Inspectors found a marked decline in treatment and conditions for prisoners at both the closed and open sites at HMP Hewell, a large male prison complex in Worcestershire.

Safety and purposeful activity were classed as poor, the lowest grading, at the closed site, a category B local prison. This was the third consecutive poor for safety at the closed site, which held 870 prisoners – and was a “cause of great concern.”

Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, added: “At the open (category D) site we found that, extraordinarily for an open prison, it was poor in both purposeful activity and rehabilitation and release planning.”

Overall, at the inspection in June, four of the eight scores across the two sites were poor. This led Mr Clarke to consider invoking the rarely-used Urgent Notification (UN) process, which would require the Secretary of State to respond publicly within 28 days with plans to improve the prison.

However, he decided against using the UN after assessing that although a period in HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) “special measures” had failed to improve Hewell, many of the necessary changes were within the gift of the prison management, under a recently appointed governor. The challenges on the closed site were clear:

• Many prisoners felt unsafe. Nearly 70% of prisoners said it was easy to obtain illicit drugs and just under a quarter said they had acquired a drug habit in the prison.
• Self-harm had doubled since the last inspection in 2016.
• Many prisoners said they were treated respectfully by staff, but far too much low-level misbehaviour was going unchallenged.
• Education, skills and work were assessed as inadequate. Attendance at activities was poor and those who did not attend were often locked in their cells for up to 22 hours a day.

Mr Clarke added: “The award of our lowest grade of ‘poor’ for safety was not a consequence so much of the actual level of violence, but more of a reflection of a range of failures to provide an environment in which prisoners could feel safe, where victims of violence would be supported, where perpetrators would be challenged and where poor behaviour would lead to consistent and effective sanctions.”

At the open site – in a Grade II-listed building at Hewell Grange – there was “a very unusual, and for an open prison, totally unacceptable mixture of outcomes.” Though the open prison appeared to be safe, Mr Clarke said: “living conditions were the worst I have seen in this type of establishment…The dormitories were crowded, and in many cases the cubicles were untidy and dirty, and there was a great deal of food waste, dirty clothing and other rubbish.”

“The poor living conditions were compounded by the fact that the establishment was failing in its core purpose as an open prison.” There were weaknesses and failings which meant the open prison was not properly preparing prisoners for their release. This was particularly concerning as a significant number of prisoners were assessed as presenting a high risk of harm to others.

Mr Clarke said his judgement not to invoke the UN process was influenced by several factors. “I believe the UN process is best reserved for when there is no other obvious or feasible solution, when the intervention of the Secretary of State is needed to bring about some strategic or significant organisational change.”

“In the case of Hewell, it was my view that none of these interventions were necessary to bring about improvements. With the exception of the living conditions at the open site, the fabric of the buildings was reasonable. There were no staff shortages, and a new Governor had only recently been appointed. We considered the changes that were needed to bring about improvement were all within the gift of the prison itself.”

Mr Clarke added: “I also took account of the fact that the prison had already been in ‘special measures’ for some considerable time. I looked very carefully at the Special Measures Action Summary and came to the conclusion that it was highly unlikely to achieve the required improvements. It had not done so to date, and the prison leadership were sceptical that it ever would.

“At Hewell, there was no doubt that swift and effective management action was required to ensure that prisoners were no longer left angry and frustrated by failures to deal with basic day-to-day issues. But these issues were, in my judgement, largely local issues that needed local solutions.”

In summary, Mr Clarke said:

“This was a very worrying inspection. The prison leadership and regional HM Prison and Probation leadership were left fully aware of what needed to be done, and I trust that they started to address our findings immediately following the end of the inspection. We shall have the opportunity to scrutinise their progress at the (Inspectorate’s) Independent Review of Progress (IRP) that will follow within a matter of months.”

Phil Copple, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Director General for Prisons, said:

“I share the inspectors’ confidence that staff and the management team at HMP Hewell will be able to meet the considerable challenges facing them. The concerns raised about the living conditions at the open site are particularly worrying, and we will ensure those are addressed. A new drug strategy, extra sniffer-dog patrols and increased searches in partnership with local police will make the closed prison safer, while a new education provider is now in place to better prepare all prisoners for release.”

– End –

Notes to editors

1. A copy of the full report, published on 25 September 2019, can be found here.
2. HM Inspectorate of Prisons is an independent inspectorate, inspecting places of detention to report on conditions and treatment and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public.
3. HMP Hewell is, in reality, two prisons, situated in Worcestershire, with entirely different functions, presenting a complex environment both to manage and to inspect. The larger establishment is a male category B local prison, quite modern in construction, holding some 870 prisoners at the time of this inspection. About half a mile away, set in many acres of park and farmland, and situated within a late 19th-century Grade II listed country house, is a men’s open prison holding around 200 prisoners. The prisons were last inspected in the summer of 2016. The establishments have traditionally been inspected together, but with separate grades being awarded in each of our healthy prison tests. Hewell was opened in June 2008.
4. Notable features from this inspection: a quarter of the population at the open prison presented a high risk of harm to others and 20% were organised crime gang nominals; more than 40% of cells on the closed site designed for one prisoner held two; there was a full complement of prison officers, but two-thirds were in their first two years of service.
5. This unannounced inspection took place between 3 and 14 June 2019.
6. Please contact John Steele at HM Inspectorate of Prisons on 020 3334 0357 or 07880 787452, or at john.steele@justice.gov.uk, if you would like more information.