Report on an inspection visit to police custody suites in Essex Police

Summary

This report describes our findings following an inspection of Essex Police custody facilities. The inspection was conducted jointly by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in May and June 2024. 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 cause of concern.

We have also highlighted a further 11 areas for improvement. These are set out in section 6 of this report.

Leadership, accountability and working with partners

Essex Police has clear governance arrangements for the safe and respectful provision of custody services. The performance of these services is managed through strategic and operational meetings led by senior officers. The force has made some good progress in improving its custody services since our last inspection, but some of our concerns haven’t been dealt with well enough.

The force has seven custody suites. These are located at Basildon, Grays, Harlow, Southend, Chelmsford, Colchester and Clacton. The suites are generally clean and well maintained, although they all appear dated apart from Southend. Essex Police owns the buildings that house these suites, which means that it is responsible for their maintenance.

The force’s custody services are provided by full-time personnel. In our view, the resourcing model doesn’t provide enough personnel to meet the level of demand. The force relies heavily on sergeants from local frontline policing teams to cover the work of custody officers. This can affect the consistency of standards. For example, during busy periods there aren’t always enough custody personnel to manage the number of detainees waiting to be booked in, or to meet detainees’ needs such as providing showers or exercise.

Initial training for custody personnel is comprehensive and follows the College of Policing’s nationally accredited course. The force allocates two days for continuing professional development, and personnel we spoke to were generally positive about the training they received.

The force has adopted the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice (APP), but not all personnel follow it, particularly when managing risk. The force generally follows the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and its codes of practice. But some aspects of its detention reviews, as set out in section 40 of the Act, don’t meet the requirements of the PACE codes of practice.

The force has a good approach to managing adverse incidents, and shares learning with personnel through messaging and training.

The force collects a range of performance metrics and uses these to monitor and scrutinise custody performance. It also uses dip-sampling processes to assess how well it is managing custody performance. However, some of its metrics are focused on confirming that a particular process has been carried out but don’t establish how well it has been done. And these processes didn’t identify some of the issues we have found in our inspection.

There is governance and oversight of the use of force in place. The recording of use of force incidents is generally good, and has improved since our last inspection. But these incidents aren’t being managed well enough, and this is a cause of concern. We have concerns about the amount of time some detainees spend in restraints, the use of some control techniques, and instances where detainees’ own clothing had been forcibly removed for safety reasons and replacement clothing provided.

In general, the quality of recording on custody records isn’t always good enough. We saw some detailed entries, but in many instances a reliance on standard templates led to contradictory and confusing entries.

The force understands its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty. It monitors some important custody information for disproportionality, such as strip searches, use of force and what happens to the detainee after they leave custody (such as being charged, bailed or released).

The force is open to external scrutiny. Volunteers from the Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA) carry out weekly visits to each suite. They told us they have a good relationship with the force, and the force responds well to any issues they raise. In the months leading up to our inspection, the force established an independent advisory group for custody to provide additional scrutiny.

The force and its partners are strongly committed to keeping children out of custody. But when children are charged and detained overnight in custody, they aren’t usually moved to more appropriate local authority accommodation.

The force works with mental health services to support people with mental health conditions. Despite this work, detainees can spend too long in custody while they wait for a mental health assessment. This is a poor outcome for these detainees.

At the time of our inspection, the force was developing a joint escalation process with its healthcare partners to reduce the delays in arranging mental health assessments in custody and improve the outcomes for detainees.

Pre-custody – first point of contact

Frontline officers have a good understanding of what makes a person vulnerable and consider this when deciding what action to take at incidents. They told us that they treat all children as vulnerable and try to avoid arresting them where possible. If they do take a child into custody, they expect custody officers to consider the necessity of the arrest before deciding whether to authorise detention.

At the time of our inspection, the force was running a pilot initiative where officers could refer children to the Youth Justice Services to assess whether a planned arrest was necessary or if there were more suitable options.

Officers told us that the information they receive from the call handlers in the force’s control room to help them deal with incidents is generally good and provided promptly.

Support for frontline officers dealing with people with mental health conditions is generally good. Two mental health triage cars operate between 10am and 2am. Each car is staffed by a mental health professional and a police officer, and is available to offer advice to frontline officers when dealing with incidents.

Officers take people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to a health-based place of safety for a mental health assessment, but there can be long waits at hospitals and mental health facilities. This is a poor outcome for detainees and ineffective use of police time.

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

Respect

Custody personnel are respectful and show empathy towards detainees. The design of the booking-in areas at some of the suites means that privacy can be limited at times. There are no discrete booking-in facilities at any of the suites other than Southend. Custody personnel inform detainees that there is CCTV operating in cells.

Meeting individual and diverse needs

Custody personnel understand how to meet the needs of detainees from protected or minority groups and try their best to do so.

Southend is the only suite that has a specific cell adapted for disabled detainees, but all suites have some facilities to help meet the needs of detainees who have disabilities or may be particularly vulnerable.

There is good provision for detainees who speak little or no English. The force uses a portable LanguageLine tablet to provide instant translation during various custody processes.

The force is good at meeting the needs of women. Female detainees are offered a female point of contact at the time of booking in.

Risk assessments

The force’s identification of risks relating to detainees is generally good, but these risks aren’t always managed well enough.

Detainees are generally booked into custody promptly, but some wait a long time. The force operates a dedicated radio channel to help identify and manage risk before detainees get to custody, but there is no standard process to prioritise booking-in once they get there.

When completing an initial risk assessment, custody officers interact well with detainees and focus on identifying risks. But they don’t always explain the purpose of the risk assessment well enough, and they don’t always ask arresting or escorting officers if they have any further relevant information.

Detention officers carry out cell checks well and on time. But when detainees are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, detention officers don’t always do a good enough job of carrying out the required level 2 rousing checks, where officers rouse the detainee and speak to them.

When the risk assessment indicates a high level of risk, detainees can be placed on level 4 observation, where they are under constant close-proximity supervision. This is managed well. But the environment for carrying out level 3 constant observations on CCTV is poor at all suites, as officers carry out these observations in a busy area where it may be difficult to concentrate.

Some custody officers allow detainees to keep their clothing with cords and other personal items based on an individual assessment of that detainee’s risks, but footwear is often routinely removed.

Custody personnel carry anti-ligature knives. The management and control of cell keys is generally good, but at times custody personnel hand over keys to police officer colleagues, meaning they don’t have full control over the movement of detainees in and out of cells at all times.

Individual rights

Arresting officers provide a clear account of the circumstances surrounding an arrest, and generally give more than one reason why the arrest is necessary.

The booking-in process is thorough. Custody personnel clearly explain the procedures and make appropriate decisions about whether to authorise detention. They explain legal rights and entitlements to detainees and provide written copies. Easy read and Braille versions are available.

Detainees can exercise their rights promptly and can speak with their legal representatives in private, either in person or on the telephone.

The force could do more to improve the clarity of information provided to detainees about how they can have their DNA samples destroyed in certain circumstances.

Data provided by the force shows that detainees don’t usually spend prolonged periods in custody. The force uses out-of-court disposals and voluntary attendance as alternatives to arrest.

Some reviews of detention are carried out well, but overall, the force doesn’t consistently follow the requirements of the PACE codes of practice. This isn’t in the best interests of detainees.

The force has a process to improve the quality and timeliness of reviews of detention carried out under section 40 of PACE, and monitors the performance of each individual inspector. It recognises there is further work to do to improve the quality and standard of these reviews, and plans to develop further training for personnel.

The force’s policy provides clear guidance on the complaints process. All custody personnel we spoke to understood what they need to do if a detainee wants to make a complaint. However, the force could do more to make sure that the complaints process is clearly promoted to detainees at all suites.

In the custody cell – safeguarding and healthcare

Physical environment

The general cleanliness at all suites is good, although there is considerable staining on the floors in communal areas.

There are potential ligature points at all suites (particularly at Chelmsford, Southend, Grays and Basildon), which custody personnel we spoke to were unaware of. We have recommended that all custody personnel understand the risks so that appropriate mitigation can be put in place.

The quality of the CCTV footage is generally good, as a result of ongoing work to upgrade the system. All cells are covered by CCTV, although at some suites there are areas in cells that can’t be seen on the cameras.

Custody personnel have a good awareness of emergency evacuation procedures and have taken part in evacuation training and an evacuation drill within the last year.

Detainee care

Custody personnel show a caring attitude to detainees. During the booking-in process they tell detainees about the provisions available to them, such as showers, exercise and reading material.

A good range of food and drink is available to detainees, which caters for the most common dietary and cultural requirements.

All suites have a good range of books and other reading material, including foreign language titles. However, the supply of other distraction materials is much more limited.

Most of the exercise yards are too small and are enclosed. Other than at Southend, they don’t provide access to fresh air.

Safeguarding

The force has clear safeguarding policies and procedures for how frontline officers and custody personnel should deal with safeguarding concerns relating to children and vulnerable adults. It has also adopted APP guidance.

The force’s procedures for the arrest and detention of children include referring all children to a healthcare professional (HCP) for a welfare check and to a community psychiatric nurse for a mental health assessment.

Custody officers make sure that a female member of staff is allocated to oversee the care of girls under 18, as required by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. We saw examples of this working well during our observations in the suites and in our audits.

Appropriate adults

We found that custody officers correctly identify when an appropriate adult is needed. They first consider family, friends or others known to the detainee to act in this role. Where they are unavailable or are unsuitable, the force has alternative arrangements in place for appropriate adults to be provided.

The force’s policy conforms with the requirement of PACE and APP that appropriate adults attend custody early in the detention period. They should be present when the detainee has their rights and entitlements explained to them, and their fingerprints and DNA taken, not just for interviews. The force records the time that custody personnel contact an appropriate adult, and expects this to be done within an hour after detention is authorised.

Children generally don’t have to wait long for an appropriate adult to arrive in custody. But in our case audits, we found that appropriate adults didn’t always attend promptly for vulnerable adults, and sometimes no appropriate adult attended at all.

Children

The force has a clear focus on diverting children from custody where possible. When considering whether to authorise detention, custody officers will consider whether the arrest was necessary or whether there are other options. However, there are no standard processes to prioritise booking in children.

The force’s policy is clear that children shouldn’t spend any longer than necessary in custody. We saw that custody officers are proactive in overseeing the progress of investigations to keep children’s time in custody to a minimum.

In most cases we found that custody officers recorded their justification for keeping a child in custody overnight, either before or after charge. But when children are charged and remanded in custody overnight, they usually have to stay overnight in police detention rather than being moved to alternative local authority accommodation. This is a poor outcome for these children.

The force scrutinises all custody records relating to detained children and discusses the findings at monthly performance meetings. If custody personnel haven’t followed the correct procedures, inspectors provide individual feedback for learning.

Healthcare – governance

Physical healthcare support for detainees in Essex Police custody suites is provided by HCRG. Liaison and diversion (L&D) services are provided by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust.

There is good joint working between the force and its healthcare providers. The force monitors these contracts through quarterly performance meetings with the local authority and all healthcare providers.

HCPs are based at each custody suite and provide healthcare support to detainees 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Most detainees receive a prompt medical assessment, but staff shortages mean that HCRG can’t always meet the demand within one hour, as specified by their contract with the force. HCRG has an ongoing campaign to recruit more HCPs.

HCRG has systems in place to record complaints and incidents, but information about how detainees can make a complaint isn’t displayed clearly at all suites.

Physical health

HCPs complete clinical assessments and examinations in discrete medical rooms. Positively, they keep doors closed during consultations, unless there is a risk the detainee may become violent or aggressive.

HCPs maintain comprehensive clinical records. We found that the records were clear and concise and contained all relevant information appropriate to the required healthcare intervention.

Mental health

Three L&D practitioners provide cover across all suites between 8am and 9.30pm, seven days a week. They have the training and experience to assess detainees while they are in custody in relation to mental health, learning disabilities, substance misuse and other vulnerabilities. Referrals to the L&D service are made by custody personnel and healthcare staff.

Following a detainee’s release from custody, L&D staff can provide further support and refer them to appropriate health or social care services.

If a member of custody personnel or healthcare staff is concerned that a detainee may be unwell due to a mental health condition, they can request that an approved mental health professional carries out an assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983.

If this doesn’t happen quickly enough, they can transfer the detainee to an appropriate healthcare facility under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to make sure they are in a more appropriate setting. Some detainees wait a long time for a mental health assessment, and some then face a further wait for a bed in a mental health facility.

Substance misuse

At the time of our inspection there were no substance misuse workers based at any of the custody suites. There are plans to provide this service to detainees at all suites from the point of arrest, starting with a trial in Southend.

Medicines management

There are suitable governance arrangements in place to manage medicines, although not all suites have a separate fridge to store medicines that need to be kept below a certain temperature. This means medicines are stored in the same fridges where personnel store their food. This isn’t good practice.

HCPs support detainees to continue with any opiate substitute treatment while in custody, subject to relevant checks.

Custody personnel support detainees to obtain their medicines from their home or local pharmacy, including those taking opiate substitutes. They also make arrangements to transfer medicines with detainees when they leave custody for court or prison.

Release and transfer from custody

When detainees are released on bail, under investigation, or without charge, custody officers generally carry out pre-release risk assessments with the detainee present. But this doesn’t happen as it should when detainees are released to court or prison.

When completing pre-release risk assessments, custody officers don’t always consider or refer to all relevant risks. But they do provide the detainee with a good explanation of bail procedures and a range of information about support agencies.

Detention officers complete digital person escort records and arrange transport for detainees who are attending court or returning to prison. These records are completed well and contain relevant risk, health and medication information. However, custody officers don’t have sufficient oversight of this process.

When detainees are remanded in police detention, they are usually transferred promptly to the next available court. Custody personnel have a good working relationship with the local courts and do their best to make sure detainees attend court to minimise the time they spend in custody.

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 United Nations Optional Protocol to the 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 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 personnel;
• 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 Essex Police, we analysed a sample of 100 records. The methodology for our inspection is set out in full at Appendix I.

Terminology in this report

Our report contains references to ‘national’ bodies, strategies, policies, systems, responsibilities, processes and data. In some instances, ‘national’ means applying to England and Wales. In others, it means applying to England and Wales and Scotland, or the whole of the United Kingdom.

Section 1. Leadership, accountability and working with partners

Expected outcomes: Leadership, accountability and working with partners

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

Leadership

Essex Police has clear governance arrangements for the safe and respectful provision of custody services. An assistant chief constable has overall responsibility for custody, supported by the head of criminal justice. A chief inspector is responsible for the day‑to-day management of custody services.

The force manages custody performance through strategic and operational meetings.

• The assistant chief constable chairs the criminal justice strategic board.
• The head of criminal justice chairs the criminal justice performance board to scrutinise performance and monitor key custody data such as throughput, strip searches, outcomes and potential areas of disproportionality.
• The custody chief inspector chairs monthly meetings that focus on matters such as training, resources and maintenance of the suites.

The force has made good progress in improving some custody services since our last inspection, particularly in how it gathers and monitors performance information. But some of our concerns haven’t been dealt with well enough, such as reviews of detention, pre-release risk assessments and the authorisation of some strip searches.

Healthcare services for detainees are provided by HCRG. The force has arrangements in place to oversee this contract at an operational and strategic level.

HCRG has sometimes failed to provide enough healthcare professionals to consistently meet demand. The healthcare contract doesn’t include financial penalties if HCRG doesn’t meet its performance obligations, and this has made accountability challenging. At the time of our inspection, the contract was due for renewal.

The force provides custody services across seven suites at Basildon, Grays, Harlow, Southend, Chelmsford, Colchester and Clacton. Apart from Southend, the suites appear dated and lack some facilities to meet the needs of detainees in the way we would expect.

All suites are clean, and cells are generally well maintained. There are potential ligature points at all suites, although most of the cells at Clacton, Colchester and Harlow provide a safe environment for detainees. We gave the force a report detailing the potential ligature points and general physical conditions, and it started to act on some of the concerns straight away.

The force’s custody services are provided by full-time personnel: a chief inspector, six inspectors who carry out the role of custody managers, 56 custody officers, and 110 detention officers. In our view, this resourcing model doesn’t provide enough personnel to meet the level of demand, considering the number of suites and throughput of detainees. The force told us that the amount of resources allocated to custody is primarily based on cost, rather than what is needed to meet the demand.

The force relies heavily on sergeants from frontline local policing teams to cover custody work when there aren’t enough custody officers available. They are trained to carry out this role and provide cover when necessary – we were told that this happens frequently. We found that these sergeants are less confident in carrying out the role than permanent custody officers, and their custody record entries aren’t completed to the same standard.

During busy periods, there sometimes aren’t enough custody personnel to manage the number of detainees waiting to be booked in. This is particularly the case at certain suites, where custody officers sometimes have to work alone. This can result in longer waiting times. It also increases risk, particularly as there is no consistent procedure to assess who is in the queue and book in high priority detainees first. At Clacton and Harlow there are no holding rooms, so when the suites are busy detainees have to stand in a small corridor or wait outside in police vehicles.

Detention officers are sometimes too busy and not always able to meet detainees’ needs, such as showers and exercise. There are no sinks in any of the cells, which means if detainees need to wash their hands, they have to ask detention officers to take them to the communal washing facilities in the corridors. This places extra demand on the officers, and can also compromise hygiene standards.

Initial training for custody personnel is comprehensive and follows the College of Policing’s nationally accredited course. They have a period of mentoring with a more experienced colleague before taking up their duties independently. The force provides just two days per year for continuing professional development. But the training is varied and relevant – in the last two years it has included topics such as neurodivergence awareness, fire evacuation procedures and mental health. Personnel we spoke to were generally positive about the training they received.

The force has adopted the College of Policing’s APP. But not all personnel follow it, particularly when managing risk. For example, custody officers routinely remove shoes with laces from detainees without carrying out an individual risk assessment to determine whether this is necessary. Also, detention officers don’t always carry out rousing checks correctly for detainees who are under the influence of drink or drugs. And custody officers don’t consistently make sure detainees are present when carrying out pre-release risk assessments.

The force generally follows PACE and its codes of practice. Custody officers make sure that the criteria for the necessity of arrests are met before they authorise detention, as required by PACE code G 2012. However, some aspects of reviews of detention under section 40 of PACE don’t meet the requirements of the PACE codes of practice. The resourcing model for custody services means that a high number of section 40 PACE reviews are carried out by local policing inspectors. Due to the demands of their operational duties, they don’t always have the time to carry out reviews appropriately as required by PACE code C 2023.

The force has a good approach to managing adverse incidents, which the College of Policing defines as “any incident which, if allowed to continue to its ultimate conclusion, would have resulted in death or serious injury to any person”. It shares learning about these with its personnel through messaging and training. There has been one death in custody in Essex since our last inspection.

Accountability

The force monitors and scrutinises custody performance at its monthly criminal justice performance board. This includes:

• the number of detainees entering custody;
• waiting times for booking detainees into custody;
• children in detention;
• strip searching;
• mental health assessment waiting times;
• refusals of detention; and
• adverse incidents.

Some performance information is difficult to extract from the custody computer system, so the force has developed measures to gather this data.

The force has a comprehensive dip-sampling process to assess how well it is managing custody services. It collects and monitors an impressive amount of performance information and has made some important improvements to custody services as a result. But this quality assurance process didn’t identify some of the issues we have found.

The force has a good range of performance metrics to monitor whether certain things have been done, but it doesn’t routinely monitor how well they are done. For example, it audits custody records, but these reviews don’t include real-time observations or viewing CCTV footage to see if something is being done correctly. This means it can’t fully assess how well it is managing custody performance in areas such as risk assessments when booking-in and during detention, pre-release risk assessments, rousing checks for level 2 observations, and reviews of detention.

There is governance and oversight of the use of force. Incidents where force is used are reviewed by custody managers, at custody senior leadership meetings, and at the strategic use of force board. However, these reviews haven’t identified some of the concerns we have found during our inspection.

In most cases, when force is used in custody, it is proportionate. The recording of these incidents has improved since our last inspection and is generally good. However, Essex Police doesn’t always manage these incidents appropriately. It should make sure that custody officers supervise incidents appropriately, including the ongoing use of equipment such as handcuffs, spit hoods and leg restraints. And it should scrutinise incidents afterwards to assess the necessity and justification of any use of force. This is a cause of concern.

We have specific concerns about the amount of time some detainees spend in restraints, the use of some control techniques and instances where detainees’ own clothing had been forcibly removed for safety reasons and replacement clothing provided.

In general, the quality of recording on custody records isn’t always good enough. In many cases, we found there was a reliance on using standard templates without removing the text that doesn’t apply or adding further details to describe what actions custody personnel had taken at the time. This leads to confusing and contradictory entries on custody records and was particularly the case for cell observation visits and reviews of detention.

However, we did see some detailed entries on detention logs, and details of level 4 observations were recorded well.

The force understands its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty. Custody personnel have received training on topics such as mental health and neurodivergent conditions. The force monitors some important custody information for disproportionality, such as strip searches, criminal justice outcomes and use of force.

Importantly, it can differentiate between strip searches that are carried out to search for concealed items and a wider definition of strip searching, which includes where detainees’ clothing is removed for safety reasons and alternative clothing provided. This helps the force to scrutinise decision-making in this area.

The force is open to external scrutiny. Volunteers from the ICVA carry out weekly visits to each suite, and told us they have a good relationship with the force. They can raise any issues they identify directly with custody personnel who will deal with them at the time where possible. They can also raise issues at their regular meetings with the force. The independent custody visitors scheme has a full-time manager who attends custody meetings and can access relevant performance information.

Positively, in the months leading up to our inspection, the force established an independent advisory group for custody. This is made up of volunteers. It will provide additional independent scrutiny of general custody processes and offer advice to senior managers.

Working with partners

The force and its partners are strongly committed to keeping children out of custody. The force works with the Youth Justice Services to help investigating officers decide whether it is necessary to arrest a child, or whether there are more suitable alternatives. When children are arrested, the force makes referrals to partner agencies who can provide safeguarding support.

The force works with its local authorities to try to move children who have been charged and refused bail to alternative local authority accommodation so they aren’t detained overnight in custody. When the force requests non-secure accommodation, this is sometimes provided. But children who need secure accommodation are never moved due to the lack of suitable facilities either within the force area or within a reasonable distance from it. This is a poor outcome for these children.

The force works with mental health services to support people with mental health conditions. There are joint working arrangements to help improve outcomes for people who are arrested and detained in custody for criminal offences, but then need a mental health assessment.

However, detainees can spend too long in custody while they wait for a mental health assessment. This is a poor outcome for these detainees, and means they are unable to access the care and treatment they need quickly enough.

The force measures these waiting times and has accurate data. At the time of our inspection, it was developing a joint escalation process with healthcare partners to reduce the delays in arranging mental health assessments in custody.

Section 2. Pre-custody – first point of contact

Expected outcomes: Pre-custody – first point of contact

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 a person vulnerable. They told us that they consider factors such as mental health, gender, age, and alcohol or drug misuse when deciding what action to take at incidents. They said they treat all children as vulnerable. When deciding whether to make an arrest, officers take account of the type of offence, as well as vulnerability.

The force provides training to help frontline officers recognise vulnerability. This training covers topics including adverse childhood experiences, the voice of the child, mental health issues, neurodivergence and domestic abuse. Training takes place in person and online.

Officers told us that the information they receive from the call handlers in the force’s control room to help them deal with incidents is generally good and provided promptly. If they need further information, they can ask the control room for it, or use their own laptop or mobile devices to obtain it.

Frontline officers told us that they try to avoid arresting children where possible. They take into account safeguarding needs and the severity of the offence when deciding whether to arrest. And they explore alternatives, such as voluntary attendance interviews and out-of-court disposals. At the time of our inspection, Essex Police was running Operation Detour in some areas of the force. This is a pilot initiative where officers can refer children to the Youth Justice Services who then assess whether a planned arrest is necessary, or if there are more suitable options. Operation Detour may be implemented in all areas of the force in due course.

Frontline officers told us that if they take a child to custody, they must be able to clearly justify the reasons for the arrest, or custody officers will refuse detention. They expect custody officers to consider the necessity of arrests as required by PACE code G 2012.

The force recognises that booking-in times for children are longer than for adults because of the greater scrutiny from custody officers and the higher threshold for authorising detention. This is positive.

Support for frontline officers dealing with people with mental health conditions is generally good. Two mental health triage cars operate (one in the north of the force area and one in the south) between 10am and 2am. Each car is staffed by a mental health professional and a police officer, and is available to offer advice to frontline officers when dealing with incidents. For example, they can help officers decide whether to detain a person under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, or whether more suitable health options are available. Officers told us this was a valuable resource, but after 2am they sometimes have to make decisions based on limited mental health advice. There are no mental health professionals based in the force’s control room.

Officers take people detained under section 136 to a health-based place of safety for a mental health assessment, but there can be long waits at hospitals and mental health facilities. This is a poor outcome for detainees and an ineffective use of police time.

When a person has committed an offence and is detained in police custody after arrest, and then shows signs that they may be unwell, a mental health assessment is normally organised while they remain in custody. The investigation into the offence continues pending any decisions about the detainee’s health. But there are sometimes long delays before mental health professionals are available to attend custody to carry out assessments. As a result, some detainees wait a long time in police custody before they can access the health treatment they need. This is a poor outcome.

Police vans are used to transport detainees to custody after arrest. Police cars are sometimes used if vans aren’t available. Officers told us that they were unaware of specific arrangements for people with mobility difficulties, but that police vans would probably be used in those cases.

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

Expected outcomes: In the custody suite – booking‑in, individual needs and legal rights

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 personnel are respectful and show empathy towards detainees. We saw examples of them interacting well with detainees who were upset or anxious, and with those who displayed challenging behaviour.

The design of the booking-in areas at some of the suites means that if more than one detainee is being dealt with at once, the environment can be noisy. There is limited privacy and conversations can be overheard. At Southend there is a discrete booking‑in room that can be used for booking in vulnerable detainees and having sensitive conversations. Custody personnel at Clacton told us they sometimes use the biometrics room for this purpose. There are no discrete booking-in facilities at any of the other suites.

The showers at all suites offer sufficient privacy for detainees. However, detention officers told us that the design of some showers can make it difficult for them to supervise detainees while also respecting their privacy. This is a potential safety risk.

There is CCTV at all custody suites, including in the cells, and there are signs pointing this out. In our observations in the suites, we saw that custody personnel routinely tell detainees about the CCTV operating in cells, and that the toilet areas are obscured for detainees’ privacy.

Meeting diverse and individual needs

Custody personnel understand how to meet the needs of detainees from protected or minority groups and try their best to do so.

Southend is the only suite that has a cell with adaptations for disabled detainees. All suites have cell benches at different heights, but only some of them are suitable for disabled detainees. There are adapted toilets and showers at Southend, Basildon and Chelmsford.

There are some facilities at all custody suites for detainees with disabilities. All suites have:

• a wheelchair in good condition;
• extra thick mattresses, although there is a limited number, and some are damaged due to the way they are stored;
• ‘sight lines’ on the walls of the cells to help visually impaired detainees navigate the confined space (although at Clacton there is only one cell with these);
• easy read and Braille versions of rights and entitlements, which custody personnel can easily locate; and
• hearing loops to help detainees with hearing devices hear conversations more easily.

Custody personnel understand the needs of neurodivergent detainees and how the custody environment may affect them. They told us they had received training on this. All suites have ear defenders for detainees who are particularly sensitive to noise, although custody personnel at Clacton couldn’t find their set.

Some cells at Southend, Colchester and Chelmsford are suitable for vulnerable detainees. These have a large glass pane in the door and can be used for detainees who may feel particularly anxious when confined in a cell.

Detainees can observe their faith while in custody. There is a suitable range of religious items at all suites relating to religions including Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. These were stored appropriately at all suites.

There is good provision for detainees who speak little or no English. The force uses the interpreting service LanguageLine for this. Detainees can speak with interpreters at the booking-in desks using a three-way phone system.

There is also a portable LanguageLine tablet at each suite. This gives custody personnel the flexibility to offer interpreting services during different custody processes, such as booking-in (when it helps detainees understand their rights and entitlements), reviews of detention, medical consultations and strip searching.

We saw that custody personnel offer all detainees the chance to speak with a member of the same sex in private about their health and well-being during the booking-in process. Female detainees are offered a female point of contact, which is positive. They are also offered feminine hygiene products during booking-in, and there is a good supply of these items in all suites.

Risk assessments

The force’s identification of risks to the detainee is generally good, but these aren’t always managed well enough. Some working practices mean the force isn’t always able to make sure that detainees are kept safe.

Detainees are generally booked-in to custody promptly, but some wait a long time, particularly at some suites where there is only one custody officer on duty. Where available, arresting officers take detainees to holding rooms, but during busy periods some detainees can wait for long periods in police vehicles. This can increase risk, particularly as detainees can remain in restraints for too long. Custody officers told us that when there are queues, they rarely go to see detainees to assess risk or injuries or prioritise booking in children and vulnerable adults.

The force operates a dedicated radio channel to help custody personnel identify and manage risk before arresting officers take detainees to custody. Custody officers ask if there is any reason why detainees shouldn’t be in custody, such as medical issues. They then allocate detainees to the most suitable suite. This can be based on location, or easier access to healthcare.

When completing an initial risk assessment with a detainee, custody officers focus on identifying risks, vulnerability factors and welfare concerns. They generally interact well with detainees during this process, often asking probing or supplementary questions. They have access to the Police National Database and can use this to find out further relevant information. And they cross-reference previous custody records to help inform the risk assessment. But they don’t always explain the purpose of the risk assessment well enough to detainees, or ask arresting or escorting officers if they have any further relevant information about risks.

Custody officers set appropriate observation levels that match the risks presented by detainees, including those under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Detention officers carry out cell checks well and on time. They open cell door hatches and speak with detainees and generally make good records of their observations.

But when detainees are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, detention officers don’t always carry out level 2 rousing checks well enough. We found that some detention officers spoke only briefly to detainees, rather than rousing them and having enough of a conversation to properly assess their welfare and whether their responsiveness has improved or deteriorated. Most of each detainee’s rousing checks are carried out by a different detention officer, which can increase risk as they may not recognise changes. These practices don’t follow APP guidance.

When the risk assessment indicates a high level of risk, detainees can be placed on level 4 constant observations, which involves a police officer sitting outside the cell door so they can supervise the detainee at close proximity. Officers carry out these observations well, and custody officers make sure that APP guidance is followed. They give a specific briefing to officers before they start the observations and record the details on the custody record. Detention officers continue with their regular cell checks while detainees are under level 4 observations.

However, the environment for carrying out level 3 observations on CCTV is poor at all suites. Officers carrying out these observations must do so in an open area that is busy with other custody personnel. This may make it difficult for officers to concentrate for prolonged periods of time. If they can’t carry out this important task properly, this increases the level of risk.

Some custody officers allow detainees to keep their clothing with cords and other personal items based on an individual assessment of that detainee’s risks. This is positive. But we found that custody officers routinely remove footwear without an individual risk assessment to justify the removal. This is contrary to APP guidance.

Handovers between shifts are carried out well and follow APP guidance. Their content is good and includes enough information to make sure detainee risk and welfare can be managed appropriately. Healthcare staff attend most handovers. However, after the handover, custody officers don’t always visit the detainees they are responsible for during their shift. Speaking with these detainees would give them a better understanding of any risks.

Detention officers respond promptly to cell call bells. These can be muted for a short time if this is authorised by the custody officer.

Custody personnel carry anti-ligature knives, in line with APP guidance. The management and control of cell keys is generally good in suites. However, we found that some custody personnel give keys to officers upon request, which means they don’t always have complete control over the movement of detainees in and out of cells.

Individual legal rights – detention

Arresting officers provide custody officers with a clear account of the circumstances surrounding an arrest. They explain why the arrest is necessary, as required by PACE code G 2012, and generally give more than one reason. But they don’t always explain well enough how the reasons for the arrest relate to the specific circumstances. And custody officers don’t always ask follow-up questions, although we did observe a custody officer closely considering the necessity of arrest when booking in a 17‑year-old.

The booking-in process is thorough. Custody officers clearly explain the procedures to the detainee, make sound decisions about authorising detention, and record these properly. We saw good examples of them quickly establishing rapport with detainees, and considering the welfare and specific needs of vulnerable people.

At some suites, detention officers also book in detainees. Custody officers oversee this process and make decisions when required to do so by PACE code C, such as whether to authorise detention or a search. During our observations we saw that this seemed to work well, and custody officers told us they pay close attention to the risk assessments.

The force retrospectively scrutinises all cases where detention has been refused to make sure that the decisions were appropriate. Custody officers told us they are confident about refusing detention, although some said they feel pressure not to.

The force uses out-of-court disposals and voluntary attendance as alternatives to arrest. Data supplied by the force shows that the number of voluntary attendees increased in the two years up to our inspection, while the number of people detained in custody dropped in the same period.

There are rooms outside the custody suites for people attending the police station for voluntary interviews. They don’t enter custody suites unless it is to have their fingerprints taken or for other similar processes. We saw a custody officer refusing to allow an investigating officer to use the custody suite for a voluntary attendance interview.

The force has portable interview equipment at all suites, and this can be used for interviews inside or outside custody. We saw this equipment being used to interview a detainee who refused to come out of their cell.

Custody officers closely consider each application for bail or remand, and make detailed entries on custody records to explain their decisions. They also ask detainees for any representations they would like to make.

We saw examples of custody officers scrutinising bail conditions and risks, and where necessary refusing to authorise a detainee being remanded in custody. When detainees were released on bail, custody officers clearly explained any conditions or restrictions to them. When detainees were remanded in custody after being charged, the justifications for this were clearly recorded.

Data provided by the force shows that most detainees don’t spend prolonged periods in custody. In our case audits and custody record analysis, we found that detainees generally don’t spend longer in custody than necessary. We saw examples of custody officers making effective use of detention time to finalise investigations or release detainees on bail or under investigation. In one case involving a child, the custody officer considered the views of the appropriate adult when deciding on the best course of action.

When people detained for immigration offences arrive in custody, immigration services are contacted quickly. Custody personnel told us that immigration services usually attend promptly to deal with cases, and the force has a good working relationship with them. But detainees can have long waits after their immigration papers are served (IS91 notices) before being transferred to an immigration facility. According to data provided by the force, for the three years up to our inspection, immigration detainees spent an average of 22 hours in custody overall, 14.5 hours of which were after they were served with their immigration papers.

Individual legal rights – detainees’ rights and entitlements

Custody personnel give detainees a clear explanation of their legal rights and entitlements, and provide them with a written notice setting these out. Easy read versions are available for those who need help in understanding them, and there are Braille versions in all suites.

Printed copies of PACE code C 2023 are available for detainees. These are also available in Braille.

Detainees can exercise their rights promptly. We saw detention officers contacting legal representatives as soon as detainees asked for legal advice during booking-in. In one case where a detainee changed their mind about wanting legal representation before being interviewed, a custody officer took appropriate action and an inspector spoke with the detainee before authorising the interview to go ahead.

All suites have enough interview and consultation rooms for detainees to speak with their legal representatives in private. They can also speak with them privately on the telephone. Legal representatives are routinely provided with front sheets of custody records, which provide a summary, and can ask to view the whole record.

When a detainee’s right to have someone informed of their detention is delayed and they are held incommunicado, we found that this was appropriately authorised in most cases, and the authorising officer set a time limit. We observed an inspector carrying out a review of detention and reminding a detainee that their right to have someone informed had been delayed, but that they would be told when this right was reinstated. However, in our audits we a found a case where the authority appeared to have been copied and pasted from another entry that didn’t relate the detainee’s circumstances, and no time limit had been set for the delay.

The quality and availability of written information displayed to remind detainees of their right to free legal advice varied between suites. It was clearly displayed at Grays on a poster in multiple languages. But at other suites, this information wasn’t clearly visible in the booking-in areas or where detainees were most likely to see it.

Custody officers provide written copies of rights and entitlements in foreign languages. They have a good knowledge of annex M of PACE code C 2023, which states that detainees should receive documents and records about custody processes in a language they understand. We saw custody record entries stating that these translated documents had been provided to detainees, with specific reference to annex M. The force uses LanguageLine to provide interpreters for detainees who can’t speak English to make sure they understand their rights and entitlements.

When a foreign national has been arrested, custody officers ask the detainee whether they want their embassy to be informed of their arrest, as is their right. And custody officers will automatically inform embassies of those countries where a bilateral agreement is in place with the UK to notify them if one of their nationals is arrested. We saw records stating this had been done in all relevant cases we looked at.

The force has performance metrics to make sure that detention officers inform detainees about the force’s retention and disposal policy for DNA, fingerprints and photographs. Custody personnel offer detainees the standard leaflet about DNA produced by the Home Office and National Police Chiefs’ Council, but this information could be more clearly displayed to make sure all detainees can understand it. Not all detention officers we spoke to were clear about the policy, or what they should be telling detainees. There are no posters in the suites telling detainees in plain language about their rights under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

DNA samples are stored in locked freezers, which helps maintain the integrity of the samples. The samples are regularly collected from suites.

Reviews of detention

Some reviews of detention are carried out well, but overall the force doesn’t consistently follow the requirements of the PACE codes of practice. This isn’t in the best interests of detainees.

We observed inspectors carrying out section 40 PACE reviews in person in the suites. Some of these reviews were done well, covering all necessary legal requirements, providing investigation updates and checking on detainee welfare. We saw an inspector taking the LanguageLine tablet to the cells while carrying out reviews so they could communicate effectively with detainees who spoke no English.

But some reviews we saw in person didn’t comply with the requirements of PACE code C. For example, the detainee wasn’t asked if they had any representations about why they should be released, or informed that their ongoing detention had been authorised.

In our case audits and custody record analysis, we also found the standard and quality of reviews varied. Some records referred to the investigation status and to the detainee’s specific circumstances, which was positive. The force has created a template for inspectors to follow when carrying out a PACE review, but some inspectors use this template without deleting parts that don’t apply or adding free text. This means that some records of reviews are generic, contradictory and confusing.

In our custody record audits, we found examples of cases where sergeants had carried out PACE reviews. We checked with the force and these officers were properly authorised as acting inspectors, but they didn’t state their relevant rank on the custody record. This is contrary to paragraph 2.2 of PACE code C, and the entries read as if a sergeant had carried out the review without specific authorisation.

Some reviews carried out by inspectors for juvenile detainees considered their specific needs and took place in the presence of the appropriate adult. But others didn’t even mention that the detainee was a child.

When reviews were late, inspectors sometimes recorded the reason why, but this didn’t always happen. We found that when reviews were late, this was often due to no reviewing officer being available, as inspectors from local policing teams were also covering their operational responsibilities.

In our custody record analysis, we found six cases where detainees who had been in custody for between six and eight hours before they were released hadn’t had a PACE review. Three of these cases related to juveniles. A first PACE review should take place no more than six hours after detention is authorised. This is poor and means that these detainees didn’t get the opportunity to hear why their ongoing detention had been authorised or to make any representations.

Reviews listed as sleeping reviews (those carried out without speaking to the detainee because they are asleep) were generally carried out at appropriate times and during recognised rest periods. In our audits, we found examples of inspectors visiting cells to make sure detainees were asleep before carrying out a sleeping review. On two occasions the detainee was in fact awake and the review took place in person.

However, some reviews were listed as sleeping reviews when in our view it would have been reasonable and proper to carry them out in person. Custody personnel showed us cases where inspectors had carried out reviews without contacting custody and then listed these as sleeping reviews. These reviews took place when detainees were no longer in a rest period.

Custody records consistently have entries to show that detainees are told that a sleeping review has been carried out. The force measures its performance in this area. This is positive, although custody record entries don’t show how meaningful this update was.

The force has a process to improve the quality and timeliness of section 40 PACE reviews and monitors the performance of individual inspectors. Senior leaders provide feedback to individuals, and if their performance doesn’t improve, there is an escalation process through line managers. The chief inspector responsible for custody monitors this performance monthly with the custody managers. But the force could do more to examine the quality of reviews, including when the standard template is used. For example, the force’s performance metrics include whether the template has been used, but not the quality of the custody record entry.

The force provides some training to inspectors and sergeants on how to carry out PACE reviews. This is a topic on the inspector promotion course, and sergeants performing the role of acting inspector must complete an online training course before they can access inspector rights on the Athena computer system. The force recognises it has further work to do to improve the quality and standard of all reviews and has plans to develop further training.

The force pays good attention to monitoring the legal rights and welfare of people who need hospital treatment while they are still in police detention. The timing of the PACE detention period doesn’t apply to detainees while they are in hospital, but the force has processes in place to make sure that the necessity for detention is monitored and that detainees aren’t forgotten while they are away from the custody suite.

Complaints

The force’s policy provides clear guidance on the complaints process. Detainees are initially referred to the custody officer who then contacts an inspector. All custody personnel we spoke to understood what they need to do if a detainee wants to make a complaint, and were confident that detainees could speak with an officer about their complaint while in custody.

During our inspection we saw an example of an inspector speaking with a detainee in their cell about a complaint. We also saw a custody officer referring a complaint to an inspector.

But information about how detainees can make a complaint in custody isn’t well‑promoted in suites. All suites display posters with information about the force’s complaints policy. However, other than at Grays and Southend, this information wasn’t clearly visible to detainees in the booking-in areas or in other areas where they are likely to see it. And the posters at Southend had out-of-date information about the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which ceased to exist in 2018, instead of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) which replaced it. We pointed this out at the time of our inspection and a custody manager took immediate action to rectify it.

Section 4. In the custody cell – safeguarding and healthcare

Expected outcomes: In the custody cell – safeguarding and healthcare

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

Essex Police has seven designated custody suites, at Basildon, Clacton, Harlow, Colchester, Chelmsford, Grays and Southend. At the time of our inspection, the suites at Basildon and Harlow were closed for work to upgrade the CCTV. Essex Police owns all the buildings that suites are housed in, which means they are responsible for the maintenance. Most of them were built in the 1970s and 1980s, with some later additions and extensions, and now appear dated. The suite at Southend was built in 2014 and has more modern facilities.

There are potential ligature points at all suites, particularly at Chelmsford, Southend, Grays and Basildon. These are mainly on toilets and water outlets, around door frames, and at Basildon around some benches in cells. There are also potential ligature points in most shower drain covers and exercise yards. More positively, there are no potential ligature points in any of the cells at Clacton and only one in one of the cells at Harlow and Colchester. However, many of the potential ligature points at all suites were in the same places as we found in our last inspection.

Custody personnel we spoke to were unaware of these potential ligature points. If the force is unable to carry out work to remove these, then it should make sure that all custody personnel understand the risks so that appropriate mitigation can be put in place.

During the inspection we gave the force a comprehensive report detailing these findings and our assessment of the overall physical conditions in the suites.

The general cleanliness at all suites is good, although there is considerable staining on the floors in communal areas. Positively, there is natural light in most cells, and very little graffiti.

Custody personnel carry out and record daily and weekly safety and maintenance checks of the physical environment to a good standard. They told us that when repairs are needed these are usually completed quickly.

There is a discrete booking-in room at Southend that can be used for vulnerable detainees, although none of the other suites have a dedicated facility.

There are toilets in all cells but no sinks. This is poor, particularly for female detainees. If detainees need to wash their hands, they have to ask detention officers to take them to the communal washing area in the corridors. Detention officers don’t always have time to do this, so hygiene standards may be compromised. There are communal showers and washing facilities at each suite.

All cells are covered by CCTV. This is positive and helps custody personnel to manage risk on a day-to-day basis, especially during busy periods, as they can see multiple detainees at once. The CCTV screens can’t be seen by others from the communal areas. The quality of the CCTV footage is generally good following work to upgrade the system, which is still ongoing.

However, in some of the cells, the toilets are in alcoves and these areas can’t be seen by custody personnel when they are monitoring the cell CCTV. There are additional spyholes on the cell doors that personnel can use to see these areas. But at Harlow, these spyholes have been covered up in four of the cells by the installation of corridor washing facilities. This increases risk, as custody personnel can no longer observe detainees in all areas of these cells. The force is aware of this risk.

Notices pointing out that CCTV is operating are prominently displayed at all suites, as required by paragraph 3.11 of PACE code C. However, it would benefit detainees if the force made this information clearer and easier to access, for example by displaying additional notices in booking-in areas.

Custody personnel have a good awareness of emergency evacuation procedures. All personnel we spoke to took part in their annual evacuation training within the last year. They also had the opportunity to carry out a practical fire evacuation drill. There are enough handcuffs and other emergency equipment at all suites to manage an evacuation if required.

Use of force

When force is used in custody, most incidents are recorded well and in detail on custody records. But custody officers don’t always manage incidents appropriately to make sure that detainees and officers are kept safe. For example, they sometimes get involved in incidents rather than supervising the officers who are using force. And they aren’t always present to supervise these incidents, such as when force is used to place detainees in cells. This is a cause of concern.

We examined custody records to review 26 cases where force was used, and we viewed the CCTV footage in 24 of these cases. We referred six of these cases where there was a lack of management and oversight from custody officers to Essex Police for learning. These cases included poor supervision of incidents, prolonged use of equipment such as handcuffs, spit hoods and leg restraints, poor justification provided for strip searches, and the use of techniques that in our view could have led to injury.

We found that in most cases where force was used, it was proportionate to the risk or threat posed. In over half of these cases, the custody records of the use of force were good and included detail that accurately reflected the incident. This is better than we usually see.

We saw that officers were patient and respectful towards detainees in their attempts to de-escalate situations and avoid having to use force. In some cases, officers clearly recognised the potential risks to detainees when using force. They used pillows to protect detainees’ heads and mattresses to prevent bodily injury. Officers showed awareness of the risks of acute behavioural disturbance and positional asphyxia.

But not all officers recognised the risks associated with using force on detainees who were intoxicated. We referred three of these cases to the force for awareness and learning. These involved officers using force to push away intoxicated or aggressive detainees who posed a physical threat. Detainees were unsteady on their feet and in our opinion risked injury, particularly to their head, from falling and hitting walls or furniture.

Custody officers make a record of when a detainee arrives in custody in handcuffs, leg restraints or spit hoods, and of when they are removed, but not of the time of removal. And they don’t record details of situations where restraints have to be reapplied and then removed again.

Officers using equipment such as handcuffs, leg restraints and spit hoods made sure these were properly applied. But some detainees remained in these kinds of restraints for long periods of time, mostly in holding cells while waiting to be booked in. Custody officers didn’t have sufficient oversight of the risks relating to these detainees, and didn’t prioritise booking them in during busy periods. In eight cases, detainees remained in restraints between 50 minutes and almost three hours. Five of these were juveniles. When this kind of equipment was used, custody officers didn’t review and manage the incidents to make sure that its ongoing use was justified, or whether there were alternative options.

When using force, officers didn’t always use unarmed defence tactics in the best way. They sometimes failed to appropriately control violent or aggressive detainees. This lack of control led to the need for further force to be used to restrain detainees. We saw this happening in 7 of the 26 cases we reviewed.

When officers used force to place detainees in their cells, they didn’t always follow the nationally approved tactics for how officers should enter and leave cells. As a result, in five cases detainees ran towards the cell doors, risking escape or injury to officers and themselves. There was insufficient supervision of these incidents from custody officers.

In line with APP, the force has a process to record the difference between when clothing is removed from detainees for safety reasons and they are provided with replacement clothing, and when clothing is removed during a strip search for concealed items. We found that these incidents were correctly recorded in all the cases we reviewed.

But in our review of use of force incidents, it appeared to be standard practice to remove clothing that included cords from all detainees. In our view this sometimes led to using force when this could potentially have been avoided. When officers used force to remove a detainee’s clothing, it wasn’t always clear that the removal was necessary and justified. Most records didn’t reflect whether officers had considered alternative options to manage the risk.

We saw some good examples of custody officers appropriately authorising strip searches under section 54 of PACE 1984 and recording their rationale. The records detailed the grounds for the search, the officers involved, the location and the result. Strip searches with compliant detainees were managed well and carried out in rooms without CCTV rather than in cells.

But in some cases, the authority for carrying out a strip search wasn’t recorded well enough, particularly when detainees were violent. The justification for the searches lacked some key information about why the search was necessary.

When custody officers authorised strip searches or the removal of clothing for safety reasons to be carried out in cells, they made a record of their rationale for the incident to be recorded on cell CCTV or on officers’ body-worn cameras.

When removing a detainee’s clothing, officers didn’t always take enough care to maintain the detainee’s dignity, for example by using a blanket to cover parts of the body during the search.

In some cases, we saw where clothing was removed, custody personnel didn’t pay attention to whether detainees dressed themselves in the replacement clothing provided, and some detainees remained naked in their cells. This included detainees who were intoxicated, and one juvenile.

In the cases we looked at, we found that some areas of the suites weren’t covered by CCTV, and we couldn’t always hear what was being said. There were also discrepancies in the times shown on different cameras. The force is currently upgrading the CCTV in its custody suites.

Essex Police dip sample 10 percent of incidents where force is used in custody and view the body-worn video footage as part of this. The responsibility for these reviews is now shared between the custody managers. The review process is positive, but it hasn’t identified some of the concerns we have raised. In our view, reviewing body‑worn video footage alone gives a limited overview of incidents. The process could be enhanced by also viewing CCTV, and increasing the number of cases dip sampled.

The force has good processes in place to scrutinise all cases when children are strip searched in custody.

When booking in detainees, custody officers routinely ask arresting officers if force was used. If it was, they remind them to submit individual use of force forms as required by National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance. We asked for the use of force forms relating to the incidents we reviewed. We were expecting 113 and received 97. This is a higher proportion than we usually see.

At the time of our inspection, most custody officers were up to date with their officer safety and first aid training. However, 19 percent of detention officers weren’t up to date with this training and didn’t yet have a date booked for their refresher course.

Detainee care

Custody personnel show a caring attitude to detainees. We saw good examples of this throughout our observations in the suites.

During the booking-in process, custody personnel tell detainees about the provisions available to them such as showers, exercise and reading material. We found evidence of detainees being able to take showers, particularly before going to court.

There is a good range of food and drink available, which caters for most dietary and cultural requirements. The force told us that there is petty cash in all suites so that custody personnel can buy food if they can’t cater for a detainee’s reasonable dietary requirements. This is a result of a recommendation from the independent custody visitors. The kitchens, including the food preparation areas, are clean and tidy. Custody personnel regularly offer food and drink to detainees.

We found that the amount of distraction materials available is limited at all custody suites. At Chelmsford there is just one Rubik’s Cube and one ‘wobble board’. Custody personnel told us that materials aren’t replaced if they go missing. But all suites have a good range of books and other reading material, including foreign language titles. We saw custody personnel offering reading materials, and detainees had books and magazines in their cells.

The exercise yards at Chelmsford, Southend and Colchester are step-free, but the steps leading to the yards at other suites may make them difficult for some detainees to access. Most of the exercise yards are too small and are enclosed like interior rooms, and other than at Southend they don’t provide access to fresh air. Custody personnel told us that some detainees find there is little difference between the yards and their cells, and they don’t benefit from being in the exercise yard.

Detainees using the exercise yards are supervised by a detention officer in person or on CCTV. During our inspection we saw several detainees taking exercise.

Loose toilet tissue is readily available in the cells, although provision of this is sometimes subject to a risk assessment.

There is usually a good supply of replacement clothing in the suites, including underwear, socks and footwear in a range of sizes. However, some suites had temporary shortages of tops in large and extra-large sizes.

Detainees receive a blanket on entering the cell and can request an additional one if needed. There are pillows and mattresses in all cells. All suites have a good supply of towels for detainees to use after showering.

Safeguarding children and vulnerable people

The force has clear policies and procedures for frontline officers and custody personnel when dealing with safeguarding concerns relating to children and vulnerable adults. It has also adopted APP guidance.

Custody personnel can recognise what makes a child or adult vulnerable, and they understand their safeguarding responsibilities. They generally make good records of any decisions or actions they take to safeguard detainees.

In line with the force’s policy, arresting or investigating officers must complete safeguarding referral forms for children and vulnerable adults and discuss any welfare concerns with custody officers. They send the forms to social services through an online portal. Custody officers check that this has been done and make a record on the custody log. We found evidence of this in our audits of child custody records and during our observations in the suites.

The force’s procedures for the arrest and detention of children require all children to be referred to an HCP for a welfare check, and to a community psychiatric nurse from Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust for a mental health assessment. All HCPs are appropriately trained to consider opportunities for safeguarding. In our audits we saw that these referrals generally do take place, and the HCP updates the custody record with a summary of the consultation and any observations and recommendations.

Custody officers make sure that a female member of staff is allocated to oversee the care of girls under 18, as required by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. We saw examples of this working well during our observations in the suites and in our audits. This consideration was also recorded well on custody records.

The force’s safeguarding policy states that when a child is detained, custody personnel must email the Essex Youth Justice Services to find out if the child is known to this service. In our case audits, it wasn’t always clear that this had been done. Where necessary, custody personnel contact children’s social care or the Youth Justice Services and share relevant risk information to help to safeguard the child.

When completing pre-release risk assessments, custody officers consider how children will get home and where they are being released to, but they don’t always make a clear record of the details.

Appropriate adults

Custody personnel first consider family, friends or others known to the detainee to act as the appropriate adult. Where they are unavailable or unsuitable, the force has alternative arrangements in place.

The Open Road charity provides the appropriate adult service for all suites except for Grays, whose appropriate adult services are provided by Thurrock local authority.

Open Road is staffed by volunteers and operates from 7am to 3am, seven days a week. It also operates a 24-hour telephone service for rights and entitlements, charging and bail. Thurrock local authority provides 24-hour appropriate adult cover, but this is more limited at night.

We found that custody officers identify when appropriate adults are needed. When arresting officers contacted custody on the dedicated radio channel about a child they intended to bring to custody, we heard custody officers asking if family or friends could act as the appropriate adult, or if they would need to contact the external service. During our observations in suites, we saw a good example of a custody officer seeking advice from a mental health professional when it wasn’t clear whether an appropriate adult was needed. In that case an appropriate adult was requested from Open Road, who attended custody promptly.

The force’s policy conforms with the requirement of PACE and APP for appropriate adults to attend custody early in the detention period. They should be present when the detainee has their rights and entitlements explained to them, and their fingerprints and DNA taken, not just for interviews. The force records the time that custody personnel contact an appropriate adult, and expects this to be done within an hour after detention is authorised. The force told us that the call is made within 24 minutes in 85 percent of cases.

The contract with Open Road specifies that the appropriate adults it supplies should arrive within four hours of being contacted. The force monitors this, although in our audits we found that custody personnel didn’t always clearly record when appropriate adults arrived.

The appropriate adult service will try to attend early in the custody process for juveniles, although this isn’t always the case for vulnerable adults. In our case audits relating to detainees with mental health needs, we found that custody personnel promptly requested appropriate adults, but they sometimes didn’t attend custody because they were reluctant to attend unless an interview was going to take place. This wasn’t chased up by custody officers or by inspectors when carrying out PACE reviews.

Children generally don’t wait long for an appropriate adult to arrive in custody. But in some cases, there were delays due to the service being unavailable or parents being unable to travel immediately. During our observations in the suites, one child didn’t receive support from an external appropriate adult for over 15 hours. This was because they had arrived at custody at nearly midnight, and the following morning the only available appropriate adult was dealing with another detainee at a different suite.

Due to the different local authority arrangements for the appropriate adult service, there can sometimes be delays if detainees at Grays custody suite live outside the Thurrock area, or if Thurrock residents are detained at a different custody suite.

When parents or friends act as appropriate adults, custody personnel explain the role and provide a leaflet. Appropriate adults can also access information about the role using the QR code displayed on posters at all suites.

Children

The force has a clear focus on diverting children from custody where possible. Frontline officers and custody officers consider alternative options, such as voluntary attendance or out-of-court disposals. The force’s pilot initiative, Operation Detour, also provides opportunities to avoid the unnecessary arrest of children.

When considering whether to authorise detention, custody officers scrutinise whether the arrest was necessary, or whether there are other options. They are confident in refusing detention if the reasons for the arrest aren’t sufficient. The force reviews all refusals. It told us that from 1 January 2024 to 30 April 2024, custody officers refused detention for 41 children. This shows a commitment by the force to making sure children aren’t held in custody when there are alternative options.

The force expects children to be prioritised for booking-in, and arresting officers use the dedicated radio channel to notify custody officers when they have arrested a child. But it wasn’t clear from the records or from our observation in suites that custody officers do routinely prioritise booking-in children. They told us they would consider this, but it would depend on who else was waiting to be booked in and the risks posed by each detainee.

The force’s policy is clear that children shouldn’t spend any longer than necessary in custody. We saw that custody officers are proactive in overseeing the progress of investigations to keep children’s time in custody to a minimum. Custody officers told us that when it is possible to release a child on bail they do so as soon as they can, and we saw examples of this in our case audits. In our custody record analysis, we found that the average time that children spent in custody was 10.4 hours, compared with 19.9 hours for adults.

In most cases, we found that custody officers recorded their justification for keeping a child in custody overnight, either before or after charge. But when children are charged and remanded in custody overnight, they usually have to stay overnight in police detention rather than being moved to alternative local authority accommodation. This is a poor outcome for these children.

Data provided by the force shows that in the year up to our inspection, it made 19 requests to the local authorities for secure accommodation, and none of these resulted in a child being moved. There is no secure accommodation available in Essex or surrounding areas, and it is generally not practical or in the best interest of the children to move them long distances.

The force made 29 requests for non-secure accommodation and in ten of these cases children were moved out of custody. In these cases, the force told us that decisions not to move the children were based on practicality and the child’s best interests, usually due to the time of the remand. The force scrutinised these decisions and was satisfied that they were appropriate in the circumstances.

However, the force told us it is committed to removing remanded children from custody where it is practicable to do so. It meets quarterly with its local authorities and social services to review all cases where children have been held overnight in police custody after being charged. It has worked with local authorities to make sure that there are two beds available for children who need non-secure accommodation. But this work hasn’t yet addressed the issue of the lack of secure accommodation.

When making decisions about a child’s safety and welfare, custody personnel speak with the child and take into account their views and circumstances. Custody officers and HCPs must make a record of their conversation with the child, and we saw some good examples of this during our inspection.

In our observations in the suites, we saw custody personnel providing a good level of care to children in custody. Food and drink are offered and provided regularly, and some distraction materials such as foam footballs are available. Some of the cells have chalkboards on the walls, and children can spend time out of their cell in the exercise yard or with their appropriate adult.

The force scrutinises all custody records relating to detained children and discusses the findings at monthly performance meetings. One of the custody managers reviews the decisions and actions relating to the grounds for detention and remand, appropriate adult requests, strip searches, safeguarding and allocation of a female carer. If custody personnel haven’t followed the correct procedures, inspectors provide individual feedback.

Healthcare

Essex Partnership University Foundation Trust provides liaison and diversion (L&D) services to Essex Police. Physical healthcare support for detainees in custody suites is provided by HCRG.

The force monitors the contract through quarterly performance meetings with the local authority and all healthcare providers. These meetings are used to monitor performance and manage risk.

There is good joint working between the force and its healthcare providers. Effective joint governance arrangements are in place to make sure that quality healthcare and L&D services are provided to detainees, and action is taken to address any areas that need to be improved.

Custody personnel and healthcare staff carry out regular audits of care records, medicines, and infection prevention and control. Where necessary, action plans are put in place to make sure that the healthcare provision meets national standards.

HCPs are based at each custody suite and provide healthcare support to detainees 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. One HCP is shared between Clacton and Colchester.

The contract with HCRG specifies that its HCPs should see 95 percent of detainees within 60 minutes of being referred. But in the year up to our inspection, this target had only been met in one month. In most months, HCPs saw only 90 percent of detainees within 60 minutes. This is mostly due to the level of HCP vacancies at all suites except Clacton and Colchester, which means that not all shifts can be covered. In April 2024, 82 percent of shifts had full cover, 11 percent had partial cover and 7 percent of shifts weren’t covered at all. The travel time between Clacton and Colchester also affects how quickly HCPs can see detainees at those suites.

HCRG has an ongoing campaign to recruit more HCPs, but the lengthy vetting process makes progress slow. In some cases, vetting HCP candidates is taking up to 12 months. Gaps in the rota are filled by senior HCPs, existing HCPs working additional shifts, and temporary staff.

HCPs and L&D staff receive relevant training for their roles and their performance is appraised each year. They spoke positively about their training, but not all HCPs have completed it. This may affect their clinical decision-making and presents a risk for detainees.

The infection, prevention and control arrangements for clinical rooms are adequate. But at Southend and Clacton, some medication is stored in the clinical room fridge along with HCPs’ food, and at Grays, medication is stored in the main custody fridge where custody personnel store their food. This is poor practice due to the risk of cross‑contamination.

There are no separate forensic rooms at any of the suites. This means that healthcare staff and custody personnel can’t fully mitigate the risk of cross-contamination.

A defibrillator and other essential emergency equipment are stored in an emergency bag in the clinical room at each of the suites. HCPs regularly check these to make sure the bag contains all relevant items and that these are in date.

Healthcare staff can access interpreting services for detainees who speak little or no English, using the custody suite’s LanguageLine tablet or their phone. We found this worked well when it was required.

HCRG has systems in place to report and record complaints and incidents. Generally, few healthcare-related complaints or incidents are reported directly, although when they are, they are dealt with promptly, and learning is shared with staff as appropriate. The force shares healthcare complaints it receives with HCRG.

Notices are displayed in most clinical rooms, which include information about how detainees can make a complaint about healthcare services. But these notices have no graphics or large writing to attract attention, and the information doesn’t stand out among the other notices on display. This means that detainees may not be aware of their right to make a complaint, and how to do so.

HCRG doesn’t regularly review and update its policies and procedures. We found that some are overdue for review, and some hadn’t been reviewed since 2020. Furthermore, some of these policies lack clarity. For example, the standard operating procedures for the clinical management of alcohol provides conflicting guidance on what treatments can be offered.

Physical health

HCPs provide clinical assessments and treatment to detainees. They are respectful and caring while carrying out their consultations and ask for consent from detainees for healthcare interventions.

HCPs or L&D practitioners can make an assessment of someone’s mental capacity, and whether it might affect their understanding or ability to make day-to-day decisions about their life. If required, they can ask for further support from the L&D team and the force medical examiner. This is a doctor who can carry out roles such as reviewing detainees with complex medical problems, prescribing medication, and providing a medical opinion to support the work of the HCPs.

HCRG is contracted to provide an HCP for each custody suite, with one HCP covering both Clacton and Chelmsford. This HCP travels between the suites, depending on their assessment of the healthcare needs and risks of detainees at each suite. This works well in practice but increases the time it takes for them to assess detainees and can cause delays.

Support for detainees is provided by both male and female HCPs. Detainees can request that an assessment is carried out by an HCP of the same sex, but such requests are rarely made.

HCPs complete clinical assessments and examinations in discrete medical rooms. Positively, they keep doors closed during consultations, unless there is a risk the detainee may become violent or aggressive.

HCPs maintain comprehensive clinical records. They receive electronic notifications from the police system about detainees who need a health assessment. Before they carry this out, they check the detainee’s details against summary NHS clinical records. This is to make sure that the HCP can confirm the detainee’s identity and that the medical information they obtain during the assessment matches the detainees’ health history.

HCPs record detainees’ health needs on an electronic patient record system and write a summary on the custody record. We found that records were clear and concise and contained all relevant information appropriate to the required healthcare intervention.

Mental health

The L&D service provided by Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust is available to support detainees with all vulnerabilities. This includes mental health, but also wider support with housing, substance misuse and social needs.

Three L&D practitioners provide cover across all suites between 8am and 9.30pm, seven days a week. They have the training and experience to assess detainees while they are in custody in relation to mental health, learning disabilities, substance misuse and other vulnerabilities.

Referrals to the L&D service are made by custody personnel and healthcare staff. Due to the high volume of referrals and limited resources, the L&D team can’t accept all referrals, but they prioritise those detainees they consider having the highest risk and greatest need.

L&D staff screen and assess detainees referred to them by custody personnel. Each morning they review the police referrals made since the previous shift to decide which suite to attend first. They prioritise detainees according to risk before making referrals to the appropriate services. Women, children and other vulnerable groups are given priority. L&D staff also write reports for the courts as required.

Following a detainee’s release from custody, L&D staff can provide further support and refer them to appropriate health or social care services. Where necessary, they can divert them away from custody to a more appropriate service that can offer support for mental health conditions, or with housing or other needs.

The L&D team also provides a specialist pathway that helps the police manage the risks relating to high-risk detainees arrested for certain sex offences. These detainees are seen and assessed by mental health workers, as the nature and sensitivity of the alleged offence can increase the risk of suicide.

Outside the L&D service’s working hours, HCPs provide mental health screening and support. Custody personnel can also refer detainees to community services if required. The force medical examiner can also be contacted for advice or to provide an assessment. This would usually only happen for complex cases, but they can provide simple treatment advice if needed.

Where shifts aren’t covered due to leave or sickness, gaps can be filled by a team member volunteering to work overtime or by using temporary staff. Senior L&D team members can also provide cover when required.

Healthcare records completed by L&D staff are comprehensive and well-written. They show clear evidence that detainees have been referred to or informed about a range of appropriate community services when they are released from custody.

If an assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983 is required, then either the L&D team or a member of custody personnel requests an approved mental health professional to attend custody.

The force has clear processes for custody personnel to refer detainee for a non-urgent mental health assessment when they leave custody. We were told that in April 2024, 380 detainees were referred for a mental health assessment, and 36 percent of these attended follow-up treatment sessions.

Frontline officers don’t take people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to custody as a place of safety. When detainees are already in custody after being arrested and show signs of acute mental health problems, custody personnel use section 136 to transfer them to a health-based place of safety.

If a member of custody personnel or healthcare staff is concerned that a detainee may be unwell due to a mental health condition, they can request an approved mental health professional to carry out an assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983. If this doesn’t happen quickly enough, then they can transfer the detainee to an appropriate healthcare facility under section 136 to make sure they are in a more appropriate setting.

Data provided by the force shows that detainees usually wait a long time in custody for a mental health assessment, and then face a further wait for a bed in a mental health facility if needed. In April 2024, the average wait time was 12.5 hours with an additional 4 hour wait for a bed. There is a national shortage of mental health beds.

Between 1 January and 30 April 2024, 73 adults were referred for an assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983 while in custody. Of these, 42 were admitted to hospital under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and 8 were transferred to a section 136 bed due to there not being a hospital bed or an approved mental health professional available.

At the time of our inspection, the force and its healthcare partners were developing a mental health assessment escalation policy for custody. This is intended to reduce the amount of time people spend waiting in custody before they can access mental health services.

The force operates a mental health street triage service. Mental health professionals are available to offer advice and support to frontline police officers dealing with people with mental health conditions. This can include an opinion on a person’s condition, or appropriate information about their health history. This service helps police officers make appropriate decisions, based on a clear understanding of the background to the situation. The service aims to help people to receive appropriate care more quickly, leading to better outcomes. We were told that in the year up to our inspection, the street triage team saw 314 people who might have been detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and taken to a mental health facility, and was able to divert 78 percent of them to other options. Similarly, they saw 436 people who might have been taken to A&E and diverted 80 percent of them.

Substance misuse

The local authority commissions the substance misuse treatment service Phoenix Futures to provide services for adults living in Essex. Phoenix sub-contracts youth services to Full Circle. Health and justice workers support people with substance misuse needs and offer appropriate interventions and treatment.

At the time of our inspection, there were no substance misuse workers based at any of the custody suites. There are plans to provide this service to detainees at all suites from the point of arrest, starting with a trial in Southend. At the time of our inspection, Phoenix was in the process of recruiting new staff for the substance misuse teams.

Custody personnel and healthcare staff make referrals for detainees who need support for substance misuse. There are long waiting times, but it is anticipated that these will reduce once detainees can access the service directly while in custody.

We were told that the proportion of detainees who attend a follow-up appointment following a referral was 20 percent, out of a total of 122 detainees. For alcohol misuse it was 29 percent of 106 referrals. Keeping track of follow-up appointments helps healthcare staff and custody personnel to monitor the effectiveness of the service and understand where there are positive outcomes for detainee referrals.

Under the drug testing on arrest policy, the force has the power to drug test people who are arrested or charged with certain offences. Detainees who test positive for cocaine, crack cocaine or heroin are referred to the substance misuse teams for help and support. When detainees are issued with a drug rehabilitation requirement order, they are required to attend the appointment. Failure to attend will result in re-arrest. The purpose of the order is to encourage people into rehabilitation treatment.

Substance misuse workers spoke positively about their relationship with the force and with other healthcare staff who work in the suites.

Medicines management

HCPs provide a range of care and treatment interventions for detainees, consistent with national guidance and best practice. HCRG has several patient group directives to support staff with making decisions relating to a range of health issues, including acute withdrawal from alcohol and drugs and pain relief. These offer a framework that lets some registered health professionals administer specific medicines to particular groups of patients. Crucially, they allow this to be done without seeing a prescriber.

However, some of the patient group directives are unclear, and some are overdue for review.

Custody personnel provide detainees with nicotine replacement therapy if required.

There are suitable governance arrangements in place to manage medicines, although not all suites have a separate fridge for medicines that need to be kept below a certain temperature. This means that medicines are stored in the same fridges as the ones staff use to store their food. This is not good practice.

HCPs support detainees who are already in opiate substitute treatment to continue this while in custody, subject to relevant checks.

Controlled drugs are managed appropriately, and daily stock checks carried out. Medication errors are reported electronically and investigated, and learning is shared with staff.

Custody personnel securely store medicines brought in with detainees in personal lockers. There is a policy in place for custody staff to provide detainees with access to their own prescribed medicine once this has been checked by the HCP.

Custody personnel support detainees to obtain their medicines from their home or local pharmacy, including those taking opiate substitutes. They also arrange for medicines to be transferred with detainees.

Section 5. Release and transfer from custody

Expected outcomes: Release and transfer from custody

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

When completing pre-release risk assessments, custody officers don’t always consider or refer to risks identified during the assessment completed during the booking-in process, or risks or concerns that arose while the detainee was in custody.

When releasing detainees, custody officers generally provide them with a good explanation of bail and bail conditions and the process of being released under investigation. A good range of leaflets about various support agencies is available, and custody officers generally offer these to detainees on their release.

Custody officers do their best to help detainees get home safely, but they have limited options for detainees who can’t arrange or pay for their own travel. This means that police vehicles are often used. Custody officers told us they always make sure children and vulnerable detainees get home safely.

When detainees are released on bail, under investigation, or without charge, custody officers generally carry out pre-release risk assessments with the detainee present. But this doesn’t happen as it should when detainees are released to court or prison.

Detention officers complete digital person escort records and arrange transport for detainees who are attending court or returning to prison. These are completed well and contain relevant risk, health and medication information.

Some custody officers check the records but otherwise don’t have much involvement or oversight of the release of detainees to court. They rarely speak with detainees to complete a pre-release risk assessment with them. These practices don’t follow APP guidance.

Courts

When detainees are remanded in police detention, they are usually transferred promptly to the next available court and are dressed in appropriate clothes. Detainees appear before a local court in person, although virtual facilities are available if needed.

Detainees remanded or arrested on a warrant later in the day, after the main court transfer, are sometimes able to appear before the court the same day. Custody personnel told us they try to achieve this where possible to minimise the time detainees spend in custody, and that they have a good working relationship with the courts.

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

Cause of concern and recommendation

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 and treatment and conditions 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 cases 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 personnel

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

• Ian Smith: HMICFRS inspection lead
• Lynda Day: CQC inspector
• Nicola Duffy: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Bev Gray: CQC inspector
• Sarah Hamilton: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Catherine Raycraft: CQC inspector
• Andrew Reed: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Emmanuelle Versmessen: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Justine Wilson: HMICFRS inspection officer

Fact page

Note: Data supplied by the force.

Force

Essex Police

Chief constable

B J Harrington

Police and crime commissioner

Roger Hirst

Geographical area

Essex

Date of last police custody inspection

27 February–10 March 2017

Custody suites

• Basildon: 20 cells
• Chelmsford: 15 cells
• Clacton: 10 cells
• Colchester: 14 cells
• Grays: 17 cells
• Harlow: 12 cells
• Southend: 30 cells

Annual custody throughput

12 months to beginning of April 2024: 22,822

Custody staffing

• One chief inspector
• Six inspectors
• 56 custody officers
• 110 detention officers

Health service provider

HCRG

Back to publication

Report on an inspection visit to police custody suites in Essex Police