Investigation into woman’s injury sustained whilst in custody – Metropolitan Police Service, June 2022

The IOPC recommends that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) amends the Police Custody Suites Design Guide to reflect that any sharp edges on metal rebate strips (also known as rectification strips) fitted to custody cell doors should be removed during construction and inspection to lessen any risk of self-harm.

This follows an IOPC investigation into a near-miss in custody. A detainee was placed in a custody cell [redacted] [ and made an ] attempt to harm themselves.

Following the incident, remedial works were conducted on cell doors containing the rebate strips at the custody suite where the incident took place and the NPCC circulated a force-wide notification to custody leads asking them to consider checking any rebate strips – widely fitted to custody doors to minimise ligature risks – and removing the edges where necessary to lessen the risk of a similar incident reoccurring. A review of the existing Police Custody Suites Design Guide showed that it did not contain specific reference to ensuring that sharp edges on rebate strips were removed to lessen any self-harm risk during construction or inspection.

The IOPC recommends that the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) shares the learning from this IOPC investigation with all force custody leads, asking them to take steps to ensure metal rebate strips (also known as rectification strips) fitted to cell doors are reviewed as part of regular checks conducted in custody suites to ensure there are no self-harm risks. This is due to the possible degradation of these strips over time which increases the risk for self-harm.

This follows an IOPC investigation into a near-miss in custody. A detainee was placed in a custody cell [redacted] [ and made an ] attempt to harm themselves.

Following the incident, remedial works were conducted on cell doors containing the rebate strips at the custody suite where the incident took place and the NPCC circulated a force-wide notification to custody leads asking them to consider checking any rebate strips – widely fitted to custody doors to minimise ligature risks – and removing the edges where necessary to lessen the risk of a similar incident reoccurring. Custody leads were not asked to conduct these checks regularly.

The IOPC recommends that the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) shares the learning from this IOPC investigation with all force custody leads, asking them to take steps to ensure custody staff understand the ligature risk associated with plimsolls provided to detainees. Where a detainee is assessed as being at current risk of self-harming, any mitigation to the risk associated with this type of footwear should be proportionate while maintaining detainee dignity as far as is possible.

This follows an IOPC investigation into a near-miss in custody. A detainee was placed in a custody cell [redacted] [ and made an ] attempt to harm themselves. The NPCC circulated a force-wide notification to custody leads and the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service (PECS) highlighting the circumstances of this incident and the risk associated with these plimsolls. PECS then shared this notification with two private security companies holding contracts for the North and South of England. It was brought to the IOPC’s attention that in April 2017, a warning notification had been sent to all forces by a different force, following a similar near-miss incident [redacted].

The IOPC recommends that Hampshire Constabulary takes steps to ensure the microphones covering the booking in desks are in good working order, to ensure information communicated at the booking in desks is audibly captured. In addition, the force should review procedures in place to ensure that the microphones within custody suites are tested on a regular basis and are in good working order.

This follows an IOPC investigation into a near miss in custody where a CCTV camera covering a booking in desk in Basingstoke Custody Suite was of poor audio quality, therefore information communicated during the booking in process was inaudible. Poor quality audio undermines the ability to identify, review and scrutinise important information, in particular information conveyed during an initial risk assessment.

The College of Policing Detention and Custody APP, states, ‘Custody managers should establish an inspection regime for the CCTV system, including both the hardware and software, to ensure the suitability of images. They should also check recording quality.’

A review of Hampshire Constabulary’s current CCTV Standard Operation Procedure showed that custody staff are responsible for ensuring the CCTV system is in working order. Consultation with the force’s custody management team informed of a daily process for checking the working order of the CCTV cameras but not a process for checking the suitability of the microphones.

The IOPC recommends that Hampshire Constabulary ensure that Police Constables who provide cover in custody receive custody-specific training so that they have the appropriate level of knowledge and skills to competently perform their role.

This follows an IOPC investigation into a near miss in custody, where a Police Constable (PC) provided Detention Officer (DO) cover in Basingstoke Custody Suite, due to a shortfall of custody staff. The PC had limited experience of working in the custody environment and had not undergone any custody specific training. This meant the custody officer could only allocate the PC to complete cell checks as other roles required particular training or access to specific systems. The PC had to be shown how to complete cell checks and how to use the custody computer system.

The investigation found that there is a practice in the force of using PCs to provide cover for DOs. Information from a Hampshire Constabulary Inspector referenced that, although PC stand-ins provide positive assistance to staffing numbers, they are not routinely exposed to custody as part of their training and are not as competent in the role and aware of the risks in custody as a fully trained DO. A statement from the PC who provided DO cover highlighted that, she did not feel well equipped to perform her role due to insufficient training on how to manage risks in the custody environment.

The Detention and Custody Authorised Professional Practice states that police forces should ensure that those working in the custody environment understand their roles and responsibilities, and that all staff must be trained and competent to perform their role in custody. Additionally, HMICFRS’s custody inspection of Hampshire Constabulary in 2012, recommended that the force ensure PCs who provided cover for DOs receive custody-specific training.