Report on an inspection visit to police custody suites in West Yorkshire Police

Summary

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

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

To help the force improve, we have made two recommendations to it and the Mayor of West Yorkshire. These address our main causes of concern.

We have also highlighted a further 15 areas for improvement. These are set out in section 6 of this report.

Leadership, accountability and working with partners

West Yorkshire Police has clear governance arrangements for its custody services. There are strategic and operational meetings to oversee custody services and senior leaders take an active interest in custody.

Since our last inspection, there has been progress in improving custody services, but some recent changes aren’t fully understood by all personnel. Other concerns haven’t been addressed well enough, especially around the use of force.

The force operates five custody suites. These are at Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield and Wakefield. The force can use additional facilities at Dewsbury, Pudsey and Stainbeck if a main suite is closed.

Workforce

The force monitors how many personnel work in custody so that it can meet demand effectively. We found there were enough personnel to manage suites safely.

All custody personnel complete comprehensive initial training. This in line with the nationally approved College of Policing course.

Reviews of detention

The force generally follows PACE and its codes of practice but doesn’t always do so for reviews of detention. The force has adopted the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice (APP) guidance for custody, but it doesn’t always follow this either.

More positively, custody inspectors are present in suites and generally carry out reviews on time and face-to-face.

Performance information and custody records

The force collects and monitors a range of information to manage custody performance, for example, how many detainees enter custody (including children) and average detention lengths.

But some key information isn’t collected, such as how many detainees need assessment under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Some information is also inaccurate. The quality of recording in custody records isn’t good enough.

The force isn’t using available performance information well enough to identify concerns. They are also not using it to understand and improve how custody services affect detainee outcomes. In addition, the force has limited quality assurance arrangements. This is a cause of concern.

Use of force incidents

Governance and oversight of use of force in custody isn’t good enough. It has not improved since our last inspection.

Data on use of force incidents isn’t accurate enough. This is because it isn’t properly recorded on custody records and use of force forms. While there are some reviews of use of force, review of incidents on CCTV is limited.

We have concerns around the frequent use of incapacitant spray (PAVA) in confined spaces, such as cells and cell corridors.

The force can’t assure itself or the public that, when force or restraint is used in custody, it is necessary, justified and proportionate. This is a cause of concern.

Equality and external scrutiny

The force understands its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty and has a good focus on equality, diversity and inclusion. The force provides training to custody personnel, who try to meet detainees’ individual needs.

The force monitors disproportionality in some areas, such as strip searches, and discusses this at meetings with senior managers.

The force is open to external scrutiny. Independent custody visitor volunteers report a good working relationship with the force.

Working with partners

The force and its partners – which include local authorities and youth offending teams – are committed to keeping children out of custody. The force works with the youth justice service to support children and address the causes of offending behaviour.

The force has been more focused on improving outcomes for children who are charged and refused bail. These efforts have improved outcomes for children since our last inspection.

The force works well with mental health services to support people with mental health conditions. There is good evidence of efforts to divert them from custody.

Pre-custody – first point of contact

Frontline officers have a good understanding of what can make a person vulnerable. They consider this when deciding whether to arrest someone. They also use alternatives to custody, such as voluntary attendance or restorative justice. Officers understand the importance of keeping children out of custody where possible.

Officers told us that they don’t always have enough information from call handlers before they attend incidents. For incidents involving people with mental health conditions, the support available to police officers isn’t always good enough. When deciding whether to detain a person under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, officers can’t always access advice from mental health professionals.

The force doesn’t use custody as a place of safety for people detained under the Mental Health Act. But officers can face long waits when taking these detainees to hospitals or other health-based places of safety. This is a poor outcome for those in a mental health crisis and isn’t a very effective use of police officers’ time.

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

Respect

Custody personnel treat detainees with politeness and respect. Privacy is generally well-maintained in custody.

However, detainees aren’t always told about CCTV operating in the cells. Also, facilities in some suites can sometimes make it difficult to protect detainee dignity.

Meeting individual and diverse needs

Custody personnel understand how to support detainees with individual and diverse needs and try to meet these as best they can.

There are no adaptations in any of the cells. This makes it difficult to help detainees with hearing or visual impairments and physical disabilities.

The force is good at meeting the needs of women, but custody personnel don’t always ask detainees of any gender if they have caring responsibilities.

Risk assessments

The force’s ability to identify risk when detainees enter custody is generally good; risks are then managed well in custody.

Custody personnel generally book detainees into custody promptly. But custody officers do not routinely assess risk to prioritise vulnerable detainees.

Observation levels are mostly set correctly and custody detention officers carry out checks well. But custody personnel don’t place all detainees under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs on level 2 observations with rousing. This doesn’t follow APP guidance.

As we found in our last inspection, custody personnel routinely remove footwear and clothing with cords from detainees, rather than carrying out individual risk assessments. This is force policy in West Yorkshire. But it is contrary to PACE code C 2019 and doesn’t follow APP guidance.

Positively, West Yorkshire Police doesn’t use anti-rip clothing in any custody suites.

Handovers between shifts are good and this has improved since our last inspection.

The force could do more to make sure custody personnel have control of keys and oversee detainees’ movements in the suites.

Individual legal rights – detention

Arresting officers generally provide the circumstances of arrest well. But they don’t always explain the necessity for arrest in enough detail, as required by PACE code G 2012. Custody officers feel confident to refuse detention where appropriate.

Custody officers clearly explain legal rights and entitlements to detainees, and detainees are able to exercise their rights. But they aren’t always told how they can apply to have DNA samples destroyed.

There are enough PACE code C 2019 books for detainees. This includes easy read versions for those who might need them. Custody personnel provide information in foreign languages to detainees where needed. The force doesn’t sufficiently promote the complaints process to detainees.

Detainees generally don’t spend longer than necessary in custody. The force makes every effort to finalise cases in the first period of detention where possible. It also uses bail appropriately.

Reviews of detention are generally carried out on time and in person. Reviewing officers focus on detainee welfare during these reviews.

Some reviewing officers don’t give detainees the chance to make representations before they authorise continued detention. This hasn’t improved since our last inspection and remains an area for improvement.

In the custody cell, safeguarding and healthcare

Physical environment

Cleanliness across the five suites is generally good. However, there are potential ligature points in the cells, showers and exercise yards in each suite. Custody personnel have limited knowledge of these.

There are some gaps in coverage which limit the force’s ability to review CCTV. This is a potential safety risk.

Detainee care

Detainee care is generally good. Most detainees we spoke to were positive about the care they received in custody.

Food and drink are regularly provided. But detainees aren’t always told about available care provisions such as showers or exercise. This means they may not know what they are allowed to access.

Most suites have a limited range of reading material. They also have a good supply of replacement clothing. There are sufficient mattresses and blankets for cells.

Safeguarding children and vulnerable people

The force has suitable arrangements to safeguard children and vulnerable adults in custody.

Custody personnel refer children to children’s social care if there are any concerns about their welfare. Referrals are mandatory if a child is strip searched. The force also automatically refers all detained children to the liaison and diversion (L&D) teams based in each custody suite.

The L&D service is available to other detainees who might need their support. The force assigns a same-sex member of custody personnel to girls detained in custody. Their role is to monitor them and look after their welfare needs.

Appropriate adults

Some appropriate adults (AAs) arrive promptly, but children and other detainees can wait a long time before receiving support. This is especially common when family members or friends aren’t available.

Information about AA contact and arrival times is often missing from custody records. This makes it difficult for the force to understand how well it is meeting detainees’ needs in this area.

Children

There is a good focus from frontline, senior and custody officers on diverting children from custody.

Custody personnel generally only detain children where necessary. Custody officers will also refuse detention where appropriate. The force has systems for monitoring outcomes for children detained in custody.

The force makes good use of bail to minimise custody time for children. Custody inspectors provide appropriate scrutiny when reviewing whether ongoing detention is needed.

When the force charges and remands a child in custody overnight, they aren’t always moved to local authority accommodation. This is due to a lack of available facilities.

The force and local authorities have agreed a new protocol for dealing with children remanded in custody. The force told us this is leading to improvements.

Healthcare

Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust (LCHT) provides healthcare support to detainees. This healthcare support is generally good.

Experienced and competent healthcare practitioners (HCPs) provide treatment to detainees. They can contact doctors for telephone advice. LCHT doesn’t embed HCPs in every suite. However, staffing levels have increased and this has led to more consistent coverage across suites.

Detainees mostly receive prompt clinical assessment, with HCPs prioritising based on risk and needs. They record a summary of how they treat detainees on custody records. This means that custody personnel are aware of the detainee’s healthcare needs. HCPs contribute to decisions regarding a detainee’s risk and their fitness to be detained, interviewed or released.

The L&D service offers daily support to detainees of any age or level of vulnerability. This includes specialist practitioners who support children and female detainees. The service can provide ongoing support for detainees with issues around mental health, drug and alcohol misuse, and housing and social problems.

Release and transfer from custody

Custody officers generally make sure detainees are released safely. They complete pre-release risk assessments with the detainee present and discuss risks with them. However, recording of this isn’t always good enough and action isn’t always taken to make sure detainees get home safely.

Detainees released after being investigated for sex offences aren’t always given the necessary information.

Detention officers complete digital person escort record forms for detainees attending court. But custody officers don’t do enough to make sure all relevant information is included and accurate. This has not improved since our last inspection.

The force’s external contractor promptly transfers detainees remanded in custody to the next available court. This minimises their time in custody.

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 Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).

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

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

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

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

The expectations are grouped under five inspection areas:

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

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

The methodology for carrying out the inspections is based on:

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

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

Terminology in this report

Our reports contain references to, among other things, ‘national’ definitions, priorities, policies, systems, responsibilities and processes.

In some instances, ‘national’ means applying to England and Wales. In others, it means applying to England, 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

West Yorkshire Police has clear governance arrangements for its custody services.

Within the criminal justice portfolio, an assistant chief constable has overall responsibility for custody services, with a chief superintendent and superintendent serving as the force leads for custody.

The superintendent manages a central team which is responsible for custody governance and this team is supported by a chief inspector. Chief inspectors in the force districts are responsible for day-to-day running of the five custody suites.

The force monitors custody services at operational and strategic meetings, including:

• quarterly meetings for custody inspectors, chaired by the chief inspector from the central custody team;
• monthly custody management meetings for district chief inspectors, chaired by the chief inspector from the central custody team;
• criminal justice meetings held every two months, chaired by the assistant chief constable; and
• regular meetings with the force’s healthcare provider to assess how promptly detainees receive assessment and care.

At the time of our inspection, the force had just made improvements to its strategic oversight arrangements of custody. The criminal justice meeting, led by the assistant chief constable, aims to continue these improvements.

The force has made progress in improving custody services since our last inspection, but some of the changes are recent and aren’t fully understood by all personnel. Other concerns haven’t been addressed well enough, especially around the use of force.

Custody suites

The force operates five custody suites. These are in Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield and Wakefield. The force can use additional facilities at Dewsbury, Pudsey and Stainbeck if a main suite is closed.

The suites were generally clean and well-maintained. But, in our view, the Dewsbury site isn’t fit for purpose and shouldn’t be used by the force until remedial work is complete.

We found potential ligature points at all eight suites. We gave the force a physical conditions report during our inspection and it started to address some of the concerns we raised.

Workforce

The force monitors the number of personnel working in custody so that it can meet demand. There are 60 custody officers and 162 detention officers whose core role is working in custody. The force also has additional custody officers and some police officer gaolers, who are officers trained to carry out custody duties. Both can be used to cover gaps in shifts when necessary. During our inspection, we found that there were enough police personnel to manage custody suites safely.

Initial training for police personnel is comprehensive and follows the course structure approved by the College of Policing.

Before they can work independently in custody suites, all new personnel spend time shadowing more experienced colleagues and have a workplace assessment. It is positive that frontline officers who cover custody duties on an irregular basis receive the same training as those who perform the role full-time.

Learning and guidance

Every year, the force provides continuing professional development training to custody personnel. Additional learning is shared via the force’s custody online knowledge area. The custody personnel we spoke to were generally positive about the training they receive.

There are good processes to report and investigate adverse incidents within custody. Personnel understand what they need to do when dealing with these cases. They share any learning at meetings and through the online knowledge area.

The force has adopted the College of Policing’s APP guidance for custody but doesn’t always comply with it in practice. For example, custody personnel routinely remove clothing from detainees, rather than make an individual risk assessment. Similarly, observation levels for detainees under the influence of alcohol aren’t always set correctly to make sure they are roused at regular intervals.

Accountability

The force collects information to manage custody performance, including:

• how many detainees enter custody;
• waiting times;
• average detention lengths;
• how many children are in custody; and
• strip search data.

But some important information isn’t collected, such as:

• how many detainees require assessment under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983;
• how long detainees wait for a mental health assessment; and
• how long it takes to move detainees to a mental health facility.

Some information that is collected is inaccurate, making it difficult to assess outcomes for detainees. For example, use of force incidents aren’t recorded accurately.

Performance information

Information available isn’t used to improve performance. For example, over the last three years, the number of voluntary attendances has decreased while the number of arrests has increased. The force is not exploring why this is the case.

At custody management meetings, personnel use a dashboard to present data and the group discusses this information. This allows comparisons across different districts. The group escalates any concerns to the force’s criminal justice leads.

However, it isn’t clear how senior managers use the information available to improve custody services. Some areas show little improvement despite internal discussions taking place. In addition, the force’s performance management systems hadn’t identified some concerns which we found during our inspection.

Reviews of detention

The force generally follows PACE guidance but doesn’t always do so for reviews of detention. Reviews often don’t comply with what’s required by paragraphs 15.1–15.14 of PACE Code C 2019. For example, some detainees aren’t given the opportunity to make representations, a process where they can argue that the force should release them or avoid extending their time in custody. In addition, some detainees aren’t informed that their time in custody is being extended.

Positively, custody inspectors are present in the suites and generally carry out reviews face-to-face and on time.

Use of force incidents

Governance and oversight of use of force in custody isn’t good enough. It has not improved since our last inspection.

While these incidents are reviewed at custody management meetings, data on use of force isn’t accurate. Some incidents aren’t accurately recorded on custody records and sometimes personnel don’t complete use of force forms in full.

There are some reviews of the use of force but review of available CCTV evidence by West Yorkshire Police is limited. Our CCTV review found incidents weren’t always managed well.

We have concerns regarding the frequent use of PAVA spray in confined spaces, such as cells and cell corridors. Custody personnel don’t always properly consider the use of other tactics.

The force can’t assure itself or the public that when force or restraint is used in custody, it is necessary, justified and proportionate. This is a cause of concern.

Custody records

The quality of custody records also isn’t good enough. We saw some detailed custody entries, but sometimes important information was missing or wasn’t accurately recorded. For example, records rarely showed whether custody personnel had considered if vulnerable adults needed an AA.

Details of officers carrying out level 4 observations and any briefings they received were also not always recorded. Entries on custody records were sometimes confusing and contradictory.

This was partly due to the use of drop-down menus within computer systems. These provide text prompts for personnel to use when filling out specific parts of custody records. We found that personnel sometimes used these prompts as their only response, without providing any more information within the records.

Within the force, there are quality assurance arrangements in place. The force has processes to dip sample custody records, which assess how well services are provided. But these processes failed to identify some of the problems we found in our inspection.

Equality and external scrutiny

The force understands its responsibilities under the public sector equality duty and has a good focus on equality, diversity and inclusion. It has provided training on topics such as mental health conditions and neurodiversity to custody personnel.

Custody personnel try to meet the needs of individual detainees. The force monitors disproportionality data in some areas (for example, strip searching) and discusses this at meetings with senior managers.

The force is open to external scrutiny. Independent custody visitors (ICVs) visit each suite weekly. They complete checklists after their visits and the force normally deals with any issues straight away. ICVs report a good working relationship with the force. The force invites the ICV scheme manager to custody management meetings.

Working with partners

The force and its partners – which include local authorities and youth offending teams – are committed to keeping children out of custody. The force monitors how many children enter custody and works with the youth justice service to address the underlying causes of offending.

Since our last inspection, the force has been more focused on improving outcomes for children who are charged and refused bail. The force is working with local authorities to make sure children are moved to appropriate alternative accommodation. These efforts have improved outcomes for children.

The force works well with mental health services to support people with mental health conditions and there is good evidence of efforts to divert them from custody.

In the last 12 months, police officers used custody as a place of safety for three detainees. We reviewed two of these cases. We found that personnel had done enough to try to divert the detainee away from custody first.

More should be done to monitor assessments required under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in custody.

There is no data available to show how many detainees who are arrested and taken to custody require a mental health assessment. There is no data showing how long it takes to arrange these assessments or move detainees to a health-based place of safety. This makes it harder for the force to make sure it isn’t holding vulnerable detainees in custody for a long time.

Section 2. Pre-custody – first point of contact

Expected outcomes: Pre-custody – first point of contact

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

Assessment and diversion at first point of contact

Frontline officers have a good understanding of what can make a person vulnerable. They told us that they actively consider this at incidents when deciding whether to arrest someone or take other action. They use alternatives to custody, such as voluntary attendance or restorative justice.

Officers understand the importance of keeping children out of custody where possible. They told us that custody officers would refuse to authorise detention (apart from when it is fully justified and necessary), although it’s difficult to use alternatives when they arrest children for serious offences. When they deal with children, officers sometimes contact supervisors to discuss alternative options to custody.

Officers told us that they don’t always have enough information from call handlers before they attend incidents. They sometimes find out essential information only when they arrive at an incident. While all officers in the force have handheld devices to do further checks on force systems, this isn’t always practical.

For incidents involving people with mental health conditions, the support available to police officers isn’t always good enough. When officers are deciding whether to detain a person under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, they can access telephone advice from mental health nurses. However, this isn’t available overnight and the daytime operating hours vary across districts.

There is a mental health car staffed by a police officer and mental health professional that can attend incidents. But this isn’t always available. When it isn’t operating, officers rely on telephone support instead.

The force doesn’t use custody as a place of safety for people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Instead, officers take them to health-based places of safety.

However, these aren’t located in all force areas and are often difficult to access. As a result, police officers regularly take people detained under section 136 to accident and emergency departments. This can mean officers face long waits that may even last their entire shift. Officers also face long waits when they take people for assessment at specialist health units. This is a poor outcome for those with mental health conditions and is an ineffective use of police time.

Where a person has committed a crime but shows signs of mental health conditions, officers normally arrest them and take them to custody. When deciding if they should hold the person in custody, they consider how serious the offence is and the detainee’s behaviour. They address any of the detainee’s health needs in custody. The investigation into the offence continues pending any health decisions.

Police cars and vans are available to transport people to custody. When deciding which to use, police officers carry out a risk assessment that considers the behaviour and individual needs of a detainee, including any physical disabilities.

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 treat detainees with politeness and respect. But facilities in some suites can make it difficult to protect detainee dignity.

Custody personnel try to protect privacy by only booking in one detainee at a time. They also offer detainees the chance to speak with a staff member in private during this process.

CCTV is in most cells across the five custody suites. But detainees aren’t always told about this, and some cells don’t have signs on the walls pointing it out. In Bradford and Huddersfield, the position of the CCTV monitors means that non-custody personnel (such as detainees and legal advisers) can see them. All CCTV monitors pixelate the cell toilets.

There are step-free showers in all the suites, but some offer minimal privacy as the doors are too low. The force told us they tried to mitigate this by making sure people don’t walk past showers when they are in use.

Meeting diverse and individual needs

Custody personnel understand how to support detainees with individual and diverse needs and try to do so as best they can. But limited facilities in some suites make this more difficult.

At Wakefield and Leeds, some cells are adapted with call bells at a suitable height, but there are no other adaptations within the cells. At the other suites, there are no adaptations in the cells at all. There are wheelchairs in all custody suites.

Facilities for detainees with disabilities that affect their mobility, hearing or sight could be better. For example:

• Benches in all the suites are low and there are no extra-thick mattresses. Instead, custody personnel provide a second thin mattress on request.
• All suites (except for Bradford) have sight lines on the walls (markings to help visually impaired people judge where the wall is and any obstructions).
• All suites have rights and entitlements available in Braille, although not all personnel we spoke to were aware of this.
• All suites have hearing loops but not all custody personnel know how to use them.

The force is very good at meeting women’s needs. At booking-in, custody personnel ask females if they require feminine hygiene products. There is a good range of stock in all suites. During our inspection, we observed that female detainees have the option to speak with a female member of staff in private.

Custody personnel generally understand the needs of detainees who are neurodivergent and are aware of how the custody environment may affect them. There are distraction packs in all suites and we saw these being handed out. The distraction materials include poppers, colouring books and crayons, foam balls and ear defenders.

Personnel have a good understanding of how to meet the needs of transgender detainees.

Custody officers ask detainees if they want to speak to a member of staff in private, but don’t always ask if they have caring responsibilities.

All suites have some religious texts available. However, the range of items varies. It doesn’t cover all the main religions and they aren’t always stored appropriately, in separate boxes. There is guidance available on how to handle religious items in all suites except Halifax.

There is good provision for detainees who speak little or no English and the force uses Language Line to offer interpreting services. Some suites have telephones at the booking-in desks that detainees can use. Officers sometimes use their hand-held devices to help detainees access telephone interpretation.

Risk assessments

The force’s ability to identify risk is good, although this isn’t always reflected in custody records. Custody personnel do not always follow APP guidance.

Booking-in

Detainees are generally booked into custody quickly, although they may have to wait in holding rooms when they arrive. The amount of time spent in holding rooms is reasonable. But when there are queues, these aren’t managed well.

Custody officers told us that there is no standard process for making sure they book‑in vulnerable detainees before others, even though they potentially face greater risk in custody. Instead, individual custody officers take these decisions at their discretion. This means that children and vulnerable adults are rarely prioritised.

However, we did see one example of good practice. During a busy weekend, a custody officer and an HCP worked together to book in a vulnerable adult more quickly.

Custody officers and detention officers are both involved in the booking-in process. Detention officers carry out risk assessments of detainees. However, they sometimes don’t explain the purpose of this well enough.

There is routine use of the Police National Computer to check warning markers that suggest additional risk factors. But detention officers don’t always ask officers who bring detainees into custody if they have other relevant information to share.

Detention officers focus appropriately on identifying risk during assessments. They use drop-down menus on their IT systems to make sure they ask appropriate questions. But they also accept the detainee’s answers to risk questions without asking for more information that could affect their decisions.

Custody officers are often in another room while risk assessments take place, particularly when detention officers use separate booking-in rooms. This means they can’t provide guidance and oversee the process or understand risks fully.

Clothing

Custody personnel routinely remove shoes and clothing with cords from every detainee, rather than carrying out an individual risk assessment. Custody records often don’t document the reasons for removing clothes.

Routine removal of footwear and clothing is force policy in custody. However, this is contrary to paragraph 4.2 of PACE code C 2019 and doesn’t follow APP guidance. This has not improved since our last inspection.

Positively, West Yorkshire Police doesn’t use anti-rip clothing in any custody suites. Where custody personnel remove a detainee’s clothing, the detainee is given appropriate replacement items. This usually means a standard tracksuit top and bottoms.

Observation levels

Custody personnel mostly set observation levels that match the risks presented by detainees. However, the force could improve its observation of detainees under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

In contrast to APP guidance, custody personnel don’t place all such detainees on level 2 observations with rousing checks. In some cases where detainees were placed on level 2 observations with rousing, custody personnel provided extra monitoring via CCTV. In these cases, we found detention officers monitoring up to six screens at a time, which isn’t safe practice.

When custody personnel identify higher levels of risk, they place detainees on level 3 constant observations or level 4 close-proximity observations. We found that these were carried out well and detention officers completed regular checks.

For officers allocated to level 3 or 4 observations, custody sergeants provide verbal briefings explaining what to do. However, they told us that they don’t always include briefing details or the names of officers carrying out observations on custody records.

Ways of working

Detention officers carry out checks well, with consistent care provided by using the same member of personnel each time. Checks are timely and we saw evidence of positive interactions with detainees and a focus on well-being. When detainees are under the influence of alcohol or drugs, detention officers pay attention to any changes in their behaviour or condition that might affect the risk assessment.

Handovers between shifts are good and have improved since our last inspection. All custody personnel, except healthcare professionals, are routinely involved and there is a good focus on risk and welfare. The force uses CCTV to record handover briefings, which include both written and verbal information. However, custody officers don’t usually visit detainees in their care after the handover. Only detention officers do this.

It is positive that all custody personnel carry anti-ligature knives. Call bells in cells are audible and there is usually a prompt response.

The force has improved its key management system to make sure custody personnel have control of keys. But in some suites, there is still insufficient central control over detainee movements. In one case, we found that an investigating officer removed someone from their cell for an interview, despite an HCP deciding the detainee was unfit for this.

Individual legal rights – detention

Detainees are generally booked into custody promptly. Most suites make good use of private booking-in areas to allow more than one detainee to be booked-in at once.

Arrest and bail

Arresting officers generally provide the circumstances of arrest well. But they don’t always explain the necessity for arrest in enough detail, as required by PACE code G 2012.

Custody officers don’t always ask further questions to make sure that detention should be authorised. However, custody officers told us they feel confident to refuse detention where appropriate. We saw two cases where a custody officer refused to detain children.

Detainees are generally dealt with promptly and don’t spend longer than necessary in custody. Investigations are usually expeditious and officers try to finalise cases in the first period of detention rather than bailing or releasing a detainee under investigation. Custody personnel and investigating officers communicate well to progress cases, with investigative teams often contacting custody to actively try to deal with detainees quickly.

In the cases we saw, bail was appropriately authorised. Custody officers clearly explained bail conditions, which were necessary and proportionate. They also told detainees released under investigation that contacting victims or witnesses while an investigation is in progress could be a crime.

Voluntary attendance

The force uses voluntary attendance as an alternative to taking people into custody. There are enough interview rooms for voluntary attendees to use. This means they only enter custody suites for fingerprinting or other custody processes.

Over the past three years, West Yorkshire Police data shows a decline in voluntary attendance and an increase in arrest rates. The force does not monitor this data to understand why this has changed. This means they don’t know whether arrest and subsequent detention are always necessary.

Immigration

After custody personnel serve detainees with an IS91 authority, they then transfer them to immigration facilities.

Information provided by the force shows that this takes 21 hours and 11 minutes on average. The force isn’t using this information to reduce delays and make sure these detainees don’t spend longer in custody than necessary.

Individual legal rights – detainees’ rights and entitlements

Custody officers clearly explain legal rights and entitlements to detainees. These include the rights:

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

The force has enough copies of PACE code C 2019 books and these are routinely offered to detainees. There are copies of the easy read version for children and those who need help understanding their rights. We saw these given out when needed.

Custody personnel can print rights and entitlements on pastel paper to make the information easier for detainees who are neurodivergent to understand.

Custody officers we spoke to knew about the requirements of annex M of PACE code C 2019, which states that detainees should receive information about custody processes in a language they understand. Custody officers knew where to find translated documents on the force computer system and we saw these being handed out. Posters in most suites explain the right to free legal advice in different languages.

If a detainee declines free legal advice, custody officers don’t always explore the reasons for this. They also don’t inform the detainee that they can change their mind at any time.

Legal representatives attend custody in person. The custody officer gives the legal representative front sheets of their client’s custody record. And they can also ask to see the full custody record. All custody suites have enough consultation rooms for detainees to meet legal representatives in private. Detainees can also speak privately with their representatives on the telephone.

Detainees who are foreign nationals are offered the right to speak with their country’s embassy, consulate or high commission at any time. We saw custody officers arranging this when required. When an agreement exists with the relevant country, custody officers notify these bodies that they have detained one of their citizens.

The force appropriately authorises decisions to hold a detainee incommunicado, delaying their right to have someone informed of their arrest. The force removes this restriction when it is no longer justified.

DNA samples

DNA samples are regularly collected from custody suites by the force’s forensic services supplier. However, the force doesn’t always securely store samples in locked freezers or lockable rooms. This could affect the integrity of this evidence.

There were some posters explaining the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and how DNA samples are retained and destroyed. But custody personnel don’t always explain the DNA retention policy during the booking-in process or when officers take samples. This means that detainees don’t receive this key information.

Reviews of detention

Dedicated custody inspectors carry out most reviews. They complete them on time and in person. We found that reviewing officers placed a good focus on welfare matters, especially for children and vulnerable adults.

If a detention review took place while someone was asleep, custody personnel mostly inform detainees of this in person. In addition, custody inspectors give them a notice explaining what a detention review is. This form helps to explain a detainee’s relevant rights and entitlements and the progress of the case.

Some reviewing officers don’t give detainees the opportunity to make representations before they authorise further detention. This doesn’t follow paragraph 15.3 of PACE code C 2019. And some detainees weren’t informed that the force had authorised their continued detention. This remains an area for improvement, as with our last inspection.

Complaints

Force policy provides clear guidance on the complaints process. However, custody personnel don’t promote this process to detainees.

Some suites don’t have any posters or other visible material telling detainees how to make complaints. We didn’t see any Independent Office for Police Conduct leaflets in suites either.

During the inspection, we saw two cases where detainees asked to make a complaint in custody. In both cases, this wasn’t followed up by custody personnel.

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

West Yorkshire Police has five full-time designated suites. These are based in Huddersfield, Halifax, Leeds, Bradford and Wakefield. There are three contingency suites at Pudsey, Dewsbury and Stainbeck.

Ligature points

There are potential ligature points in all suites. This is mainly due to the design of toilets, cell call plates, shower drains and exercise yard drains. Some suites use separate rooms for private consultations. These rooms also contain potential ligature points from telephone cords or metal plates.

The force told us that some ligature points are mitigated by making sure that detainees are supervised in these areas. But we found custody personnel had limited knowledge of these points, so this mitigation was inadequate.

During our inspection, we gave the force a comprehensive report detailing these findings. This report showed where the ligature points were and explained the general conditions in the suites.

Where we find potential ligature points that the force can’t easily remedy, we expect the force to make sure custody personnel are aware of them. They should then take other actions to mitigate risks. After we gave them our physical conditions report, West Yorkshire Police acted promptly to make custody personnel aware of ligature points in the suites.

General conditions

Cleanliness in the suites is good. The ventilation and temperature in most suites and individual cells is satisfactory. There is some natural light in all cells, but light is poor in the older suites at Bradford and Huddersfield. Newer suites are well-maintained, and custody personnel told us that repairs are mostly completed quickly. We didn’t find any graffiti other than in a small exercise yard at Wakefield.

Custody personnel told us they carry out daily and weekly safety maintenance checks of the physical environment. These checks cover the cells and communal areas. However, when we looked at the records for 85 of these checks, only 48 had been completed properly. In the other 37 cases, custody personnel had either not completed the checks or had failed to record them properly.

The Bradford and Huddersfield suites don’t have facilities like sinks in the cells. At Bradford, there is staining in some toilets and showers.

Across the suites, there are limited facilities for people with disabilities. At Wakefield and Leeds, some cells are adapted with additional call bells at a suitable height, but there are no other adaptations within the cells. At the other suites, there are no adaptations in the cells at all. Some newer suites have separate adapted toilets and showers.

There are separate booking-in areas in all suites, although this facility at Huddersfield is very small. All suites have some cells with glass fronts to help detainees who are claustrophobic.

CCTV

CCTV covers most suites and cells. However, there are a few areas that aren’t covered and some cells at Huddersfield have no CCTV. And the quality of CCTV recording is poor. This limits the force’s ability to review CCTV and is a potential safety risk.

Notices that CCTV is in operation aren’t always clearly displayed in communal areas. Some cells didn’t have stencilling telling detainees about the CCTV. We highlighted this to the force in our conditions report. They took immediate action by putting up posters in places where detainees could see them.

Custody personnel monitoring CCTV at Huddersfield, Halifax and Bradford sit at the custody desks or the control desk. The control desk manages the CCTV cameras, contact with suites, and call bells in the cells. Having CCTV screens in both these busy areas limits detainee privacy. It can also be distracting for the person monitoring.

Evacuation procedures

Custody personnel have some awareness of emergency evacuation procedures. There are enough handcuffs available to evacuate cells if needed. Few of the custody personnel we spoke to had taken part in a physical evacuation in the last year and some never had.

Force data shows that there has been an evacuation drill at each suite in the last year, but this doesn’t identify who took part.

Use of force

Recording of use of force incidents in custody is poor. This makes it difficult for West Yorkshire Police to show that when it uses force in custody, this is necessary, justified and proportionate. This hasn’t improved enough since our last inspection. It continues to be a cause of concern.

We reviewed custody records and CCTV footage for 18 use of force incidents. In some cases, use of force wasn’t proportionate to the risks posed and incidents weren’t always managed well. Custody officers often become involved in use of force, rather than overseeing incidents. This does not follow APP guidance.

We saw some effective communication and negotiation by custody personnel with detainees. They attempted to de-escalate situations and avoid using force. When custody personnel used force, officers often took steps to protect the detainee’s head using pillows or appropriate control techniques, which is positive.

Most custody and detention officers are up to date with their officer safety training. The force makes sure those who aren’t up to date receive new training when they need it.

Completing our CCTV review of use of force incidents was difficult in some custody suites. This was due to poor-quality footage and areas without CCTV coverage.

Restraint techniques

Custody personnel didn’t always apply restraint techniques or control situations effectively.

Some officers removed restraints too quickly from non-compliant detainees. This led to further use of force, risking injury to detainees and officers. Custody personnel record when a detainee arrives at custody in handcuffs. However, information on why the force used handcuffs on a detainee and when they were removed isn’t recorded.

Handcuffs aren’t always removed quickly enough from compliant detainees. Some detainees were handcuffed for too long while waiting to be booked-in. Some arresting officers adjusted handcuffs to make detainees more comfortable. But they didn’t use their discretion to remove them.

Strip searches

West Yorkshire Police monitors the use and recording of strip searches to make sure searches are justified, necessary and proportionate.

We reviewed ten cases where detainees were strip searched and found that custody personnel adequately recorded the necessity for these searches. Personnel carried out strip searches in private spaces to maintain detainees’ privacy and dignity.

But when strip searches took place in cells with cameras, it wasn’t always clear if the CCTV monitors remained in operation and could be seen by others in the custody suite.

PAVA incapacitant spray

West Yorkshire Police uses PAVA incapacitant spray more frequently in custody than we usually find. In some cases we reviewed, we thought use of PAVA could have been avoided if other control methods or tactics were used effectively.

However, custody personnel and arresting officers provided good aftercare when they used PAVA on detainees. This was true both when they used PAVA before detainees arrived in custody and when they used it in custody suites.

Use of force incidents and forms

Some use of force incidents aren’t included properly on custody records and some incidents aren’t recorded at all. Records didn’t always accurately reflect what we saw on CCTV footage. They also didn’t explain what had happened or why force was needed. We even found some records that said force had been used when it had not.

Custody personnel don’t always submit use of force forms when they should, as required by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We asked the force for access to the use of force forms for the incidents we reviewed in our inspection. However, they could only provide us with 26 out of the 73 forms we expected.

We referred seven cases to the force where we had concerns. All seven involved techniques that could have injured the detainee or custody personnel. Five of the cases involved use of PAVA and one involved good use of tactical communication to de-escalate a situation.

We felt that all seven cases provide an opportunity for learning and for West Yorkshire Police to satisfy itself that the force used was necessary, justified and proportionate.

Detainee care

Detainee care is generally good. Most detainees we spoke to were positive about the care they received in custody.

But detainees aren’t always told about available care provision, such as showers or exercise, when being booked into custody. This means they may not know what they can access. Some custody inspectors offer showers and exercise during reviews, which is positive.

There is a good range of food in custody suites. Most dietary requirements are included, such as vegetarian, vegan and gluten-free. Custody personnel regularly offer and provide food and drink to detainees.

There is a limited range of reading material in most suites, except for Leeds. There are few children’s books available. We found only one book in a foreign language, which was at Bradford. The force relies on books brought in by custody personnel or donated by local charities.

Exercise yards are available in all suites. They are mostly clean and some provide cover in case of bad weather. Custody personnel supervise detainees individually in exercise yards. It isn’t clear how often they offer or provide exercise to detainees.

We found that custody personnel rarely offer showers to detainees, even if they are in custody for a long time. We also noted that some suites didn’t have enough towels.

There is a good supply of replacement clothing in a range of sizes. Underwear is available for both men and women. Replacement footwear is available, including foam slippers.

The quality and condition of mattresses in cells is reasonable. Some suites have a relatively new supply. No suites offer extra-thick mattresses, but detainees who need more support can request a second thin mattress. A pillow and a blanket are routinely provided and detainees can request extra blankets too.

Dispensers in the corridors hold toilet paper. It is not readily available within cells. Detainees must ask for this, which may reduce their dignity.

Safeguarding children and vulnerable people

The force provides appropriate training to all new custody personnel to improve their understanding of vulnerability. This includes some scenario-based exercises and covers topics such as safeguarding and the voice of the child perspective.

The force’s general training schedule includes sessions held on an annual basis and update training every six weeks. Both of these offer opportunities for safeguarding training to be provided. Custody personnel can also find more guidance and support on the force’s intranet.

There are clear processes for frontline officers and custody personnel to make safeguarding referrals. If they have concerns about a child’s welfare, they use their professional judgment to submit public protection notice referrals to children’s social care. If a child has been strip searched, referrals are mandatory.

Custody officers should record how they consider safeguarding for each child in custody. This includes making sure that they book children into custody privately. They can do this by using separate facilities or by making sure no other detainees are present in the main area. They must also consider placing children in appropriate cell locations. In the cases we reviewed, custody officers were doing this.

The force automatically refers all detained children to the L&D teams based in each custody suite. HCPs don’t routinely see children detained by the force.

The L&D service also supports other detainees such as women and armed service veterans. The team provides assessments and identifies what support they can offer to people after they leave custody.

The force assigns a same-sex member of custody personnel to girls detained in custody. They monitor and protect their welfare needs, as required by section 31 of the Children and Young Person’s Act 1933. The force assigns officers of the same sex to protect the welfare of women and boys in custody, which is positive.

The custody records we looked at showed the allocation of custody personnel to detainees was recorded. However, their ongoing contact with detainees was not. This means that it isn’t clear how effective this approach is.

Appropriate adults

Custody officers are responsible for finding AAs to support children and vulnerable adults. They generally do this promptly in West Yorkshire. Arresting officers also try to identify friends or relatives of the detainee who can be an appropriate adult. In the cases we reviewed, we found good examples of this happening when family members came into custody with detainees.

We recognised that the force has been trying to improve its officers’ understanding of vulnerability. But we found that custody officers don’t always sufficiently consider whether a vulnerable detainee needs an AA to support them. In one case, custody personnel didn’t request an AA, even though a healthcare practitioner recommended one during an assessment.

If friends or family aren’t available, the force can use The Appropriate Adult Service (TAAS). This operates across West Yorkshire on a 24/7 basis. TAAS provides volunteers who act as AAs for children and vulnerable adults in custody. They work out of the busier suites of Leeds and Bradford from 10am to 10pm. This means detainees at those suites can access an AA more easily.

The force expects TAAS to attend custody within two hours of a request. But we found that while some detainees received prompt AA support, others faced long waits. Both the force and TAAS recognise that they need to improve and are reviewing this together in meetings. Following concerns over AA supply in Huddersfield, TAAS has recruited more volunteers for this area.

In our case reviews, we found missing or confusing information in records about the arrival times of AAs and their contact with detainees. This makes it difficult for the force to understand if it is meeting detainees’ needs in this area.

Sometimes, AAs aren’t present when custody personnel book a detainee into custody. In these cases, detainees routinely receive their rights and entitlements a second time, when their AA has arrived. This addresses an area for improvement noted in our previous inspection.

Children

There is a good focus from frontline, senior and custody officers on diverting children from custody where possible. Custody officers usually consider options and only authorise detention where necessary. They will refuse detention where appropriate. In most cases we looked at involving children, offences were serious enough to justify arrest and detention.

The force usually detains children only for as long as necessary. We found examples of custody officers making good use of bail or release under investigation to minimise the time children spend in custody. In PACE reviews involving children, we found that custody inspectors made sure to check whether ongoing detention was necessary.

The force expects custody officers to proactively communicate with investigative teams to make sure cases progress quickly. However, when children are detained for serious offences, the resulting investigations can be complex.

The force has a very good range of distraction items available for children and other detainees who may benefit from them. We saw detainees using them sometimes, but custody personnel don’t routinely give them out. They are also subject to risk assessment. In our custody record review, we found little evidence of personnel offering or providing distraction materials.

Children can’t spend time outside their cells, except when using the exercise yard. However, in our inspection, we found few examples of detainees using the yard.

Alternative accommodation

When the force charges and holds children in custody overnight, they should move them to alternative accommodation. This should be organised through the local authority while children are waiting to appear at court.

In the year up to our inspection, only 11 out of the 65 requests for secure accommodation were successful. In total, only 17 out of 26 children requiring non‑secure accommodation were moved. The force often made requests late at night. It may have helped if they had pursued this option earlier in the day.

Custody officers don’t always complete juvenile detention certificates after they request to transfer children to local authority accommodation.

The force has been working to improve this situation. Earlier this year, they agreed a new protocol with the five local authorities. This is overseen by the Mayor of West Yorkshire’s office. It sets out the expectations, principles and processes for dealing with children remanded in custody.

The force told us that the protocol has already led to improvements. For example, there is greater understanding of this issue across the force and more use of escalation procedures, which allow personnel to report problems finding alternative accommodation to senior officers. It has also led to a higher number of transfers into alternative accommodation.

Outcomes for children

The force has good arrangements in place to monitor and improve outcomes for children remanded in custody.

A dedicated custody lead for children regularly meets with the local authority to discuss any problems. They jointly review all cases against detailed assessment standards to identify learning and monitor outcomes. The force, the local authority and the deputy mayor’s team also discuss issues in strategy meetings held once every two months.

Healthcare

LCHT provides physical healthcare support to detainees and forensic testing in custody. There is good oversight of these services by the force and good joint working with LCHT. This includes monthly performance reporting and contract management meetings.

LCHT do not embed HCPs in every suite. Two HCPs are based at Leeds, with one HCP each in Bradford and Wakefield. One HCP covers both Huddersfield and Halifax. When an HCP is needed at Halifax, they travel over from Huddersfield.

In recent months, staffing levels have increased. This has led to more consistent coverage and has improved response times. LCHT can now cover most shifts on the rota and sometimes provides an extra HCP for additional cover, who may be based in Halifax during their shift. Recruitment is ongoing to further increase staff numbers.

LCHT routinely fail to meet the response time target listed in their contracts. This requires HCPs to arrive within 60 minutes of a request from custody personnel. This isn’t always achievable due to the volume of calls and travel time between suites. However, performance has started to improve due to higher staffing levels.

NHS England commissions Wakefield Council to provide L&D services across West Yorkshire’s custody suites. NHS England monitors the service through performance reporting and monitoring visits. LCHT staff and the L&D team work well together with custody personnel to share information and manage risk.

Healthcare staff receive appropriate training, including safeguarding and infection control. Further development opportunities are available and staff receive an annual performance review. Staff feedback indicates that they feel well-supported by managers, receive regular supervision and attend team meetings.

Infection prevention and control standards are good. Healthcare staff keep rooms clean and tidy, while police contractors do general cleaning. The medical rooms in Halifax and Huddersfield are small, and some flooring and taps require remedial work.

Healthcare staff carry out forensic sampling in medical rooms. This isn’t ideal, but the staff clean rooms appropriately before and after examinations. Emergency equipment is in good order, but daily and weekly checks aren’t always completed.

There is a programme of audits to improve the quality and safety of care provided in custody. These include infection control and medicines management checks. Healthcare staff report incidents through the providers’ online systems and these are investigated by managers. Managers share learning with staff during team meetings and when they supervise them.

Healthcare staff arrange interpreters for detainees whose first language isn’t English. The medical rooms include displays showing a confidential complaints process. The force shares any healthcare-related complaints it receives and monitors responses.

Physical health

Detainees mostly receive prompt clinical assessment, with HCPs triaging calls and prioritising based on need. However, LCHT routinely fails to meet the target of seeing 95 percent of detainees within 60 minutes.

Experienced and competent practitioners provide treatment to the detainees. They told us they enjoy their role and feel well-supported. Forensic medical examiners are also available to supply advice via telephone where required.

LCHT focuses on upskilling HCPs. Training has included how to assess detainees’ health where officers have used Taser on them.

Custody personnel were generally positive about the HCPs they work with. However, some felt that Halifax received a worse service because it doesn’t have an embedded HCP.

It was clear that custody personnel valued the support and input of HCPs. We saw good evidence of partnership working, for example, in triaging newly arrived detainees in custody. Custody sergeants phone the LCHT call centre to log requests for HCPs to see a detainee. HCPs regularly monitor their system to check for new requests.

HCPs usually see detainees in private with the door closed. This is subject to a risk assessment and HCPs discuss this with custody personnel first. If required, a detention officer will remain nearby.

HCPs request consent from detainees to make assessments of physical and mental health, including their mental capacity. They keep detailed records on the electronic patient record. HCPs take intimate samples in the medical room due to the lack of other available facilities. This is not ideal.

Healthcare staff keep supplies of various consumable items (such as wound dressings) in the medical rooms. The stock is well-managed and tidy.

HCPs can access detainees’ community healthcare records and a summary of key information, such as any medication they take. L&D staff can obtain detainees’ mental health records (where applicable) and share appropriate information with HCPs.

HCPs also record a summary of actions they have taken, including treatment and assessments, on a detainee’s custody record. This means that custody personnel are aware of the detainee’s healthcare needs. HCPs contribute to decisions regarding a detainee’s risk and if they are fit to be detained, interviewed or released.

Mental health

The L&D service supports detainees of all ages and levels of vulnerability. Staff are seconded into the service from various organisations, including NHS Trusts, substance misuse services and the police.

L&D staff work in the custody suites every day of the week. Their hours are 8am to 6pm on weekdays and 8am to 4pm at weekends. Dedicated and skilled staff provide good support to vulnerable detainees arriving in custody. This includes specialist practitioners who support children and female detainees.

L&D staff offer support to detainees with mental health, drug and alcohol issues, including referral to other services. They also do this for people with housing or social problems. In addition, they support some detainees out in the community for up to 12 weeks post-custody. This can include attending appointments with them or making general welfare calls.

L&D staff tailor support to individual needs and offer it for varying lengths of time. Peer mentors with lived experience of the criminal justice system offer extra support. And HCPs provide acute and out-of-hours mental health support.

The seconded police personnel monitor the Niche custody system. L&D staff use this to review community mental health records and establish if a detainee is already known to services. Detainees can ask to see the L&D team and the staff proactively visit custody to offer the service.

Custody personnel make out of hours referrals and the L&D team reviews these the next day. They carry out assessments promptly and, while not everyone can be seen in custody, support is offered post-release.

Some detainee groups are offered a referral to the L&D team. This includes children, who can see a specialist children’s practitioner.

Every detainee that an L&D practitioner sees is given a summary of the support they received and any ongoing support they will have in the community. The L&D team provides all detainees with a service leaflet before they leave custody. This contains key information and contact details for the team.

Working relationships

L&D practitioners work closely and effectively with custody personnel and HCPs.

In some custody suites, L&D staff are based within custody. In others, they are based outside the custody area due to lack of available rooms. However, there are systems to make sure L&D staff can access custody and see detainees when they need to.

Mental health nurses within the L&D team have access to NHS trust patient record systems. This means they can access detainees’ community mental health records if they provide consent.

When L&D staff complete assessments in custody, they update their patient record system. The records we reviewed were comprehensive and showed when relevant referrals and ongoing support were in place for a detainee. However, no entries were made on the custody records.

The force mental health lead works well with partners – including health and social care organisations – to resolve and manage problems. The force also provides custody personnel and frontline officers with mental health awareness training. The L&D team itself provides some aspects of this training.

Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983

Custody isn’t used as a place of safety under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, except in exceptional circumstances. It was clear that the force focuses on diverting people with mental health conditions away from custody.

The force doesn’t collate data on assessments that doctors and specialist mental health workers carry out in custody under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This makes it difficult to measure the effectiveness and timeliness of this process. Feedback from HCPs and custody personnel suggests that such assessments in custody are rare. Despite some delays in accessing a suitable hospital bed, detainees don’t spend excessive amounts of time in custody.

Various arrangements exist across the force’s policing districts to provide street triage. There are systems for mental health control rooms to give frontline officers advice when they are considering using section 136 to detain people in a public place.

Police officers gave mixed feedback on the quality and availability of advice. Some said the advice wasn’t helpful and varied depending on which district they were in.

Officers also said that the section 136 suites were often already full, meaning they had to take detainees to accident and emergency departments.

Substance misuse

HCPs assess and treat detainees withdrawing from drugs and alcohol while in custody. They carry out assessments using nationally recognised clinical tools. These inform decision-making and help monitor detainees’ treatment needs in custody. HCPs administer medicines to relieve withdrawal symptoms when needed.

If detainees already receive opiate substitution treatment in the community, they can continue this in custody. Police officers can collect methadone from the detainee’s pharmacy if an HCP verifies their prescription. HCPs then administer methadone to the detainee.

Some custody suites benefit from having a substance misuse worker on site. L&D staff can refer detainees who need support from community drug and alcohol services to substance misuse workers. They can provide help and advice to detainees and will support them in attending appointments.

Medicines management

After assessments, HCPs can provide medicines for detainees. They do this in line with the Patient Group Directions (PGDs) provided by LCHT.

PGDs offer a framework that lets some registered health professionals 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 staff make decisions on various health issues, including acute withdrawal from alcohol and drugs, and pain relief. HCPs can provide nicotine replacement therapy on request.

LCHT has robust governance arrangements for managing medicines. This includes regular checks and audits by a pharmacy technician lead. HCPs use appropriate systems and processes to safely administer, record and store medicines. They also receive regular training in how to manage medicines.

Healthcare staff manage controlled drugs safely and complete regular audits of medicines to identify any potential errors. They report medicine errors through LCHT’s incident reporting system and managers investigate these promptly.

Custody personnel store detainees’ labelled medicines in the property lockers. With support from HCPs, they provide medicines to detainees at scheduled times.

When custody personnel transfer detainees to court, they transfer the detainee’s medicines too.

Some detainees don’t have their own supply of medicines. In these cases, custody personnel try to give detainees any medicine they need before they leave for court. However, custody personnel do not transport these medicines to court with detainees.

Section 5. Release and transfer from custody

Expected outcomes: Release and transfer from custody

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

Safe release and transfer arrangements

Custody officers interact well with detainees when they release them. In the cases we saw, detainees were present for the pre-release risk assessment and custody officers spoke with them about any risks.

However, recording of these risk assessments isn’t always good enough. We found that it often lacks important information from the initial risk assessment. It often doesn’t mention risks that custody personnel have identified while the detainee was in custody. Many pre-release risk assessments we saw used drop-down menus with little or no use of freehand text.

Some custody officers took steps to make sure detainees got home safely, but this didn’t always happen.

Custody officers generally consider the specific risks facing detainees when deciding what information to give them upon release. These risks might include drug addiction or homelessness, for example.

Leaflets with information about national and local support organisations are available in all suites. Custody officers provide leaflets to detainees on release, but not to those going straight to court.

In cases where they release detainees after sex offence investigations, custody officers didn’t provide the necessary leaflets or information (form 330). They also didn’t make sure the investigating officer had done so. This is contrary to force policy.

Detention officers are responsible for completing person escort record forms, in line with APP guidance. Custody officers have overall responsibility for making sure this process is carried out. But we found that custody officers didn’t do enough to make sure forms were completed accurately and in full.

Many forms we saw lacked key information such as Police National Computer/Niche warning markers and medical information. This has not improved since our last inspection.

Courts

The external contractor, GEOAmey, takes detainees held overnight in custody to the local court by 10am the next morning. This helps minimise time spent in custody. Detainees appear before the court in person and in appropriate clothes.

The courts generally accept admissions up to midday. In exceptional circumstances, they will accept late admissions up to 2pm. We saw this work well in practice in a case involving a pregnant detainee.

All suites have virtual court facilities but they rarely use them.

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

Causes of concern and recommendations

Areas for improvement

First point of contact

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

In the custody cell, safeguarding and healthcare

Release and transfer from custody

Section 7. Appendices

Appendix I – Methodology

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

Document review

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

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

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

Data review

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

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

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

Custody record analysis

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

Case audits

We audit around 40 case records in detail (the number may increase depending on the size and throughput of the force inspected). We do this to assess how well the force manages vulnerable detainees and specific elements of the custody process. These include examining records for children, individuals with mental health problems, those under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and 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 AAs when they need it, and whether detainees are released safely. We also assess whether force used against a detainee is proportionate and justified, and is properly recorded.

Observations in custody suites

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

Interviews with staff

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

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

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

Focus groups

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

Feedback to force

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

Appendix II – Inspection team

• Norma Collicott: HMICFRS inspection lead
• Patricia Nixon: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Anthony Davies: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Emmanuelle Versmessen: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Nicola Duffy: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Justine Wilson: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Marc Callaghan: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Mark Calland: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Julie Mead: HMICFRS inspection officer
• Matthew Tedstone: CQC inspector
• Bev Gray: CQC inspector
• Joanne White: CQC inspector

Fact page

Note: Data supplied by the force.

Force

West Yorkshire Police

Chief constable

Mr John Robins QPM DL

Mayor of West Yorkshire

Tracy Brabin

Geographical area

West Yorkshire

Date of last police custody inspection

July 2016

Custody suites

• Bradford: 34 cells
• Halifax: 21 cells
• Huddersfield: 21 cells
• Leeds: 40 cells
• Wakefield: 35 cells
• Stainbeck: 34 cells (primary resilience)
• Dewsbury: 17 cells (resilience)
• Pudsey: 22 cells (resilience)

Total cell capacity: 224 (including all resilience suites)

Annual custody throughput

12 months to August 2023 – 49,459 primary arrests

Custody staffing

• One chief superintendent
• One superintendent
• Six chief inspectors
• 60 custody officers
• 90 backfill custody officers
• 162 custody detention officers
• 164 backfill gaolers

Health service provider

Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust (LCHT)

Back to publication

Report on an inspection visit to police custody suites in West Yorkshire Police