Investigaciones a nivel internacional

This chapter describes our findings in the six forces we visited on the recognition and response to risks to detainees on release from custody, and associated multi-agency care planning. We expected to see that pre-release planning for detainees was sufficient to ensure that they were released safely.

Participants in our detainee voice project provided positive examples of police action when detainees were leaving custody such as:

• asking prisoner escort staff to ‘keep an eye’ on the welfare of a detainee who was ‘hearing voices’ when they were transported to prison;

• ensuring children were able to get home safely when they were released from custody. In contrast, we found examples where vulnerable adults were

released without access to suitable transport or accommodation; and

• providing information on the prevention of suicide and self-harm and services offering support to people with substance misuse issues.

However, not everyone who felt they would have benefited from information and guidance received it. Participants believed this was because the police service did not have the resources to offer such support to all detainees. It was also felt that some officers did not see it as part of their role. Some participants suggested that mental health and substance misuse professionals should attend police stations to provide information and refer individuals to community-based provision, as detainees are more likely to take up services if they met with workers in person.

The custody process

The custody officer should check that a detainee is fit to be released from custody, and will be safe following release. A child or woman, for example, should not be released into the night without some safety precautions having been put in place. An assessment of needs should be made in respect of every detainee.

If a detainee is fit to release and can get home safely but is vulnerable, in the longer term, an approach should be made to other relevant organisations such as social services, health or drug and alcohol services for continued support. Details of services that may be available to help the detainee also should be provided for them. The police may need to advise someone of the release of the detainee and pass on any concerns they have about their wellbeing.

In our custody record analysis, 254 of the 322 detainees in the sample were released to their home address. Those who were not released were transferred to court, another police station, prison, secure mental health units, or to an alternative address arranged by social services. It appeared from custody records that pre- release risk assessments (PRRAs) were completed for 294 of the overall sample. Custody record analysis judged that known risks were not identified in 43 of the PRRAs.

There was little evidence to show that custody staff consistently made arrangements for any continuing support for vulnerable people leaving custody, other than giving them leaflets on where to seek further help. When custody staff did seek help from other agencies, it was not always forthcoming. In one example from our custody record analysis, a woman had received a mental health assessment while in custody but was not offered further treatment. Before her release from custody, her partner was contacted who expressed concern about her behaviour and requested help. The police contacted social services twice who declined assistance as the woman was not deemed by them to be vulnerable. As the custody staff saw nothing else they could do, they returned the woman to her home address.

The quality of PRRAs was variable across the forces inspected. The most consistent standard was in North Wales Police where most assessments were thorough and some were very good. The assessments identified vulnerabilities and any referrals or action that needed to be taken. Information was provided on a range of organisations that could offer support, and arrangements were in place for police officers to take released detainees who were vulnerable back to an agreed address. Person escort records were completed to a high standard for all detainees travelling to court. PRRAs were routinely recorded for all children in custody, though it was not always clear that any risks identified during detention had been addressed in the

assessment, for example:

• one child’s PRRA identified no risks but read: 'I have attempted to make contact with his care home on three occasions.’ Nothing further was recorded to say how the child got home; and

• the PRRA of one girl stated that she was being handed into the care of her father who would ensure that she got home safely. However, the girl had earlier told police about a lot of family animosity and had expressed a desire not to return to her family home, and the father had been told he could not act as appropriate adult because of this. No reference to this was made in the PRRA

In one force it was noted in all instances that children were leaving with their appropriate adult or a member of social services but the relationship between the child and the appropriate adult was not always clear, nor was it clear where the child was going.

In one force, in the PRRAs relating to five people brought into police custody under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 there was no reference made to the fact that each detainee had talked about suicide while in custody.

Sometimes no PRRA was completed for detainees leaving custody. In one suite, an intoxicated man who had one month previously slashed his stomach and who had been on constant watch while in custody was released with no PRRA at all, other than the arresting officer being told to drive him home.

There were examples of custody staff being aware that an individual’s offending behaviour may have an impact on themselves and/or the community they live in. In one case the PRRA noted that appropriate support and accommodation would be provided for a detainee who might be targeted because of their offence. In another case, the PRRA noted that the detainee’s offences may have ‘ramifications that will impact’ on the detainee. During their next visit to custody this detainee had a welfare interview and their details were passed on to a support agency.

In one force, six cases on vulnerable detainees were analysed. Of these, none had a PRRA despite the fact that all of the detainees had vulnerabilities that would have required continuing support from or referral to other agencies. In another force it appeared that vulnerable detainees were transferred from police custody to court with no risk assessment, in the knowledge that they might be released from court, regardless of how vulnerable they might be.

The potentially adverse impact of police detention and the extent to which people with vulnerabilities, especially children, understood what would happen next when they left custody was best illustrated by comments from our detainee voice project. Participants who accepted a caution did not always feel they understood the

implications of doing so, especially in relation to employment and travel abroad. In one case this led to the participant losing his job when his caution became known to his employer. Children who were charged with a crime did not always fully

understand the nature of the alleged offence due to the technical language used by officers:

Some children had not been made aware that if they did not comply with their bail conditions they may be arrested and taken to prison before attending court.

“[The police] was like, 'You're bailed on affray.' And I didn't have a clue what affray is. I was like, 'Eh? What?’... I was like, 'Okay, whatever.' I just wanted to get out.”

In another case, a participant with substance misuse problems lost their temporary accommodation after the police prematurely informed the housing agency that they would not be granted bail. This meant they did not have anywhere to live on leaving custody and were at risk of breaching their bail conditions.

Our analysis of custody records showed that the great majority of people in our sample had been in custody before, that is, either they were repeat offenders and/or they were already known to the police as being a risk to themselves or the wider community. As noted above there was some evidence of police custody officers working with other agencies and passing on relevant information but, apart from the work of liaison and diversion services where these existed, we found little evidence of the police working with other agencies, once someone was released, to prevent detention in the future.

However, in Cleveland we found a positive approach to this. An arrest referral team (ART) had recently been set up to provide advice and information to people with vulnerabilities and directed detainees to external services such as food banks, soup kitchens, homelessness services, immigration and mental health support agencies. This had resulted in some good outcomes for detainees. The ART also directs people with drug addiction to a charity that provides accommodation and support. This charity was able to introduce detainees to a programme of alcohol counselling that could lead to the waiving of fixed penalty fines if they participated.

Chapter 8 - Leadership, governance and