Sussex courts inspection: Improvements made but multiple areas of concern remain - including 'weaknesses in identifying and managing detainees’ risks'

Unannounced inspections were carried out at court custody facilities in Surrey and Sussex between July 12 and July 22 – covering two crown courts, seven magistrates’ courts, one combined court and a trial centre.

In the report, Charlie Taylor – HM Chief Inspector of Prisons – said: “Reasonable progress had been made since our last inspection, with two-thirds of recommendations we made previously having been fully or partially achieved.

"The main agencies involved in the delivery of court custody worked well together and leaders were aware of the issues that impacted the outcomes for detainees. We were pleased that the conditions in custody facilities had improved and that detainees were positive about their treatment.

"There were, however, a number of concerns that required attention. Despite efforts to recruit and retain Serco staff, shortages too often led to detainees arriving late at court and spending longer in custody than necessary and children failing to receive support from specialist staff.

"The lack of accessible custody facilities for people with disabilities or impaired mobility often meant they were transferred to a location far away from home and arrangements for them to return once cases had been concluded were not always adequate.

"We could not understand the continued reluctance to make sure interpretation services were used consistently to communicate effectively with detainees whose English was limited, an issue that we have raised before.”

Mr Taylor said the HM Inspectorate of Prisons has ‘highlighted three priority concerns and ten key concerns for leaders to focus on’, adding: “We hope they will assist HMCTS, PECS and Serco to deliver the required improvement.”

The HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has since issued a statement to this newspaper.

A spokesperson said: “We are pleased the report notes progress since the last inspection, with improved conditions in custody facilities and positive responses from detainees about their treatment.

“We have also invested over £185 million in the last two years on maintenance of our buildings and to improve accessibility and will continue to work with our partners to address the issues raised in the report.”

The report revealed the court custody suites and cell capacity in Sussex; Brighton Combined Court has 12 cells; Chichester Nightingale Crown Court has six cells; Crawley Magistrates’ Court has six cells; Hastings Magistrates’ Court has five cells; Horsham Magistrates’ Court has eight cells; Hove Trial Centre has ten cells; Lewes Combined Court has 14 cells and Worthing Magistrates’ Court has eight cells.

The ‘annual custody throughput’ stands at 7,329 detainees whilst, in staffing, there is one area operations manager; ten court custody managers; one deputy court custody manager and 57 prisoner custody officers.

The previous inspection was carried out in 2014, with 41 recommendations made overall.

The report read: “At this inspection we found that there had been reasonably good progress and 20 of the 41 recommendations had been achieved, including four of the [nine] recommendations about key areas of concern. Eleven recommendations had not been achieved.”

The HMCTS has been told that all concerns identified should be ‘addressed and progress tracked through a plan’ provided to HMI Prisons.

Inspectors found that ‘the lack of’ Serco staff led to late arrivals at court and delays in transferring detainees to prison at the conclusion of their

hearings. Children were ‘not always accompanied by appropriately trained officers’, the report noted.

In response, a spokesperson for custody and escort provider Serco said: “We are pleased the report recognises the improvements made since the last inspection. We have also been making significant further progress towards ensuring we have the right and suitably qualified people in place, including dedicated staff to support any children.”

It was also noted that there were ‘weaknesses in the approach’ to identifying and managing detainees’ risks – whilst some cells ‘were not clean enough’.

The inspection report read: “Digital person escort records were not always completed thoroughly, staff were not consistently briefed about

risks and some checks were not completed at the required frequency.

"Custody staff’s individual statements justifying their use of force against detainees were not always detailed enough and quality assurance was not always sufficiently rigorous.

“Searching and handcuffing some detainees without carrying out an individual risk assessment was disproportionate.

“Detainees did not always have timely access to prescribed medication, particularly those used for symptomatic relief, which potentially had an adverse effect on their health.

“Automated external defibrillators were not always readily available in custody suites, and custody staff did not receive training in basic life support skills frequently enough.”

Inspectors found ‘one example of notable positive practice’ during this inspection.

The report read: “Leaders had set up an email service for the custody and escort provider and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to improve communication between the two agencies. This allowed a real-time exchange of information to take place, enabling all parties to be kept up to date with events throughout the day.”