09/08/2022
Police Oracle
The Prison Inspectorate has today published its first ever inspection into two separation centres – which hold very small numbers of prisoners with extreme views to prevent them radicalising their fellow inmates.
The Separation Centre model was introduced in 2017 as one part of the government’s response to a review into the management of extremism within the prison estate. The aim was to prevent prisoners with extreme views from radicalising their fellow inmates, presenting a risk to national security, supporting acts of terrorism or disrupting the good order or discipline of the prison. The centres were designed to be used for prisoners from any political or religious viewpoint, but so far, they have only been used for Muslim men.
There were nine men in total across the separation centres at Frankland in county Durham and Woodhill in Buckinghamshire when inspectors visited in April of this year. There is a third centre at HMP Full Sutton which is closed at the moment. However, The report by Jonathan Hall QC into terrorism in prison, published this April, suggested that there are more men currently in prison who may have be better placed in the separation centres, so it is likely that numbers will increase and Full Sutton’s centre will reopen.
The two centres are very different environments, reflecting the architecture of the prisons in which they were located. Woodhill was the brighter of the units with two stories of cells opening out on to a wide atrium. On the first floor a small gym meant that prisoners could exercise during the day, and downstairs there was a kitchen and separate room used for health care and other appointments.
The unit in Frankland was on a narrow corridor. There was a small room for association and an area for prisoners to cook and prepare food. With no facilities on the wing, staff had arranged for prisoners to visit the main prison gym and they could also be taken off the unit for education, but no prisoner was taking up this offer at the time of the inspection.
Woodhill prison is currently seriously under-staffed and this affected the separation centre as well as the main jail. The day-to-day regime was often curtailed and the aims of the unit were potentially undermined by not having a consistent staff group to build relationships with prisoners and develop their own confidence and expertise working within a specialist unit. Despite this, inspectors found that some officers had built a good day-to-day rapport with prisoners and relationships were generally positive.
Ironically, the separation centre at Frankland was better-staffed but the prisoners there had collectively decided not to engage with the regime meaning officers were often underemployed.
The inspectors criticised the decision by staff and leaders in both jails to describe the centres as “just another wing”, saying that this meant that opportunities were missed to think more creatively about how to work with prisoners. At Frankland, the planned return to a post-COVID-19 regime meant that those prisoners who refused to engage in formal education, training or work would be let out of their cells for less than two hours a day during the working week. The inspectors view is that while they understood that leaders want to treat prisoners fairly across the prison, the separation centre has a specific purpose, and if prisoners are locked up for almost all of the day, staff cannot engage with them and could miss the chance to support those who wish to change their behaviour.
The inspectors found that at both prisons men were given the opportunity to complete the two deradicalisation programmes on offer, but almost none took up this offer. The report suggest that in some cases, better progress might have been achieved if staff, including officers, concentrated on building relationships with the men with the aim of encouraging and motivating them to at least take the first steps. Inspectors felt that this could lead to better engagement and in some cases a willingness to participate in the more formal interventions.
However, inspectors did find that the separation centres did the basic well, finding both centres well-maintained, and prisoners living in safe, reasonable conditions. Prisoners had good access to health care, including mental health services, as well as visits and phone calls.
The report neatly summarises the twin goals for separations centres “to fulfil their aim in protecting others from harm while providing clear progression pathways for men to follow”. It is clear that the centres are currently doing better on the first part of this aspiration but that it will be challenging and probably require a more creative approach to make progress on the second part of encouraging radicalised prisoners to change.