National Preventive Mechanism Fifth Annual Report 2013–14 Introduction by Nick Hardwick Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons T he UK has a long tradition of the independent inspection and monitoring of places of detention. Over the years the rigour of these monitoring processes and the degree to which they have been truly independent have varied, and the different nations that make up the UK and different types of custody have all developed their own inspection systems. Nonetheless, few other states can match the breadth of the UK’s detention monitoring mechanisms, the experience the different monitoring bodies bring to their roles or the public support they enjoy. Long experience in the UK has taught that those detained in any setting, out of sight and with little recourse to safeguards, are especially vulnerable and that regular, independent monitoring has a vital role in preventing ill-treatment or worse. It was not surprising therefore that the UK had a key role to play in the development of the United Nations Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), which had at its heart the development of a system of 4 international and national independent monitoring of all places of detention. At a national level, States Parties are required to establish an independent National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) to undertake inspections and other preventive activity. OPCAT was adopted by the UN in 2002 and entered into force in 2006. The UK was one of the first states to ratify OPCAT in December 2003. Most States Parties have created a new organisation as their NPM or given the NPM’s responsibilities to an existing human rights ombudsman or similar organisation. The situation in the UK is different. There were already a number of well-established individual bodies with statutory independent inspection, monitoring or visiting powers and so, rather than dismantle existing structures and create a new body, in March 2009 the UK designated 18 existing bodies as its NPM and gave HM Inspectorate of Prisons in England and Wales responsibility for coordinating their NPM activities. This decision meant the UK could make best use of the powers, resources and experience that existing monitoring bodies already had. It created the potential for these bodies to