I have said many times that, in theory, there are enough Prison Service Instructions, Standing Orders, Prison Rules, Regulations, and Prison Service Orders to provide for a system which, by and large, works. However, the reasons that the system, by and large, doesn’t work is because all of the rules set out in those documents are re-interpreted, twisted, and sometimes even blatantly ignored by staff at ground level. In short, prison works until the screws get involved.
In ‘Porridge’ there were only two rules: Don’t write on the walls, and obey all the rules. In real life the ins and outs of the rules in prison are extremely complex. Even more so when you come to realise which ones you can expect to see implemented and which ones will be implemented in a very different way to how they are written, if they are ever implemented at all.
With that in mind, I thought I’d start a series of posts, breaking down one Prison Service Instruction at a time in an attempt to explaing how things are meant to work, and how they actually work, from personal experience. First up, Prison Discipline.
V interesting, may be worth noting 48hrs to issue the charge, 72hrs for the charge to be opened (unless exceptional circumstances), by opened the charge and prisoner brought before the adjudicator, particularly over weekend and bank holiday periods this 72hrs can lapse rendering the charge dismissed.
I must say I have observed some adjudication styles which may not reflect the principle of fairness and natural justice, not a PSI requirement but certainly good practice, on every hearings that I adjudicated I would read and explain word for word the points of evidence from the PSI ie PR 51/55 (1)
• Did the accused prisoner apply force to another person, or act in such a way that another person was in fear of force being applied to them?
• Was the force unlawful, i.e. more than was reasonable in the circumstances for self-defence against an assault or to prevent a serious crime?
I would the discus at look at each point of evidence, worthy of note, where CCTV evidence is 1st introduced, it is again good practice to offer the accused a 2 hour adjournment to consider the CCTV evidence they have just been shown.
Again not required practice but on a number of occasions I would read back, invite the prisoner to read my hearing notes and sign to indicate they are a true reflection of what was said. I have observed some records of hearings which may not reflect some defence comments which under appeal may have a bearing in the accused favour.
I am pleased to say over the years of hearing adjudications I have never had a single appeal lodged by a prisoner, I would like think that is because the process was fair and transparent.
Similarly I took the time to explain the same points of evidence to reporting officer on occasions where the charge or procedures were flawed resulting in me dismissing the charge. I have also dismissed charges where other disciplinary options should of been explored ie IEP before escalating to a formal adjudication.
I look forward to reading your blogs with interest.
Thanks for your comment, Steve. I have to say, if you really dealt with adjudications in the way you describe then I wish you could have handled mine because no governor I have ever appeared in front of has ever handled things this way.
You did say that other disciplinary measure such as IEP should be used before escalating to a formal adjudication though. This just goes to show that the IEP is a disciplinary measure, despite the PSIs claiming that it isn’t. Of course, they only say this so that both an IEP warning and an adjudication can be issued without constituting double jeopardy, but in practice they are a de facto disciplinary measure nevertheless – as your comment illustrates.
Pingback: Incentives and Earned Privileges (Part Two) | Adam Mac