HMIP Inspection of Liverpool

The prison was given an inspection in July 2022, 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:

Built in the mid-19th century, HMP Liverpool, a reception and resettlement prison, holds just over 800 adult men. At the time of our inspection the jail was in a process of transition with the intention that its traditional frontline reception responsibilities will end, and it will become a category C resettlement prison. This process had been delayed by the impact of the pandemic, and so the prison still held a significant minority of unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners.

Overall, this was a very encouraging inspection. At our visit in 2017, we found a prison in a parlous state, and our criticisms led HMPPS to make urgent and radical interventions, including a sharp reduction in the prison population. In part, this reduction in roll facilitated a programme of refurbishment to better the conditions experienced by those held in the prison.

At the following inspection in 2019, HMP Liverpool had made a commendable improvement in outcomes, something that this most recent inspection showed had been sustained. The prison is now even safer than it was in 2019 and outcomes were judged ‘reasonably good’. Our assessment of respect remained good, a considerable achievement, and although we evidenced some deterioration in provision of rehabilitation and release planning, outcomes were still reasonably good. Only in the provision of purposeful activity were outcomes unsatisfactory.

There was a positive and caring culture in the prison, and new prisoners were received well. The prison was calm and well-ordered, and most prisoners in our survey told us they felt safe. Violence levels were falling, and the community feel among those held was motivating good prisoner behaviour. As with violence, incidents of self-harm had also fallen markedly, although sadly one person had taken their own life since we last inspected. The prison’s strategy for reducing self-harm evidenced a good approach to care, predicated on good staff-prisoner relationships, which were a real strength at HMP Liverpool.

A long-term refurbishment programme was still ongoing, but despite the old Victorian infrastructure, surveyed prisoners were positive about their living conditions and most had good access to kit and amenities. Too many prisoners, however, were still sharing cells designed for one. Consultation and access to applications and complaints arrangements were reasonable, but more needed to be done to better promote equality. In our survey, however, prisoners from minority or protected groups suggested few disproportionate perceptions or outcomes.

Access to purposeful activity was problematic. There were sufficient activity places for about two-thirds of the current (reduced) population and places that were available were not used well. Time out of cell generally, was poor. Our colleagues in Ofsted judged the provision of education, learning and skills as ‘requires improvement’ in accordance with their assessments. For a prison about to take on a fully-fledged resettlement function this was not good enough and was an area that needed to be prioritised.

The prison was doing some good work to promote family ties, and in general the approach to risk reduction and offender management was reasonably good. Many prisoners also told us that someone was helping them as they prepared for release, and we were able to evidence some good release planning.

At this inspection we found a well-led, safe and respectful prison. Leaders had a decent understanding of the prison’s strengths and weaknesses, although the prison could have improved further with slightly more robust oversight in some important areas of policy and practice. This could, perhaps, be encouraged by a better and more targeted use of data and more attention to the recommendations we had made, only a third of which were achieved following our last visit. Nevertheless, leaders and staff were doing well. Sustaining improvement in a challenging prison like Liverpool is a significant achievement, and this had created a platform from which to take the prison forward with confidence.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
August 2022

 

The inspectors listed their major concerns which they feel require attention:

What needs to improve at HMP Liverpool

During this inspection we identified 11 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. The availability of illicit drugs was too high.
  2. The management of medicines was inadequate. Administration was not safe, there were delays in the delivery of medicines and the management of sedating medicines was not in line with national guidance.
  3. There were not enough activity places for the population. Too many prisoners were unemployed, the allocation process was not efficient and the rate of pay for education acted as a disincentive.
  4. Prisoners did not have enough time unlocked. Unemployed prisoners in particular were locked up for far too long.

Key concerns

  1. The standard of some living accommodation was inadequate. Too many prisoners were living in a cell designed for one and too many cells had broken windows.
  2. Prisoners waited too long to see a GP or a dentist.
  3. There was a lack of training and oversight for peer workers who provided care for other prisoners in receipt of social care.
  4. Prisoners waited too long for a hospital transfer under the Mental Health Act for specialist care and treatment.
  5. Attendance at education, vocational training and work was too low. Punctuality was a problem with delays caused by late movement, medication dispensing and health care appointments.
  6. Instructors in prison industries did not effectively identify or support prisoners with learning difficulties or development needs in English and mathematics.
  7. Arrangements to manage public protection risks posed by prisoners were not sufficiently robust. The inter-departmental risk management team meeting failed to identify and share information about prisoners who presented the greatest risk before their release.

Return to Liverpool

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

You don't always get what you are entitled to unless you ask properly!

We can introduce you to  experienced  lawyers can help you with parole,  probation,  immigration, adjudications, visits and any other complaints  and disputes you have with the Prison Service.

The solicitors are all experts on how the Prison Service/Criminal Law  system works and will be able to provide to you the necessary advice and support to ensure you or your loved ones are treated fairly. These lawyers are "small enough to care about you, but big enough to fight for you"

and remember the old saying:

" A Man Who Is His Own Lawyer Has A Fool for a Client"

Click here to go to the list of lawyers in your area