National Preventive Mechanism Second Annual Report 2010–11 Introduction by Nick Hardwick Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons T he United Nations adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) in 2002. OPCAT is unusual among international human rights instruments in that rather than setting new standards, it commits States to establishing a mechanism to prevent existing standards being violated. For detainees removed from public scrutiny in a prison or police cell, a secure hospital ward or juvenile facility, independent preventive inspection is particularly important. The nature of those held, the imbalance of power between detainee and gaoler and the fact that the work of the institution takes place behind high walls, out of sight, creates the conditions in which it is all too easy for abuse to take place. However, in my view, the greatest risk is the normative effect those conditions create. Away from public scrutiny, it is all too easy for even well intentioned staff to become accepting of standards that in any other setting would be unacceptable. OPCAT seeks to protect detainees and prevent their ill-treatment by providing for a system of independent monitoring by a ‘national preventive mechanism’ (NPM). The NPM carries out regular visits to places of detention, examining the treatment of and conditions for detainees and, where necessary, makes recommendations to the detaining authorities. 4 In the UK, the role of the NPM is carried out jointly by 18 organisations, which, between them, visit or inspect a range of detention settings, including prisons, police and court custody, secure accommodation for children and immigration, military and mental health detention. The NPM is coordinated by HM Inspectorate of Prisons. While the NPM structure in the UK may be complex, our purpose is clear – to prevent the ill-treatment of anyone who is deprived of their liberty, through a system of independent and regular visits to places of detention. The primary work of the NPM is therefore carried out by its individual members in their own inspection programmes or visits and reported in their own annual reports. In this second annual report of the UK’s NPM as a whole, we summarise the activities of the 18 NPM members and what they found when visiting places of detention across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and identify some common themes that emerged. We also report on the joint activities we have undertaken and the work done to ensure that OPCAT is fully and effectively implemented in the UK. We are pleased to report progress on the recommendation we made in our first annual report – that the government should identify which places of detention are not subject to independent visits by the NPM and ensure that those gaps in protection are