Written evidence from INQUEST
About INQUEST
INQUEST is an independent, charitable organisation founded in 1981. The organisation has a proven track record in delivering a free, in-depth, specialist casework service to bereaved families following deaths in all forms of state custody or detention in England and Wales. Its evidence based casework, and the collective experience of bereaved people, informs INQUEST’s strategic policy, research and legal work - giving it a unique overview of the emerging issues, trends or systemic failings arising from custody/detention deaths. INQUEST’s overall aim is to secure an investigative process, which prevents future deaths in custody/detention through the dissemination of lessons following post-death investigations, and to uphold the rights of bereaved families as victims to be treated with dignity and respect. INQUEST’s co-director Deborah Coles represents INQUEST on the Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody, and has been a member of the Independent Advisory panel on Deaths in Custody and was a member of the Harris Review panel. For further information about our work please consult our website and see our publications here.
INQUEST has submitted written and oral evidence to a number of Justice Committee inquiries. Among these was INQUEST’s submission to the Justice Select Committee 2012 Inquiry into Youth Hassockfield Secure Training Centre in 2004[1]. The Youth Justice report, subsequently published, echoed many of INQUEST’s concerns. These included: the need to “act upon the learning from…deaths gathered through coroners’ Rule 43 recommendations and juries’ narrative verdicts[2], to ensure…[prison] deaths do not happen again”; “better co-ordinated support for looked after children and care leavers in custody” and ensuring restraint use is “properly monitored and reported… to Parliament” [3].
Overarching Issues
INQUEST welcomes the Justice Committee’s Inquiry into “Young Adult Offenders”. Our submission reflects INQUEST’s longstanding frustration with the repetition of failures across statutory agencies and an unacceptable complacency around the need for systemic change. It is disconcerting for INQUEST, and the countless families we work with, to continually highlight a litany of failings in the intervention, care, diversion and resettlement of young people in custody.
INQUEST’s casework demonstrates the most severe outcome of imprisoning vulnerable individuals, where budgetary cuts and dehumanising conditions have led many to take their own lives. Through our engagement with bereaved families, and a range of statistical and casework data, we have identified recurring problems relating to the safety and welfare of young people in custody. These include:
- Perpetual failings in early intervention support and a lack of diversionary pathways for those who would be better dealt with in the community;
- A disconnect between criminal justice policies and sentencing decisions and the lived experiences of vulnerable individuals who are placed in brutalising regimes, often characterised by widespread violence, bullying, segregation and drug use;
- Chronic under-resourcing and a reduction in staff capacity, morale and training, thus leading to an inability to support and detect prisoners at risk of self-harm;
- Systemic failure in providing meaningful activity and therapeutic support contributing to impoverished environments in prison with high rates of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths;
- Institutionalised failure to learn lessons from the deaths of young adults, and, in particular, to implement recommendations made by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB), the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) and coroners. This is compounded by an overall lack of parliamentary scrutiny regarding the non-implentation of these recommendations.
Crucially, many of the individuals who enter the criminal justice system are let down by the very systems set up to address their needs and issues. Fatally Flawed, an evidence-based report written by INQUEST and jointly published with the Prison Reform Trust looked into the deaths of 98 young people and children between 2003 and 2010. The report documented a raft of pre-custody failures, in which many individuals were passed between different statutory agencies[4]. Moreover, it showed that punitive measures were too easily employed, where social and healthcare investment would prove more effective in overturning circumstances of neglect, disadvantage, trauma, abuse and poor mental health.
Our most recent research into the deaths of young people, covering the period between 2011 and 2014, has catalogued a range of vulnerabilities which are unique to the prison population. In 2015, following an in-depth review of 47 young and child deaths in prison custody (as part of a broader analysis of 65 deaths), INQUEST published Stolen Lives and Missed Opportunities[5]. The report found that:
- 30% (14) were either care-leavers or had suffered some kind of family breakdown which required them to live outside their family home;
- 70% had mental health issues and 49% had self-harmed previously;
- 23% (11) had special needs or learning difficulties;
- 34% (16) had problems with alcohol and drug misuse.
Despite these known vulnerabilities and multiple disadvantages, young people are placed in overcrowded, bleak and unmanageable prison environments. Their everyday experience of prison life can be viewed through the prism of uncertainty, alienation and a sole preoccupation with the need to punish. Young people, many of whom are subjected to long lock up hours, limited of any opportunities to engage in meaningful out of cell activity and are not treated with the respect and empathy needed to encourage trusting relations and behaviour change.
The final point is the sheer repetition of prison failings – those which have undermined the rehabilitative and resettlement work within prisons and have directly jeopardised prisoners’ welfare. Importantly, the Harris Review into the self-inflicted deaths of 18-24 year olds, which documented 87 deaths between April 2007 and December 2013, noted that the PPO and coroners made 135 recommendations [6]. These included efforts to improve staff training and skills. However, the review did not explore how many of these were taken up and implemented, and how many were ignored or dismissed by institutions.
For INQUEST, this goes to the heart of the problem. The high number of deaths is inextricably linked to an inability to learn from previous deaths, whereby institutional complacency is underpinned by the absence of an oversight mechanism that holds prison establishments to account. One of the main things that bereaved families, with whom we work, stress is the need for prisons to learn lessons from previous deaths and for no other family to go through a similar experience. This was a recurring theme at the two family listening events organised by INQUEST for the Harris Review panel. These events provided families with the opportunity to give personal testimony to panel members and helped shape the findings of the Harris Review report. As one family member said:
“Having seen the PPO and coroners make ‘recommendations’ that are time and time again not implemented, I feel hopeless, particularly when I see increased numbers of prison suicides. If people actually followed policy, implemented changes and learnt from practice there might be some hope [7].”
Statistical Overview
Between January 2000 and September 2015, 2863 women, men and children have died in prison. 312 deaths were young people aged 24 and under[8]. 1203 of these deaths were self-inflicted, accounting for 42% of all deaths. 267 young people and children took their own lives during this period, making up nearly one quarter of all self-inflicted deaths. In 2014, there was a surge in self-inflicted deaths. 83 deaths were recorded over the year – meaning one prisoner had taken their own life approximately every four days. Of the 83 self-inflicted deaths, 15 were of young people aged 18-24. The number of deaths continued to rise in 2015. Between 1st January and 27th September, there were 172 prison deaths, 64 were self-inflicted and 13 were young prisoners aged 24 and under (including the death of a 16 year old).
Moreover, recent Ministry of Justice (MOJ) statistics for the period between October 2012 and September 2013, reveal a re-offending rate of 66.5% among juveniles who are released from custody within a year[9]. This alone is a stark illustration of a failing penal system, which is unable to rehabilitate those entering custody, protect victims of crime, and tackle the underlying reasons as to why young people are drawn into the criminal justice system.
Below is INQUEST’s response to the Justice Committee’s specific questions in its call for evidence. We have chosen to answer the questions which are most pertinent to our work and where we feel we can best offer our expertise.
Questions from the Justice Committee: The suitability of current provision for young adult offenders i) in the community and ii) in custody, including the extent to which there is distinct provision currently?
- What is the evidence on how outcomes across a range of measures for young adult offenders compare with other offenders?
- Taking into account the findings of the Harris Review, what measures should be prioritised in addressing levels of suicide, self-harm, and violence amongst young adult offenders currently held in custody?
For INQUEST, the current provisions for young people, both in the community and custody, are in urgent need of reform. INQUEST notes that the problems leading to their incarceration are twofold:
Firstly, targeted social and therapeutic support are absent in dealing with, and responding to, the complex needs of a vulnerable group – many of whom have been subjected to uniquely traumatic events and upheaval as well as being amongst the most socially excluded and bereft groups in the wider society. Secondly, the impoverished regimes and conditions, and poor treatment across much of the secure estate, documented by the Prisons Inspectorate and Monitoring Boards and evidenced at inquests, endangers the lives of many vulnerable prisoners, and offers little in terms of rehabilitation, resettlement and reintegration.
Luke Myers was a 24 year-old young man who was found hanging in his cell at HMP Liverpool on 4 February 2013.
Luke had a history of depression and self-harm and suffered multiple bereavements before the age of 10. When he was 3 years old Luke’s mother died from a methadone overdose and Luke and his brother were left unattended with their mother’s dead body for a number of days. Luke subsequently received care from multiple care givers and was suspected to have been abused at this point.
A report prepared by a psychiatrist at the point of sentencing, explained the link between Luke’s difficult childhood and his behaviour: “the regular violence…at the hands of his relatives have led him to developing a bias towards the use of violence when attempting to resolve conflicts… A lack of warmth and caring environment and repeated physical abuse has…led to the inability to use acceptable means of coping when faced with difficulties.”
During his time in prison, Luke was concerned about the length of his sentence. He was anxious that his children would grow up without a father as he had without his mother. He was told that his conditional release date would be 27 August 2021 and parole eligibility date was 27 August 2018. It was only discovered at the inquest when the coroner asked the Ministry of Justice to confirm the sentence that Luke’s conditional release date was actually 25 February 2017 and parole did not apply in his case. Luke had tried to clarify the mistaken information up until his death.
The jury found that this was a likely factor which contributed to his death. Moreover, on the night of Luke’s death, a senior officer incorrectly read the observation guidelines set by Luke’s open ACCT (Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork - a system used for prisoners at risk of self-harm) and reduced the times he was to be observed. On 4 February at 6.45 am he was found hanging in his cell. He had used a leather belt which he should not have had access to.
The pre-custody experience is fundamental to the failures in the support and diversion of individuals away from the criminal justice system. During a family listening event, which was held for the Harris Review panel, families described the problems of accessing appropriate and co-ordinated support for their relatives, particularly those with mental health needs. One family member said:
“Police, doctors and psychiatrists all knew about these day to day incidents, but still the help was not there. On many occasions he used to hold his head and cry for help because he knew he could not control what he would do to himself [10].”
Time and again, statutory bodies have not intervened at a critical time in a young person/child’s life or have not worked collaboratively to divert those away from custody. One of the most frequent problems INQUEST has noted, and which has also been noted in the Harris Review, is the breakdown of information across mental health services, housing and the police, as well as social and care-leaving services.
Reece Taylor was found hanging in his cell at HMP Chelmsford on 14 November 2013. He was 18 years old at the time. In the days leading up to his first imprisonment, he became very upset due to an argument he had with his mother and was found sitting on a bridge threatening to jump, along with a suicide note. The police became involved, his father was contacted and he was talked down from the bridge.
On 27 July 2013, Reece started his first spell of imprisonment in Chelmsford serving a short sentence. He found it very difficult to cope in there and was placed on an ACCT on three separate occasions and frequently self harmed. Reece was eventually released to live with his family.
After another family dispute, the police were called but the family did not want to press charges – knowing how Reece struggled in prison previously. However, his parents were told that they would be charged with wasting police time if they did not press charges.
During the last 24 hours of his life, Reece came under the care of six separate agencies. He had several interviews, at the police station, at Basildon Magistrates Court, on reception in HMP Chelmsford and again at an initial health screening at HMP Chelmsford. However ‘risk alerts’ were either missing or not recognised by staff. There were key issues around the communication of information because of the many parties involved, leading to a disrupted flow of information among agencies who failed to flag or register relevant facts, including the recent suicide attempt and the fact that Reece had self-harmed during his previous time in custody.
Reece spoke to a Listener twice during his first night. He told him that he felt like killing himself when he was at reception and that he wanted to speak to his mother. The next morning, two prisoners stated that Reece asked to speak to Listeners again on several occasions but was told to wait.
During lunchtime lock-up, Reece asked to speak to a Listener but was told that there was not one available and he would have to wait. Shortly afterwards, Reece was found hanging by his bed sheet from the windows of his cell. About six weeks after Reece Taylor died, Wayne Roe, aged 29 was found hanging within 48 hours of being imprisoned at HMP Chelmsford.
The role of multiple agencies in early intervention and prevention is crucial yet they remain woefully under-resourced, in particular child and adolescent mental health services. These problems tend to worsen during a child’s transition to adulthood. Crucially, INQUEST’s evidence indicates that there are significant gaps in mental health services during this point. Care provisions either cease to exist or become patchy around the age of 17, meaning many young people cannot access services, which identify risks at an early stage. Given that early adulthood is also the peak time of offending, this can be seen as a counterintuitive approach in the way youth mental health services are currently planned.
Too often, a criminal justice approach is being used when well-funded, community-based policies around physical and psychological health, education, and housing would be much more effective. Furthermore, it is the criminal justice system that is being used to fill the gaps in provision, a fact recognised by Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police:
“It's not sustainable, not only in terms of money terms [and]… in terms of the risk… if you've got police officers ultimately spending a lot of their time doing social work you get to the point of actually saying well perhaps we ought to employ more social workers… Because ultimately we are using the wrong professional to deal with this issue [11].”
The exacerbating effects of imprisonment on those who are already vulnerable have been widely documented by government statistics, prison inspectorate reports, investigation reports and inquest evidence. These include high levels of self-harm, violence, use of restraint, bullying, segregation and neglect found across the youth estate.
From the period 2012-13 to 2013-14, there was a 69% increase in self-inflicted deaths. This increase reflects, in part, the problems of over-crowding and reduced staff capacity and the limited out of cell activity. As the Harris Review points out, between 1993 and 2013, the average daily prison population in England and Wales increased from 44,552 to 84,249. Likewise INQUEST’S data reveals a high number of deaths in adult prisons such as HMP Wandsworth, where there has been an influx of young adult prisoners. As one of the largest prisons in the UK, with the capacity for 1,877 prisoners, Wandsworth has recorded 14 deaths between 2014 and 2015, of which four were young prisoners aged 24 and under. These deaths feed into on-going concerns about this institution, such as, the poor care of vulnerable prisoners in an adult regime, and to what extent a tailored support system is offered to young people with a distinct set of needs.
More broadly, there is a worrying repetition of deaths in certain institutions, including Young Offender Institutions. For example in HMYOI Glen Parva there have been nine deaths since 2010. Each death has highlighted problems that have been identified arising from previous deaths in custody and despite numerous recommendations made by coroners calling for the implementation of measures to safeguard and protect prisoners. This lack of implementation of previous recommendations, in turn, raises questions around leadership in, and the accountability of, institutions. It also feeds into wider concerns raised by Nick Hardwick, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons who, when referring to Glen Parva, noted an "unacceptable attitude among some staff" and a 25% increase in assaults as well as a high incidence of self-harm[12].
The Chief Inspector has also noted that in the period between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2015, the Inspectorate made 240 recommendations regarding children and young people's establishments yet 67% of these recommendations were only partially achieved or not achieved[13].
Greg Revell was 18 years old when he was found hanging in HMYOI Glen Parva on 11 June 2014. His death involved strikingly similar failings and vulnerabilities as those identified in the death of Steven Davison who died a few months earlier in Glen Parva.
Greg had a long history of self harm and depression. Days before sentencing he had made a suicide attempt and was left with vivid ligature marks on his neck. He was clearly distressed at the prospect of prison and broke down during sentencing.
When Greg was placed in Glen Parva, his mother contacted the prison to express her concerns about his fragile state of mind; she was assured he would be cared for. He was not at any point identified as being at risk of suicide or self-harm, and was therefore not placed on the Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork (ACCT) safeguarding procedure despite the documentary evidence regarding his previous suicide and self harm attempts.
Greg was returned to prison soon after release from his initial sentence. He was again assessed and again despite the clear evidence available to staff including healthcare staff, Greg was not considered to be at risk of suicide or self harm. Two days later Greg was found hanging in his cell.
At the inquest, the coroner raised a number of concerns including the ‘insufficiently robust’ system for capturing healthcare information and an over reliance on Greg’s self presentation rather than the evidence available of his previous suicide attempt and self harm.
The coroner noted ‘it can not be right to have a young man, on his first time in prison, walking around with a livid, obvious ligature mark on his neck, and not put him on an ACCT’.
One prison officer giving evidence at the inquest suggested that putting every prisoner who displayed risk factors on an ACCT would mean that most of their prison population would be on ACCTs which would make them ineffective rather than considering this to be an indication of the number of troubled young men in prison.
Questions from the Justice Committee: The Harris Review advocated a distinct approach to young adult offenders. Is this desirable? If so, what would this entail i) in the community and ii) in custody? If not, why not?
- Should sentence to detention in a young offender institution for 18-20 year old offenders be abolished? If so, what should replace it?
- The Harris Review concluded that all young adults in prison are vulnerable and that the experience of being in prison is particularly damaging to them as they are developing. Do you agree?
- The Harris Review recommended that more young adults should be diverted from custody and from the criminal justice system. Is it appropriate to seek to divert more young adults from custody and the criminal justice system, and if so, how would this best be achieved?
INQUEST agrees with the conclusions of the Harris Review, that the experience of incarceration makes all young prisoners potentially vulnerable to taking their own lives.
At the same time, INQUEST is also concerned that there may be too great a preoccupation with “maturity” or “age”, in the debates in this area, including in the Harris Review. Such a narrow focus could distract attention away from understanding the dehumanising nature of many prison regimes which underpin, and provide the context for, self-inflicted deaths inside. The focus on age/maturity relies too heavily on individual characteristics as if these were the sole, determining factors behind emotional distress, thus ignoring a high number of deaths among those aged 25 and above. The practices across the prison estate, the nature of prison regimes, the decisions made by magistrates and judges and government policies around sentencing all need to be critically addressed and scrutinised with respect to their negative impact on prisoners and, consequently, on the number of self-inflicted deaths amongst young prisoners.
INQUEST does however recognise the neurological research which highlights the unique set of challenges that occur during a young person's transition to adulthood. Combined with multiple disadvantages and inequalities, evidence from T2A highlights how the gradual process of maturation may last until an individual is in their mid-twenties[14]. In our view, this lack of emotional and cognitive maturity is likely to be intensified by the negative impact of the prison experience and environment, making it difficult, if not impossible, for young prisoners to communicate their fears and vulnerabilities to prison staff and their families.
Moreover, ACCT (Assessment, Care in Custody and Teamwork) procedures are often too generic. They were introduced to detect self-harm risks among the prison population but have been criticised by the Prisons Ombudsman as part of a box ticking culture. One particular concern is that the ACCT process has been unable to identify young people at risk, particularly those who may be reluctant to communicate psychological/emotional distress for fear of being singled out. Between 2011 and 2014, INQUEST's findings reveal that 36 (67%) of the 54 children and young people who had taken their lives were not on an ACCT at the time of their death[15].
Ben Grimes was 18 when he took his life at HMYOI Portland in 2009. From an early age Ben suffered a disrupted upbringing and was put into care. He was in contact with the youth justice system and was diagnosed with conduct disorder, attachment disorder and possible attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Having initially been placed on remand at HMYOI Feltham, he was sentenced to his first custodial sentence of five years’ imprisonment and sent to HMYOI Portland at 24 hours’ notice. Ben’s support worker gave evidence on the devastating impact such a quick transfer so far from home would have had on Ben.
Upon arrival to Portland, Ben had also told prison officers he struggled to read and write, yet this was not factored in when they gave him written material intended to relieve his anxiety. As Ben’s mother, Lisa has said, it was these “institutional and systemic failures in the care of young people” which let her son down[16].
According to prison staff accounts, Ben did not overtly present suicidal tendencies and so was not on an ACCT document at the time of his death. Yet as the family lawyer said “the fact that such vulnerabilities are sometimes difficult to spot makes correctly following procedures, and ensuring the right information and support is available to those with responsibility for prisoners’ welfare, all the more important”[17].
Because of Ben’s specific vulnerabilities, which related to his early care experience, young age and his emotional and learning difficulties, this should have triggered close monitoring and support.
Evidence also highlights the corrosive effects of imprisonment on young prisoners, particularly on those entering custody for the first time. The key question is: is incarceration, in it its present form, necessary for the overwhelming majority of young people? As INQUEST has previously argued, young people will tend to grow out of crime, and community diversionary strategies can play a key part in dissuading young adults from continuing criminal behaviour. On the other hand, punitive responses can be disastrous because they entrench criminal behaviour, and often do little to address the social and personal problems which initially draw young people into the criminal justice system.
In spite of this, INQUEST has found that opportunities to divert vulnerable groups away from custody have often been ignored. In 2015, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) reported on an inspection conducted on six police forces[18]. The report pointed to frequent examples of forces responding to vulnerable individuals, and making decisions on whether to arrest, with little background knowledge of the individual’s circumstances. This was particularly problematic in localities where health and social care services were under-resourced – meaning police custody was used as the only option available to police officers.
Steven Davison was 21 years old when he took his life at HMYOI Glen Parva on 29 September 2013. He was an extremely vulnerable young man and had struggled with acute mental health problems throughout his life. Prior to custody, Steven was diagnosed with a personality disorder and had carried out a number of suicide attempts which ranged from jumping out of windows to overdosing.
His family tried to support him as best they could, spending much of their time caring for him and pleading with local authorities to provide mental health services to treat his illness. Steven spent some time in psychiatric care but during the inquest the jury heard from Steven’s mother that support services were woefully inadequate, and that despite continual efforts by the family to to access help and support, they were unable to do so.
Steven was sent to HMYOI Glen Parva for possessing an offensive weapon. His placement in prison was scrutinised during the inquest, as the weapon in question was a knife with which Steven had threatened to kill himself. As such Steven posed more of risk to himself, rather than the public.
The jury also heard from Steven’s mother that he was sent to prison because there was no capacity to keep him at the local hospital - although she believed his symptoms could have been better treated there. Lynda Davison, Steven’s mother described the experience in her own words: “Steven went to court and it was just like he was another lad being sent to prison. Instead of looking at why he was being sent to prison and what he needed… It was like there you go Steven, there’s your cell now get on with it[19]”.
Steven entered the prison system with a self-harm and suicide warning form highlighting his risks. However, the initial assessing nurse did not consider Steven to be at risk of self-harm or suicide despite this information. It emerged during the inquest that the nurse had not been trained in the ACCT procedure at the time and that she had only received the training in August 2014 by which time she had worked at the prison for 2 years.
Steven’s death was followed by a further two deaths at the same institution – all within months of each other. As noted on page 8, the high number of deaths in Glen Parva has raised important issues around vulnerability and the systemic failure of institutions to protect those in the custody of the state.
Given the many vulnerabilities with which prisoners enter custody, staff awareness and training should be treated as an absolute priority. However, an important point highlighted by the Harris Review was that there were no “specific requirements necessary to be a prison officer”[20]. For example, mental health training was poor to the point that procedure, system and processes took precedence over mental health awareness and training for staff lasted 8 weeks – a comparatively lower requirement compared with other European countries. The review concluded that the workforce needed, “...to be trained and developed to a far more professional standard”[21].
Moreover, if prison is to be justified as a last resort, then it must take the form of a small, rehabilitative and therapeutic environment. Evidence‐led research shows that deaths can be avoided should the right measures be employed to address risks. Some positive examples of self-harm prevention and rehabilitative practices have been found in the juvenile units of HMYOIs Wetherby (Keppel)[22] and in Parc[23]. Both institutions are small, and manage populations of between 41 and 50 prisoners. According to different reports, staff have had a positive impact on prisoners’ feelings of security and trust. Some of the strategies operating in the institutions include:
- A well-structured induction programme adapted to suit each individual, with thorough background checks carried out for risk assessment;
- Well-attended safeguarding and daily morning meetings allowing for effective, and robust ACCT measures to be applied;
- Strong monitoring of bullying and support for prisoners who are victimised;
- All separated children having access to a full activity regime and exercise;
- Good staff-children relationships and positive modelling, with rewards and sanctions scheme that was well managed and valued by the children.
Conclusions
The criminal justice system, as it currently operates, presents a number of significant challenges to the successful rehabilitation and treatment of young prisoners. Our long-standing research clearly shows that many of the young people are some of the most disenfranchised, disadvantaged and troubled individuals. Due to a lack of investment in community support, options for diversion are often futile or non-existent. A growing number of young people are thus embroiled in a criminal justice system which, once entered, leaves them trapped in a vicious cycle with little or no support both inside and outside of the prison walls.
INQUEST would encourage the Justice Committee to recommend to government a broader approach in order to prevent a further loss of life. Central to this approach, would be a fundamental restructuring of the youth justice system. This would include:
- Creating a centralised body which would collate, analyse and constantly audit and report publicly on the accumulated learning from inquest outcomes and those recommendations from PPO investigations, and HMIP/IMB inspections, which are pertinent to custodial health and safety;
- Closing institutions which are clearly failing to protect those in their care;
- Introducing a more nuanced assessment of maturity and taking account of factors which may impede a smooth transition to adulthood;
- Ensuring that probation pre-sentence reports also consider the impact of maturity on a young person’s/child’s ability to cope with prison;
- Making up-to-date information on locally-based alternatives to custody for young people available to the courts;
- Transforming sentencing policies and radically restructuring the training of the judiciary;
- Introducing far-reaching alternatives to custody that are well-resourced and well-staffed by individuals who are properly trained to deal with the complex issues that confront young people;
- Developing a criminal justice system where prisons for young people are used as a last resort, as the Harris Review recommended.
Pursuing these policies would, in our view, reduce crime, reduce the number of victims of crime, reduce the recidivism rate and ensure greater public protection. These policies would reflect a wider public view, and indeed, the views of victims which, rather than being retributive, are based on the view that the criminal justice system should focus on preventative measures such as “more support for parents, more constructive activities for young people and more drug treatment and mental health provision in the community”[24]. Only through pursuing such policies would there be a genuine and significant reduction in self-harm and self-inflicted deaths amongst young prisoners.