Report on an inspection visit to police custody suites in Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary

Summary

This report describes our findings following an inspection of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary custody facilities. The inspection was conducted jointly by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in February 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 two recommendations to it and its police and crime commissioner. These address our main causes of concern.

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

Leadership, accountability and working with partners

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary has a clear governance structure for the safe and respectful provision of its custody services. There are strategic and operational meetings to oversee custody services, and we found senior leaders taking an active interest in custody. Custody provision has improved since our last inspection, especially with regard to the physical environment and facilities in custody suites. However, governance and oversight of use of force haven’t improved enough.

The constabulary manages its custody services across four suites at Basingstoke Portsmouth, Southampton, and Newport on the Isle of Wight. It has set minimum staffing levels for each suite that it monitors. But some custody detention officer vacancies, together with sickness absence, make it difficult to consistently meet them. There aren’t always enough custody personnel to provide safe custody services. This leads to officers and staff being stretched at times and not always able to meet detainee needs. All custody personnel complete comprehensive initial training in line with the nationally approved College of Policing course.

The constabulary has adopted the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice (APP) for detention. It also has its own policies. But the constabulary doesn’t always follow guidance, especially when managing detainee risk. The constabulary generally pays good attention to meeting the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and its codes of practice.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary collects and monitors different information to show how well its custody services perform. This data includes the numbers of detainees entering custody, broken down by ethnicity, gender and age; waiting times for detainees to be booked into custody; refusal of detentions; child detentions; and strip search data. But some data may not be accurate, for example the number of times force is used in custody. There are also some gaps in the information collected as the constabulary doesn’t measure how quickly it requests appropriate adults (AAs) for children or vulnerable adults. It also doesn’t monitor the time detainees wait for mental health assessments, or to be transferred to a health-based place of safety.

Although there is structured oversight and governance of the use of force, the information needed to allow scrutiny is sometimes either missing or inaccurate. Use of force forms aren’t completed for every occasion where force is used which leads to missing data. Use of force isn’t always recorded on custody records and our reviews found some instances where it wasn’t recorded at all. There is limited quality assurance of use of force incidents at operational level.

The constabulary therefore can’t assure itself, the police and crime commissioner, or the public that the use of force in custody is always justified, necessary and proportionate. This hasn’t improved since our last inspection and is still a cause of concern.

The constabulary has a good understanding of, and commitment to, meeting the public sector equality duty. It has implemented vulnerability training for custody personnel. At the time of our inspection, custody personnel were completing an ‘inclusion matters’ training package.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary shows clear commitment to monitoring custody outcomes to make sure they are fair. Custody data is broken down by age, gender and ethnicity to assess any potential disproportionality in relation to some important activities such as strip searches and outcomes.

The constabulary has a priority to divert children and vulnerable adults away from custody and the criminal justice system. There is a strong focus on only arresting children as a last resort. The constabulary has worked hard to make sure its frontline officers and custody officers do all that is possible to achieve this, including making referrals to diversionary schemes.

Pre-custody – first point of contact

Frontline officers understand what can make a person vulnerable and take account of this when deciding whether arrest is appropriate. They use alternatives to custody, such as voluntary attendance or community resolutions. They only arrest children after exploring all other alternatives.

There is good support for frontline officers when responding to incidents involving people with mental health conditions. They can call the NHS 111 line and speak to a mental health nurse who can advise on whether to detain a person under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. There is also good information available from the control room regarding a person’s risks.

The constabulary has a transport scheme arrangement for people experiencing mental health conditions. But this scheme isn’t working well and there are excessive waits. This means that police officers sometimes have to use police vehicles for transportation. Officers often have to wait in hospital or mental health facilities with people in mental health crisis.

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

Custody personnel are polite and treat detainees with respect and dignity. They show empathy and understanding towards detainees and their circumstances. In most of the suites there are separate screened-off areas for booking-in which maintain detainees’ privacy. All detainees are routinely offered the chance to speak with a member of the same sex in private about their health and well-being.

Custody personnel recognise how to support detainees’ individual and diverse needs, and try to do so as best they can. The facilities in the custody suites are generally good, but Newport lacks some adaptations for individuals with disabilities. The constabulary is generally good at meeting the needs of women. Detainees can observe their faith while in custody and there are religious texts and items covering the main religions at most suites.

The constabulary’s identification of detainee risk is generally good. However, there are some weaknesses with its ongoing management, and some practices aren’t in line with APP guidance. This means the constabulary can’t always provide safe custody services for all detainees at all times. Risk management forms part of our cause of concern.

Custody officers generally book detainees into custody promptly, but during busy periods there are lengthy waiting times. They don’t always prioritise the booking-in of children or vulnerable adults. In general, custody officers authorise detention appropriately. They also tell detainees about their rights and entitlements in custody, and appropriately authorise bail for detainees released pending further enquiries.

Custody inspectors carry out reviews well and mainly complete them on time and in the best interests of the detainee. Inspectors complete most sleeping reviews appropriately during recognised rest periods. When this happens, they routinely remind the detainee of this at the earliest opportunity.

In the custody cell – safeguarding and healthcare

The four full-time designated suites at Basingstoke, Portsmouth, Southampton, and Newport on the Isle of Wight are generally clean and well maintained. There are very few potential ligature points across the custody estate.

The constabulary’s approach to detainee care is good. Custody personnel are considerate and do their best to meet detainee needs. During our inspection we saw some examples of custody personnel providing good welfare support, notably for women and children.

There are clear processes for officers and staff to follow when they identify concerns about a vulnerable adult or child. They send referrals to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. The constabulary notifies children’s social care about children in custody. It allocates a nominated welfare officer to all children in custody. This is an extension of the statutory requirement for girls under section 31 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and is a positive measure to support the needs of all children detained in custody. Children and vulnerable adults usually receive prompt support from an AA although we saw some cases where the AA took a long time to arrive.

The constabulary has a clear approach to diverting children away from custody. We found that in most cases where children were detained it was for serious offences, and we were satisfied that the detention was necessary. But despite the constabulary’s efforts and work with local authority partners, children who are charged and remanded into police custody aren’t usually moved to alternative accommodation while they wait to appear in court.

Experienced and competent healthcare professionals (HCPs) provide timely clinical assessments and treatment to detainees. The constabulary provides good support for detainees with substance misuse needs, and stores medicines appropriately. There is a clear pathway for custody personnel to refer a detainee for assessment of their mental health and well-being. But due to the shortage of liaison and diversion personnel, not all detainees referred to this service are seen while they are in custody.

Detainees can wait a long time in custody for Mental Health Act assessments. There is an even longer delay if the detainee needs a transfer to hospital. The constabulary doesn’t record data on the length of time detainees wait for assessments. It only records how long detainees wait to be transferred after the criminal matter has been dealt with.

Release and transfer from custody

The process for releasing detainees from custody isn’t good enough. Custody officers don’t oversee this process sufficiently. Officers don’t consider or document all relevant risks on pre-release risk assessments. It is a cause of concern.

The transport service provider Serco is irregular in its attendance times at custody. This doesn’t seem to negatively affect detainees being accepted by the courts. But it does mean detainees spend longer than necessary in custody while they wait to be taken to court.

Causes of concern and recommendations

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 Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary, 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

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary has a clear governance structure for the safe and respectful provision of its custody services. An assistant chief constable oversees custody strategy. A superintendent and a chief inspector are responsible for the day-to-day management of custody. A two-year force custody strategy underpins this oversight.

The constabulary has operational and strategic meetings to oversee and manage custody services such as:

• the deputy chief constable chairs a monthly force level performance meeting that provides the main oversight and scrutiny of force performance;
• the office of the police and crime commissioner chairs a custody scrutiny panel and there is also a quarterly use of powers board which scrutinises use of force; and
• the custody senior leadership team attends a monthly custody and attendance meeting and a monthly performance meeting.

In addition to these internal meetings there are pan-Hampshire multi-agency partnership meetings. There is also a mental health crisis and tactical delivery board and a secure mental health transportation procurement group. Relevant healthcare partners attend all meetings.

Custody provision has improved since our last inspection, especially with regard to the physical environment and facilities. But oversight of use of force hasn’t improved enough.

The constabulary manages its custody services across four suites at Basingstoke, Portsmouth, Southampton, and Newport on the Isle of Wight. The units on the mainland are modern. But Newport is dated and lacks facilities such as adapted cells for detainees with disabilities and adapted showers or toilets. There are very few potential ligature points across the custody estate, which is positive.

There are 5 cadre custody inspectors, 69 custody officers and 103 detention officers. The constabulary has set minimum staffing levels and monitors these for each suite. But some detention officer vacancies, together with sickness absence, make it difficult to consistently meet these levels. The constabulary is recruiting detention officers to fill the vacant posts. It pays local policing constables overtime to cover detention officer shortages. But it only gives these constables basic information and doesn’t provide them with sufficient training or a period of shadowing before they carry out the role independently. This means the constables can’t carry out the full duties of the role as required by APP.

We found that there aren’t always enough custody personnel to provide safe custody services. This leads to officers and staff being stretched at times and not always able to meet detainee needs. When units are busy, and at daily handover periods, there are long delays in booking in detainees. Detainees waiting to be booked in at these times often have to wait in vehicles in van docks, some for long periods of time. This is an inappropriate place to hold detainees arriving in custody and it increases risk. We found that the average waiting time from arrival at the station until authorisation of detention was 51 minutes. The longest wait was three hours and five minutes.

Training for custody personnel is comprehensive. Custody and detention officers complete an initial training course, which includes training on vulnerability, such as neurodiversity. Experienced personnel mentor new custody team members while working in custody before they can be signed off to work independently.

Custody personnel receive up to ten days of continuing professional development annually. This covers a variety of topics, including any national or legal updates. Recent training included vulnerability awareness, mental health, and fire evacuation drills.

The constabulary has adopted the College of Policing’s APP for detention. It also has its own policies. But we found it didn’t always follow guidance, especially when managing detainee risk. For example, in some cases there was a delay in creating and recording care plans for detainees. And custody officers don’t oversee the release process and the pre-release risk assessment. The management of risk and the pre-release process is a cause of concern.

Custody personnel understand the approach to recording and investigating adverse incidents in custody (any incident that, if allowed to continue to its conclusion, could have resulted in death or serious injury to any person). The constabulary shares learning from adverse incidents. There have been no deaths in police custody suites in Hampshire since our last inspection.

Accountability

The constabulary collects and monitors different information to show how well its custody services perform. Senior officers receive monthly performance reports that include summary information about the findings from the quality assurance of custody records. The reports also include:

• the numbers of detainees entering custody, broken down by ethnicity, gender and age;
• waiting times for detainees to be booked into custody;
• how many detentions are refused;
• detainee welfare checks;
• complaints;
• child detentions; and
• strip search data.

The range of information is better than we normally find in our custody inspections.

But some data may not be accurate, such as the number of times force is used in custody. There are also some gaps in the information collected. The constabulary doesn’t measure how quickly custody personnel request AAs for children or vulnerable adults. It also doesn’t measure the time detainees wait for mental health assessments, or to be transferred to a health-based place of safety. The constabulary has an ambulance transportation arrangement, but this is failing to provide the service required.

Detainees in suspected mental health crisis are sometimes bailed or released under investigation, but subsequently remain in custody for several hours, waiting for transport to a place of safety. On one occasion we found a detainee waiting for seven hours. This is a poor outcome. The constabulary needs to work with the private ambulance service and approved mental health professionals to make sure that those with mental health conditions aren’t held in custody for longer than necessary.

The constabulary generally pays good attention to meeting the requirements of PACE 1984 and its codes of practice. Custody officers only authorise detention where it is necessary to do so. Detainees receive their rights and entitlements properly, and custody officers take time to explain these well. Reviews of detention are timely. Custody personnel generally ask detainees to make representations prior to deciding whether detention should be further authorised. Custody officers or reviewing inspectors always inform detainees when a review has taken place while they were asleep. This is positive.

But governance and oversight of the use of force in custody aren’t good enough. The constabulary can’t assure itself, the police and crime commissioner, or the public that the use of force in custody is always justified, necessary and proportionate. This hasn’t improved since our last inspection and is now a cause of concern.

Although there is structured oversight and governance for use of force, the information needed to allow scrutiny is sometimes missing or inaccurate. Custody personnel don’t complete use of force forms for every occasion where force is used, which leads to missing data. They don’t always record use of force on custody records. Our reviews found some instances where it wasn’t recorded at all.

There is limited quality assurance of use of force incidents at operational level. The constabulary views a relatively small number of incidents on CCTV monthly to assess how well they are handled. In our own review of incidents, we found that these weren’t always managed well. We referred six cases back to the constabulary to review.

Custody records aren’t always recorded to an acceptable standard. The use of pre‑populated texts in the force IT system (Niche), together with custody personnel not recording enough information about individual detainees, can result in contradictory information. Although we saw some very detailed entries on custody records, important information was sometimes missing or confusing. For example, we didn’t always see a bespoke entry for risk assessment, and some reviews of detention required further detail.

The constabulary has some good quality-assurance arrangements in place. The five custody inspectors dip sample custody records and review a varying number each month. They choose a mixture of male and female detainees, those who are vulnerable, and children. Their assurance process covers different areas such as compliance with detainee welfare checks, strip searches, disposals, reviews of detention and use of force. But despite this, the quality assurance hasn’t identified some of the concerns we found.

The constabulary’s quality assurance process could be improved. For example, the inspectors could assess the quality of information held on custody records rather than just checking that tasks have been completed. Instead of just monitoring whether pre‑release risk assessments are completed, they could review the content of these assessments as well as the timing of them and whether detainees have participated.

The constabulary has a good understanding of, and commitment to, meeting the public sector equality duty. It has implemented vulnerability training for custody personnel, including some neurodiversity training. All custody personnel are currently completing an ‘inclusion matters’ training package.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary shows clear commitment to monitoring custody outcomes to make sure they are fair. Custody data is broken down by age, gender and ethnicity to assess any potential disproportionality in relation to some important activities such as strip searches and outcomes. The constabulary has recently set up a new disproportionality board with an initial focus on children in custody.

The constabulary is open to external scrutiny. Independent custody visitors have good access to suites and carry out weekly visits. The scheme manager spoke positively about how custody operates but had some concerns about how busy and stretched custody personnel were at certain times of the day. They told us that custody personnel are responsive to issues raised and that the constabulary deals with concerns effectively.

The charity Barnardo’s helps the constabulary analyse and scrutinise the use of strip searches of children in custody.

The police and crime commissioner has an active interest in custody. She receives a monthly performance report which contains information on overall throughput and waiting times, bail, use of force, strip search and custody record audit compliance results. In addition, the deputy police and crime commissioner chairs a quarterly scrutiny panel.

Working with partners

The constabulary has a clear priority to divert children and vulnerable adults away from custody. There is a strong focus on only arresting children as a last resort, and the constabulary has worked hard to make sure its frontline officers and custody officers do all that is possible to achieve this. This includes making referrals to diversionary schemes where appropriate.

The constabulary has been working with its local authorities to use alternative accommodation arrangements for children who have been charged and refused bail. However, despite efforts made at the strategic level, there has been limited improvement.

Making sure that people with mental health conditions receive appropriate support while in custody remains a significant challenge for the constabulary. Some detainees wait too long in custody for an assessment, or to be transported to a mental health facility for an assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983. This is a poor outcome for detainees.

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 in Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary understand what can make a person vulnerable. They take account of this when deciding whether arrest is appropriate and use alternatives to custody, such as voluntary attendance or community resolutions.

The constabulary provides training in the needs of vulnerable adults and children. It has trained its frontline officers on vulnerability, including on neurodiversity and mental health.

Officers only arrest children when all other alternatives have been explored. They can refer children to diversionary schemes. The officers we spoke to had a good understanding of which schemes were available in their areas and how to make the referrals.

There is good support for frontline officers when responding to incidents involving people with mental health conditions. The force control room has good information available regarding a person’s risks. And officers can call the NHS 111 medical helpline and speak with a mental health nurse who can advise on whether to detain a person under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. There is also a dedicated mental health team in the community that can respond to incidents.

The constabulary has an arrangement for transporting people experiencing mental health conditions. However, this scheme isn’t working well. It results in excessive waits for those in mental health crisis to be transported to hospital, and for police personnel waiting with them. This is a poor outcome for detainees and an ineffective use of police resources.

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 polite and treat detainees with respect and dignity. They show empathy and understanding towards detainees and their circumstances. During our inspection we saw custody personnel interacting well with children, vulnerable adults, detainees who were upset or anxious, and detainees who displayed challenging behaviour.

We found that during the booking-in process custody officers were reassuring and took time to explain the process. They routinely offered all detainees the chance to speak with a member of the same sex in private about their health and well-being.

At Southampton, Basingstoke and Portsmouth, the design of the suites means that custody personnel can maintain privacy when booking in detainees. Each desk has a separate area screened off from other detainees. There are discrete booking-in rooms and we saw these being used for children and vulnerable adults. The design of the older custody suite at Newport offers limited privacy, but this isn’t usually an issue as detainee numbers are low.

CCTV operates at all custody suites including in the cells and there are signs pointing this out. Custody personnel tell detainees about the CCTV operating in cells, and that the toilet areas are pixellated. They usually do this when taking detainees to their cells, to help them understand the custody environment.

The design of the shower areas at Basingstoke and Portsmouth is particularly good for maintaining detainee privacy. The showers at Southampton are opposite cells, although detention officers told us they make sure detainees can’t be seen when using the showers. All showers are step-free.

Meeting diverse and individual needs

Custody personnel recognise how to support detainees’ individual and diverse needs, and try to do so as best they can. The facilities in the custody suites are generally good, but Newport lacks some adaptations for individuals with disabilities.

Physical adaptations

At Basingstoke, Southampton and Portsmouth, some cells have physical adaptations to meet the needs of detainees with disabilities, such as lowered call bells. Two cells at Portsmouth have higher benches to help people with physical disabilities, but the benches in the other suites are low.

Facilities to help with mobility, hearing or sight

There are facilities to help detainees with disabilities that affect their mobility, hearing or sight. For example:

• All suites have wheelchairs in good condition.
• There are sight lines on the walls in all cells in all suites to help detainees with visual impairments.
• All suites have hearing loops, but some custody personnel said they didn’t know how to use these.
• There are adapted toilets and showers at Basingstoke, Southampton and Portsmouth.

However, some facilities could be improved:

• Not all suites have enough extra-thick mattresses.
• The custody suite at Newport is a step-free environment, but there are no facilities for detainees who need to use an adapted toilet or shower.

At Basingstoke, easy read and Braille versions of rights and entitlements are stored in folders behind the booking-in desks. In the other three suites, custody personnel didn’t know where these were kept. They couldn’t find them when we first asked, although they did eventually find them.

The constabulary has provided some training to help custody personnel understand what makes someone vulnerable, including some training on neurodiversity. But some personnel told us they would like more training on vulnerability. The custody suites have visual aids such as cue cards to help neurodivergent detainees with communication.

There are cells for vulnerable detainees at Basingstoke, Southampton and Portsmouth. Some cells have glass-fronted doors. At Southampton and Portsmouth, these cells can be partitioned off to minimise noise.

The constabulary is generally good at meeting the needs of women. During booking‑in, we saw that custody personnel routinely asked women if they would like to speak with a female member of personnel in private. In some cases, female members of personnel were specifically allocated to oversee the needs of a female detainee. This isn’t an expectation, but it is good practice. But this didn’t happen on every occasion, and it wasn’t always reflected on the custody records that an officer had been allocated. There are good supplies of feminine hygiene products at all suites, and custody personnel offer these to female detainees.

Custody personnel routinely ask detainees of all genders if they have caring responsibilities.  We saw examples where caring needs were discussed with detainees during the booking-in procedure, and between custody officers during shift handovers.

Detainees can observe their faith while in custody, and there are religious texts and items covering the main religions at most suites. These are mostly stored correctly, but we found that the cupboard at Portsmouth where they are kept was untidy. At Basingstoke, we could only see the Qur’an and Book of Psalms, although custody personnel told us that they had ordered more religious items. The custody suites have guidance about how to handle religious items, although in some suites this could be made clearer.

The constabulary uses DA Languages to provide interpreters for detainees who speak little or no English. There are two-way phones at booking-in desks for detainees to simultaneously communicate with the interpreters and custody personnel. This system helps maintain detainee privacy. We saw some good examples of interpreters being immediately available for detainees during the booking-in process. But in one case a detainee waited a long time for their interpreter to arrive for the interview.

Risk assessments

The constabulary generally identifies detainee risk well. But there are some weaknesses with how it manages ongoing risk while detainees are in custody, and some practices aren’t in line with APP guidance. This means the constabulary can’t provide a custody environment that is always safe. Risk management is a cause of concern.

Custody personnel book in most detainees promptly. But when suites are busy, detainees are kept waiting outside in police vehicles, which isn’t appropriate. Force policy and APP expects that custody personnel prioritise the booking-in of children and vulnerable adults. But this is done at the discretion of individual custody officers and doesn’t always happen.

Custody officers focus appropriately on identifying risks, vulnerability factors and welfare concerns. They gather evidence from previous custody records and the force’s IT system (Niche). And they check previous warning markers on the Police National Computer and other information that might help their assessment. They often ask relevant supplementary questions. Prior to a detainee’s arrival, custody records are populated with the information gathered from force systems to help identify additional risk.

We found that when detention officers book detainees into custody, some risk assessments weren’t always comprehensive enough. They mostly accepted the detainee’s answers to the risk questions without probing further to obtain more information on which to base their decisions. Detention officers rarely asked the arresting officers if they had any other relevant information to add. Custody officers were often busy processing other detainees and unable to provide guidance or oversee this process.

Custody officers generally complete thorough initial care plans. They mostly set observations at the level commensurate with the presenting risks. They review the observation levels where appropriate and change them according to the risks presented. But the rationale for the change isn’t always documented on the custody record. Custody officers told us that observation levels are sometimes reduced when staffing levels are low in order to meet demand. This means custody personnel aren’t appropriately managing risk during those times. This practice presents risks for the constabulary and the detainees in its care. In our audit of use of force cases, some care plans weren’t completed until several hours after the detainee’s arrival. This left gaps as to what observation levels were in place for initial detention periods.

Custody personnel understand how to rouse intoxicated detainees when carrying out level 2 rousing checks. They do this well, engaging in appropriate contact and communication. It is positive that level 3 observations on CCTV are used in addition to, rather than instead of, physical checks. The same officer who completes initial level 2 rousing checks usually completes all subsequent rousing checks. This provides continuity of care and allows for quick identification of a decline in the detainee’s behaviour or condition. This is in line with APP guidance.

When detainees require closer observation at either level 3 or level 4, custody officers usually provide a verbal and written briefing to police officers completing the observations. But on one occasion we saw, it was the officers carrying out the observations who completed this briefing. Custody officers provide police officers carrying observations with an incident log to complete. This is scanned onto the custody record once the observation has finished.

Level 3 observations take place in a busy open area in the suites, where there are lots of people working. This causes distraction to the police officers assigned to carry out these observations. During our inspection we saw a level 3 observation carried out, and 11 people interacted with the officers within a 2-hour period. If detainees aren’t monitored continuously as intended, these distractions potentially increase their risk.

Unless dictated by risk, custody personnel don’t generally remove cords and footwear from detainees. This is an improvement since our last inspection. Custody personnel provide suitable replacements where needed for the comfort and well-being of detainees. When anti-rip clothing is used to manage detainees at risk of self-harm, we found its allocation was mainly proportionate to the risks posed. Justification for this was appropriately documented on the custody record.

Handovers between custody personnel are structured and detailed, and have improved since our last inspection. They include all incoming custody personnel and HCPs, and are carried out formally using detailed information, with a focus on risk. Once the handover is completed, the incoming custody officer visits and takes time to speak with all detainees in their care. They also check the entire custody suite to make sure the facilities are safe, clean and fit for purpose.

Cell call bells are audible and custody personnel respond to them promptly on the intercom system. This fosters good communication between detainees and custody personnel. Call bells can be muted with the permission of a custody officer but will automatically reset after ten minutes. During the period when the cell bell is muted, a detention officer views the detainee on CCTV to mitigate risk.

All custody personnel carry anti-ligature knives at all times. Spare knives are provided to police officers completing level 3 and 4 observations and to visiting PACE inspectors.

The management and control of cell keys isn’t good enough. In Southampton, spare keys are stored in an unattended and unlocked drawer that can be accessed by any member of custody personnel. Although detention officers told us that keys weren’t taken by other personnel, we saw this happen. At Portsmouth and Basingstoke, the keys are kept in lockable key cabinets.

Individual legal rights – detention

Custody officers generally book detainees into custody promptly, but during busy periods there are lengthy waiting times. The data we received from the constabulary showed an average waiting time of 30 minutes. However, in our custody record analysis, it was 51 minutes, and on several occasions during our inspection, we saw detainees waiting more than 2 hours to be booked in.  Custody officers don’t always prioritise the booking-in of children or vulnerable detainees. However, all suites make good use of the discrete booking-in rooms to allow privacy for detainees.

In general, custody officers authorise detention appropriately. Arresting officers usually provide the circumstances surrounding the arrest well. Where the necessity for detention is unclear, custody officers ask further questions before authorising detention. They also make separate entries on the custody record which clearly document the rationale behind the necessity to detain. This is better than we usually see.

Officers use voluntary attendance as an alternative to arrest. All voluntary attendance interview rooms are located outside the custody suite. This mean that voluntary attendees only enter custody for fingerprinting, DNA and photographs.

Officers mostly carry out investigations expeditiously, with various teams investigating different offences. For example, all high-risk domestic abuse offences are dealt with by the criminal investigation department.

Custody officers authorise bail appropriately for detainees released pending further enquiries. They set bail conditions that are necessary and proportionate to the offence being investigated. Custody officers explain conditions to detainees well. They inform those released under investigation of the possible offences they could commit if they contact victims or witnesses while the investigation is ongoing. But on some occasions when detention officers carried out the release process, they didn’t explain bail conditions well enough. Custody personnel provide detainees with documentation outlining their conditions, date, time and where to answer bail.

Custody personnel told us there are good working relationships with immigration services for moving detainees from police custody to immigration detention facilities. Despite this, detainees sometimes wait a long time after their immigration papers (IS91 – authority to detain) are served before being transferred to an immigration facility. Information provided by the constabulary shows that for the year 1 February 2023 to 31 January 2024, immigration detainees spent an average of 23 hours in custody, 19 hours of which were after their immigration papers had been served.

Individual legal rights – detainees’ rights and entitlements

Custody officers tell detainees about their rights and entitlements in custody. These include the right to:

• have someone informed of their arrest;
• consult a solicitor and access free independent legal advice; and
• consult the PACE codes of practice.

We saw officers giving good explanations to detainees about their rights and entitlements, and routinely providing them with a comprehensive written notice about these.

All suites have enough copies of the most recent edition (2023) of PACE code C books as well as Braille copies of rights and entitlements. However, it took a long time for custody personnel to locate the Braille versions. Some suites didn’t have easy read versions for those who need help in understanding their rights. But the constabulary took action to remedy this during our inspection by printing some out.

There are posters in all suites in different languages advertising the right to free legal advice. As per paragraph 6.5 of PACE code C 2023, when a detainee declines their right to free and independent legal advice, custody officers generally explore the reasons why. However, on one occasion in our children’s audit the custody officer didn’t record the reason on the custody record.

There are enough interview and consultation rooms for detainees to consult privately with their legal representatives. Legal representatives usually attend custody in person and can request a copy of their client’s custody record. When a detainee’s legal representative isn’t present in the custody suite, the detainee can use a private telephone booth to speak with them.

All custody officers we spoke to understood the requirements of PACE code C annex M. This states that detainees should receive essential documents and important information about custody processes in a language they can understand. Custody personnel knew how to obtain the translated documents.

When detainees are held incommunicado (delaying their right to have someone informed of their arrest) custody officers authorise this appropriately and remove it when no longer required.

There are no posters in the suites explaining the retention and disposal policies for DNA, fingerprints and custody images. But custody personnel routinely tell detainees about these policies. DNA samples are regularly collected from suites. However, only one suite holds these DNA samples securely.

Reviews of detention

Inspectors mainly carry out reviews of detention on time and in person. Appropriately, they carry out most sleeping reviews during recognised rest periods. When they carry out reviews while a detainee is asleep, they routinely remind the detainee of this at the earliest opportunity, as required by paragraph 15.7 of PACE code C 2023.

During our observation of reviews, we saw inspectors taking into consideration the detainee’s welfare. They asked about any issues which could affect their detention and offered food, drink, showers and reading material, as well as time in the exercise yard. Investigating officers brief inspectors regarding the status of the investigation, and inspectors only authorise further detention once they are satisfied that it is necessary. We saw good entries on the custody record reflecting this.

Although we saw reviews being done well in person, this good practice isn’t always reflected on custody records. We found this in our custody record analysis. In these cases, there was an over reliance on the use of templates with text not deleted correctly. This left detention logs confusing and not specific to the individual detainee.

Complaints

There are posters in all the suites advising detainees how they can make a complaint. There is also information about this on the rights and entitlements leaflet. Both the posters and leaflet advise that complaints need to be directed to the front office.

However, PACE code C paragraph 9.2 states that a report must be made as soon as practicable to an inspector or above if a detainee makes a complaint. Complaints shouldn’t be delayed until after detainees have left custody. This is also the expectation of the leadership team.

When complaints are taken, the constabulary records these very well. But due to a lack of clear guidance, it is difficult to know if complaints are missed. Therefore the constabulary can’t assure itself that it has accurate complaints data.

The constabulary doesn’t display any leaflets from the Independent Office for Police Conduct with information about how to complain to them, so detainees may not be aware of this route.

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

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary has four full-time designated custody suites at Basingstoke, Portsmouth, Southampton, and Newport on the Isle of Wight.

The units at Basingstoke, Portsmouth and Southampton are modern, but Newport dates from the 1960s and lacks some facilities that we normally expect to find. For example, it doesn’t have adapted cells for detainees with limited mobility, or adapted showers or toilets. It has a cramped and dated booking-in area. But the units on the mainland have more modern facilities. They are clean and bright, with dedicated discrete booking-in areas and glass-fronted cell doors to aid those who experience claustrophobia. The areas behind the booking-in desks are spacious. But they don’t offer a private, quiet area to carry out level 3 CCTV monitoring.

The suites are generally a safe environment for detainees. There are very few potential ligature points across the custody estate, which is better than we normally find. During our inspection, we gave the constabulary a comprehensive illustrative report, detailing these and the physical condition of the suites.

There is a regular programme of deep cleaning, and cleanliness throughout the custody estate is mainly good. But cell floors at Southampton appeared only superficially clean. There was staining, particularly around some toilet areas. There is little graffiti throughout the units.

There is natural light in all cells, and they are well maintained. There are also toilets and sinks for hand washing in all cells across the custody estate.

Custody personnel complete daily and weekly safety maintenance checks of the physical environment, including cells and communal areas, and record these well. They told us that repairs are mostly completed quickly.

There is comprehensive CCTV coverage in the custody suites including in all cells. This is important to help manage risk. Signs pointing out that CCTV is in operation are prominently displayed in most communal places. But these signs could be more visible to detainees in the booking-in areas.

Most custody personnel understand emergency evacuation procedures, and the constabulary completes evacuation drills in all suites. There is enough emergency equipment in the suites including enough handcuffs to evacuate cells if needed.

Use of force

Custody personnel don’t always record when force is used on detainees in custody. And they don’t manage all use of force incidents well. This makes it difficult for Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary to show that when force is used in custody, it is necessary, justified and proportionate. It is a cause of concern.

We reviewed 10 custody records where force was used and viewed 20 use of force incidents on CCTV. We saw some good communication, negotiation and care by officers in their attempts to de-escalate situations with violent detainees. This sometimes avoided the need to use force.

In most cases that we reviewed, officers demonstrated an awareness of risk and where appropriate they used mattresses and pillows to protect detainees from harm. In one case, an officer showed good care to a detainee over a prolonged period by protecting their head to stop them from severely hurting themselves. We highlighted to the constabulary two positive examples of good care and de-escalation techniques.

We saw that handcuffs, leg restraints or spit hoods were often deployed proportionately, and officers regularly checked they were in place correctly. We saw escorting officers removing handcuffs from compliant detainees soon after they arrived in the holding areas.

The provision of anti-ligature clothing was appropriate to the risks posed. But sometimes, detainees were left with some of their own clothing, and they used this to self-harm. This could have been avoided. It led to multiple cell entries where force was used, which increased the risk of harm to detainees and officers.

We saw that custody officers were often involved in the use of force rather than having overall supervision of situations. In almost half of the cases we viewed on CCTV, custody officers didn’t apply unarmed defence techniques correctly, which led to an escalation of force and further risk of injury.

Custody officers record when handcuffs or other restraints such as spit hoods are used, but they don’t record the time when these are removed. In some incidents they didn’t record the re-application of restraints when detainees were in their cells. This means the constabulary can’t assure itself that use of force is managed and recorded accurately.

Not all use of force incidents are recorded on the custody log as per APP and force policy. In some instances we saw, only a single incident relating to the same detainee was recorded, when more than one incident had occurred within the detention period. When use of force incidents are documented, they often lack detail of the type of force used, who was involved, injuries or risks identified, or other tactics that may have been considered.

Officers who use force on detainees in custody don’t always submit individual use of force forms as required by National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance. We asked for use of force forms for the incidents we reviewed but didn’t receive all the forms we were expecting. We expected 141 forms but only received 53.

The constabulary carries out some quality assurance on the use of force in custody, including viewing CCTV of incidents. But this process hasn’t identified some of the concerns we have raised.

We referred six cases to Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary for learning.  These include poor uses of techniques and poor management of detainees who self‑harmed which led to force being used on multiple occasions. These incidents could have resulted in serious injury to custody personnel and/or the detainees involved.

When custody personnel carried out strip searches or provided replacement clothing to mitigate risk, it wasn’t clear if they had switched off cell CCTV monitoring screens during the process to protect the detainee’s dignity. CCTV can be viewed from the custody desks and seen by other custody personnel.

In some cases where clothing was removed from male detainees, female officers were present. This is inappropriate.

The constabulary is good at scrutinising incidents where children are strip searched. We saw some good examples of strip search authorities that had the justification, officers involved and outcomes clearly recorded. But the constabulary doesn’t routinely scrutinise the recording of strip searches on custody records for adults to make sure that they are justified, necessary and proportionate. The constabulary told us that it will begin looking at strip searches of adults.

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

Detainee care

The constabulary’s approach to detainee care is good. Custody personnel are considerate and do their best to meet detainee care needs. During our inspection we saw some examples of custody personnel providing good welfare support, notably for women and children.

Custody personnel regularly inform detainees of available provisions such as exercise and reading materials at the time of booking in. We saw this happening during our inspection, particularly for children. However, it didn’t happen in all cases, or it wasn’t always recorded.

The constabulary has produced an information sheet that tells detainees what they can expect in custody and the care provisions available to them. It highlights the importance of detainee care and welfare. This sheet is attached to the written notice of rights and entitlements provided to detainees at booking-in. However, custody officers told us that this information isn’t available in other languages so those who can’t read English won’t benefit from this information.

All suites have a good range of food that covers most dietary requirements. The kitchens and food preparation areas are clean, and there is clear written guidance for custody personnel to refer to when preparing food for detainees. Food and drink are regularly offered, and there is fresh drinking water in all cells. At Portsmouth and Basingstoke, custody personnel can provide detainees with breakfast and lunch from the canteen menu.

Custody personnel sometimes offer detainees showers, for example when detainees are going to court after being in custody overnight. All cells have hand washing facilities. There is a good range of toiletries and cloth towels at all suites for detainees who use the showers or washing facilities. Custody personnel routinely provide boxes of toilet paper in cells.

All suites have a good range of distraction materials for children and others who may benefit from them. During our inspection we saw these being offered and used. The constabulary has a video book that explains custody procedures to help reduce anxiety about being in custody, especially for those who haven’t been in custody before. We spoke with a teenage girl who told us she found this book very helpful.

There is a reasonable range of reading material for adults and children in all suites. The constabulary relies on donations from officers and staff and so the choice and quantity of books and magazines vary. Initially there were no foreign language titles, although one of the suites obtained some books in other languages during our inspection.

Step-free exercise yards are available in all suites. Other than at Southampton these offer partial cover from bad weather. Custody personnel use CCTV to monitor detainees using the exercise yards, according to individual risk assessments.

Replacement clothing including underwear is available in all suites. There is a good supply and range of sizes. Plimsolls in all sizes are also available.

Custody personnel routinely provide a pillow and two blankets, and detainees can ask for extra blankets too.

We found the quality and condition of mattresses in cells was generally poor. The practice of folding them when not in use has damaged them. We gave feedback to the constabulary, and during our inspection we saw that some mattresses had been replaced and the constabulary had ordered more. There was a good supply of extra-thick mattresses at Basingstoke and Newport but not at Southampton and Portsmouth.

Safeguarding children and vulnerable people

The constabulary follows APP and has its own policies on safeguarding children and vulnerable adults in custody. Custody is covered in detail in several policies. We saw some good examples of custody personnel considering safeguarding concerns, but they didn’t always record them well enough.

The initial training course for custody and detention officers includes safeguarding and vulnerability. In addition, members of The Appropriate Adult Service (TAAS) provide a half-day training session for custody personnel. The constabulary also provides continuing professional development. Custody personnel told us that within the last six months they had attended the College of Policing’s vulnerability in custody training day that was based on real life scenarios. They had also attended a mental health training day with a session from approved mental health professionals and mental health ambulance workers.

There are clear processes for officers and staff to follow when they identify concerns about a vulnerable adult or child. They send referrals to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. The constabulary notifies children’s social care about children in custody.

It is the constabulary’s policy that officers submit a public protection notice (PPN) for every child who is arrested. There is a prompt for custody officers on the child‑in‑custody checklist to make sure this is done. But in our case audits, we found officers hadn’t always recorded this, so it was unclear if a PPN was completed for every child.

During our observations in the suites, we saw good examples of custody officers considering the safeguarding needs of children and vulnerable adults and making referrals for when they leave custody. We also saw that safeguarding was discussed during shift handovers. But the pre-release risk assessments we looked at during our case audits didn’t always show how safeguarding had been dealt with.

All children in custody are referred to the Hampshire Liaison and Diversion Service (HLDS). In the custody records we reviewed, we found that HLDS staff weren’t always available to personally visit children and vulnerable adults in custody due to understaffing. This is a poor outcome for detainees. However, the constabulary told us that HLDS actively follows up referrals once children have been released from custody.

The constabulary told us that it will shortly start implementing mandatory referrals to an HCP for all children where force was used during the arrest or in custody, beyond compliant handcuffing.

Appropriate adults

Custody personnel will first consider family, friends or others known to the detainee to act as the AA. Where they aren’t available or if they aren’t suitable, the constabulary uses TAAS to provide this support.

TAAS representatives are based at Southampton and Portsmouth between 10am and 1pm, and 4pm and 8pm. These are the times of highest demand. They work at Basingstoke and Newport on a call-out basis. The service operates on a 24-hour basis, although it is more limited at night.

The constabulary expects AAs to be present for rights and entitlements, fingerprints and DNA, and interviews. AAs provide support for detainees throughout the custody process, which is positive.

We found that AAs were often present with children when inspectors carried out PACE reviews, and in one case the AA made representations about the child’s detention. We spoke with a father whose child had been detained in custody. He told us he had no concerns about how his child had been treated but said he would have liked more information about his role as the AA.

In our audits of child detention cases, custody officers always identified the need for an AA, and promptly made requests for them to attend custody. They generally made an accurate record of this on the custody record, but this didn’t happen in all cases.

Children generally didn’t have a long wait for an AA to arrive, whether this was a parent, family member, carer or TAAS representative. Where necessary, custody officers asked permission from parents for another person to act as the AA. During our observations in the suites, we saw that a custody officer quickly identified the need for an AA for a vulnerable adult and arranged for them to attend custody at the earliest opportunity.

However, in some of the cases we looked at in our custody record analysis and audits, we found there were delays in children and vulnerable adults receiving AA support. This was due to the lack of availability of TAAS representatives, or parents being unable to travel immediately. We also found there were sometimes delays when referrals for children went through social services. In one case the AA was ready to attend but asked to delay due to the investigating officer’s availability.

The constabulary told us that it has a good working relationship with TAAS. Contract review meetings are held once every three months. This provides scrutiny of how well this service is meeting the needs of children and vulnerable adults. Police and social services representatives attend this meeting. TAAS performance data shows that in the six months up to our inspection, AAs attended custody soon after being requested, with average response times of around 30 minutes for adults and children.

The children’s lead for the constabulary told us that they dip-sample custody records of children in custody to understand how the service is working day to day. This includes monitoring how long it takes for AAs to attend custody for rights and entitlements. The constabulary also meets with AAs every few months to answer questions and try to resolve any issues. But the constabulary didn’t provide any data to show outcomes from this quality assurance process, and it doesn’t analyse its own data about AAs at a strategic level either. This may mean there are gaps in understanding how well it is meeting the needs of children and vulnerable adults.

Children

The constabulary has a clear approach to diverting children away from custody. When it is necessary to detain a child, there is a good focus on welfare and safeguarding.

The constabulary’s policy expects custody officers to prioritise booking in children. We saw some evidence of this happening, and in our case audits most children didn’t wait a long time to be booked in. However, from our observations in the suites we found that custody officers don’t prioritise children consistently.

Custody officers are confident to refuse detention and told us that response team officers understand that the threshold to detain children is higher than for adults. There has been a slight increase in the numbers of children detained in custody, and the constabulary has some understanding of the reasons why.

In the cases we looked at where it was considered necessary to detain a child, some custody officers gave a detailed rationale for decisions to authorise the detention and to keep them in custody. We saw a good example of a custody officer making sure an investigation was dealt with quickly to avoid the child spending the night in police detention.

We found that inspectors mostly carried out PACE reviews for children well. They considered welfare needs and the need to scrutinise ongoing detention. Reviews often took place in the presence of AAs. The constabulary has its own checklist for inspectors carrying out PACE reviews for children, but we didn’t see reference to this in the custody records.

We found that in most cases where children were detained it was for serious offences, and we were satisfied that the detention was necessary. Custody officers generally provided a rationale for detaining children overnight, although in one case we looked at, the custody record lacked key detail, and delays in detention time were unaccounted for.

The constabulary told us that it regularly scrutinises waiting times. It recognises that sometimes children have had to wait if other detainees have more urgent needs, but it told us this would be in exceptional cases.

We found that custody officers used the discrete booking-in areas for children or gave their rationale for using main areas (because there were no other detainees present).

Custody officers must complete a child-in-custody checklist for each child who is booked into custody, and at shift handovers. This happened in all the cases we looked at. There were good examples of custody officers using this checklist to make sure all necessary actions had been completed to promote the child’s best interests. But in a few cases the checklist lacked detail, making it more difficult to see how it was helping to achieve the right outcomes for children.

The constabulary allocates a nominated welfare officer to all children in custody. This is an extension of the statutory requirement for girls under section 31 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and is a positive measure to support the needs of all children detained in custody.

The nominated welfare officer is usually the same detention officer responsible for detainee checks. We saw examples of this working well in practice, with custody record entries showing that the detention officer had introduced themselves and explained their role. A new nominated welfare officer took over at shift handovers, and we saw evidence of this in custody records. But some of the custody record entries were more generic and didn’t reflect the same level of personal care.

Custody personnel provide a good level of care for children in custody. They offer them food and drink, distraction materials and books. Children can spend time out of their cells in the exercise yard or with their AAs. Some of the cells and exercise yards have chalkboards that children can use. The constabulary has also developed a video book that explains custody procedures and can help reduce anxiety.

We found that custody personnel routinely allocate a cell for each child who is detained, but they don’t always record the rationale for this on custody records. They told us, where possible, they make sure children can spend time outside cells with their AA, or in the exercise yard. In our case audits, we saw examples of this happening.

When children are charged and remanded into police custody, they should be moved to alternative accommodation arranged through the local authority while they are waiting to appear in court. Despite the constabulary’s efforts and its work with local authority partners, there has been little progress on the outcomes for these children since our last inspection. In most cases the constabulary requests alternative accommodation, but few children are moved.

Between 1 February 2023 and 31 January 2024, 70 children were detained overnight in Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary custody after being charged and refused bail. The constabulary’s own data shows that it made 47 requests to the local authority for secure accommodation and 8 requests for alternative accommodation. Two children were moved. The constabulary had some understanding of why requests weren’t made in the other 15 cases, but the lack of detailed information on custody records makes it difficult to accurately scrutinise each case.

The constabulary reviews each case where children are detained overnight after being charged, including the feedback provided by the courts on bail decisions. It holds regular operational meetings with children’s social care and can escalate to the constabulary’s strategic governance forum.

The constabulary recognises that it needs to do more with local authority partners at a strategic level to try to address the issue. It told us it has identified some learning such as getting the right balance between asking for alternative vs secure accommodation and making sure that early conversations take place with social services.

Healthcare

PHL Group provides physical healthcare support to detainees and carries out forensic testing in custody. The healthcare contract is managed well, with 95 percent of HCPs seeing detainees within contractually agreed time frames. HCPs are based in each custody suite to provide healthcare cover on a 24/7 basis. Senior HCPs are available to support their staff and provide cover if staff shortages occur. Where HCPs fail to see detainees as per contractual obligations, the constabulary can apply “financial credits” (penalties).

NHS England has commissioned Berkshire Healthcare Foundation Trust (BHFT) to provide liaison and diversion services across Basingstoke, Portsmouth and Southampton. Staff operate out of these suites 7 days a week, from 9am to 9pm. Nacro provides this service at Newport, and there is cover from 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday, with on-call provision at weekends.

The NHS commissioners and constabulary leads work together to oversee and monitor the HLDS contract, and hold monthly task and finish meetings.

In 2023, NHS England undertook a health needs assessment of all the liaison and diversion services in England. This highlighted the need for significant improvement in providing support for serving and former armed forces personnel within Hampshire and Isle of Wight. It outlines that the healthcare teams should work with the constabulary to share important patient information when screening individuals. We saw this being done promptly. In addition to this, PHL Group received a bronze award in recognition of its commitment to supporting current and ex-military personnel as well as their families.

The constabulary and its contractors work together well. Integrated governance processes operate effectively and make sure the quality and performance of health and liaison and diversion services are monitored, with weaknesses identified and acted on. All providers share and review performance data with the constabulary at contract review meetings. Providers carry out regular clinical audits, including audits of care records, medicines, and infection prevention and control. They develop action plans where necessary to make sure the provision of care meets national standards for England and Wales.

HCPs and HLDS staff receive relevant training for their roles and undergo annual appraisals of their performance. All staff can access clinical supervision. PHL Group also offers staff access to brief refresher videos. These cover awareness of various health issues such as sepsis and menopause. They also cover suicide, safeguarding and assessing illness in children. The training helps staff contribute to decisions regarding risk, fitness to detain and interview, and safe release. Most HCPs we spoke to were positive about the training they received.

Most of the clinical rooms are compliant with infection prevention and control guidance. However, Newport and Southampton don’t have sinks in their medical rooms. The medical room at Southampton also didn’t have a clinical waste bin, although personnel told us that one has been ordered. There are dedicated forensic medical examination rooms at Portsmouth, Basingstoke and Southampton. These rooms are cleaned to meet forensic standards for taking samples, and personnel use a tag entry system for two of the sites. At Southampton, the forensic medical examination room doesn’t operate via a tag entry system, but the room is cleaned before and after use. There are plans for new custody suites to be built which will allow for appropriate clinical space at the Newport and Southampton custody suites.

Medical rooms have essential emergency equipment. All suites have easily accessible, police-owned defibrillators. Equipment is regularly checked to make sure it is fit for purpose and ready for use.

Healthcare staff have access to interpretation services for detainees who speak little or no English. There are no leaflets in foreign languages, but personnel told us they plan to introduce these shortly.

All suites lack office space for both HLDS staff and substance misuse workers. This affects how they can engage with their work and detainees.

Both PHL Group and BHFT have electronic reporting systems for recording incidents. The organisations investigate incidents promptly and share learning with staff through meetings and staff emails. They review and discuss outcomes of investigations with the constabulary as part of regular contract monitoring meetings.

Both providers have a confidential complaints process. HCPs give a freepost card to detainees so that they can provide feedback. This includes a QR code that can be scanned to leave a confidential complaint online. Few complaints are received by the providers, although we were told some complaints are made directly to the police and then shared with the appropriate managers.

Physical health

Experienced and competent HCPs provide timely clinical assessments and treatment to detainees. They are respectful and caring during their interactions with detainees. Personnel seek consent from detainees for healthcare interventions, and detainees’ mental capacity is assessed and recorded where appropriate.

Contractual obligations dictate that HCPs are based in all four custody suites. We were told that three staff were due to start, including one staff member at Newport. The service also uses two regular bank staff to minimise gaps in the rota during leave and sickness so staff can assess detainees promptly.

The service employs both male and female HCPs. Where possible, an assessment is carried out by an HCP of the gender requested by the detainee.

HCPs complete clinical assessments and examinations in dedicated medical rooms. But due to the location of the clinical rooms, conversations can be heard when risk dictates that the doors are left open. This means that detainee dignity, privacy and confidentiality aren’t always protected during these examinations. This hasn’t improved since our last inspection.

Personnel complete electronic clinical records for detainees, in which they document detainees’ needs. These include physical and mental health, substance misuse, safeguarding and social needs. The clinical records we reviewed were comprehensive. They contained care plans that reflected the assessed needs of the detainees, so care was safe and appropriate. HCPs and BHFT staff also have access to the police IT system (Niche). This means that all healthcare staff have a full overview of detainees’ treatment and care needs, and custody personnel have current information about the detainee’s health.

Detention officers receive specific training from the healthcare provider during their induction. Topics include medical issues in custody, signs of overdose and withdrawal, side effects of medication, cuff injuries, and observing a detainee. It also covers officers’ roles in handing out some medicines. This has greatly improved since our last inspection.

Mental health

As part of the contract, BHFT provides mental health support and NHS Reconnect services (a community service providing continuity of care for people in the criminal justice pathway, such as courts and prison). Dedicated and skilled staff assess detainees in relation to mental health, learning disability, substance misuse or other vulnerabilities when they arrive in police custody. They support detainees and refer them to appropriate health or social care services following release. They also divert detainees away from custody into a more appropriate setting where necessary.

There is a clear pathway for custody personnel to refer a detainee for assessment of their mental health and well-being. But due to a shortage of staff, HLDS isn’t able to see all detainees who are referred to the service. HLDS staff prioritise assessments based on risk information and whether there has been any previous contact with mental health services. They routinely prioritise assessments for veterans, women and children.

All HLDS staff, including those based in the courts, attend daily virtual team meetings to discuss detainee care. These meetings assist with allocating HLDS staff across the suites and help them to make decisions regarding detainees’ needs and risk management.

We reviewed a small sample of clinical records and found personnel completed comprehensive assessments of detainees’ needs. They signpost and refer detainees to a range of community services and provide them with written information on release from custody. This is positive. The records we reviewed also included interventions by community engagement workers following referrals from HLDS staff. This highlighted that having one shared clinical care record for each detainee works well. It allows for good oversight of all detainee healthcare needs while they are in custody and on release.

Frontline officers don’t use custody as a place of safety when detaining a person under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Where detainees are already in custody, custody personnel use section 136 to transfer those showing acute mental health problems from custody to a health-based place of safety. But a shortage of beds at health-based places of safety across the county means that there can be delays moving detainees out of custody. Information given to us by the constabulary shows that between 1 February 2023 and 31 January 2024, it used section 136 on 182 occasions. Two of these were for children.

If a detainee’s mental health condition deteriorates, custody personnel arrange for a section 2 Mental Health Act 1983 assessment. Between 1 February 2023 and 31 January 2024, there were 243 referrals for a section 2 assessment. Of those, 176 detainees were subsequently sectioned and transferred to a hospital.

Detainees can wait a long time in custody for Mental Health Act assessments. There is an even longer delay if the detainee is assessed as needing a transfer to hospital. The constabulary doesn’t record data on the length of time detainees wait for mental health assessments. During this period, detainees are often bailed or released under investigation but remain in custody waiting for transfer.

Positively, the constabulary has a dedicated mental health team. This team maintains a focus on responding to people with current mental health issues in the community. They work with the local NHS to make sure there is a consistent and appropriate approach to supporting those people experiencing complex mental health issues in public places. There are monthly forums between a range of stakeholders and community providers where information is shared.

The Hampshire Integrated Care System commissioned a private ambulance service for transporting patients with acute mental health needs from public places or custody suites to a hospital. But this transport system isn’t working effectively. It postpones, delays and even cancels the transport for detainees in custody. This creates further delays for detainees in accessing appropriate care and is a poor outcome for them.

Substance misuse

HCPs carry out an initial physical assessment of detainees with chronic and complex needs. Where required, they give treatment to those experiencing drug and alcohol withdrawal while in custody. They use nationally recognised assessment tools to monitor and inform decisions regarding withdrawal. When clinically necessary, they administer medicines to relieve symptoms of withdrawal. The care records we reviewed reflected clinical decision-making and clear treatment care plans for those experiencing withdrawal.

HCPs support detainees already in opiate substitute treatment in the community to continue this while in custody, subject to confirmation of ongoing compliance. Patient group directions (PGDs) are in place which provide a clear process for HCPs. PGDs offer a framework that lets some registered HCPs administer specific medicines to particular groups of patients. Crucially, PGDs allow this to be done without them seeing a prescriber. Some HCPs are also prescribers. The PGDs help HCPs make decisions on various health issues, including acute withdrawal from alcohol and drugs and pain relief.

The substance misuse agencies Change Grow Live, the Society of St James and Inclusion have been contracted to cover the four custody suites in Hampshire and Isle of Wight from Monday to Friday. But cover at Southampton varies due to a staffing shortage. Dedicated teams support people through the criminal justice pathway, offering psychosocial interventions, assessments and treatment plans. They assess the detainee in custody and make referrals and signpost to charitable organisations. They share information with the constabulary through verbal handovers, so that any relevant information is recorded on the detainee’s custody record. However, this is only done when there is enough capacity.

The constabulary has a drug testing on arrest strategy, to drug test detainees who may have substance addiction problems and where the offence was either caused by, or contributed to, drug use. If detainees test positive for cocaine, crack cocaine or heroin use, the constabulary refers them to the substance misuse agencies for help and support. The courts may also use the test results to determine sentencing. For example, the courts may impose a drug rehabilitation requirement order, where individuals are required to engage with addiction services. This strategy is a positive step in helping to steer individuals into treatment pathways and ultimately rehabilitation.

Substance misuse workers also inform the police when individuals don’t attend appointments related to community treatment orders. This can lead to breach action being taken. There are joint working relationships between the different providers, with staff from each organisation attending video calls and sharing client information regardless of which part of the county they are in.

Across Hampshire, the substance misuse agencies provide specific support for young people under 25 through the commissioned No Limits service. There is also Reconnect, a care after custody service that seeks to improve the continuity of, and access to, community support for those individuals with an identified health need.

Staff we spoke to from all providers said their working relationship with the police is mainly positive. Recovery workers offer a range of harm reduction interventions to detainees, including medication and needle exchange. Information about this is placed in detainee property ready for release.

Medicines management

PHL Group staff provide a range of care and treatment interventions for detainees, consistent with national guidance and best practice. The service has several PGDs to support HCPs with making decisions relating to a range of health issues, including acute withdrawal from substances. The HCP service doesn’t offer nicotine replacement therapy, but this is available from custody personnel.

PHL Group has robust governance arrangements for managing medicines. HCPs use systems and processes to safely administer, record and store medicines. They manage controlled drugs appropriately and complete regular audits of medicines to identify any potential errors. They report errors through the electronic reporting system, and PHL Group investigates them promptly.

Custody personnel securely store medicines brought in with detainees in personal lockers. There is a policy in place for custody personnel to provide detainees with access to their own prescribed medicines once the HCP has checked them. But despite this process, the practice holds some risk as custody personnel could potentially give out the wrong medicines as they aren’t trained medical professionals.

Custody personnel arrange for detainees’ own medicines to be transferred with them to court or to other care providers.

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

The release process at Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary custody suites isn’t good enough and forms part of our cause of concern. Custody officers don’t oversee the process sufficiently, and they don’t consider all relevant risks or document them on the pre-release risk assessments.

Unless a detainee is considered high risk, detention officers mainly manage the release process from custody without oversight by custody officers. During our inspection, most detainees we saw were assessed as low or standard risk at the point of release and were released by detention officers. In our observations in the suites, some detention officers recorded limited details on the pre-release risk assessments. These assessments often lacked important information from the initial risk assessment/care plan or failed to mention issues that had become apparent while the detainee was in custody. For example, detention officers frequently missed previously disclosed substance misuse and addictions on pre-release risk assessments.

When detainees are released on bail, detention officers explain what this means. But there were some instances in which officers didn’t explain bail conditions well enough as they didn’t fully understand which offences the conditions related to.

Custody officers complete the release process for high-risk detainees and manage this well. They engage well with detainees and consider most risks, including housing and how the detainee is getting home. Where appropriate they also signpost detainees to support services.

All sex offenders are considered high risk on release and require an enhanced risk assessment to manage their risk appropriately. There is good communication between custody officers and investigating officers, which means that a comprehensive pre-release risk assessment is completed. We saw some good examples of support provided to those accused of sex offences, which considered housing and emergency post-custody mental healthcare.

Leaflets with information for further support on release are available to give to detainees on leaving custody, and there are copies in multiple languages. But detention officers don’t always provide these to detainees. The officers rarely pro‑actively offer support, and it wasn’t always clear how a detainee was getting home. But there were some instances where we saw good arrangements being made.

Detention officers complete digital person escort records and arrange transport for detainees who are attending court and for those recalled to prison. These contain relevant risk and medical information, and detention officers generally complete them to a good standard. Custody officers review all digital person escort records. But we found one digital person escort record that had been completed by a detention officer at another unit who hadn’t personally met the detainee. We spoke with two detention officers who told us that this sometimes happens. This is poor practice as important risk factors could be missed.

Custody officers don’t usually oversee the transfer of detainees to court unless they are considered high risk. Instead, detention officers complete the process. Detention officers are also responsible for completing pre-release risk assessments on release to courts. We found detention officers rarely completed these in the presence of the detainee but instead did them after they had left custody. This means that potential risks may not be addressed or mitigated before transfer. These practices don’t follow APP guidance.

Courts

Detainees appear before the local court in person and are dressed appropriately. They generally appear before the next available court. The transport service provider Serco attends custody irregularly. While this doesn’t seem to negatively affect detainees being accepted by the courts, it does mean that detainees spend longer than necessary in custody.

Detainees who are remanded or arrested on a warrant during the day are sometimes seen by the court later the same day. There is a good working relationship between custody personnel and court staff, and we saw detainees being accepted by the court up to 2.30pm.

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

Causes of concern and recommendations

Areas for improvement

Leadership, accountability and partnerships

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

In the custody cell – safeguarding and healthcare

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
• Emmanuelle Versmessen: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Justine Wilson: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Mark Calland: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Julie Mead: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Nicola Duffy: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Lynda Day: CQC inspector
• Bev Gray: CQC inspector

Fact page

Note: Data supplied by the force.

Force

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary

Chief constable

Scott Chilton

Police and crime commissioner

Donna Jones

Geographical area

Hampshire and Isle of Wight

Date of last police custody inspection

17–27 October 2016

Custody suites

• Basingstoke: 36 cells
• Portsmouth: 36 cells
• Southampton: 36 cells
• Newport: 10 cells

Annual custody throughput

For the period 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023: 26,407

Custody staffing

• One detective superintendent
• One chief inspector
• Five inspectors (plus one temporary funded drug testing on arrest inspector)

Block establishment

• 68 custody officers
• 103 detention officers

Central custody team

• One sergeant (PACE adviser)
• Three central custody advisers

Bail team

• Six sergeants
• One bail supervisor
• Six bail staff

Health service provider

PHL Group

Back to publication

Report on an inspection visit to police custody suites in Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary