Prison Rules:A Working GuideThe Millennium edition,fully revised and updatedNancy LoucksPRISONT R U S T
iiPrison Rules: A Working GuideThe work of the Prison Reform Trust is aimed at creating a just humane andeffective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of thesystem; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencingParliament, Government and officials towards reform.This edition first published in 2000 by the Prison Reform Trust, 15Northburgh Street, London EC1V 0JR. 2000 Prison Reform TrustISBN: 0 946209 46 4All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced ortransmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of thecopyright owner.Cover photos by James Stenson.Nancy Loucks is currently based in Scotland where she works as anindependent researcher in criminology and prison policy. She is anHonorary Fellow of the Department of Social Work, University ofEdinburgh.
Prison Rules: A Working GuidePRISON RULES:A WORKING GUIDEThe Millennium edition, fully revised and updatedAcknowledgmentsivForeword to the Millennium editionvIntroduction1Basis and Status of the Prison Rules, by Nancy Loucks and NicolaPadfield(1) The Prison Rules and guidance for their use(2) The legal status of the Prison Rules(3) Prisoners’ rights(4) The European Court of Human Rights and the Human RightsAct 1998(5) European Prison Rules(6) The movement for minimum standardsThe Prison Rules 19996711131418Annex A The European Prison Rules 1987133Annex B HM Prison Service Race Relations Policy Statement151References152Index158iii
ivPrison Rules: A Working GuideAcknowledgmentsNo work such as this is ever done alone. My special thanks go to StephenShaw and all the staff at the Prison Reform Trust, without whom theproduction of this volume would not have been possible. Peter Quinn atPrison Service Headquarters has been particularly generous, as usual.Thanks also to Brian Peddie and the rest of the Legal Policy Unit in theScottish Prison Service, as well as to Ed Wozniak and Jim Carnie inResearch Branch. I am also indebted to Hamish Arnott at the Prisoners’Advice Service in London, and to Kieran McEvoy at the Institute ofCriminology in Belfast. Final thanks as always for the continuous patienceand support from my husband Niall.Nancy LoucksDecember 1999
Prison Rules: A Working GuideFOREWORD TO THEMILLENNIUM EDITIONThis Millennium edition marks the fourth time the Prison Reform Trust hasissued a new version of the book Prison Rules: A Working Guide. The book isone of PRT’s initiatives of which we are most proud and which has provedmost successful. In detailing and explaining prison regulations, prison law,and prison administration. Prison Rules: A Working Guide has beenrecognised as an invaluable aid to prison and probation staff, members ofboards of Visitors, lawyers, and all students of penal policy. It has alsoproved a unique self-help guide for prisoners, their friends and relatives.As will be apparent to those in possession of earlier editions, the text hasbeen comprehensively revised to take account of changes both in PrisonService policy and in the climate within which that policy is interpreted injails up and down the country. I have in mind the shift in policy fromWoolf’s justice model in the early ‘90s to the ‘prison works’ ethos of MichaelHoward; the creation of the office of Prisons Ombudsman; the fall-out fromthe highly publicised escapes from HMPs Parkhurst and Whitemoor andthe consequent emphasis on security in the Woodcock and Learmontreports; and most recently the redrafting of the Prison Rules 1964, andimpending implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. All havesweeping implications for the interpretation and application of the PrisonRules.The Prison Reform Trust is greatly indebted to Nancy Loucks, editor ofthe third edition, for returning to the fray some seven years later. Nancy hasshown extraordinary diligence and commitment to the project, and thisnew edition is worthy testament to her skills as a criminal justice researcher.Thanks too to Nicola Padfield for her continuing contribution to theprocess.PRT also gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the Trusteesof the Robert Gavron Charitable Trust in helping meet the costs of thispublication.Juliet LyonDirector, Prison Reform TrustFebruary 2000v
IntroductionINTRODUCTIONAt long last, after 35 years the Prison Rules in England and Wales have beenredrafted rather than simply amended. This is not to say that, with a fewnotable exceptions, the new Rules differ substantially from the previousversion, nor has the Prison Act 1952 been re-written. However, the PrisonRules 1999 are a welcome change from the piecemeal approach toamendments seen since the last consolidation in 1964 and criticised by thePrior Committee in 1985, the Chief Inspector of Prisons in 1990, and LordJustice Woolf in 1991.Notable changes to the Rules include the deletion of references toprisoners under a sentence of death (previously rules 72-76), and thereference to special accommodation (rule 25), which allowed unconvictedprisoners to pay for specially fitted accommodation, complete with privatefurniture, utensils, and valet - a positively comical ‘allowance’. Rule 29 onEducation (now r 32) has been revised to provide for the possibility ofdistance learning.Most welcome is the abolition of what was previously rule 47(21), a disciplinary rule which penalised behaviour which “in any way offendsagainst good order and discipline”. Repeated calls for its abolition camefrom sources such as Justice (1983), Quinn (1995), and from the PrisonReform Trust (Loucks 1995)).Additions to the Rules are also evident, such as the new rules on visitorsand on bringing drugs in through visits. However, the language of theRules remains inappropriate, such as its reference to disciplinary punishments as ‘awards’ and its use of masculine pronouns throughout.According to Livingstone and Owen, “Prison is an extensively rulebound institution where the prison authorities can almost always point to arule at some level of the hierarchy as the basis for any action that they take”(1999: 16.07). The Prison Rules lie at the heart of prison policies, and anexamination of the Rules is relevant because of what they reveal about theday-to-day administration of prisons. In the gradual shift towardsincreased harmonisation with European policies, an examination of howthe Rules in England and Wales compare with European guidance isperhaps even more relevant now than in the past.The current edition of this book comes when the European Conventionon Human Rights is soon to be incorporated into domestic law. It alsocomes at a time when the format of guidance regarding the administrationof prisons is in a state of transition, with the gradual shift from CircularInstructions and Standing Orders to Prison Service Instructions and Orders.The next section of this book explains the status of the Rules themselves anddescribes the documents which influence the Prison Rules (StandingOrders, Circular Instructions, Prison Service Instructions and Orders, andthe European Prison Rules). It also touches on the development ofprisoners’ litigation domestically and before the European Court of HumanRights, and traces the movement for minimum standards.The layout of this book lias changed from previous editions. First, whileit still compares the Prison Rules for England and Wales to the EuropeanRules, it does this only within the context of the commentary; the EuropeanRules themselves are listed at Annex A. Second, the emphasis of the Guideis primarily on the Rules as they apply to adult convicted prisoners inEngland and Wales. As in past editions, the Guide acknowledges that1
2Prison Rules: A Working GuidePrison Rules and legislation in Scotland and in Northern Ireland areseparate from those in England and Wales. Northern Ireland in fact has itsown excellent guide to prisoners’ rights and law (Committee on theAdministration of Justice 1998). Further, the Prison Service has redraftedthe Rules for Young Offender Institutions, as it has the current Prison Rules,and may create a separate set of Rules specifically for remand prisoners.But as in earlier editions, the main section of this book sets out each ofthe Prison Rules, followed by a commentary on each section. Thecommentary compares the Rules in England and Wales with the EuropeanRules and, where appropriate, cites reports, articles, and periodicals, caselaw, Standing Orders and Circular Instructions, Prison Service Instructionsand Orders, and reports of HM Inspectorate of Prisons, the Prison Service,and of the Prison Ombudsman.The code of minimum standards called for in the original version of thisbook in 1985 has yet to be realised (see ‘Basis and Status of the Prison Rules’below), although the Prison Service has made significant steps in otherareas such as the provision of information to prisoners.Information to prisoners and staffDuring research for the earlier editions of this book, it became apparent thatmany staff were unclear about specific rules and varied widely in theinterpretation and enforcement of the rules which they did know. A largenumber of both staff and prisoners interviewed commented that improvements in initial and ongoing training could remedy these inconsistencies.HM Chief Inspector reported the same situation in his 1991 Annual Report:“Some prisoners also complain to us that there is a lack of consistencyof treatment even within different parts of the same establishment.Some believe, as do many staff, that there is no one co-ordinating thework of the establishment as a whole. We are convinced that in anumber of establishments the quality of communication betweenmanagers and uniformed staff, and sometimes between the differentranks of uniformed staff, has deteriorated . Junior officers in particularfeel isolated. They are expected to make decisions on the basis of theinformation that is available to them . Many officers have little contactwith their counterparts in other groups within the same establishmentand cannot readily check whether they are dealing with particularmatters in the same way . We believe that there is . a need to providestaff with more training, including refresher training, in interpersonalskills” (para. 3.98).He further commented on the limited access to other legal advice inprisons: “Access to advice about legal aid, appeals and bail is a majorconcern to most prisoners. We found that establishments had sufficienttrained officers to provide such advice, but the duality, nature andaccessibility of this service varied widely” (1991: 3.14).The Woolf Report emphasised that the Prison Service must make:“.a substantial change in the manner in which most prisoners aretreated [in order to reduce re-offending]. This in turn requires asubstantial contribution from prison officers. They will only be able tomake such a contribution if they are properly trained. For this reason,and because it could also improve the present state of morale in the
IntroductionPrison Service, we recommend that more attention be paid by thePrison Service to training. A greater commitment to training wouldalso help to show that the Prison Service cares about its staff” (paras.13.107-13.108).Prisoners may also have problems with access to prison libraries, as theChief Inspector has noted: “Opening hours are often restricted to timeswhen not all inmates can attend and are often further affected by nonavailability of staff” (1991: 3.52). The Education, Science and ArtsCommittee of the House of Commons has expressed its concern at thelimited availability of library facilities in prisons:“If education tends to be seen as being of low priority, libraries suffereven more from the same attitude: in emergencies or periods whereprison officers are short staffed, the officer(s) responsible for escortinginmates to the library tend(s) to be the first to be diverted elsewhere .Limited opening hours may mean that not all prisoners have access tothe library, and that access may be infrequent and brief, with no time tobrowse or use reference books. Many libraries are run with flair andimagination, offering information, displays and support for learningactivities. It is a matter of regret and concern if such facilities are not notbeing fully used” (1991: 52).Probation officers at Wormwood Scrubs Prison reported in theirevidence to the Woolf Inquiry that: “Prisoners feel cut off from all sourcesof information. Often, they neither know what is going on in the prison norwhat is going on at home. Of course, they hear rumours and officialannouncements about the wider world and the prison . But often theofficial pronouncements are either delayed or contradictory or nonsensical. It would not seem unreasonable to suggest that prisoners should receiveof at least weekly bulletins from the authorities about policy changes in thewings where they live, if those policy changes will make any real differenceto their daily routines” (para. 14.280). Woolf recognised the importance ofimproving communications with prisoners, saving that “If prisoners have agreater understanding of what is happening to them in prison and why,they are less likely to be aggrieved and become disaffected. This should, inturn, improve relations between staff and prisoners” (para. 14.275). Hebelieved access to information was especially important regarding administrative decisions which materially or adversely affect prisoners andrecommended that prisoners be told the reasons behind such decisions. Thegovernment accepted this recommendation in the 1991 White PaperCustody, Care and Justice.Standing Order 7B directs prison establishments to obtain and displaythe Prison Rules, the European Prison Rules, documents relating to parole,advice on petitioning the European Court of Human Rights, the PrisonDiscipline Manual, and so on, although the Inspectorate’s reports haveindicated that these documents are not always available in all prisons as theStanding Order requires, nor do prisoners always realise they are available.On reception, prisoners should be provided with the Prisoners’Information Book, compiled by the Prison Reform Trust in conjunction withthe Prison Service, rather than with the Prison Rules themselves. Locallyproduced publications may supplement the Prisoners’ Information Book, butshould not replace it. Circular Instruction 32/1991 requires officers toensure that prisoners receive a copy of the Book, and Standing Order 1A3
4Prison Rules: A Working Guidemakes the governor responsible for ensuring that the information isexplained to them if necessary (SO 1A: 50; see also commentary to r 10).Legislation and case law have also improved prisoners’ access toinformation. The Access to Health Records Act 1990 gave prisoners theright of access to their health records. The Court of Appeal in Wilson (1992)gave prisoners access to reports against them so they can adequatelyrepresent themselves at parole hearings. The Court of Appeal in Walsh(1992) allowed discretionary lifers to know the length of their tariff and,particularly importantly, the House of Lords in Doody (1994) entitledmandatory lifers to know the length of their tariff, the reason for its length,i and whether the Home Secretary increased the period which the court irecommended.The Citizen’s Charter (1991) states that “It is especially important inprisons that no one is denied information to which they are entitled aboutdecisions affecting their lives and well-being. We are therefore introducinga number of measures to ensure that prisoners receive clear and basicinformation from the start of their time in custody about decisions affectingthem and preparations for their release.” Mr. Joe Pilling, then DirectorGeneral of the Prison Service, confirmed this stance in June 1992, sayingthat prisoners have the right to demand information about their entitlements, answers to reasonable questions, and honest apologies for mistakesand injustices (Independent 12 June 1992).Gaps in the Prison RulesThe Prison Rules in England and Wales have a number of significant gaps.For example, both the Prison Service Key Performance Indicators andOperating Standards (see below) refer to the amount of structured activitiesavailable, and the Operating Standards refer to the amount of time isprisoners spend out of their cells. Neither of these issues are mentioned inthe Prison Rules. The Rules also make no mention of discharge or dischargegrants, sentence planning, personal officer schemes, or the impact ofcustody on rights such as voting and marriage. Probably the mostsignificant omissions are sentence calculation and parole, although theywere in fact once part of the Rules.Briefly, the Operating Standards recommend a minimum of 12 hoursdaily out of cells, subject to security, control and discipline (Op. Std. U2),and 42 hours per week of structured activities (Ul). Prisoners should havethe opportunity for association when they are unlocked but not instructured activities (N21), and the opportunity for cell hobbies when theyare locked in their cells (U22).Sentence planning is designed to help longer-term prisoners plan theirtime in custody, including what goals they intend to achieve. All adultprisoners sentenced to a year or more and all Young Offenders serving atleast four weeks should have a sentence plan.Sentenced prisoners, including those unlawfully at large or ontemporary release are legally debarred from voting (Representation of thePeople Act 1983). However unconvicted, convicted unsentenced, and civilprisoners age 18 or over are entitled to vote, as are people imprisoned forcontempt of court or in default of another sentence (e.g. fine default orpeople in breach of probation or Community Service Orders). These peoplemust have registered to vote before they entered custody (PSI 68/1997, with
Introductionadditional instructions in PSI 19/1997). Operating Standards Q32-33 statethat prisoners should be allowed to marry while in custody.Sentence calculation and parole are probably the most complex areas ofprison administration. The Prison Service publishes a manual on sentencecalculation as well as one entitled Parole, Early Release and Recall (PSI 15/1998), both of which should be available to prisoners. This accounttherefore only summarises the most basic aspects of both.Prison Service Order 6000 covers parole arrangements for determinatesentence prisoners. Prisoners sentenced after 1 October 1992 fall under theprovisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (as amended). Prisonerssentenced to under a year in custody are automatically released at the halfway point of their sentence. Those sentenced from one year to less than fouryears are also released at the half-way point, but are then supervised up tothe three-quarter point (Automatic Conditional Release). Finally, prisonerssentenced to four years or more are subject to Discretionary ConditionalRelease. This means they become eligible for parole half-way through theirsentence, are released by the two-thirds point (the Non-Parole Date) at thelatest, and remain under supervision to the three-quarters point of theiroriginal sentence. Prisoners sentenced prior to 1 October 1992 are eligiblefor parole after serving a third of their sentence, then are releasedunconditionally at the two-thirds point or Earliest Date of Release.Days added for disciplinary punishments (unless remitted) put back aprisoner’s automatic release or parole eligibility date, the Non-Parole Date,and the licence expiry date, as do days lost on appeal. Time spent incustody on remand counts towards the Parole Eligibility Date, but it doesnot reduce the period of compulsory supervision after release. In fact, allapplicable time from a person’s arrival at a police station after arrest iscredited as time served (1G 20/1996). Ti
the European Prison Rules). It also touches on the development of prisoners’ litigation domestically and before the European Court of Human Rights, and traces the movement for minimum standards. The layout of this book lias changed from previous editions. First, while it still compar
The prison population stood at 78,180 on 31 December 2020. The sentenced prison population stood at 65,171 (83% of the prison population); the remand prison population stood at 12,066 (15%) and the non-criminal prison population stood at 943 (1%). Figure 1: Prison population, December 2000 to 2020 (Source: Table 1.1) Remand prison population
Prison level performance is monitored and measured using the Prison Performance Tool. The PPT uses a data-driven assessment of performance in each prison to derive overall prison performance ratings. As in previous years, data-driven ratings were ratified and subject to in depth scrutiny at the moderation process which took place in June 2020.
prison. By 2004, people convicted on federal drug offenses were expected to serve almost three times that length: 62 months in prison. At the federal level, people incarcerated on a drug conviction make up nearly half the prison population. At the state level, the number of people in prison for drug offenses has increased nine-
Rules database is the basis of the rules engine and it is a collection of rules files which are established by rules engine. Rules database is maintained by rules management and it is used by rules engine. (5) Rules Matching The first step is modelling with rules files in rules database. Then, it will match rules with users'
Classification Rules -MDR, Annex VIII MDR MDD Rules 1 -4: Non-invasive devices Rules 5 -8 : Invasive devices Rules 9 -13 : Active Devices Rules 14 -22 : Special rules Rules 1 -4 : Non-invasive devices Rules 5 -8 : Invasive devices Rules 9 -12 : Active devices Rules 13 -18 : Special rules
ZOMBICIDE - GUIDE 7 SEASON 2 : PRISON OUTBREAK DOG COMPANIONS ZOMBIE DOGZ Prison Outbreak is often compared to an “advanced” Zombicide in a prison atmosphere. Richer and more tactical, Prison Outbreak introduces a new Zombie type, the Berserkers, in addition to new sculpts of Standard Zombies.
Figure 2: Prison Service structure from 1 April 2017 A functional group structure has been adopted for the management of some Prison Service establishments (i.e. for 'young people' within a distinct Youth Custody Service; for 'long-term/high security' prisons; and prisons for women) whilst others are based on prison
information was available for women in prison with mental health problems and what more could be made available.4 The findings from this report will help Mind compile information specifically for women in prison. We used mainly focus groups on the basis that they are a lot easier for prison staff to facilitate and far less time-consuming: