THE PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMEN’S INSPEC TIONS OF REMAND PRISONS 2015–2019 inmate without restrictions, staff contacted the Prison and Probation Service’s intelligence department (KUT) before the inmate was to be placed in an association The Parliamentary department. Whilst awaiting a decision from KUT, the inOmbudsmen have mate was placed in a restricemphasised that tion department. It was furinmates who do not ther revealed that the staff had have restrictions are been instructed that they had a number of days to deal with entitled to associate the issue of placing the inmate with one another in an association department. The same process was applied when an inmate had their restrictions removed whilst being held on remand.3 During an inspection of Gothenburg Remand Prison in February 2019, it emerged that inmates without restrictions were placed in restriction departments. According to the remand prison management, it is difficult to relocate inmates from restriction places to association places. This is because a threat analysis must first be made, followed by an individual assessment, in order for the inmate to be placed in the right department. Furthermore, the size of the remand prison causes inertia in the system.4 During an inspection of Huddinge Remand Prison in January 2017, it emerged that good behaviour by an inmate formed a prerequisite for access to association with other inmates.5 In a statement provided to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, the Prison and Probation Service stated that this practice is incorrect. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has criticised this practice and stated that she expects the Prison and Probation Service 3 4 5 See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr 419-2017 p. 5. See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr O 7-2019 pp. 6 and 13. See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr 416-2017 p. 6. 8 to retrain its staff and follow up on the measures implemented.6 8.2 Work with isolation-breaking measures As detailed in section 7, the Prison and Probation Service works to try to break the isolation of inmates who are subject to restrictions as well as inmates who are segregated. Remand prisons do not report the use of isolation-breaking measures continuously, but measure the steps taken to break isolation at specific times per year. This means that, as also noted by the Prison and Probation Service, there is uncertainty regarding the figures reported. With regard to the remand prison inspections in 2017, it emerged that remand prisons do not define, measure nor follow up on the use of isolation-breaking measures in a standardised manner. As such, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman stated that the Prison and Probation Service should ensure that the amount of time an inmate associates with others is reported and documented in a standardised manner. A standardised system would make it possible to follow the situation over time. The Prison and Probation Service was requested to report back to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen on its work with this issue.7 In reporting back, the Prison and Probation Service stated in June 2018 that, whilst the system to follow up on the use of isolation-breaking methods is crude, it does provide an approximate national picture of the extent to which inmates associate with one another. The agency had also initiated a project with the objective of developing an appropriate support system to be able to follow the use of isolation-breaking measures. The project was 6 7 – 43 – See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen 2018/19 p. 146, dnr 5969-2015. See the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s report dnr 416-2017 p. 13.