0
0
In order to ensure that solitary confinement is only imposed in exceptional circumstances and for the shortest time necessary, each type of solitary confinement should have its own distinct process for applying and reviewing it. The CPT outlines here what it considers to be the appropriate processes:
Solitary confinement as part of remand conditions
As already indicated, solitary confinement of persons remanded in custody should only be used sparingly and where there is direct evidence in an individual case that there is a serious risk to the administration of justice if the prisoner concerned associates with particular inmates or others in general. Such decisions should be made in open court, with as fully reasoned a judgment as possible, and be separately appealable. They should also be reviewed by the competent court on a frequent basis to ensure that there is a continuing need for solitary confinement.
Solitary confinement as a disciplinary sanction
The reason for the imposition of solitary confinement as a punishment, and the length of time for which it is imposed, should be fully documented in the record of the disciplinary hearing. Such records should be available to senior managers and oversight bodies. There should also be an effective appeal process which can re-examine the finding of guilt and/or the sentence in time to make a difference to them in practice. A necessary concomitant of this is the ready availability of legal advice for prisoners in this situation.
Prisoners undergoing this punishment should be visited on a daily basis by the prison director or another member of senior management, and the order given to terminate solitary confinement when this step is called for on account of the prisoner’s condition or behaviour. Records should be kept of such visits and of related decisions.
Administrative solitary confinement for preventative purposes
This can result in very long-term placements under solitary confinement and the administrative decisions involved are often indeterminate; both these elements aggravate the negative effects of the measure. Consequently, there is a need for stringent controls. The CPT considers that placement in administrative solitary confinement should only be authorised by the most senior member of staff in the prison; any imposition of this measure as an emergency should be reported to the most senior member of staff on duty immediately and brought to the attention of the prison director as soon as possible. A full written report should be drawn up before the member of staff who makes the decision goes off-duty. This should record the reasons for the decision and the precise time the measure was adopted as well as the views of the prisoner as far as these can be ascertained. There should be constant, logged, monitoring of all cases for the first few hours and the person should be released from solitary confinement as soon as the reason for the imposition of the measure has been resolved. In all cases where the measure continues for longer than 24 hours, there should be a full review of all aspects of the case with a view to withdrawing the measure at the earliest possible time.
If it becomes clear that solitary confinement is likely to be required for a longer period of time, a body external to the prison holding the prisoner, for example, a senior member of headquarters staff, should become involved. A right of appeal to an independent authority should also be in place. When an order is confirmed, a full interdisciplinary case conference should be convened and the prisoner invited to make representations to this body. A major task for the review team is to establish a plan for the prisoner with a view to addressing the issues which require the prisoner to be kept in solitary confinement. Among other things, the review should also look at whether some of the restrictions imposed on the prisoner are strictly necessary – thus it may be possible to allow some limited association with selected other prisoners. The prisoner should receive a written, reasoned decision from the review body and an indication of how the decision may be appealed. After an initial decision, there should be a further review at least after the first month and thereafter at least every three months, at which progress against the agreed plan can be assessed and if appropriate a new plan developed. The longer a person remains in this situation, the more thorough the review should be and the more resources, including resources external to the prison, made available to attempt to (re)integrate the prisoner into the main prison community. The prisoner should be entitled to require a review at any time and to obtain independent reports for such a review. The prison director or senior members of staff should make a point of visiting such prisoners daily and familiarise themselves with the individual plans. Medical staff should also pay particular attention to prisoners held under these conditions.
Solitary confinement for protection purposes
“Own request” protection cases raise fewer questions than those ordered to go on protection by staff, but they still need some consideration. The CPT considers that all the alternatives, including transferring to another prison either the individual prisoner in need of protection or the prisoners causing the problem, mediation and assertiveness training, should be tried first and the full consequences of a decision to go on protection explained to the prisoner. Of course, a request from any prisoner on voluntary protection to return to the mainstream should be considered and granted if this can be safely done.
Those who are placed on protection against their will should have the right to play a full part in the discussion of the decision and to proffer alternative solutions. They should be given a full explanation of the decision and the opportunity to challenge it at a higher level. The decision should be reviewed on a regular basis so that solitary confinement can be ended as soon as it is no longer necessary.
