Points to be highlighted/suggested areas for discussion: CASE STUDY 1 39. – The international instruments ask us to consider three criteria when assessing levels of security for individual prisoners: 39. – The threat to the public should they escape; 39. – The likelihood of escape; 39. – The resources available to assist in an escape; 39. – The first prisoner’s problem is probably alcohol abuse. Without a previous record and with no known contact with the criminal underworld, he is unlikely to prove a serious security risk; 39. – The second prisoner is a long-term drug addict; he is likely to be prepared to do anything to obtain the drugs he wants. He is likely to be a nuisance, possibly a danger to the public, but unlikely to have access to resources. Drug dependence treatment would be an example of dynamic security; 39. – The third prisoner is unlikely to be a danger to the public but he is likely to want to escape and to have the contacts that could assist in this. CASE STUDY 2 39. – The authorities must listen to the information from the junior member of staff; 39. – They must consider the risk according to the instruments and take the security measures required; 39. – They have to consider dealing with an attempted exchange of prisoners on the approaching day of release, escape equipment coming in during the visit, plans being discussed during the visit, and the possibility that this is a smokescreen for an attempted escape elsewhere; 39. – They must take account of intelligence coming in from other members of staff working daily with prisoners. CASE STUDY 3 39. – Dynamic security is the best preventive measure to avoid dangerous prisoners escaping; 39. – Junior staff should be trained to mix with prisoners, getting to know them and assessing any possible risk of escape; 39. – Keep prisoners busy in useful activities; 39. – Staff in daily contact with prisoners may be rotated and appropriately coached by senior staff. 87