremely
serious. The Inquiry will want to ask the Prison Service the following
questions:
— How many deaths have occurred in
the Prison Service in the last 10 years?
— How soon after the death did an inquest
take place?
— What learning has arisen over time
from these inquests?
— What specific action plans have been
initiated (and with what success) by the Prison Service in the
light of adverse inquest findings?
As already suggested, the Inquiry may want to
hear from experts such as John Lecky, Senior Coroner for Northern
Ireland, and Professor Roy McClelland who carried out in inquiry
into six specific deaths in prison.
(B) STAFFING
COMPOSITION
The Prison Service is aware of the fact that
its staff is predominantly male and Protestant. Prison Service
statistics are not disaggregated in the Equality Commission's
annual monitoring figures but combined with the staffing of other
criminal justice agencies, so it is not possible to keep a very
close eye on developments. However, in response to a PQ reprinted
in a letter to CAJ from the Director General, the prisoner service
grades breakdown in 2005 was 80.2% Protestant, 8.7% Catholic and
11.1% non-determined. Whilst great efforts are made in workforces
in Northern Ireland (in the public and private sector) to ensure
fair participation, this goal seems very far distant for the Service.
Moreover, the objective of fair participation seems particularly
significant in the prison setting, both because there is a large
prison staff, and because their inter-actions bring them into
daily contact with people whose liberty and daily well-being are
very much dependent on the attitudes and treatment of those staff.
The Committee may want to ask the Prison Service
what steps are being taken to ensure more representative staffing?
— What outreach measures are used by
the Service?
— What support is given to "minority"
recruits?
— Did the transfer of staff from a
private security firm in February 2007 improve or exacerbate the
representative nature of Prison Service staff overall?
— What difference to staff composition
can be expected from the recent announcement regarding the recruitment
of 68 new Prisoner Custody Officers (press release dated 11 May
2007)?
— Has the Prison Service found any
transferable good practice in the recent equality impact assessment
carried out by the PSNI indicating unintended obstacles to Catholics
and women in their training and testing systems?
In discussions with the Director of the Northern
Ireland Prison Service, CAJ was informed that it is difficult
to expect radical compositional change at a time of retrenchment
and in the absence of anything equivalent to the 50/50 provisions
which apply to policing, post Patten. We (and possibly the Director)
were unaware at the time that 168 other new staff were to be transferred
or recruited into the Prison Service as part of an integrated
prisoner escorting service. Will these additional personnel had
any impact on the overall balance of staff? CAJ has recommended
that the Prison Service carry out a thorough Equality Impact assessment
of its staffing recruitment and training procedures, but we believe
that this has not occurred to date.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee may want
to ask the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to submit
written testimony on the specific problems the Service faces in
terms of compositional imbalance. CAJ had asked the Equality Commission
to assist the Prison Service by carrying out an inquiry into the
latter's recruitment and training policies (see attached copy
of CAJ letter dated 30 March 2006), and though we have been assured
that regular discussions take place, we believe that a formal
investigation would still prove necessary and helpful.
(C) STAFF
TRAINING AND
ATTITUDES
Of course, a more representative staff per se
does not resolve problems of institutional bias; much more needs
to be done. One route for assuring that the staff, however composed,
treat all within their care impartially lies in effective staff
training. A number of problems have been highlighted in the course
of inquests and other external scrutiny, but it is not clear to
what extent the Service has adapted its training accordingly.
For example:
— The inquest jury into the death of
Patrick Joseph Mongan (an Irish Traveller) called for "training
and increased awareness to cultural difficulties in ethnic minorities
ie Travelling community"—how has this proposal been
operationalised?
— The inquest jury into the death of
Roseanne Irvine called for "more ongoing training on suicide
awareness for prison staff"—what follow-up has been
given to this recommendation? (Article from Statewatch outlining
the facts of this case, are enclosed for convenience, January
to March 2007 issue)
— What has happened since the discrimination
case taken against the Prison Service by a Muslim prison chaplain
(see Equality Commission press release attached)? The Prison Service
undertook to liase with the Equality Commission and the Belfast
Islamic Centre to discuss how NIPS practices and procedures could
respond more positively to cultural and religious differences
in the prison population.
The Committee may want to ask the Prison Service
to spell out in some detail what human rights training it provides
all its officers—and most specifically what support is given
to staff to help them address (whether in the prison population,
or amongst colleagues) issues of racism, sectarianism, harassment
and victimisation. In the Patrick Mongan case it became very apparent
that whilst several of the NIPS witnesses had heard of the equality
duties arising under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, none
of them had received specific training in the relevance of this
duty to their work with Traveller prisoners (or, one can safely
assume, other section 75 groups).
The Committee may be interested in the verdict
in the inquest of Patrick Mongan (attached herewith) which highlights
a range of communication, procedural and training problems. In
the course of his testimony at the inquest, Professor Roy McClelland,
in the words of one observer, was "scathing about life in
prison generally saying that it was not conducive to good mental
health, with little or no means of distraction or meaningful ways
of occupying time. He indicated that although his group did not
examine the issue specifically, he thought there may be issues
around poor communication skills and life in a structured environment
that may particularly affect members of the Travelling community".
CAJ understands that the Coroner, John Lecky, intended in the
light of these inquest findings to ask the Director General of
the Prison Service and the Chief Medical Officer to re-convene
the group that Professor McClelland had led, with a view to looking
explicitly at the situation of Travellers in prison. The Committee
may want to ascertain if this has in fact happened, with what
result?
More generally, CAJ has argued that the Northern
Ireland Prison Service should develop its own Equality Scheme,
rather than seek to apply the generic Northern Ireland Office
originated Equality Scheme to its work. Given the size and importance
of the Service, and the unique role it could perform in promoting
greater equality, vis-à-vis employees and detainees, CAJ
believes there would be enormous value in developing a more tailored
equality programme relevant to the Prison Service (see earlier
also our comments about the value of disaggregated data for following
employment trends in the Service more effectively).
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee may want
to seek testimony from both the Prison Service and the Equality
Commission with regard to the above matters.
(D) OVERSIGHT
The Prisoner Ombudsman is a relatively recent
oversight mechanism. The Committee might want to ask the Ombudsman
to comment specifically on the extent of his powers, and ask whether
experience shows that further powers should be accorded to his
office. CAJ has expressed concern that the Ombudsman seems to
have limited authority to comment on prison policies and practices,
other than those that may arise as a result of an individual complaint.
The Committee should explore if this is a power that the Ombudsman
should have, and whether legislative change would be necessary
to ensure such oversight.
The Independent Monitoring Boards are also a
relatively new institution. CAJ has no information on their operation,
but NIAC may want to seek testimony from others about the value
or otherwise of these new entities. If it proves too early to
determine the value they provide, the Committee may want to propose
that the Criminal Justice Inspection undertake in due course a
thematic inspection of the operation of the IMBs to see how well
they are working.
Despite the fact that the UK government is very
active internationally in promoting acceptance of the Optional
Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT), it proved
unwilling to give the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
(NIHRC) the authority to make unannounced visits to places of
detention. CAJ had long argued that the NIHRC should have this
power but government refused to amend the Justice and Security
Act to this effect when recently debated in parliament. Since
it has now been decided not to assign this power of unannounced
visits to the NIHRC, who will perform this role for Northern Ireland?
The domestic operationalisation of the UK's duty under OPCAT to
create a "national visiting mechanism" is far from clear.
The Committee should seek formal submissions from both the NIHRC
and the CJI on what their understandings are in this matter. The
Westminster government retains responsibility for ensuring "that
the UK's international obligations are met in respect of Northern
Ireland" (Good Friday/Belfast Agreement), and NIAC seems
well placed to secure greater clarity on this matter for all concerned.
Last but not least, the Committee may want to
seek information regarding developments in the Billy Wright Inquiry.
Just before Christmas, in preliminary hearings in relation to
the Inquiry, it became evident that over 800 files of possible
relevance to the case had been destroyed by members of the Prison
Service. The Committee may want to ask a series of questions in
this regard:
— Have any current staff been subjected
to disciplinary action in regard to loss of files, as documented
by the Billy Wright Inquiry?
— Has the Prison Service's policy of
destroying files been reviewed?
— What role is the Prison Service playing
in the Wright Inquiry?
— What lessons, if any, does it expect
to garner for current and future policy making from the Inquiry?
— Is it making a clear distinction
between its duty of care to Prison Service staff, and its duty
to prison inmates—eg on disputes around anonymity, what
is the distinctive role, if any, played on the one hand by the
Prison Service and on the other by the Prison Officers Association?
(E) RESTRAINT
AND CONTROL
At least two issues are relevant under this
rubric: the introduction of PAVA and the use of passive drugs
dogs.
1. After consulting about the introduction
of PAVA incapacitant spray, the Prison Service determined in April
2007 to introduce the spray. CAJ welcomes the fact that the Prison
Service circulated a chart (see attached) indicating the nature
of the responses submitted, and their response to each, but was
disappointed to see how few of the responses proved acceptable
to the Service. For example, of the 20 recommendations made by
a "rights organisation" (we presume this is British
Irish Rights Watch) only three were accepted (and even one of
these—recommendation 13—is ambiguous). Of the six
recommendations made by a "justice organisation" (which
we assume is CAJ), only one was accepted. The disability organisation
seems to have been more influential, in that three of its four
recommendations were taken on board, and the "security organisation"
had three out of nine accepted. By virtue of the fact that it
is a consultation process, one would not necessarily expect all
of the recommendations to be taken on board; nevertheless, the
tone and explanations for the rejected recommendations may serve
merely to feed the belief that the Prison Service was determined
to introduce this weapon to their armoury, regardless of the responses
received.
2. Passive drugs dogs—CAJ has been
made aware of several concerns about the use of this technique
on prisoners. In one particular case, in January 2007, a prisoner
on return from compassionate leave was brought to the attention
of the staff by a passive drugs dog. Although accompanied on leave
all the time by the prison chaplain, the prisoner alleges that
once he came to the attention of the passive drugs dog he was
kept in the Special Supervision Unit (SSU) for 48 hours, and was
strip searched 12 times. He also reports that he was denied his
antidepressant medication and was subjected to a barrage of verbal
abuse. The drugs test came back negative. This does not appear
to have been an isolated incident since CAJ was told of another
prisoner who was strip-searched on five different occasions, and
we are also aware of an application for judicial review currently
where a republican prisoner is challenging similar treatment.
In this latter case, it is being argued that indications on return
from home leave are leading automatically to a prisoner being
removed from association. (See also earlier reference to the Prison
Service treatment of a Muslim chaplain; the Equality Commission
press release indicates that a passive drugs dog figured in that
case as well).
CONCLUSION
CAJ produced a handbook on prisoners' rights
in 1998 that was widely distributed to prisoners at the time.
We have no plans to up-date the handbook, though it is clearly
very much out-of-date and does not reflect the intervening changes
in European and domestic prison rules. The Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee may want to explore with the Prison Service, the NI
Human Rights Commission and others, whether there would be an
advantage to producing more up-to-date advice and guidance on
human rights protections of relevance to prisoners and prison
staff.
Last but not least, the move towards the devolution
of criminal justice and policing issues in the coming period,
may prove a unique opportunity to carry out a more fundamental
review of the extent to which the Prison Service is "fit
for purpose". As the Director has indicated to CAJ and others
on several occasions, the Prison Service has not undergone any
overhaul equivalent to that imposed on policing by virtue of the
Agreement and the work of the Patten Commission. Yet, as an agency
within the broader criminal justice network, it faces many challenges
of cultural transformation.
Enclosed please find a report carried out by
CAJ into the whole question of devolution. While not focusing
particularly on prisons, the report does raise a number of issues
regarding staffing composition, cultural change, human rights
ethos, and equity monitoring—all of which are relevant for
the Northern Ireland Prison Service. This Inquiry by the Northern
Ireland Affairs Committee is very timely and could provide a unique
opportunity in preparing the ground for discussions about human
rights compliance within the prisons as Northern Ireland moves
to devolved authority.
Maggie Beirne
Director, Committee on the Administration of Justice
(CAJ)
May 2007
|
