National Preventive Mechanism Sixth Annual Report 2014–15 Conditions and regime Case study: an inspector reports conditions in a care and separation unit (CASU) The cells in the CASU were particularly poor. They were covered in graffiti, had no toilet screening and most had no table. They were in a worse condition than normal location. One cell had what looked like smeared excrement on the door frame. The prisoner who occupied this cell told me this had been there when he moved into the cell three weeks previously. These issues were addressed during the inspection but there was no information about how long they had existed before the inspection. There was wide variation in the conditions in which prisoners were isolated. In Scotland, conditions in ‘separation and reintegration’ units were generally considered to be good, with one exception in an older prison. Segregation cells normally had the same furniture as on the main location. In one case, the NPM member noted that cell walls had been damaged by the cleaning processes during and after dirty protests. In Northern Ireland, conditions were generally good and communal areas in segregation facilities were clean, but cells were often dirty. Most segregation cells had a television. NPM monitors found reasonable or good conditions in three of the prisons in England that were included in this review. In other prisons they found graffiti on cell walls, cold or dirty cells and unscreened toilets. Most segregation cells were adequately furnished and in one prison inspectors noted fixed metal furniture. In some instances prisoners had televisions in segregation but in two 26 prisons where it was unusual for prisoners to have televisions, battery powered radios were hard to obtain. In another, radios were not permitted regardless of the reason for the segregation. One segregation unit in this review had a small library. Normalising features, such as posters, were noted in the communal areas of one segregation unit and some of the CSC units. In several establishments, including the CSCs, NPM members were concerned to find exercise yards that were cage-like or provided no view of the outside that was not filtered through fences or razor wire. The special accommodation cells that NPM members visited as part of this review were unfurnished and inspectors noted that conditions were grim. In one, the cell had a low level hard plinth and some natural light but it was cold and the decoration was worn. One NPM member noted that prisoners who threatened staff when they tried to open cell doors might not even get water for very long periods, and could be put into non-rip clothing if thought to be at risk of self-harming. The regime available for formally isolated prisoners also varied. In some prisons, staffing levels limited the time that could be spent out of cells in segregation units, or meant that regimes were not delivered consistently. In one Northern Ireland prison, men in segregation had only inconsistent access to showers, exercise and telephones as this depended on staff availability. Exercise in English prisons was often solitary and did not last for a full hour, as required. In one prison, showers and telephone calls were only provided three times a week to men in the segregation unit. In another prison, prisoners who were subject to ‘multi-unlock’ (where several members of staff have to be