National Preventive Mechanism Second Annual Report 2010–11 The UK NPM has continued to participate in the European NPM Project. Organised by the Council of Europe, this project seeks to create an active network of NPMs, so that information and best practice on detention monitoring can be shared. In 2010–11, representatives of the UK NPM attended thematic workshops on monitoring police custody, security in detention and the methodology of monitoring. Under the auspices of this project, in 2011, the UK NPM will also host and organise an inter-NPM discussion on monitoring deportations. This involves NPMs monitoring the treatment of detainees not just while they are detained in immigration removal centres, but until they are returned to their country of origin. In 2010–11, the members of the UK NPM continued to share their expertise and experience with others. Often, a newly designated NPM in another country, an organisation about to be designated, or a government exploring how to implement OPCAT will contact the NPM members in the UK for advice. Various members have hosted delegations from many countries, including Ukraine, Japan, Peru, Ecuador, Angola, Australia and the Netherlands. Compliance with OPCAT In our first annual report, we noted that not all places of detention are monitored by members of the NPM, as required by Article 4 of OPCAT. In particular, we highlighted gaps relating to military detention facilities and court custody in England and Wales. We therefore recommended that: “The UK government should explore gaps in the coverage of the NPM, identifying places of detention that are not currently monitored for the purpose of preventing 14 ill-treatment. Any identified gaps, such as military detention and court custody, should be addressed as soon as possible to ensure that the UK complies with its international obligations”. We are pleased to report that the government intends to extend the mandate of HMIP, so that it may inspect court custody facilities in England and Wales. Preparatory work has already been undertaken by HMIP, with criteria for inspection being drafted. It is anticipated that a programme of inspections will commence in 2012. Furthermore, court custody facilities are currently monitored by ‘lay observers’ – volunteers from local communities who make frequent visits to courts – and the government is considering whether they should be designated in respect of this monitoring activity to become the nineteenth member of the NPM. This would result in layers of monitoring for court custody in England and Wales – by a professional inspectorate and a lay body – as is already the case for prisons and police custody. Scope of OPCAT The scope of OPCAT is deliberately broad and, under Article 4(1), States Parties must allow the NPM and the SPT to carry out visits to “any place under its jurisdiction and control where persons are or may be deprived of their liberty” (emphasis added). Article 4(2) defines deprivation of liberty as “any form of detention or imprisonment or the placement of a person in a public or private custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave at will by order of any judicial, administrative or other authority”.