Category: Child protection

Government changes law to legitimise abusive conditions in child prisons

Last Thursday (2 July), the Ministry of Justice amended the statutory rules for secure training centres to effectively try and legitimise the solitary confinement of children as young as 12. An accompanying memorandum states that children will have at least 1.5 hours out of their cells in each 24-hour period, instead of the usual 14. International rules define solitary confinement (for both adults and children) as 22 hours confined in a cell without meaningful human contact.

Children’s rights to family contact, education and work on their offending behaviour have all been diluted.

The expiry date for this removal and dilution of legal protections for children, although linked to COVID-19, is 25 March 2022.

UPDATE: We have today (7 July) submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the following information:

  1. A copy of any children’s rights impact assessment produced for The Secure Training Centre (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020.
  2. A copy of any equality impact assessment produced for The Secure Training Centre (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020.
  3. Information produced and circulated to children detained in secure training centres which explains the changes arising from The Secure Training Centre (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020.
  4. Information produced and circulated to parents of detained children, or local authorities when the child is looked after, which explains the changes arising from The Secure Training Centre (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020.
  5. Any correspondence between the Ministry of Justice and G4S Care and Justice Services and MTC in respect of The Secure Training Centre (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020.
  6. Any correspondence between the Ministry of Justice and Ofsted, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and the Care Quality Commission in respect of The Secure Training Centre (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020.
  7. Any correspondence between the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board in respect of The Secure Training Centre (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020.
  8. Any correspondence between the Ministry of Justice and the Children’s Commissioner for England in respect of The Secure Training Centre (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Rules 2020.

Carolyne Willow, Article 39’s Director, said:

“Children should not be held in any institution which cannot safeguard and promote their welfare. Keeping children locked up in prison cells for up to 22.5 hours a day is child abuse, there’s no question about that. It is psychologically and emotionally damaging for any child but especially cruel for those who have learning disabilities, mental health problems and for children who have endured earlier abuse and neglect.

“Predicting the enormous challenges which prisons would face in meeting children’s needs, shortly before lockdown began we wrote with other organisations to Ministers urging them to safely release children from custody wherever possible. Government did not take this protective action and now it has found it necessary to change the law to reduce the statutory obligations of the companies who run secure training centres. Yet again, when children needed the government to take a firm stance on safeguarding their rights, they have been abandoned and providers protected.”

Children as young as 12 can be detained in England’s two secure training centres. G4S Care and Justice Services manages Oakhill secure training centre in Milton Keynes, and MTC manages Rainsbrook secure training centre in Northamptonshire. In April 2020, there were 107 children detained in secure training centres.

During a COVID-19 transmission control period*:

  • The Justice Secretary has been empowered to suspend children’s right to weekly visits (of one hour), if he “considers that such a suspension is necessary as a result of the effects, or likely effects, of coronavirus on or in relation to trainees or the Secure Training Centre and proportionate to what is sought to be achieved”;
  • The duty on those running the secure training centres to ensure each child participates in education or training courses for at least 25 hours a week has been diluted to so far as reasonably practicable;
  • The duty on those running the secure training centres to provide education, training, physical education and programmes designed to tackle offending behaviour has been diluted to so far as is reasonably practicable.

There was no time given for Parliamentary scrutiny and there was no public consultation ahead of the changes. It does not appear the Children’s Commissioner for England, the statutory children’s rights body, was consulted. The accompanying Explanatory Memorandum states:

7.1 New operational guidelines, consistent with Public Health England advice, have been issued by the Youth Custody Service, HMPPS, to the Directors of the two STCs. This sets out a temporary minimum restricted regime for as long as appropriate during the coronavirus pandemic.

7.2 This temporary restricted regime is designed to prevent the spread of disease and ensure the safety and security of children and staff alike when operating with a workforce reduced by 25% through self-isolation. It is the minimum expected level of delivery during a secure estate alert level broadly comparable with Level 4 in the community. At all times STCs will be required to deliver the highest possible regime whilst still complying with health guidelines.

7.3 The temporary minimum restricted regime provides children with:
a)Reduced time out of room: At least 1½ hrs out of room a day (normally 14 hrs);
b)Reduced access to classroom education: There are opportunities to attend teacher-led sessions, in-room work and some children take part in independent study;
c)Dining on the residential units or in-room; and
d)Daily opportunities to access fresh air.

7.4 All rooms are equipped with en-suite facilities and a telephone on which additional credit has been added. Skype facilities are also available.

(The full Explanatory Memorandum can be read here)

*COVID-19 transmission control period: This is the period which starts when the Health Secretary makes a declaration that the incidence or transmission of coronavirus constitutes a serious and imminent threat to public health in England and ends when the declaration is revoked. The Health Secretary’s declaration was made on 10 February 2020.

Our 18 March 2020 letter to the Justice Secretary can be read here.

Removal of safeguards for children in care – judicial review given go ahead

Article 39 children’s rights charity has been granted permission for a judicial review of the Department for Education’s removal and dilution of children’s legal protections pushed through overnight in April, under the guise of COVID-19. Given the seriousness of the legal changes, and the vulnerability of the affected children, Article 39 asked the court for the case to be expedited; this has also been agreed and the High Court hearing will take place on 27 and 28 July.

The Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 – also known as Statutory Instrument 445 – were laid before Parliament on 23 April and came into force the very next day. They make around 100 changes to 10 sets of children’s social care regulations, supposedly because of COVID-19 though none of the amendments specifically state that safeguards can be relaxed only due to the effects of the pandemic. 

Article 39 counts 65 losses or dilutions of safeguards for children in care, and children who could come into care – affecting many thousands of the most vulnerable children in our country. The safeguards affected include: social worker visits; reviews of children’s welfare in care; independent scrutiny of children’s homes, prospective adoptive parents and foster carers; and the process for placing children in care away from their home areas, including outside of England.

The High Court has granted permission for judicial review on three separate grounds:

  • That the Department for Education failed to consult before making the changes to children’s legal protections;
  • That the Regulations are contrary to the objects and purpose of primary legislation, particularly the Children Act 1989;
  • That the Education Secretary, Gavin Williamson MP, breached his general duty to promote the well-being of children in England.

Carolyne Willow, Article 39’s Director, said:

“Children in care should be receiving the very best protections we can offer during this global pandemic. Families up and down the country have responded to these very frightening and uncertain times by changing their work and home routines to ensure their children’s needs are properly met. Removing legal protections from children in the care of the state inevitably puts them at great risk, and we know from past tragedies that too often children’s suffering goes hidden until it is too late and the harm has been done.

“Before the pandemic, at least half of local authorities were struggling to meet their statutory children’s social care duties – as judged by Ofsted – and councils have been saying for years that they are desperate for funds to meet the needs of children and families. Ministers should have been focused on ensuring local authorities had the financial support they needed to keep children in care safe and protected, rather than dismantling safeguards which their own statutory guidance states are vital and important.

“As a very small charity, any legal action we take to protect the rights of children involves financial risk and we are delighted the court has agreed to cap our costs should we lose the case.”

Oliver Studdert, partner at Irwin Mitchell, said:

This is a very important legal case which seeks to protect vulnerable children’s rights. In listing the case for a full hearing to be heard in just five weeks’ time, the High Court recognises the urgent and important nature of Article 39’s challenge. The Secretary of State did not comply with legal duties to consult with those most impacted by the significant and wide ranging changes which the Regulations introduced. The children and young people in our care system rely on the support of the local authority, who should care for them as a parent would care for their child. These are some of the most vulnerable people in society, yet these Regulations have removed essential safeguards which were previously deemed necessary to keep them safe. In a time of crisis where many children in the care system need more support, they are being given less.”

Permission was not granted on the fourth ground, relating to Parliamentary procedure and failure of the government to make time for Members of Parliament and Peers to scrutinise the changes prior to them coming into force.

The news comes days after a children’s rights campaigner, John Radoux, received a freedom of information (FOI) response from the Department for Education which stated that no organisations made any request for specific changes to the 10 sets of regulations. This is despite an official government document for Parliament (published in April, with the Regulations) stating that: “Key stakeholders across the children’s social care sector were consulted … [They] provided suggestions for suitable amendments and have subsequently been provided with further detail of the changes that are being made and have provided broad support”. On 5 May, the Education Secretary told Parliament: “On the regulations we have laid, we worked very closely with the ADCS – the Association of Directors of Children’s Services – on how we make sure we do everything we can to maintain the very best support for all children when they are in care. It and the sector have specifically asked us to make sure that some flexibilities are made available to them”. The FOI response also told Radoux it was impossible to give the start and end dates of the consultation which preceded the Regulations because “There was no formal consultation”.  

Notes

1.      Article 39 is represented by Oliver Studdert from Irwin Mitchell, Jenni Richards QC and Steve Broach from 39 Essex Chambers, and Khatija Hafesji from Monckton Chambers.

2.      Statutory instrument 445 – The Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 – can be found here. It is due to expire on 25 September 2020 “unless extended”. Several provisions will continue beyond this date, irrespective of the actions of Ministers.

3.      The Explanatory Memorandum laid before Parliament can be found here.

4.      Article 39’s summary of the 65 legal safeguards which were removed or diluted without any public consultation or Parliamentary scrutiny and debate can be found here. This includes the list of provisions which will continue even after Statutory Instrument 445 has expired.

5.      John Radoux has tweeted the response he received (on 24 June) to his freedom of information request to the Department for Education. It can be found here. The Education Secretary’s statement to Parliament on 5 May can be found here.

6.      On 10 June, the then Shadow Education Secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey MP led a motion to annul the Regulations, which was defeated by 260 to 123 votes. The Hansard transcript for that is here

We are raising funds to help cover our costs should we lose this case. Please donate if you can, and share with your family, friends and colleagues.

Review calls for ban of pain-inducing restraint

The Ministry of Justice has today published a review of pain-inducing restraint which is authorised for use on children as young as 10 during their journeys to and from custodial institutions, and within child prisons. The review, led by the former Chair of the Youth Justice Board, Charlie Taylor, was set up after legal action by Article 39.

Charlie Taylor critiques the inclusion of pain-inducing restraint in the system in place since 2012, which is called MMPR (Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint):

“I believe that this places the use of pain-inducing techniques on a spectrum that makes it an acceptable and normal response rather than what [it] should be, the absolute exception.”

He said this “has contributed to the overuse of these techniques that I so frequently witnessed during this review”.

Charlie Taylor’s report makes 15 recommendations, including that:

  • The MMPR restraint training programme should be amended to remove the use of pain-inducing techniques from its syllabus (recommendation 7).
  • That pain is not permitted to be used to end long restraints – staff must always try letting go or changing the hold if a restraint is going on too long. The report recommends that there may, however, be emergency situations where the infliction of pain can be justified to prevent serious harm (recommendation 10).
  • The inverted wrist should only be used to gain control of strong and / or fully-grown children when there is no alternative and there is a risk of serious harm. Staff must move to a lower level hold as soon as possible (recommendation 12).
  • That staff be permitted to use a pain-inducing technique to prevent serious physical harm to either children or adults (recommendation 9).
  • Escort staff should no longer be able to use pain on children. However, Charlie Taylor recommends that there may be exceptional circumstances – when a member of staff is acting in self-defence and in an emergency – where pain may be justified (recommendation 14).

Taylor further recommends that restraint should not be permitted for ‘good order and discipline’ during children’s journeys to and from institutions – which was also part of Article 39’s legal challenge against the Ministry of Justice.

Carolyne Willow, Article 39’s Director, said:

“This is a major milestone in child protection, one we have waited 16 years for since a young boy, Adam Rickwood, wrote a note questioning the legitimacy of pain-inducing restraint before he hanged himself in a Serco-run child prison. Adam was just 14 years-old. An officer inflicted a karate-like chop to his nose, using what was then an official restraint technique – the so-called ‘nose distraction’. He knew what was done to him was wrong, and asked the officers restraining him what gave them the right to hit a child in the nose. It has taken our legal action to finally bring some promise of justice for Adam and other children who have suffered needlessly over many years. 

“We need to see the detail of the legal protections which will be put in place to ensure pain-inducing restraint is genuinely prohibited, and that any emergency, self-defence use of pain complies with common law and the UK’s children’s human rights obligations. 

“There have been many in senior positions over the years who have sought to justify the inclusion of pain-inducing restraint in the MMPR system, and the programme that preceded it. I hope they will take this opportunity to reflect on why it has taken so long for detained children to be given, at least on paper, the same protection from these brutal techniques as their peers in health and social care settings.”

The Ministry of Justice has accepted all 15 recommendations.

Background

In October 2018, following a successful crowd-funding appeal, Article 39 issued judicial review proceedings to challenge the Ministry of Justice’s policy of permitting the infliction of pain and unjustified restraint during children’s journeys to and from secure children’s homes. Children can be detained in these locked children’s homes from the age of 10.

Staff within the secure children’s homes are banned from using pain-inducing restraint. This form of restraint is similarly prohibited in other health and social care establishments.

As a result of our legal action, the government appointed Charlie Taylor, who was then Chair of the Youth Justice Board, to review the authorisation and use of pain-inducing restraint in child prisons (young offender institutions and secure training centres) and during detained children’s journeys to and from institutions. The High Court stayed our application for judicial review in January 2019, pending the outcome of Charlie Taylor’s review and an inquiry by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Meanwhile, on 28 February 2019, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), recommended:

“The Chair and Panel consider that the use of pain compliance techniques should be seen as a form of child abuse, and that it is likely to contribute to a culture of violence, which may increase the risk of child sexual abuse. The Chair and Panel recommend that the Ministry of Justice prohibits the use of pain compliance techniques by withdrawing all policy permitting its use, and setting out that this practice is prohibited by way of regulation.”

In April 2019, the Joint Committee on Human Rights repeated its call for pain-inducing restraint in child prisons to be banned. A letter from the Chair of the Committee clarified that its recommendation included children’s journeys to and from establishments.

Charlie Taylor’s report was completed and submitted to Ministers last July.

At the end of April 2020, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture repeated its 2009 recommendation “that the application of pain-inducing techniques on juveniles should be abolished in law and practice”. The United Nations Committee on Torture recommended in 2013 that the the UK ban the use of any technique designed to inflict pain on children.

Adam Rickwood photograph

What gives them the right to hit a child in the nose? – Adam Rickwood, aged 14 years
The devastating effects of pain-inducing restraint on children came to the public’s attention in 2004, when 14 year-old Adam Rickwood hanged himself in a child prison run by Serco. Adam had been unlawfully restrained and inflicted with the ‘nose distraction’ technique, which caused his nose to bleed for around an hour. Officers ignored his pleas to be taken to hospital. Before taking his own life, Adam wrote a note for his solicitor explaining that he had asked officers what gave them the right to hit a child in the nose. The technique was later withdrawn though officers continue to be trained and authorised to use other methods which cause children to suffer psychologically and physically.

Article 39 is represented by Mark Scott, Partner at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, and Dan Squires QC and Tamara Jaber from Matrix Chambers.

SERIOUS SAFETY WARNINGS – CHILD PRISONS

Article 39 has obtained data from local authorities showing there were more than 550 allegations of abuse and neglect in England’s seven child prisons over the past three years. 

Whenever there is reasonable suspicion that a child is suffering significant harm, councils are required under the Children Act 1989 to investigate to see whether they need to take action to safeguard or promote their welfare. A successful legal challenge brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform in 2002 confirmed that this duty applies to child prisons.

Only half of the six councils with child prisons in their area provided information showing how many abuse and neglect allegations referred to them were substantiated. This adds further weight to the findings of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which published its investigation into custodial institutions earlier this year. The inquiry found 1,070 alleged incidents of child sexual abuse between 2009 and 2017 but concluded that the lack of data and auditing by central and local government  “obscures the true picture”. 

Carolyne Willow, Article 39’s Director, said:

“That only three of the six local authorities gave us sufficient data to establish levels of confirmed abuse or neglect makes us fearful that councils are still not taking their child protection obligations seriously for this group of very vulnerable children. At the very least, local authorities should be required by central government to regularly publish this kind of  information.”

The information handed to Article 39 by three of the councils showed that 66 (43%) of 155 abuse or neglect allegations were deemed to be substantiated, which is where local authorities have sufficient evidence to prove what was alleged.

  • Oakhill secure training centre, run by G4S in Milton Keynes, had the highest number of abuse and neglect findings.
  • Of 98 allegations, over half (52) were found to be substantiated.
  • Milton Keynes Council told Article 39 that 27 members of staff were the subject of police investigations between 2016 and 2019.

A separate freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice revealed there were 359 prison restraint incidents in the past two years which resulted in children suffering serious injuries or compromised breathing. This means serious restraint incidents more than tripled between 2013/14 and 2018 (from 54 to 193).

  • A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) report for the calendar year of 2018 shows that Oakhill secure training centre accounted for nearly a quarter of the child safety warnings – with 45 of the 193 incidents occurring there.
  • The document we obtained from the MoJ does not signal in which prisons children suffered the different types of warning signs.
  • However, it states that last year 124 children complained of being unable to breathe during or after restraint, 28 suffered breathing difficulties, 22 felt sick and 11 experienced lost or reduced consciousness. Seven children were seriously injured. In 14 incidents, a child abruptly or unexpectedly stopped struggling while under restraint.

Willow added:

“Child abuse is wrong wherever it occurs and these latest revelations show yet again that prisons are desperately unsafe places for children. Nearly three years ago, Ministers agreed that children should be moved out of prisons, yet not a single institution has been closed. If families or children’s homes were subjecting children to this level of risk, they would have child protection social workers knocking at their doors. Every child, no matter where they live, has the right to feel and be safe. If you cannot provide this basic level of security, then there is simply no chance of turning around a child’s life.”

In 2004, a 15 year-old child, Gareth Myatt, died following restraint by three G4S custody officers in Rainsbrook secure training centre, in Northamptonshire. He told them he couldn’t breathe and he vomited and defecated before losing consciousness. The officers later said they thought Gareth was lying when he complained of being unable to breathe. During restraint training, officers had been given a codeword (OXO) to shout if they were struggling to breathe or in pain, which would immediately stop the use of force.

Adam Rickwood photograph

Another child, 14 year-old Adam Rickwood, also died following restraint in 2004. Four officers unlawfully restrained him in the then Serco-run Hassockfield secure training centre, in Durham. He was inflicted with a sharp blow to the nose, which was then an approved restraint technique. His nose bled for an hour and the prison refused his requests to go to hospital. Adam hanged himself hours later, leaving behind a note saying he had asked officers what gave them the right to hit a child in the nose, and they called it restraint.

After the boys’ deaths, the then Labour government introduced a new programme of restraint in child prisons, called Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR). The expert panel set up to review the techniques ahead of the rollout warned that the ‘head hold’ carried significant risks and gave its approval only on condition a research project would be established to find an alternative. Eight years later, the report obtained by Article 39 shows MoJ officials are concerned about its misapplication and the frequency of children saying they cannot breathe when in the head hold. A further review of the technique has therefore been set up, though there has been no public announcement of this.

These latest findings come as Article 39 awaits the outcome of a review of pain-inducing restraint in child prisons. In January 2019, the High Court stayed an application for judicial review pending this investigation and an inquiry by parliament’s human rights committee. The committee, chaired by Harriet Harman MP, reported in April 2019 and urged the withdrawal of all pain-inducing techniques in child prisons and during transit to and from custodial institutions. At least 25 other bodies have called for prohibition, including the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the UN Committee Against Torture, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UK’s four Children’s Commissioners. Taylor’s report was due to be published in October 2019.

Notes

  1. The three councils which provided full figures on the outcomes of investigations were: Leeds City Council (Wetherby juvenile young offender institution), Milton Keynes Council (Oakhill secure training centre) and Staffordshire Council (Werrington juvenile young offender institution). 
  2. The three councils which did not release full figures on the outcomes of investigations were: the London Borough of Hounslow (Feltham juvenile young offender institution), Medway Council (Medway secure training centre and Cookham Wood juvenile young offender institution) and Northamptonshire Council (Rainsbrook secure training centre).
  3. The total number of abuse or neglect allegations referred to the local authorities was 557. The breakdown of this is:
    – Leeds City Council: 47 allegations between 2016/17 and 2018/19
    – London Borough of Hounslow: 199 allegations between 2016/17 and 2018/19
    – Medway Council: stated it would have to review 69 individual case files, so we have taken this figure to mean at least 69 allegations
    – Milton Keynes Council: 98 allegations between 2016/17 and 2018/19
    – Northamptonshire Council: 134 allegations between 2017 and 2019 (we were told that 49 of these specifically concerned restraint)
    – Staffordshire Council: 10 allegations between 2016/17 and 2018/19
  4. Article 39 previously requested the same data in 2015, similarly for the preceding three-year period. Responses were as follows:
    – Leeds City Council: didn’t have data to hand; said it would take more than 18 hours to retrieve
    – London Borough of Hounslow: 82 allegations between 2012/13 and 2014/15
    – Medway Council: didn’t have data to hand; said it would take more than 18 hours to retrieve
    – Milton Keynes Council: 86 allegations between 2012/13 and 2014/15
    – Northamptonshire Council: only had data for period Sept 2014 to 31/03/15 (25 allegations)
    – Staffordshire Council: did not respond to the 2015 information request
  5. As of July 2018, G4S had not provided the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse with the documents requested about sexual abuse in Medway secure training centre and Rainsbroook secure training centre because “records are in storage”. (Counsel’s update here).

The Independent newspaper reported our FOI findings on 11 January 2020, exactly four years since a BBC Panorama programme showed serious physical and emotional abuse in Medway secure training centre, which was then run by G4S. Read the Independent piece here.

Challenging secrecy in child prisons

Article 39 has today (6 December 2019) submitted a request for a freedom of information (FOI) internal review to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), which has refused to release details of very serious child abuse in an unnamed child prison.

Our probing follows the publication of the PPO’s annual report in October. It contained a summary of a very serious complaint made by a child – see below. The PPO investigation concluded the boy had been subject to excessive force, but the prison rejected this finding.

Taken from PPO annual report, published October 2019

Article 39 contends that the excessive force described here meets official definitions of physical and emotional abuse.

Article 39’s freedom of information request

We submitted an FOI request in October 2019 for the following:

1.       The name of the young offender institution in which this restraint incident took place.

2.       With any necessary redactions, a) a copy of the complaints investigation report pertaining to ‘Mr K’ and b) correspondence and documents showing the response of the young offender institution and the Youth Custody Service to your findings and recommendations.

3.       Indication as to whether the boy made the complaint to the PPO after he had left, or been moved from, the YOI in which the incident took place.

Our request for an internal review – as submitted to PPO today

There is a legitimate interest in disclosure of the above information (with necessary redactions) because it concerns the protection of vulnerable children in closed institutions. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s finding that excessive force had been used on the boy was rejected by the young offender institution. This could indicate inadequate safeguarding awareness and arrangements within the institution, which may put other children at risk of significant harm (see especially the governor’s safeguarding duties under s11 of the Children Act 2004). 

Excessive force of the kind described in your case study fits the definitions of physical and emotional abuse in the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children (attached, pages 102-103). It may also have been a criminal offence.  

We draw your attention to the investigation by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which reported in February this year. It concluded: “Children are particularly vulnerable when placed in a closed institution where access to the outside world is necessarily restricted and those in authority are distrusted by the children themselves. It is all the more difficult to escape an abuser when there is nowhere to hide” (page 98 of attached report). 

As a registered charity promoting and protecting the rights of children in institutional settings, we have a legitimate interest in seeking information about the location of this disputed serious child abuse, the reasons the institution rejected your finding and what happened as a consequence (including any action by the Youth Custody Service). 

The Youth Custody Service’s own internal safeguarding review (published October 2019) included among its 100+ recommendations actions relating to complaints, including a proposal for a centralised register of recommendations by PPO and others, and improvements made as a consequence (report attached). Our FOI request reflects this call for transparency for the purposes of child safeguarding. The Youth Custody Service report states: “Evidence suggests that perceptions of procedural injustice can act as a driver for violence in custody, and conversely, perceived procedural justice can act as a driver for safety” (page 49). This speaks directly to our concern that the prison was able to reject your organisation’s finding: we want to understand why it was able to do so, the consequences for the child, and what, if any, wider safeguarding improvements arose from your investigation. 

Our third question is of legitimate interest because there is longstanding evidence of children being unable to complain about abuse in institutional settings while still living within the establishment where the abuse is taking place. The Government is currently preparing statutory guidance on Keeping Children Safe in Custody (following a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) and we are very keen to ensure that what happened to this boy, and the circumstances of him being able to make the complaint to your organisation, form part of the learning contributing to this statutory guidance.

As we indicated in the original request, we fully appreciate the need for redactions to protect the privacy of the boy and other affected individuals. However, we contend that there is a legitimate interest in the publication of the name of the prison in which you found this child had been subject to excessive force, and related information.

Documents referenced in our internal review request:

Working Together to Safeguard Children

IICSA’s investigation into sexual abuse in custodial institutions

Youth Custody Service’s Safeguarding Review