Grayling gives green light for staff to use force against inmates in new jail
|
Version 0 of 1. Chris Grayling is to defy an appeal court judgement and order that staff should be able to use force to restrain teenage inmates for “the purposes of good order and discipline” at his proposed £85m privately run ‘super-child jail’. The proposed rule for the justice secretary’s 320-place ‘secure college’ comes despite a court of appeal ruling in 2008 which banned the use of force after it was linked to the deaths and injury of several children in custody, including the death of a 14-year-old Gareth Myatt. Bids from private companies to run the new super-child jail will be sought from early next year, according to the forward to the draft rules, and it is expected a 10 year contract will be in place before the general election. Child inmates aged 12 to 17 will be expected to wear a uniform while they are locked up unlike most other young offenders in detention. Lord Ramsbotham said he would lead a challenge to the new rules and the £85m project in the House of Lords next Wednesday when it will be debated as part of the report stage of the criminal justice and courts bill. The former chief inspector of prisons, said the new discipline rules should not be adopted until they have been voted on by both Houses of Parliament. The court ruling means that while it is currently lawful to use force to restraint child inmates to prevent injury to themselves or others, to stop them from escaping or to prevent damage to property, it is not lawful to use it to maintain good order and discipline. The new rules recognise that the move will be a departure from the court ruling by saying that restraint techniques which involve inflicting pain on the child cannot be used in cases of “good order and discipline” although they may be used to stop the child hurting themselves or others. The rules include a number of safeguards including spelling out that restraint involving force cannot be used for the purposes of punishment. Andrew Neilson, the director of campaigns for the Howard League for Penal Reform said: “The ministry of justice has described the secure college as putting education at the heart of detention, yet this consultation places punishment firmly at the heart of the proposals. “Pages are spent trying to justify changing the rules which govern the use of force, in contravention of previous court judgments that found restraining children simply to maintain good order and discipline to be unlawful. This takes us back to the dark days when a child like Gareth Myatt could die while being restrained simply for refusing to clean a toaster. “There seems to be no willingness to learn from the mistakes of the past. This includes a proposal to have children wearing uniforms whilst incarcerated, despite evidence that this merely reinforces perceived criminal identities and antisocial behaviour.” Justice minister, Andrew Selous said: “It’s incredibly hard to understand why the Howard League doesn’t want to see more education and skills provided for children in custody. That’s exactly what the new secure college is about. Do they really think the status quo is the best we can do for our young people? “The new environment will be safe and secure. It’s totally irresponsible to suggest otherwise.” An Equality and Human Rights Commission briefing for peers for next week’s debates says the bill as drafted is incompatible with the human rights convention because it authorises the use of force against children and young people to maintain good order and discipline. “If primary legislation contemplates the use of force in these circumstances, there is a real danger that force could be used unlawfully. According to the court of appeal in the case of C, that is precisely what happened in secure training centres,” the briefing note says. |