What just happened?

There has been an ‘urgent notification’ issued to the justice secretary addressing major concerns of the quality of care and leadership at a privately run youth prison near Rugby.
This notification could be considered emergency action, and these notices are rare, but the so called “bleak regime” has raised widespread concern. [1]

What does this mean?

This is the first time that this type of notification has been used concerning a secure training centre – places that hold 12-to-18-year olds. This notice forces the justice secretary to explain how he will address the issues raised in the notice within 28 days.

There was an inspection in October by various agencies[2] that found areas of care to be unacceptable – one primary concern was the treatment of new admissions and the implications of the current Coronavirus restrictions placed on them. Newly admitted children were being confined to their rooms for 14 days, with just 30 minutes a day where they were allowed out. Ofsted’s chief inspector states that “Rainsbrook was warned that its treatment of newly admitted children was unacceptable, yet these concerns have been ignored”.[3] She emphasises the importance of care of safety or wellbeing for vulnerable children.

The treatment of new admissions was not the only concern of the three inspectors, and in their letter to Robert Buckland (justice secretary) they outlined many further concerns about the treatment of the children at Rainsbrook.

Lucy Frazer, the justice minister, announced that they have immediately stopped placing young people at Rainsbrook and have appointed additional experienced staff.

How does this impact the legal sector?

The implications of Covid-19 and its rules and regulations have spread far and wide across all areas of society, however, these rules have always claimed to prioritise vulnerable persons. Rainsbrook and other prisons and secure training centres face hardship currently, having to balance the staff and inmate protection from Coronavirus, while also placing high emphasis on care, protection of wellbeing and liberty for the people staying there.
This is even more prevalent when considering youth prisons or STC’s, as young people in these locations are particularly vulnerable.

On the 2nd July 2020, the statutory rules for STC’s were amended to legitimise the solitary confinement for their young offenders, but a memorandum states that children will have 1.5 hours outside their cell in each 24-hour period. This allowance of solitary confinement for children as young as 12 seems harsh, but with the memorandum, this means that these Rainbrook conditions are breaching the statutory rules for STC’s, which could result in large issues for the Centre.

The way the new admissions have been treated at Rainsbrook is unacceptable. Although the 14-day isolation period may be necessary for pragmatic reasons, vulnerable young people being allowed just 30 minutes outside their rooms daily is a huge problem. This is especially true given they have just been placed in a new and daunting environment, this does not give any opportunity for adjustment or monitoring the emotional needs of the individual.

This also raises questions about how other prisons, youth prisons and STC’s are safely following the Coronavirus restrictions while maintaining proper support. Does there need to be more provision for this specific sector? Rainsbrook is just one of four STC’s in the UK, is enough being done to protect vulnerable young people in prisons and training centres, where they are also trying to abide by the current Coronavirus restrictions and protect the health of staff.

Written by Lucy Stone

Assessing Firms:

Reeds Solicitors & Chambers, ITN Solicitors, Sarginsons Law, Stevens Solicitors, Howells LLP, Purcell Parker Solicitors.

[1] Jamie Grierson “Urgent notice issued over UK youth jail where children held in solitary confinement” (Dec 2020) Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/18/urgent-notice-issued-over-uk-youth-jail-where-children-held-in-solitary-confinement

[2] HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Care Quality Commission and Ofsted.

[3] See reference 1

Disclaimer: This article (and any information accessed through links in this article) is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.