Report on an inspection visit to police custody suites in Cumbria

Summary

This report describes our findings following an inspection of Cumbria Constabulary custody facilities. The inspection was conducted jointly by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in January 2023. It is part of our programme of inspections covering every police custody suite in England and Wales.

The inspection assessed the effectiveness of custody services and outcomes for detained people throughout the different stages of detention. It examined the force’s approach to custody provision in relation to detaining people safely and respectfully, with a particular focus on children and vulnerable adults.

To help the force improve, we have made one recommendation to it and its police and crime commissioner. This addresses our main causes of concern.

We have also highlighted a further 13 areas for improvement. These are set out in section 6 of this report.

Leadership, accountability and working with partners

Cumbria Constabulary has clear governance structures providing good oversight for the safe and respectful provision of custody. The force has improved its custody services since our last inspection in 2015.

In the custody suites we saw enough staff on duty to manage custody services safely.

The force generally follows the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), its codes of practice and other legislation. But it doesn’t always do this when it is carrying out reviews to determine if continued detention is necessary. With some exceptions, mainly in how detainee risks are managed, it also follows the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice (APP).

The force monitors comprehensive information about custody at strategic and operational meetings. But some of the information isn’t accurate. This hinders the force’s ability to effectively manage performance in some areas.

The force’s governance and oversight of use of force in custody isn’t good enough, with little improvement since our last inspection. It is a cause of concern. There is some monitoring and review of incidents, but information about how often force is used in custody is inaccurate. Not all staff involved in an incident complete the required use-of-force forms, and incidents aren’t always properly recorded on custody records, and sometimes aren’t recorded at all. Our review of CCTV footage of incidents showed they weren’t always managed well.

The quality of recording on custody records isn’t good enough, and neither is the force’s quality assurance of them.

The force understands its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty. It collects information, for example on arrests and overall detention times, and breaks it down by ethnicity, gender and age to assess whether outcomes for detainees are fair.

There is a clear priority to divert children and vulnerable adults away from custody. The force works well with partner organisations, such as local authorities, to keep children out of the criminal justice system where possible, and to make sure there is support from mental health services to help police officers deal appropriately with people who have mental ill health.

Pre-custody – first point of contact

Frontline officers have a good understanding of what makes someone potentially vulnerable and take account of this when deciding whether arrest is the most appropriate action. They only take children to custody as a last resort. There is good support for children from other policing teams and organisations to find alternative solutions.

There is some good support for frontline officers dealing with incidents involving people with mental ill health. Officers can usually get prompt advice and assistance from mental health professionals to help them decide the best action to take. But when a person is detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, officers often have to wait a long time with them before they can take them to a health-based place of safety.

In the custody suite – booking-in, individual needs and legal rights

Custody staff interact respectfully and courteously with detainees. Privacy for detainees is generally well maintained, and they are usually properly attired when walking around the suite or in interviews. But when detainees’ clothing is removed for safety reasons and they are given safety suits, detainee dignity isn’t maintained because some remain naked in cells.

Custody staff do their best to meet the individual and diverse needs of detainees. There is generally good provision to meet the needs of detainees with disabilities. Staff have a good understanding of neurodiverse conditions. The needs of female detainees are generally met. Detainees can observe their faith in custody. Interpretation services generally work well, but are mainly used for booking in and not for other important custody processes.

The identification and management of detainee risk is generally good. Observation levels for detainees are mostly set correctly and staff carry out checks on time and well. Detainees under the influence of alcohol or drugs are roused appropriately. But there are some weaknesses, and some practices aren’t in line with APP guidance. Custody officers remove footwear and clothing with cords from detainees rather than making an individual risk assessment to decide whether this is necessary. Shift handover briefings aren’t carried out well enough to make sure all staff on duty are aware of the risks posed by each detainee.

Detainees are booked into custody promptly and their detention is appropriately authorised. Custody officers clearly explain to detainees about their rights and entitlements, and generally provide these appropriately. But reviews of detention aren’t always carried out well enough, or in the best interests of the detainee. Not all aspects of them comply with PACE or its codes of practice.

Cases are usually dealt with promptly so that detainees don’t spend longer than necessary in detention. When their investigation can’t be completed while the detainee is in custody, they are appropriately bailed or released under investigation.

In the custody cell, safeguarding and healthcare

The force has four designated custody suites at Barrow, Carlisle, Kendal and Workington. They are clean and well maintained. But there are potential ligature points in all of them.

The approach to detainee care is good. Staff have a caring attitude and detainees we spoke with were positive about the care given to them in custody. Food and drinks are regularly offered and provided, but exercise, showers and reading materials less so.

There is a strong emphasis on safeguarding children and vulnerable detainees, with referrals made to specialist police teams and other agencies. Appropriate adults (AAs) are usually contacted quickly for children and arrive promptly. But this doesn’t always happen for vulnerable adults, who sometimes have a long wait before an AA arrives.

Children are only detained in custody if absolutely necessary, and the force tries to keep them there for the least time possible. They are generally well cared for in custody, with staff paying attention to their particular needs. Few children are charged and remanded, but those who are aren’t moved as they should be, because there is little accommodation available through the local authority.

Detainees are seen promptly and receive clinical assessment and treatment from experienced and competent practitioners. Healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and custody staff work well together. They share relevant information so that detainees can be appropriately cared for. But detainee dignity isn’t always protected well enough during clinical examinations.

The liaison and diversion (L&D) service provides good support to vulnerable detainees. It offers help and makes referrals to other agencies, to give support with, for example, housing, substance misuse and social needs. Detainees needing a mental health act assessment can wait a long time, but there is no information to show how long. Some are detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and transferred from custody to a health-based place of safety.

Release and transfer from custody

Custody officers ask detainees pre-release risk assessment questions and generally make sure they are released safely. But they don’t always consider any risk information from when the detainee entered custody. This means some risks may not be discussed with the detainee prior to their release.

When detainees are remanded, they are generally transferred promptly to the next available court.

Cause of concern and recommendation

Introduction

This report is one in a series of inspections of police custody carried out jointly by HMICFRS and CQC. These inspections are part of the joint work programme of the criminal justice inspectorates and contribute to the UK’s response to its international obligations under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).

The national rolling programme of police custody inspections, which began in 2008, makes sure that custody facilities in all 43 forces in England and Wales are inspected regularly.

OPCAT requires that all places of detention are visited regularly by independent bodies – known as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) – which monitor the treatment of, and conditions for, detainees. HMICFRS and CQC are two of several bodies making up the NPM in the UK.

Our inspections assess how well each police force fulfils its responsibilities when detaining people in police custody, and the outcomes for them. This includes how safely they are managed and how respectfully they are treated.

Our assessments are made against the criteria set out in our Expectations for police custody. These standards are underpinned by international human rights standards and are developed by the two inspectorates. We consult other expert bodies on them across the sector and they are regularly reviewed. This helps to achieve best custodial practice and promote improvements.

The expectations are grouped under five inspection areas:

• leadership, accountability and working with partners;
• pre-custody – first point of contact;
• in the custody suite – booking-in, individual needs and legal rights;
• in the custody cell: safeguarding and healthcare; and
• release and transfer from custody.

The inspections also assess compliance with the PACE 1984, its codes of practice and the College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice – Detention and Custody.

The methodology for carrying out the inspections is based on:

• a review of a force’s strategies, policies and procedures;
• an analysis of force data;
• interviews and focus groups with staff;
• observations in suites, including discussions with detainees; and
• an examination of case records.

We also analyse a representative sample of custody records from all suites in the force area for the week before the inspection starts. For Cumbria Constabulary, we analysed a sample of 100 records. The methodology for our inspection is set out in full at Appendix I.

Section 1. Leadership, accountability and working with partners

Section 1: Expected outcomes

Chief officers have a clear priority to protect the safety and well-being of detainees and to divert vulnerable people away from custody.

Leadership

Cumbria Constabulary has clear governance structures for the safe and respectful provision of custody. An assistant chief constable oversees custody, supported by a superintendent. A chief inspector and two inspectors are responsible for the day-to-day management of the four custody suites, and there is another inspector for policy support.

The force carries out oversight of custody through monthly custody meetings chaired by the chief inspector, with information being passed up to quarterly custody governance board meetings chaired by the superintendent. Custody is also discussed at the monthly operations scrutiny and oversight board meeting, which is chaired by the assistant chief constable. These meetings provide good oversight of custody including areas such as demand, staffing levels and training. The force has improved custody services since our last inspection in 2015.

The force has effective arrangements to oversee and monitor the healthcare service provided by Mountain Healthcare Limited.

Custody services are provided across four suites at Workington, Carlisle, Kendal and Barrow. In three suites there are dedicated custody officers. In Kendal (which isn’t as busy as the other suites) there are sergeants who cover as custody officers, but who are also responsible for duties outside custody.

During our inspection we generally saw enough staff on duty to manage custody services safely. But there are sometimes long waits for detainees to be booked in at Kendal. Detainees also can’t always see an HCP promptly, as the HCPs work across both Kendal and Barrow suites. The force is monitoring how it meets demand at Kendal to make sure outcomes for detainees aren’t adversely affected.

Initial training and ongoing continuing professional development is generally good. The force has a dedicated custody training sergeant. Custody and detention officers have two weeks of initial training that follows the nationally accredited curriculum. All new staff have a period of mentoring before taking up their duties. Continuing professional development is provided once a year. The most recent course covered adverse incident procedures, L&D referrals, effective searching and AAs. Custody staff we spoke with were positive about the training they received.

The force has adopted the College of Policing’s APP and has some local policies. It usually follows APP guidance, but not in all areas and especially not for risk management. For example, cords and laces are often removed without an individualised risk assessment, shift handovers don’t include all staff, and custody officers don’t visit detainees at the start of each shift.

The force generally follows the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), its codes of practice and other legislation. It gives good attention to making sure the PACE Code G necessity for arrest criteria are met before detention is authorised, and detainees are generally given their rights and entitlements in line with PACE Code C.

But some aspects of the force’s reviews of detention don’t meet the requirements of PACE or its codes of practice. We found some cases where reviews were required but didn’t take place (a breach of section 40 of PACE), as well as telephone and sleeping reviews where the requirements of PACE Code C weren’t met.

There is clear guidance for staff on recording and reporting adverse incidents. This has been reinforced in recent training. The force investigates all incidents, and learning is shared with staff and other departments in the force, such as estates management, when needed.

There have been no deaths in Cumbria’s custody suites since our last inspection. One detainee committed suicide after their release in 2022. This matter was referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in line with its guidance.

Accountability

The force has comprehensive data about custody, and monitors performance at the monthly custody meetings. Areas it monitors include:

• the number of detainees entering custody by suite;
• average detention times;
• booking-in times;
• strip searches;
• adverse incidents;
• arrest reasons;
• disposals; and
• use of force.

Any concerns about or trends in performance are considered at the quarterly custody governance and the operations scrutiny and oversight board meetings, and any important matters referred to the strategic force performance board meeting chaired by the deputy chief constable.

But some of the force’s data isn’t accurate. For example, we found incorrect recording of use of force and strip searching, and how often mental health act assessments take place in custody. This hinders the force’s ability to effectively manage performance in some areas, and make improvements.

The force’s governance and oversight of the use of force in custody isn’t good enough. It has shown little improvement since our last inspection. This is a cause of concern.

Cumbria Constabulary can’t effectively scrutinise the use of force in custody and show that it is necessary, justified and proportionate. The monthly custody meeting and the force’s ethics and integrity panel both consider the use of force, but they review few cases relating to custody. Information about how often force is used in custody is inaccurate. Not all staff involved in an incident complete the required use-of-force forms. Incidents aren’t always properly recorded on custody records, and sometimes aren’t recorded at all. Recording practices also make it difficult to know whether force was used during the arrest or in the custody suite.

Quality assurance over incidents is also limited and our review of CCTV footage of incidents showed they weren’t always managed well.

The quality of recording on custody records isn’t good enough. Important information is often missing, such as the justification for the removal of clothing, or when handcuffs are removed. When female detainees are assigned a named officer, it isn’t always clear whether they have been visited or spoken with. Although staff regularly offer detainees food and drink, the custody records don’t show this.

Inspectors quality assure approximately 10 percent of all custody records against a detailed set of indicators. But these arrangements haven’t identified some of the concerns we have found.

The force understands its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty. It has trained custody staff on the Equality Act 2010. The force collects data to help assess whether outcomes for detainees are fair. It breaks down arrests, voluntary attendance, overall detention times and strip searches by ethnicity, gender and age. Recent information suggested some adult male detainees from ethnic minority backgrounds stayed in custody for longer than other detainees. The force is reviewing why this may be. Disproportionality is monitored at the confidence and equality board meetings chaired by the chief constable, and at the quarterly custody governance meeting.

The force is open to external scrutiny from the independent custody visitor scheme (ICV). ICVs visit each suite once a week. They speak with staff and any detainees held at the time. Staff generally deal with any issues raised straight away. The scheme manager is invited to custody performance meetings and can raise any issues that need more oversight there.

Working with partners

There is a clear priority to divert children and vulnerable adults away from custody. The force works well with the local authorities, health services and other organisations to achieve this.

The force and its partners have a strong commitment to work together to keep children out of custody and from entering the criminal justice system. There are operational arrangements aimed at achieving this. Child-centred policing teams work with youth offending services to support children during and after custody, to address the causes of any offending and make sure they are dealt with in the best way.

The force has a well-established programme funded by the police and crime commissioner to try and keep vulnerable adults out of custody and away from the criminal justice system. The programme offers deferred prosecution for those who attend courses that offer peer support and help with access to housing, medical and mental health services. The force is monitoring the effectiveness of the programme, and has found it is working well. We were told there had been 538 referrals in 18 months. Of those referred, 75 percent completed a full course, and 94 percent of them haven’t reoffended since.

The force works well with its mental health service partners to help police officers deal appropriately with people who have mental ill health.

Section 2. Pre-custody – first point of contact

Section 2: Expected outcomes

Police officers and staff actively consider alternatives to custody. They effectively identify vulnerabilities that may increase individuals’ risk of harm. They divert children and vulnerable adults away from custody when detention may not be appropriate.

Assessment and diversion at first point of contact

Frontline officers have a good understanding of what makes someone potentially vulnerable. They consider factors such as age, learning difficulties, substance misuse and mental ill health when deciding whether arrest is the most appropriate action.

The force provides regular training, which includes recognising and understanding vulnerabilities. Recent training has covered safeguarding and neurodiversity. Staff we spoke with were positive about the training they had received and said they felt it helped them carry out their roles.

The officers we spoke with were generally satisfied with the quality of information they receive from call handlers in the force control room when attending incidents. Call handlers pass on any information they receive about individuals during the call, or information that is available on the police IT system, such as information regarding the person’s mental health. Officers also use their own laptops to get information if needed and if they have time to do so.

Children are only arrested as a last resort. Officers divert children away from custody where possible. When considering the arrest of a child, officers must call the duty inspector for advice and discuss if the arrest is necessary.

Officers use a range of options to divert children from custody. These include arranging voluntary attendance interviews or community resolutions.

Officers told us they also seek advice and assistance from the force’s child-centred policing team and the local authority’s youth offending team. These teams support children to address the causes of their offending behaviour and try to keep them out of the criminal justice system.

There is some good support for frontline officers dealing with incidents involving people with mental ill health. Officers told us they can call and speak with mental health professionals through a single point of access telephone line. They said calls are usually answered promptly. The advice and assistance offered – which includes a mental health professional sometimes speaking to the person involved – helps them decide the best action to take.

In the north of the force area, additional support is available through the mental health triage scheme. This support is available every day between 3pm and 1am. A police officer and a mental health professional work from a police car. They give advice and assistance to officers. They also attend incidents to deal with the person involved, if needed.

Officers spoke highly of this service to us. In their view, it results in fewer people being detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 because the mental health professionals find alternative appropriate health solutions, for example, making appointments for the person to see their GP.

Officers told us of long waits while trying to find a place of safety to take people detained under section 136. Officers telephone a central hub, which looks for available bed spaces in the places of safety, both in Cumbria and wider across the region. But beds aren’t usually readily available, so officers are left waiting with the detained person at the scene or at the local hospital.

People with suspected mental ill health who have committed an offence are usually arrested and taken to custody. The healthcare service in custody assesses any mental health concerns and, if necessary, arranges for a mental health act assessment in custody under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Officers continue investigating the offence while they wait for the result of any assessment. If an assessment can’t be carried out in custody within a reasonable time, the person is detained under section 136 and transferred to a place of safety.

Frontline officers told us that they only arrest in these circumstances if the necessity for arrest is met, as required by PACE Code G. But in some of the cases we examined involving detainees with mental ill health, we found it would have been more appropriate to have detained the person under section 136 at the time of the incident, avoiding custody and the subsequent section 136 decision.

Frontline officers normally transfer detainees in police vehicles. There are no arrangements for detainees with mobility or other needs, but officers said they use their common sense to make any arrangements. Ambulances are called to take section 136 detainees to places of safety. Officers told us there is an arrangement with the ambulance service, and waits aren’t usually too long. Inspectors can authorise use of a police vehicle if this is needed.

Section 3. In the custody suite – booking‑in, individual needs and legal rights

Section 3: Expected outcomes

Detainees are treated respectfully in the custody suite and their individual needs are identified and met. Detainees’ risks are identified at the earliest opportunity and managed effectively. Detention is appropriately authorised. Detainees are informed of their legal rights and can freely exercise these rights while in custody.

Respect

Custody staff interact respectfully and courteously with detainees. We saw custody staff using their first names to address them, speaking patiently, and adopting a re-assuring manner with them.

Privacy for detainees is generally well maintained. There are privacy barriers between custody booking-in desks, although conversations with detainees can be heard across the suite, especially at busy times or when more than one person is being booked in. Custody officers routinely offer detainees the opportunity to speak to a member of staff in private during booking in.

All cells are covered by CCTV, and there are notices in the suites saying this. But staff don’t always tell detainees about it, or that the toilet area is obscured from the cameras. The CCTV monitors can only be seen by custody staff, except in one suite.

Not all the shower areas offer detainees enough privacy. Privacy at the Carlisle and Workington suites isn’t good enough, but it is reasonable at Kendal and Barrow.

Detainees are given suitable replacement clothing if their own is removed. They are generally properly attired when walking around the suite or in interviews. But when staff remove detainees’ clothing for safety reasons and give them safety suits, detainee dignity isn’t maintained because some remain naked in cells.

Meeting diverse and individual needs

Custody staff understand the individual needs of detainees with protected characteristics or from minority groups, and how to meet them. They generally do their best to achieve this.

Only one suite has step-free access to the exercise yard, but other than this the suites generally have good facilities to meet the needs of detainees with disabilities.

• All suites have wheelchairs in good condition.
• Additional thick mattresses are available at all suites.
• All suites other than Workington have sight lines on the cell walls (markings to help visually impaired people judge the positioning of walls and obstructions), and all have rights and entitlements available in Braille.
• All suites have hearing loops, although not all staff know how to use these.

Staff showed a reasonable knowledge of neurodiverse conditions. Ways to adjust lighting in the suites to help detainees with light sensitivities are currently being explored.

Among the staff we spoke with, there was good awareness of how transgender detainees should be treated.

We saw staff asking detainees if they had any caring responsibilities so that interim arrangements could be made while they were in custody.

There are a range of religious items in the suites so that detainees can observe their faith in custody. These are stored appropriately. There are Qibla compass directional markings in the cells. But staff knowledge of religious practices is limited, and there is no written guidance to help staff to, for example, understand how to handle religious items respectfully.

The needs of female detainees are generally met. Women are offered female hygiene products on booking in. Staff told us women and girls are also assigned female officers, but it wasn’t clear from the custody records we looked at that this routinely happened.

Interpretation services to help for detainees who speak little, or no, English generally work well. But this service isn’t used for all custody processes, such as reviews of detention or when releasing detainees. Three of the four suites use a loudspeaker on the custody desk when interpreters are needed, which means that conversations aren’t private. The suite in Workington has a three-way phone, but this appears to be rarely used.

Risk assessments

The identification and management of detainee risk is generally good. But there are some weaknesses, and some practices aren’t in line with APP guidance. This means the force can’t ensure the safety of all detainees.

Most detainees are booked into the custody suites promptly. Custody officers told us when queues occur these are managed, and they prioritise booking in children and vulnerable adults.

Custody officers determine risks, vulnerability factors and welfare concerns well. They ask detainees relevant supplementary and probing questions when needed. They check police computer systems for previous instances when detainees have been in custody and for any other information about any risks. But custody officers don’t ask arresting or escorting officers if they have any information relevant to the detainee to help manage their risks. Instead, they rely on the arresting or escorting officers to raise any concerns they may have.

Observation levels for detainees are mostly set correctly reflecting the risks presented. There are aide-mémoire cards at the custody suites to remind staff of the requirements for each observation level. Custody officers periodically review the observation levels and change them if needed, recording the reasons why.

When a detainee is under the influence of alcohol or other substances, they are appropriately placed on level 2 observations. They are roused in line with APP guidance in the right way, at the required frequency and by the same member of custody staff (as much as possible), making it easier to establish any changes in the detainee’s behaviour or condition. These observations are generally well recorded on the custody record.

When detainees are placed on level 1 checks (which don’t involve rousing a detainee), these are carried out on time and appropriately through an open hatch. The same member of staff also usually does this.

Where the risk is identified as high, detainees are placed on level 4 close proximity observations. The officers responsible for carrying out these observations are briefed by the custody officer about the specific risks the detainee presents. But the officers don’t keep a log of their observations. We were told they keep a note in their pocket notebooks, but this isn’t recorded in the custody record.

Rather than making an individual risk assessment in line with APP guidance, custody officers remove footwear and clothing with cords from detainees regardless of the risks presented. The justification for this removal isn’t clear in the custody record. When anti-rip clothing is used to manage detainees at risk of self-harm, it isn’t always clear or justified why this was needed to manage the risks posed. This was raised in our last inspection.

Not all staff on duty are aware of the risks posed by each detainee. When the custody staff shifts change, the handover briefings aren’t carried out with all the staff on duty, which should include HCPs and L&D staff when available. This means information about detainee risk isn’t effectively shared. Incoming custody officers don’t routinely walk around the custody suite and visit each detainee. This hasn’t improved enough since our last inspection.

Risk information about detainees from the handover briefing is recorded in different ways at the different suites. This means some information may not be shared.

Cell call bells are audible and answered promptly on the intercom system. All staff carry anti-ligature knives as required by APP. We had some concerns over the management of cell keys, but after raising this with the force improvements were made during our inspection, with custody staff taking better control of the keys.

Individual legal rights – detention

Detainees are booked into custody promptly. Most are taken straight to the desk on arrival. There are sometimes delays when more than one person is waiting.

Detention is appropriately authorised. Arresting officers provide the circumstances of the arrest well. But the grounds for the necessity for detention as required by PACE Code G aren’t always explained well enough. Custody officers sometimes need to ask more questions to get enough information to decide whether to authorise detention.

The force increasingly uses voluntary attendance interviews as an alternative to arrest. But these interviews are conducted in custody because there are no other interviewing facilities available, and attendees are treated as though they are detainees. For example, they are brought to the custody desk for their risk assessment. This defeats the aim of voluntary attendance as a way of keeping people away from the custody environment.

Detainees don’t generally spend longer than necessary in detention. Regular communication between custody, investigation teams and response officers means cases are usually dealt with as quickly as possible. Occasionally there are delays, mainly due to waits for AAs, solicitors or interpreters.

When investigations can’t be completed during the first period of detention, detainees are bailed or released under investigation. We saw bail appropriately authorised, and any bail conditions or restrictions commensurate to the offences under investigation.

The force deals with few immigration detainees. The force doesn’t know how long immigration detainees spend in custody before they are transferred to immigration detention facilities, but custody staff told us there are good working relationships with immigration services to get them moved.

Individual legal rights – detainees’ rights and entitlements

Custody officers clearly explain to detainees their rights and entitlements while in custody. They give the detainees a rights and entitlements leaflet setting this information out. But they don’t always offer the PACE Code C booklet, despite having enough of these to do so. Instead, they give detainees an abridged copy of the booklet. This doesn’t meet the requirements of PACE Code C 3.1a.

There are copies of the easy-read version of rights and entitlements for children and those who need help in understanding their rights. These are given out when needed.

There are enough interview and consultation rooms for detainees to consult their legal representatives in private. Those wishing to speak to their legal representatives on the telephone can also do so privately. Legal representatives can view a copy of their client’s custody record on request.

When a detainee declines free legal advice, we expect custody officers to try to understand the reasons for this. We saw some custody and detention officers do this. They also reminded detainees that legal advice is free of charge, and they could change their mind and ask for it at any time.

We also expect legal representatives to be encouraged to represent detainees in person. We saw legal representatives attending in person. Custody officers told us this was usual.

Posters in different languages advertising the right to free legal advice are prominently displayed in all suites.

When detainees are held incommunicado (delaying their right to have someone informed of their arrest) this is appropriately authorised and then removed when no longer required.

The custody officers we spoke with were aware of the requirements of PACE Code C Annex M (detainees should receive documents and records on important information about custody processes in a language they can understand). They know where the translated documents are on the force’s computer system, and we saw them routinely given out.

Detainees who are foreign nationals have the right to speak to somebody at their country’s embassy, consulate or high commission at any time. Custody officers arrange this if requested. When custody officers are required to notify these bodies because an agreement exists with the relevant country, this also happens.

We saw detention officers taking DNA samples and explaining to detainees about the retention and disposal of these. There are also posters explaining this in the process rooms and, in some suites, in the booking-in areas. DNA is stored in locked freezers and regularly collected.

Reviews of detention

Reviews of detention don’t always comply with the requirements of PACE or its codes of practice. They aren’t always carried out well enough, or in the best interests of the detainee.

Most reviews are carried out on time. We found some that were early or late, but with little explanation as to why this was. In a few cases, no review took place. This is a breach of section 40 of PACE.

Reviewing officers don’t attend and conduct reviews in person if they are based at another station. Instead, they do them by telephone. But they don’t record why this is necessary, or how they have considered the needs of the person and any vulnerabilities they may have. This doesn’t meet the requirements of PACE Code C paragraph 15.14.

Some reviews take place while the detainee is asleep, but outside recognised rest periods. We found some reviews carried out during the day, when the detainee should have been woken and spoken to. In some cases, the custody record showed the detainee was awake either immediately before or after the review, suggesting they could have been spoken to.

When reviews are carried out while detainees are asleep, the detainees aren’t routinely reminded of this at the earliest opportunity. This is required by PACE Code C paragraph 15.7.

But we saw some good reviews. Detainees were spoken to courteously, and sufficient care was given to their well-being, with staff checking whether they had been given enough food and drink or had any other needs.

Recording of reviews is generally poor. We saw custody records where a template was used without including important details about the content of the review. But we found better attention paid to, and better recording of, reviews of children.

Complaints

Notices outlining the procedure to make complaints are prominently displayed in the custody suites for detainees to see.

Custody staff we spoke with were aware of the complaints procedure and knew what to do if a detainee made a complaint. In the two cases we saw where a detainee said they wished to complain, the complainant was seen by an inspector in one case, but told to ring 101 in the other.

None of the custody suites had IOPC leaflets with contact details explaining how a complaint can be made to it. We were told the inspectors should give these to detainees. If they don’t, detainees may not be aware that they can make a complaint to the IOPC.

Section 4. In the custody cell, safeguarding and healthcare

Section 4: Expected outcomes

Detainees are held in a safe and clean environment, which protects their safety during custody. If force is used on a detainee this is as a last resort. Their care needs are met, and children and vulnerable adults are protected from harm. They have their physical and mental health, and any substance misuse, needs met.

Physical environment

The force has four designated suites at Barrow, Carlisle, Kendal and Workington.

There are potential ligature points in all four suites. In the cells these are mainly due to the design of the toilets, but there are also some in the exercise yards and communal showers. During our inspection we gave the force a comprehensive illustrative report detailing our findings, as well as the physical conditions in the suites more generally. The force acted quickly in response to the report, and developed a plan to address our concerns.

The ventilation and temperature in the suites and individual cells are satisfactory. All cells have some natural light, toilets, sinks for handwashing and signs advising detainees that the water isn’t suitable for drinking.

The general cleanliness across the suites is good. Staff told us repairs are mostly completed quickly. There was little graffiti, and where there was it was mainly in the exercise yards. One cell had some graffiti on the wall.

There is only one discrete booking-in area, which is at Barrow. All suites have at least one glass-fronted cell to help detainees who experience claustrophobia.

CCTV operates in the suites. There are signs telling detainees about this. Toilets in all cells are appropriately pixelated. But the quality of the footage in some suites is poor, and there is no audio coverage in some areas of the suites.

The CCTV monitors in all the suites except Carlisle are appropriately positioned so they can only be seen by custody staff, and not detainees or others in the custody area.

Officers carrying out level 3 CCTV observations of detainees sit in the custody desk area, as there are no separate rooms they can use. This means they can become distracted from these duties when the custody suite is busy.

Custody staff carry out and record daily checks of the suite to inspect conditions, but not all weekly, monthly and quarterly checks are completed as required by APP.

Generally, there is a good understanding of emergency evacuation procedures. Staff we spoke with had had recent fire safety training. But not all staff have been involved in a practical fire evacuation of a custody suite. Fire evacuation boxes are in all suites. There were sufficient handcuffs and other equipment to manage an evacuation at all the suites except Carlisle – but this was rectified during our inspection.

Use of force

When force is used in custody it isn’t always recorded, or recorded in enough detail, and some incidents aren’t managed well. This makes it difficult for Cumbria Constabulary to show that when force is used in custody it is necessary, justified and proportionate. This is a cause of concern.

We reviewed 28 cases of use of force on CCTV. When force was used, in most cases it was proportionate to the risk or threat posed. We also saw some good communication and negotiation by officers de-escalating situations well and avoiding the need to use force.

But incidents weren’t always managed well, and custody officers didn’t always oversee and direct the use of force well enough.

Restraint techniques weren’t always deployed correctly and sometimes officers failed to appropriately control the situation. This resulted in the incident escalating and further force being used. This in turn increased the risk of injury to the detainee and the officers involved.

In some of the cases we reviewed, force was used to remove a detainee’s clothing or other items. It wasn’t always clear, from either custody records or our observations on CCTV, that the removal was necessary and justified. In our view, using force in these cases could potentially have been avoided. Officers also didn’t always maintain the detainee’s dignity well when removing the clothing.

We referred six cases to Cumbria Constabulary for learning. Five of them involve the use of techniques that, in our opinion, could have resulted in injury to the detainee. One case recorded that the detainee suffered a potential arm fracture, but it is unclear when or how this was sustained. We have also referred the case of a child where we have concerns about the length of time restraints were used and whether the custody suite was the most appropriate place for the detainee.

Officers who use force on detainees in custody don’t always submit individual use-of-force forms as required by National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance – despite notices clearly displayed in custody suites reminding them to do so. We asked for use-of-force forms for the incidents we reviewed, but received no forms for some cases. In many of the other cases, we didn’t receive all the forms we were expecting.

Use-of-force incidents aren’t always included on the custody record. When force is recorded, the details are sometimes limited.

Designated sergeants review a sample of use-of-force incidents to quality assure and learn from them. They examine the custody record, CCTV and, if available, body-worn video footage. But they only review incidents where use-of-force forms have been submitted, so some incidents don’t form part of the sample. The quality assurance hasn’t identified some of the concerns we are raising.

Handcuffs aren’t always removed quickly enough from compliant detainees. The reasons why handcuffs are used is usually recorded, but the time they are removed isn’t.

We found that the necessity and justification for a strip search isn’t always clearly recorded on custody records. Strip searches are generally managed well, but the dignity of the detainee isn’t always considered. In a few cases we found staff had incorrectly recorded that a strip search had been authorised when in fact the detainee’s clothing had been removed and replaced with a safety suit.

Most custody officers and all custody detention officers are up to date with their officer safety training. Training is planned for those that aren’t.

Detainee care

The approach to detainee care is good. Staff have a caring attitude and the detainees we spoke with were positive about the care given to them in custody. Custody staff tell detainees about their entitlement to food and drink, showers, exercise and reading materials upon booking in.

The range of food and drink is good and meets most dietary requirements. Hot drinks including tea, coffee and hot chocolate are regularly offered and given, as is food including microwave meals, cereal bars and porridge. All reasonable dietary needs are catered for. Guidance regarding ingredients is displayed in the kitchen.

Distraction materials such as foam balls, tennis balls and colouring books are available. We saw some detainees benefiting from these.

There is a good range of adult and children’s books and magazines in the suites. With the exception of the Carlisle suite, there are also foreign language books in Bengali, Hindi, Gujarati, Urdu and Polish available. But we didn’t see these routinely given out.

Showers are rarely offered to detainees. All suites have shaving facilities including safety razors, but staff told us they are rarely, if ever, used. There is a range of sanitary products for female detainees, but the suite in Barrow had a low supply of these.

Detainees are given toilet paper in their cells. Small boxes of toilet paper are left by the toilet, with reserves kept on the cell corridor. This is positive and not something we normally see.

Exercise is offered depending on how busy the suite is. But Kendal is the only suite with cover for inclement weather. Detainees in the exercise yard are monitored on CCTV.

There is a good supply of replacement clothing, including underwear and footwear, for detainees that need it. These are available in different sizes.

All cells are equipped with a mattress and a pillow, although the condition of the mattresses across the custody estate is generally poor. The cleaners’ policy of folding thin mattresses when they have cleaned the cells has damaged the mattresses’ structure, so they offer little support to detainees.

The force uses safety blankets for all detainees, which offer little warmth. Staff told us they often give detainees two or three of them for additional warmth. The suite at Barrow also has warmer blankets for detainees, but these aren’t usually given out. This isn’t a satisfactory way to keep detainees warm.

Safeguarding children and vulnerable people

There is a strong emphasis on safeguarding individuals, particularly children, who enter custody. Custody staff’s awareness and understanding of the importance of safeguarding are raised through initial and ongoing training. The training covers recognising different vulnerabilities and how to manage them, and recent topics have included neurodiversity, and the roles of AAs and of L&D. Custody managers also frequently highlight these important topics through staff online chats, to keep them at the forefront of people’s approach when working in custody.

Children in custody are suitably safeguarded. It is expected that safeguarding referrals are completed for every child, setting out the circumstances of their arrest and identifying any vulnerabilities. These are forwarded to the force’s child-centred policing team and local children’s services. The force monitors completion of referrals. In the cases we examined they had been completed.

Every child in custody is seen by an HCP and an L&D worker. The child-centred policing team reviews every detained child’s case to scrutinise why they are in custody and recommend how they could best be dealt with. These arrangements provide an additional layer of safeguarding for children and help to keep children out of the criminal justice system where possible.

Female staff members are assigned to girls in custody as required by the Children and Young Person’s Act 1933. Force policy sets out how this should happen: a named staff member is assigned and speaks to the girl whose welfare they are responsible for. But custody records don’t always record this clearly. Also, frontline officers are sometimes assigned to these ‘carer’ roles. This makes it more difficult for detainees to have easy access to their assigned officer. Other vulnerable detainees, such as boys or women, are also sometimes assigned a named officer to support them, and we saw some good examples of this happening.

We saw some good examples of children released from custody safely and to the care of a responsible adult. But in the custody records we examined it wasn’t always clear where or who they were released to. Knowing this information is particularly important when it isn’t suitable for children to return to their home or family environment.

Appropriate adults

The force has improved AA support for children in custody. Force policy expects AAs to be contacted early and asked to attend custody as soon as possible. We saw this happening and found some good examples in the cases we examined, with AAs generally arriving promptly.

But AA support for vulnerable adults isn’t as good. The force expects early requests to be made, but we found this didn’t always happen. Some detainees waited a long time for an AA to attend, and often they didn’t arrive until the time of the interview, which could be several hours into detention. We also found some cases where information about vulnerability or comprehension concerns suggested an AA should have been considered but this wasn’t pursued.

Custody staff arrange for AAs to attend, although arresting officers sometimes do this at the time of the arrest. Friends and family are sought in the first instance unless they are connected to the case. Where they can’t attend youth offender service teams provide AAs for children during the day and the AA scheme Child Action NorthWest provides them out-of-hours. For vulnerable adults, Child Action NorthWest provides 24-hour support.

The force monitors and reviews how well the AA arrangements work. Custody managers check how quickly AA requests are made and the time it takes for them to attend. Custody managers have identified some concerns about out-of-hours and weekend provision. The force is working with other organisations to make improvements.

Children

Children are only detained in custody if absolutely necessary. They are kept there for the least time possible. Arrests are only made with the approval of a duty inspector, after other alternatives have been considered. They are usually booked into custody quickly, and prioritised if needed. Any reviews of a child’s detention pay particular attention to the necessity for continued detention.

Custody officers make sure cases are dealt with as soon as possible. If they can’t be dealt with quickly, officers release children under investigation or on bail, if appropriate. We found some good examples of this happening, including a boy bailed to return for interview the following morning because an AA couldn’t attend custody soon enough that night. The force monitors the average time children spend in custody to find ways of reducing it.

Children are generally well cared for in custody. They have designated cells away from adult detainees. They are given easy-read rights and entitlements, and a child-friendly leaflet explaining about the custody and investigation process to help them better understand what will happen. Distraction items including puzzles, colouring books, tennis balls and foam footballs are available to help children cope better. We saw some instances where these were used.

Custody managers told us that although space is limited, custody staff try to let children spend time out of their cell. We saw a good example of this at Barrow, where a child stayed with their AA at the desk area waiting to be released.

The force has good governance over how children in custody are dealt with. Every child is discussed at the force’s daily meetings, which have chief officer representation. Custody managers examine child cases as part of their quality assurance processes. A scrutiny panel, chaired by the force but attended by other agencies such as health and children’s services, also examines children brought into custody. It reviews individual cases and identifies any trends – although at the time of our inspection this panel hadn’t met recently.

The numbers of children charged and remanded into custody in Cumbria are low (there were 6 in all of 2022 according to data the force gave us). But the arrangements with the local authority to provide alternative accommodation aren’t working well enough. None of the six children were moved either to secure or appropriate accommodation.

In our reviews of cases of children held in custody overnight, we found little detail in custody records or completed juvenile detention certificates of any proactive efforts or escalation by the force to try and secure accommodation for the child. The force told us it planned to increase its work with local authority partners to try to improve the position regarding alternative accommodation for children.

Healthcare

Mountain Healthcare Limited provides physical healthcare support to detainees. HCPs are based in all custody suites, with 24-hour cover in 3 of the 4 suites. The team is fully staffed, with additional bank staff to provide cover for absences. The contract is well monitored by the force through regular performance and contract meetings.

Lancashire and South Cumbria NHS Foundation Trust (LSCFT) provides L&D services at all four custody suites. NHS England commissions L&D services and monitors the contract alongside the force.

There is good joint working between the force and its health partners. There are strong governance arrangements to monitor the safety and quality of care given to detainees. Mountain Healthcare Limited and LSCFT share information with the force to show how well they perform their contractual obligations. This includes data on how quickly HCPs see detainees.

Governance systems also include regular audits to improve the quality and safety of care given. These audits cover, for example, infection control, medicines and record keeping.

There are appropriate information-sharing agreements between health partners and the force. This allows certain information about the health of detainees to be shared with the force so they can be safely cared for.

Healthcare and L&D staff receive relevant training and annual appraisals of their performance. They receive an appropriate level of safeguarding training to help them recognise and manage detainees’ vulnerabilities. All staff have access to regular managerial and clinical supervision. Staff we spoke with told us they feel well supported in their roles.

Medical rooms in each custody suite meet infection control guidelines and are well-equipped. Cleaning takes place daily, and temperatures are monitored to make sure the integrity of medicines stored in the room is maintained. Emergency equipment, including oxygen, is available in each room and checked daily by clinical staff. All of the suites have automated external defibrillators readily available.

Healthcare staff arrange interpreters for detainees whose first language isn’t English.

Both health providers report incidents on their online systems. Healthcare managers investigate these incidents. Learning is shared with staff during team meetings, supervision forums and daily briefings. The force and commissioners have oversight of incidents to make sure trends are monitored and changes made to improve services as needed.

Both health providers have a confidential complaints process which is advertised to detainees through posters displayed in custody suites and medical rooms. Neither provider has received any complaints since taking over the contract in April 2022.

Physical health

Detainees receive prompt clinical assessment and treatment from experienced and competent practitioners. Staff we spoke with were passionate and caring about their role in helping detainees, and custody staff were positive about the interactions they had with HCPs.

HCPs individually risk assess whether to see a detainee in a private room with the door closed, or whether it would be safer to have a custody staff member close by. But clinical examinations don’t protect detainee’s dignity enough. There are privacy screens in some custody suites, but staff told us these aren’t used.

HCPs request consent from detainees to carry out assessments of:

• physical and mental health (including their mental capacity);
• substance misuse;
• social care; and
• safeguarding.

Assessments and healthcare interventions are recorded on Mountain Healthcare Limited’s electronic system. Health staff also record a summary of the interventions on the custody record so that custody staff are aware of detainees’ healthcare needs.

Mental health

NHS England commission the L&D service to support detainees with any vulnerabilities. This includes mental health, but also wider support with, for example, housing, substance misuse and social needs. The L&D teams cover the 4 custody suites 7 days a week, from 8am to 8pm on weekdays and with reduced hours at weekends.

There is a good skill mix in the L&D team, which includes a speech and language therapist and a dedicated children’s practitioner in each custody suite.

Custody officers refer detainees for assessment to a central referral point, or orally to L&D staff in the suite. L&D assessments are carried out promptly once referrals are received from custody staff. The team also monitors detainees coming to custody to identify people who might need its support.

The L&D community engagement workers identify detainees who may benefit from additional support on release from custody. They work closely with many community services so that detainees can access the help they need, and also offer support from peer mentors.

L&D practitioners work closely with custody staff. There are good working relationships between them.

Clinical records are held on the LSCFT’s electronic system. Like the HCPs, L&D staff record a summary on the custody record so there is a joint approach to detainees’ care, and so custody staff are aware of any concerns or plans put in place by the L&D team.

In South Cumbria, L&D staff access community mental health records on a read-only basis, as they are part of the same NHS Trust. But in North Cumbria, community mental health services are provided by a different trust. This means L&D staff can’t access their community mental health records. Although staff can telephone for information, this isn’t always given promptly or in time to help the detainees while they are in custody. This also means risk information about the detainee isn’t shared promptly enough, which poses potential risks to L&D staff.

Custody isn’t used as a place of safety under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. But custody staff use section 136 to move detainees with suspected acute mental health problems from custody to a health-based place of safety. This is usually because of delays in advanced mental health practitioners attending custody to carry out a mental health assessment.

If, after the mental health assessment, the advanced mental health practitioner determines detention is needed, there are also often delays while detainees wait for a bed to become available in a mental health facility. There is no information to show how many assessments are carried out, how long detainees wait for assessment, or how long they wait for any subsequent transfer.

Police officers have access to a 24-hour single-point-of-access telephone line to get advice and information from mental health professionals. They can use this to help them decide the best action to take when dealing with an incident involving someone with mental ill health. Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust also provides a street triage service seven days a week in North Cumbria. This is available between 3pm and 1am. As well as providing advice, the triage team also attends incidents to deal with people directly. But this service isn’t available in South Cumbria, as LCSFT don’t have enough mental health staff to offer it.

Substance misuse

HCPs assess and give treatment to detainees who are withdrawing from drugs and alcohol while in custody. HCPs use nationally recognised clinical tools to inform their decision-making and monitor detainees’ treatment needs while in custody. Staff administer medicines to relieve symptoms of withdrawal, as clinically indicated.

Where detainees are already in treatment in the community, Mountain Healthcare Limited’s policy doesn’t allow HCPs to continue their opiate substitute treatment while they are in custody. HCPs are only able to offer detainees symptomatic relief. This potentially puts detainees at risk when they leave custody.

There is no dedicated substance misuse service in the custody suites. L&D and community engagement workers refer any detainees who need support from drug and alcohol services to community teams, which can support them in attending their first appointment.

Medicines management

Staff provide interventions and treatment suitable for detainees in line with national guidance and best practice. The service has patient group directions to support staff with decision-making on health issues such as asthma, pain, and acute withdrawal from alcohol and drugs.

Neither custody staff nor the health provider offer nicotine replacement therapy to detainees, which is a poor outcome for them.

There are good governance arrangements to manage medicines safely and effectively. Medicines, including controlled drugs, are stored safely and are subject to daily audits and stock checks. Custody staff store detainees’ own labelled medicines securely in the detainees’ property lockers, and HCPs assess detainees before administering them any of their own medicines.

Staff report medicine errors through the electronic reporting system and investigate these promptly.

Staff make provision for detainees’ own medicines to be sent with them to court.

Section 5. Release and transfer from custody

Section 5: Expected outcomes

Detainees are released or transferred from custody safely. Those due to appear in court in person or by video do so promptly.

Safe release and transfer arrangements

Custody officers generally make sure detainees are released safely from custody. They ask the detainees a set of pre-release questions. But these aren’t always cross-referenced with the initial risk assessment that is carried out when detainees arrive in custody. This means some risks may not be considered or discussed with the detainee prior to their release.

There is some assistance to help detainees get home safely, particularly for children or those who are vulnerable. There is petty cash to help those who don’t have the funds or the means to get home. But it isn’t always clearly recorded what the transport arrangements are.

Custody officers give detainees who are bailed a good explanation about what this means, and of any conditions the detainees must comply with. They also clearly explain to those released under investigation the possible offences they may commit if they interfere with victims or witnesses while the investigation is ongoing. But they don’t give the detainees any paperwork to reinforce this.

A booklet containing details of different support organisations is offered to detainees when they are released.

Detention officers complete person escort records (both digital and handwritten). We found they record any risks, health and medical information about detainees well. But the custody officer responsible for releasing the detainee doesn’t always check or sign off these forms, as required by APP guidance.

Courts

When detainees are remanded, they are generally transferred promptly to the next available court. Detainees mostly appear before the local court in person. If this isn’t possible, the booking-in area is used with a video link to the court. There is no specific virtual court facility, so when this happens the whole booking-in area is closed.

Custody staff ask the relevant courts if they will accept detainees who have been arrested or remanded after the morning collection by the escort agency, so that they don’t spend longer than necessary in police custody. If the courts accept them, police officers usually take them there promptly. But there are no agreed time frames with the courts.

Section 6. Summary of causes of concern, recommendations and areas for improvement

Causes of concern and recommendations

Areas for improvement

Leadership, accountability and partnerships

In the custody suite – booking-in, individual needs and legal rights

In the custody cell, safeguarding and healthcare

Release and transfer from custody

Section 7. Appendices

Appendix I – Methodology

Police custody inspections focus on the experience of, and outcomes for, detainees from their first point of contact with the police and throughout their time in custody to their release. We visit the force over two weeks. Our methodology includes the following elements, which inform our assessments against the criteria set out in our Expectations for police custody.

Document review

Forces are asked to provide various important documents for us to review. These include:

• the custody policy and/or any supporting policies, such as the use of force;
• health provision policies;
• joint protocols with local authorities;
• staff training information, including officer safety training;
• minutes of any strategic and operational meetings for custody;
• partnership meeting minutes;
• equality action plans;
• complaints relating to custody in the six months before the inspection; and
• performance management information.

We also request important documents, including performance data, from commissioners and providers of health services in the custody suites and providers of in-reach health services in custody suites, such as crisis mental health and substance misuse services.

Data review

Forces are asked to complete a data collection template based on police custody data for the previous 36 months. The template requests a range of information, including:

• custody population and throughput;
• the number of voluntary attendees;
• the average time in detention;
• children; and
• detainees with mental health problems.

This information is analysed and used to provide background information and to help assess how well the force performs against some main areas of activity.

Custody record analysis

We analyse a sample of custody records drawn from all detainees entering custody over a one-week period prior to the start of our inspection. The records are stratified to reflect throughput at each custody suite and are then picked at random. Our analysis focuses on the legal rights, treatment and needs of the detainee.

Case audits

We audit around 40 case records in detail (the number may increase depending on the size and throughput of the force inspected). We do this to assess how well the force manages vulnerable detainees and specific elements of the custody process. These include examining records for children, individuals with mental health problems, those under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and where force has been used on a detainee.

Our audits examine a range of factors to assess how well detainees are treated and cared for in custody. Audits examine, for example, the quality of risk assessments, whether observation levels are met, the quality and timing of PACE reviews, whether children and vulnerable adults get support from appropriate adults when they need it, and whether detainees are released safely. We also assess whether force used against a detainee is proportionate and justified, and is properly recorded.

Observations in custody suites

Inspectors spend a significant amount of their time during the inspection in custody suites assessing their physical conditions, observing operational practices, and assessing how detainees are treated. We speak directly to operational custody officers and staff, and to detainees to hear their experience first-hand. We also speak to other non-custody police officers, solicitors, health professionals and other visitors to custody to get their views on how custody services operate. We examine custody records and other relevant documents held in the custody suite to assess how detainees are dealt with, and whether policies and procedures are followed.

Interviews with staff

During the inspection we interview officers from the force. These include:

• chief officers responsible for custody;
• custody inspectors; and
• officers with lead responsibility for areas such as mental health or equality and diversity.

We speak to people involved in commissioning and running health, substance misuse and mental health services in the suites and in relevant community services, such as local Mental Health Act section 136 suites. We also speak to the co‑ordinator for the Independent Custody Visitor scheme for the force.

Focus groups

During the inspection we hold focus groups with frontline response officers and response sergeants. The information gathered informs our assessment of how well the force diverts vulnerable people and children from custody at the first point of contact.

Feedback to force

The inspection team provides an initial outline assessment to the force at the end of the inspection, to give it the opportunity to understand and address any concerns at the earliest opportunity. Then we publish our report within four months giving our detailed findings and recommendations for improvement. The force is expected to develop an action plan in response to our findings, and we make a further visit about one year after our inspection to assess progress against our recommendations.

Appendix II – Inspection team

• Norma Collicott: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection lead
• Patricia Nixon: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection officer
• Anthony Davies: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection officer
• Emmanuelle Versmessen: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection officer
• Marc Callaghan: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection officer
• Vijay Singh: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection officer
• Andy Reed: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection officer
• Mark Calland: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection officer
• Stephen Matthews: HMI Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection officer
• Dayni Johnson: CQC inspector
• Helen Lloyd: CQC inspector

Fact page

Note: Data supplied by the force.

Force

Cumbria

Chief constable

Michelle Skeer

Police and crime commissioner

Peter McCall

Geographical area

County of Cumbria

Date of last police custody inspection

2015

Custody suites

• Barrow
• Kendal
• Carlisle
• Workington

68 cells

Annual custody throughput

9,004 between 31 January and 31 December 2022

Custody staffing

52.3 custody posts

Health service provider

Mountain Healthcare Limited

Back to publication

Report on an inspection visit to police custody suites in Cumbria