24 Visits to places of detention Bergen prison (4-6 November) The NPM visited Bergen prison from 4 to 6 November 2014. Bergen prison’s current capacity is 265 (209 high-­ security spaces and 56 low-security spaces). The NPM’s visit did not extend to the prison’s two open sections, section D and section Osterøy. The prison was notified of the visit four weeks in advance. The administration and other staff members assisted the NPM readily during the entire visit, and provided all information that was requested. An inspection of the high-security sections was conducted, including the prison’s means of restraint, holding cells, community rooms, intake department and visiting rooms. Additional meetings were held with the prison’s health service, whose facilities were also inspected. Private conversations with inmates followed. The NPM spoke with more than 60 inmates at the prison, around half of whom were being detained in section A (restrictive section). A document review was conducted of all key documents and the use-of-force record relating to the use of security cells and exclusion from company in 2014. In addition, the NPM talked with staff members at different levels of the organisation, as well as with union representatives. The visit concluded with a meeting with the prison administration, during which the NPM described its findings and preliminary recommendations. Very high occupancy and a growing number of challenging inmates appear to be affecting the prison. The prison administration portrayed the staffing situation as difficult. Several inmates commended individual prison officers for sitting down and talking to the inmates. However, it became clear that a majority believed that officers were insufficiently present in communal areas. Several inmates related episodes that had made them feel anxious and insecure. The NPM received several descriptions of severe harassment and violent incidents between inmates that had not caught the notice of officers. Most female inmates stated that they were often left to themselves. Several foreign inmates described harsh, unsafe inmate conditions and poor communication. Information gleaned from conversations with inmates indicates that the opportunity to spend time outdoors in fresh air is not offered every day. Inmate conditions in section A were described as particularly challenging. Over half the inmates lacked employment opportunities and were isolated in their cells for large parts of the day, several days a week. Several inmates felt unsafe doing activities because the prison officers appeared insufficiently engaged in ensuring inmate safety. Norway’s National Preventive Mechanism – Annual Report 2014 During the visit, the prison’s use of force was given special attention. The document review indicated a generally high threshold for placing inmates in security cells. However, the review turned up significant weaknesses in the associated recordkeeping, and several of the NPM’s recommendations stem from a review of the supervision logs relating to the use of security cells and restraining beds. The use of holding cells was also deemed to have problematic aspects given that these cells bore clear similarities to security cells. The prison appeared to have developed sound admissions practices. The majority of inmates stated that they had received sufficient information upon admission, though their perceptions varied. Informational materials translated into several languages were lacking, however. Conversations with inmates indicated that the majority of the inmates received health service consultations shortly after admission. It emerged, however, that inmate confidentiality could be better protected and that lapses occurred in the procedures for ensuring that inmates were accompanied to their medical and psychology appointments in the prison. The psychologists, for their part, wanted expanded opportunities to perform outreach in communal activities with the inmates. The NPM found grounds for concern about psychologically vulnerable inmates. Information provided by the prison administration, health service and other staff members – which was corroborated by the NPM’s own observations, interviews and document review – suggests a need to prioritise health care for the mentally ill and those who may be prone to mental health injury. The information also indicates that Bergen prison houses some inmates with serious mental illnesses for whom it is difficult to provide satisfactory mental health services.