• The physical design and material conditions in the so-called ‘At Risk units’
in prisons, where vulnerable prisoners were housed, were mostly identical
to those in other solitary confinement units. These units may be contrary
to international standards which prohibit the placement of prisoners with
physical or mental disabilities in solitary confinement.
• Children and young people in Care and Protection residences could be held
in separation from their peers in ‘Secure Care’ units which were identical to
prison segregation units. These were inappropriate.
• The deprivation of social interaction which is inherent in all solitary
confinement practices was often made worse by the deprivation of other
provisions which could have helped to mitigate the harmful effects of
seclusion. These included restrictions on family visits and in-room provisions
such as books, hobby and craft materials or a TV set.
• A small but persistent number of people in health and disability facilities were
subjected to very long-term restrictive measures, and discussion of future
plans for these individuals appeared to be focused on variants of seclusion
and restraint. For the individuals concerned, prolonged seclusion and /or
restraint (and often both) had thus become a chronic state rather than an
emergency short term response to an acute situation.
• Review processes were not always robust, and some stays in restrictive
conditions were far too long.
Other concerns identified in the report included:
• Seclusion and segregation cells were not always used for their intended
purpose.
• Lack of individual autonomy and over-reliance on the goodwill and
availability of staff.
• Seclusion and restraints were not always used as emergency last resort tools
for the shortest time possible.
• Risk aversion and staff safety taking precedence over the detained individual’s
rights and needs.
• Blanket restrictive policies being applied to detained individuals, rather than
ones tailored to their individual risk and needs.
10