buster). The prisoner is subdued and the C&R team enter the cell for the extraction. Mechanical restraints are applied and the prisoner is escorted from the cell. Prisoner xx reacts to the situation and gives hard physical resistance and kicks on of [sic] the staff. Tactical options are applied to restrain the prisoner. She is relocated to the empty cell and locked.” The incident described above exemplifies some of the key issues around the manner in which events escalate. Having reviewed and analysed a large number of recorded incident reports (on use of force and pepper spray deployment), a number of themes/issues recur: • Distressed women reacting, often mildly, to restrictions, and are responded to with force, including women refusing to be body searched and women refusing to strip or to wear anti-rip gowns at an ISU; • Seemingly arbitrary staff decisions to withhold entitlements – e.g. use of phone- to gain compliance spark off conflict and use of force; • Pepper spray used to break scuffles between women; • Women not given their medication following an incident (two cases); • Mentally unwell women being restrained / behaviour interpreted as aggressive; and • Women who were victims of an assault / another incident placed in an ISU (sometimes at their request). In many of these cases the use of force or irritants would not pass the tests of being last resort, necessary, least force necessary, safe, or justifiable. Finally, a common thread of these examples is that, in at least some cases, unit policies and practices, and staff actions, are confrontational and may contribute to, rather than quell, conflict and violence. I believe that Corrections would benefit from serious reflection and consideration of the role of its policies and practices in igniting volatile situations. 52