Miscarriages of JusticeUK

Unannounced Full Follow-up Inspection of HMP Wakefield

Inspection 8–17 May 2012 by HMCIP, report compiled August 2012, published 12/10/12

HMP Wakefield is a high security prison that holds about 750 men, many of whom are serious sex offenders.

The Close Supervision Centre (CSC) within the prison is a nationally managed resource and holds seven of the most challenging prisoners in the entire system.

Progress in the behaviour and rehabilitation of prisoners at Wakefield is often slow and small advances require enormous effort.

The most significant concern identified at its 2009 inspection remained. Almost half the men at Wakefield were in denial about their offence - to some degree refusing to take responsibility for their offending.

There were no programmes available to tackle the behaviour and attitudes of men in denial and little effective work was done with them. This risked entrenching negative attitudes and undermining the work being done with the section of the population who did admit the need to change.

The Prison Service should consider whether it is right to place such a concentration of men in denial in one establishment. However, there is accepted expert opinion that it is possible to make useful interventions with men who are in complete denial and HMP Wakefield should be attempting to prepare and motivate men to change.

Inspectors were concerned that:

- CSC, the gated, cagelike cells were small and stark with limited natural light. The unscreened toilets were located directly in front of observation panels. Exercise yards consisted of bare, individual cages.

- Most of the men held had lived in these conditions for about three years; one for as long as 11 years.

- a small number of serious complaints about staff that had not been properly investigated

- records we examined did not provide the necessary assurance that the use of force had been necessary and proportionate.

- the prison had been unable to address the physical environment of F Wing, which housed the CSC and segregation unit and remained very poor;

- there was a high rate of diversion and misuse of prescribed medication, often a significant factor in bullying incidents;

- allegations of victimisation by prisoners or staff were sometimes not handled well;

- there were insufficient activity places to meet the needs of the whole population and around a third of prisoners were behind their doors during the working part of the day.

Introduction from the report
HMP Wakefield is a high security prison that holds about 750 men, many of whom are serious sex offenders. The Close Supervision Centre (CSC) within the prison is a nationally managed resource and holds seven of the most challenging prisoners in the entire system. It is no surprise, therefore, that progress in the behaviour and rehabilitation of men at Wakefield is often slow and small advances require enormous effort. As it is with the men it holds, so it is with the prison as a whole: this follow-up inspection found HMP Wakefield was making slow but tangible progress in the face of considerable challenges, some of which were outside the prison's direct control.

The most significant concern we identified at our last inspection in 2009 remained. Almost half the men at Wakefield were in denial about their offence - to some degree refusing to take responsibility for their offending. There were no programmes available at Wakefield to tackle the behaviour and attitudes of men in denial and, as a consequence, little effective work was done with them. This risked entrenching negative attitudes and undermining the work that was being done with the section of the population who did admit to the need to change. The Prison Service should consider whether it is right to place such a concentration of men in denial in one establishment. That does not reduce the responsibility of HMP Wakefield itself to do some work with these men. There is now accepted expert opinion that it is possible to make some useful interventions even with men who are in complete denial, and the prison should be attempting to prepare and motivate men to change.

The prison had also been unable to address the physical environment of F Wing, which housed the CSC and segregation unit and remained very poor. In the CSC, the gated, cagelike cells were small and stark with limited natural light. The unscreened toilets were located directly in front of observation panels. Exercise yards consisted of bare, individual cages. There was some exercise equipment in a separate room. Limited education and visits could take place in a closed visits-style room in which a reinforced window separated the prisoner from whoever was speaking to him. Most of the men held had lived in these conditions for about three years; one for as long as 11 years.

The environment of the segregation unit was also poor. Some cells were damp, ventilation was inadequate, the roof needed repair and toilets were in an unacceptable condition. At the time of the inspection, most men had been in the segregation unit for at least a month and the longest had been there eight months. The regime was limited: adequate perhaps for men segregated for short periods but not sufficient for longer stays.

In the face of these conditions, the progress that staff had made was laudable. Relationships between staff and prisoners in both the CSC and segregation were professional and respectful. It was a real achievement that some men who had been held in the CSC had been able to move to less restrictive conditions. Mental health support was excellent and management and governance of both units was good.

Other aspects of the prison, both good and bad, were more directly the responsibility of the prison itself. The prison was reasonably safe. The numbers of self-harm, bullying and use of force incidents were low. Most prisoners reported feeling safe and this was confirmed by our own observations as we moved around the prison. Security arrangements were appropriate for a Category A prison and less intrusive than we sometimes see. There were good arrangements to support prisoners at risk of suicide. However, as in other high security prisons, we were concerned about the high rate of diversion and misuse of prescribed medication, and this was often a significant factor in bullying incidents. This could not be picked up by the drug testing system in use and the low positive testing figures did not accurately reflect the level of drug abuse in the prison. This issue had not been fully gripped and dealt with.

Allegations of victimisation by prisoners or staff were sometimes not handled well. The response to bullying was too often to move the victim rather than address the behaviour of the bully and we also identified a small number of serious complaints about staff that had not been properly investigated. Some records we examined did not provide the necessary assurance that the use of force had been necessary and proportionate.

However, overall relationships between staff and prisoners were good (although there were a number of significant exceptions). Other than F Wing, the environment was decent. Other aspects of a reasonably respectful environment were also in place. Health care had much improved since our last inspection. Equality and diversity arrangements were reasonable but the perceptions of prisoners from some minority groups remained worse than those of the population as a whole.

There was a good learning and skills strategy and the quality of activities on offer was good. However, there were insufficient activity places to meet the needs of the whole population. About 9% of prisoners were unemployed and some cleaners were underemployed. We found about a third of prisoners locked behind their doors during the working part of the day.

As noted above, resettlement outcomes were seriously undermined by the lack of appropriate programmes to address the behaviour of the significant number of sex offenders in denial. Other aspects of offender management and resettlement were much better. Public protection arrangements were generally very good and community offender managers spoke positively of their relationships with the prison. Planning to meet prisoners' practical resettlement needs was reasonable and most men went to approved premises on release.

The most significant concerns we have identified in this report require decisions by the National Offender Management Service at a national level: how best to manage sex offenders in denial and to ensure that the conditions of imprisonment for even for the most challenging prisoners does not fall below a basic acceptable level. These will not be easy problems to resolve. However, despite these difficulties HMP Wakefield has been able to make slow progress. Reducing the flow of diverted medication, continuing to strengthen professional staff prisoner relationships and getting more prisoners occupied by making better use of the activity resources available are vital to sustaining and accelerating that progress.

Nick Hardwick
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons