National Preventive Mechanism Sixth Annual Report 2014–15 Justification and governance of isolation There are no separate procedures, documentation or permissions required for isolation or solitary confinement in police custody, as it is inherent in this type of detention. NPM monitors have seen little evidence of specific consideration given to the impact of isolation in police custody on a child or a person with mental health issues. However, detained children are often kept in cells or rooms closer to a booking-in desk where custody staff can provide additional visits. For immigration detainees, as police authorities charge immigration authorities for the costs of detention once reported and until collected, this creates an audit trail and an economic incentive to limit their time in detention. Case study: a case for cell sharing? Eight detainees arrested after a ‘lorry drop’ on a motorway were taken to two police custody suites. There was at least one father and son in the group, and two brothers. None of the group claimed to be able to speak English, and stated their nationalities as Iraqi or Syrian. They had been held for over 22 hours when NPM inspectors encountered them. As a result of inspectors’ interventions, the two brothers were given access to the exercise yard so they could speak to each other. Inspectors felt that, given the likelihood these men had travelled together and their family connections, there could have been some consideration of ‘doubling up’ cells for a while. There would also have been an opportunity to place the group in a secure gated area together. 44 Conditions and facilities As isolation is the norm in police custody, it is important that the effects of this on the detainee can be offset or negated by a regime that facilitates good staff-detainee interaction, as well as access to showers, exercise, reading materials and visits. NPM members find that facilities for detainees are often provided only in response to a request from them and not offered systematically. While all custody suites have shower facilities and toiletries, and most have an area for fresh air or outside exercise and some limited reading material, detainees often do not know that these facilities are available to them. Case study: meaningful contact? An immigration detainee had approached 24 hours in custody when an NPM inspector spoke to him. He was awaiting transfer to an IRC and had been out of his cell for just five minutes to make a telephone call to his solicitor. He had been ‘visited’ every 30 minutes by detention staff, which usually meant opening the cell hatch or a quick word ‘everything alright?’, and had received microwave meals at standard meal times. The detention officer responsible thought the detainee spoke limited English, but he was in fact fluent. The detainee said he would have liked a shower and some fresh air, but neither of these had been offered, nor did he know they were available. After the NPM inspector’s suggestion, he eventually got five minutes outside for fresh air, but was not given a shower. He was eventually transferred after approximately 36 hours.