Home Affairs Department
11 Royal Square
St Helier
JE2 4WA
Tel: 01534 445507
Fax: 01534 447933
HAD/DPT/29
Deputy M Tadier
Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub-Panel
Scrutiny Office
Royal Square
St Helier 4th December 2009
Dear Deputy Tadier,
REPORT SR7/2009 - PRISON BOARD OF VISITORS
Thank you for sending me a copy of the Education & Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub-Panel report on the Prison Board of Visitors which was presented to the States on 18 August 2009. My specific comments on each of the recommendations contained at paragraphs 2.16 to 2.29 of the report are attached at Appendix A. However, I should like to make some general comments on the conduct of the review in this covering letter. This is because the Prison Board of Visitors is a matter of legitimate public interest and it is right, therefore, that I should point out a number of perceived shortcomings in the way this review was carried out and, inevitability, in the conclusions reached.
Firstly, it is clear from Appendix 2 of the report that only two written submissions were received by the Sub-Panel, including one from a person who has been a long-standing critic of the Prison Board of Visitors system. One wonders, therefore, whether there is any genuine desire for change amongst the community at large or whether the report is simply a response to persistent representations made by a particular individual over a sustained period. I am not suggesting that individuals’ concerns should not be looked into or taken seriously, simply that the report can hardly claim to reflect the views of society in general.
Whilst I can understand the Sub-Panel’s conclusion that an Independent Monitoring Board, formed along UK lines, would provide an alternative to the Prison Board of Visitors, the report does not examine the genesis for such arrangements in the United Kingdom. Whilst they no doubt perform a useful function in that jurisdiction, they came about partly as a result of the prison riots and demonstrations evident in the late 1980s and 1990s. Thankfully, Jersey has not experienced similar problems with its prison regime. During your visit to the Prison, I am sure you will have sensed the complete absence of tension in our prison, an atmosphere which is not enjoyed in many UK prisons, and this is in no small part due to the excellent staff/prisoner relationships which have been built up over many years. For my part, I regard the skilful and sensitive approach taken by Jurats over the years, in their role as the Board of Visitors, to be a contributory factor in the relationships that we currently enjoy. My reading of the report is that the important role performed by the Board of Visitors was not fully understood. The Board of Visitors function is a relatively small part of a Jurats role. Indeed, they have a wide remit both as an integral part of the criminal justice system in Jersey and as an important part of our civic structure. Consequently, when they attend the Prison, they are not there simply to see that processes and procedures are being adhered to. They have the welfare of prisoners very much in mind and they bring all their experience and skill to bear in seeing that issues are resolved sensibly. If this involves liaising with agencies outside of the prison, they are content to do this in the interest of prisoner welfare. I am not sure that an independent monitoring board, along UK lines, provides this depth of service.
Like the low level of public representation, the conclusions reached by the Sub-Panel rely on submissions made by a very small number of prisoners. Of a prison population of near 200, only 6 prisoners were interviewed. In any one year, over 100 applications are made to see the Board of Visitors on a range of issues. Most of these prisoners have their issues resolved satisfactorily and would most likely have given a different view to the Sub-Panel than the 6 who were chosen. Moreover, I understand that the 6 prisoners were seen in pairs, rather than individually, which would have affected the reliability of the information given. Having carried out the interviews, I understand that the Board of Visitors were not invited to comment on the submissions made.
In conclusion, whilst I would concede that the inclusion of lay members within the Board of Visitors bears closer examination, I believe that we should take great care when considering wholesale changes to the current system. It has served the Island very well over many years and the review appears to be based on uncompelling evidence and a UK system of prison monitoring that may not be right for Jersey given its unique criminal justice system and close-knit community. You will note from my specific comments at Appendix A that I would like to seek advice on some of the Sub-Panel’s recommendations. I suggest that no further action is taken on the report’s recommendations until I have had the opportunity to consider this advice in due course.
Yours sincerely
Ian Le Marquand
Minister for Home Affairs
gov.je