HMIP Inspections of Huntercombe

The prison was given an inspection in August 2023, the full report can be read at the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the links below. In their latest report the inspectors said:

Huntercombe, in Oxfordshire is a category C prison that held 468 foreign national prisoners at the time of our inspection.

When we last inspected in 2017, apart from in our rehabilitation and release planning test, where we awarded our lowest score, the prison was doing well. At our scrutiny visit during the pandemic in 2020, Huntercombe continued to be one of the best performing prisons in the country.

At this inspection we found a safe and respectful prison where prisoners who were often dealing with an uncertain future due to their immigration status were well looked after. The prison was led by an excellent governor who was very visible around the jail, had high expectations of his staff and prisoners and encouraged innovation from his team. For example, the impressive ‘Stoic’ programme that had been developed by the PE department aimed to support prisoners to understand themselves better and learn to make more considered choices in the future.

Leaders had created a new resettlement team which had much improved the support for prisoners leaving the jail, particularly those who were being deported. This work was often undermined because of chaotic and tardy Home Office processes, with long backlogs and decisions about deportation often left to the last minute. Although there was a team of Home Office staff in the jail, who worked hard to engage with prisoners, long backlogs in central decision making meant that prisoners continued to be left anxious and confused.

There remained some gaps in public protection and phone monitoring was not effective for some high-risk prisoners. Recategorisation decisions were a big source of frustration for prisoners, who were often unable to get moved to category D jails because of their immigration status; this was despite current figures that showed that nearly 60% remained in the UK after release. Rather than risk-assess individual prisoners, there often seemed a default refusal to grant Huntercombe prisoners category D status.

While levels of violence remained low, there had been an increase in recent months, and not enough had yet been done to understand the causes. There had also been some spikes in the ingress of drugs which was a concern. The prison was routinely overusing strip searching, which was often invasive and unnecessary, particularly as there was a body-scanner in place.
The impending loss of a psychologist risked inadequate support for those vulnerable prisoners who had been victims of torture or modern slavery, although in general health services were good with some innovative practice. My team and I were surprised by how often prisoners were negative about their treatment by some staff. Although there were many excellent officers at Huntercombe, some were not engaged or supportive to prisoners, with many sitting in offices rather than out on the wing. There was a need for more staff training, particularly in understanding the experiences and needs of foreign national prisoners, some of whom had, in the past, been victims of torture.

There was not enough education or training provision for the population, with most prisoners only in part-time work. Even with the opening of new provision, such as the Clink restaurant, there would still not be enough spaces for all prisoners to be involved in full time activity. This was unacceptable in a category C prison. Staffing vacancies and sickness meant that classes were often cancelled, and astonishingly senior education staff rarely bothered to cover the lessons of absent colleagues. The overall service from the education provider was poor and, inexplicably, lesson observations by education managers had not taken place for more a year.

Huntercombe continues to be one of the best prisons in the country with some very effective practice led by a strong senior team. I expect progress to continue if the education provider radically improves and if a small minority of officers become more professional and engaged with their role.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
October 2023

 

The inspectors provided a brief list of their findings

What needs to improve at HMP Huntercombe

During this inspection we identified 14 key concerns, of which four should be treated as priorities. Priority concerns are those that are most important to improving outcomes for prisoners. They require immediate attention by leaders and managers.
Leaders should make sure that all concerns identified here are addressed and that progress is tracked through a plan which sets out how and when the concerns will be resolved. The plan should be provided to HMI Prisons.
Priority concerns
1. Delayed Home Office decision-making resulted in many prisoners being held beyond their earliest removal or release dates. The delays caused frustration and distress, and hindered release
planning.
2. We received numerous reports of unhelpful staff who did not understand prisoners’ concerns as foreign nationals. Wing managers did not sufficiently address dismissive staff attitudes, and staff training in the needs of foreign national prisoners was inadequate.
3. There were not enough full-time activity places for the population and staff shortages meant they were not used fully.
4. Most recategorisation decisions were based solely on Home Office interest rather than a full consideration of individual risk factors. This meant prisoners were wrongly prevented from going to open conditions regardless of the progress they had made.
Key concerns
5. Reception processes were slow and not sufficiently well managed, which meant that some prisoners waited for long periods in holding rooms or in vehicles.
6. Data were not being used effectively enough to determine the specific causes of violence.
7. The basic level of the incentives scheme was used too punitively. Prisoners were often placed on that level for 28 days without any meaningful review, and some remained on the basic regime even when related adjudication charges had been dismissed.
8. Staff usually failed to use body-worn video cameras during incidents.
9. Despite the small number of prisoners in the segregation unit, the regime was limited and inconsistent, and paperwork was not always completed in full.
10. Routine strip-searching alongside the use of a body scanner was excessive and unnecessary.
11. Recent price rises in the shop had sharply reduced the number of items that prisoners could buy.
12. Psychological provision was too limited for a population that was disproportionately likely to have had traumatic experiences as a result of torture and modern slavery.
13. Prisoners did not benefit from a suitable curriculum to meet their needs, nor could they access effective careers information, advice and guidance.
14. Phone call monitoring for public protection reasons was not consistent or sufficiently robust.

 

Return to Huntercombe

To read the full reports, go to the Ministry of Justice site or follow the links below: