National Security Framework
EXTERNAL ESCORTS FUNCTION
Ref: NSF 7.1
Security of Prisoners at Court
This instruction applies to :-
Reference :-
NOMS Headquarters
Prisons
Issue Date
AI 12/2015
PSI 26/2015
Expiry Date
23 July 2015
Issued on the
authority of
For action by (who is
this instruction for)
Effective Date
Implementation Date
23 July 2015
22 July 2019
NOMS Agency Board
All staff responsible for discharges to court including initial risk
assessments, completion of PER, including those in contracted prisons.
NOMS HQ
Public Sector Prisons
Contracted Prisons*
Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs)
Governors
Heads of Groups
PECS
* If this box is marked, then in this document the term Governor also applies to
Directors of Contracted Prisons
For information
Provide a summary of
the policy aim and
the reason for its
development/revision
Contact
Associated
documents
All HQ Prison staff and HMCTS
The aim of this policy is to provide instruction and guidance to prisons
in identifying and managing risks relating to prisoners attending court.
It supports the need for risks to be identified and key stakeholders
advised at the earliest point of the prisoner’s entry into prison in order
for processes to be put in place at court to reduce risk of violence or
escape.
Ceri Mortimer
ceri.elaine.mortimer@hmps.gsi.gov.uk
0300 047 6203
PSO 1025 – The Person Escort Record (PER)
PSI 24/2014 – AI 18/2014 – PI 18/2014 Information Assurance Policy
PSI 05/2013 - The Identification, Initial Categorisation and Management
of Potential and Provisional Category A / Restricted Status Prisoners
PSI 09/2013 - Management and Security of Category A prisoners External Movement
PSI 74/2011 – Early days in Custody
PSI 10/2015 Management and Security of Escape list (E-List) prisoners
Related Service Specification
Related Operating Models
Related Direct Service Costs and Assumptions paper
Related Cost Spreadsheets
NOMS directory of service specifications can be found at
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/noms-directory-of-servicesspecifications
Replaces the following documents which are hereby cancelled: None
Audit/monitoring: Compliance with this instruction will be monitored by Audit and Corporate
Assurance and through internal self-audit.
Notes: All Mandatory Actions throughout this instruction are in italics and must be strictly
adhered to.
PAGE 1
CONTENTS
Hold down “Ctrl” and click on section titles below to follow link
Section
Subject
Applies to
1
Executive Summary
2
Operational Instructions
 Required Actions
 Late applications
 Productions to civil, family, immigration and coroners
courts
 Prisoners giving evidence from witness box
 Procedures for escort contractors
 Review process
All staff
Annex A
Court Risk Identification email template
Annex B
Court Security factors to consider
Annex C
Custody Management Directions Form for HMPS
PECS
Annex D
Custody Management Directions Form for Escort
Contractors
All Staff
Annex E
Custody Management Directions Form Internal Guidance
Notes for HMPS
Annex F
Custody Management Directions Form Internal Guidance
Notes for Escort Contractors
Annex G
National Offender Management Services (NOMS) and
Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS)
Protocol document
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
PECS
All Staff
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 2
1.
Executive Summary
Background
1.1
This instruction is derived from the agreed protocol between the National Offender
Management Service (NOMS) and Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS)
which sets out the processes for maintaining the security of prisoners at court.(Annex G)
1.2
The PSI sets out instructions on the identification and management of risk when prisoners
attend court hearings. The instructions apply to Magistrate and Crown Courts, the Court of
Appeal and all civil, family, immigration and coroner’s courts.
1.3
NOMS is at its most vulnerable to prisoner escape when prisoners are taken outside the
secure perimeter of the prison and, in particular, when they are produced to locations with
little physical security to prevent their attempting to escape or causing harm to the public.
1.4
Escapes from court represent the majority of escapes from custody and not only present a
potential risk of harm to the public but damage public confidence in the Criminal Justice
System.
Desired Outcomes
1.5
Public protection, the efficient delivery of justice and the maintenance of public confidence
in the Criminal Justice System is supported through ensuring that prisoners committed into
custody do not escape or cause harm whilst at court
1.6
The use of video link is maximised as far as is legislatively possible
1.7
The risks associated with individual prisoners during a production to court are identified and
managed appropriately, including through targeted use of secure court buildings, secure
docks and application of approved restraints
1.8
There is an effective means of communication, information sharing and co-operation
between NOMS, HMCTS and the judiciary
1.9
There is a clear understanding of respective responsibilities and accountability
1.10
Prisoners are taken outside the secure environment of the prison only when absolutely
necessary in the interests of justice
Application
1.11
This PSI incorporates mandatory requirements derived from the External Movements
specification, which are highlighted in the shaded boxes.
Mandatory Actions
1.12
This PSI incorporates mandatory requirements derived from the External Movements
specification, which are highlighted in the shaded boxes.
1.13
Governors / Directors of contracted prisons must ensure staff working in the Offender
Management Hub (Custody Offices), Receptions and Security Departments are aware of
the contents of this PSI and systems are in place to meet the mandatory requirements.
1.14
Establishment Security Departments are responsible for ensuring all sections within this
PSI that are relevant are reflected within the establishment’s Local Security Strategy.
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 3
1.15
This applies to all prisoners being produced at court by HMPS and within the PECS
contract and to ALL staff responsible for producing prisoners to court. Managers will need
to amend local instructions as necessary to meet the mandatory actions.
Resource Impact
1.16
There may be some resource implications for establishments in updating procedures and
local security strategies to ensure that they are in line with the requirements set out in this
PSI.
(Signed)
Digby Griffith
Director National Operational Services, NOMS
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 4
2.
OPERATIONAL INSTRUCTIONS
Court Escorts
External Movements of Prisoners are risk assessed, authorised and conducted reflecting
prisoner and movement type. Prisoner records and personal property are kept secure and
accounted for when external movements are undertaken.
2.1
For the majority of prisoners produced at court, NOMS standard escort security measures
will be sufficient to ensure the safety and security of the proceedings. However, in a small
minority of cases, the risks presented by an individual prisoner will be so great that
heightened security measures must be considered.
2.2
In the main, the prisoners for whom heightened security measures will be necessary are:


Category A prisoners
Restricted Status (RS) prisoners
Prisoners on the Escape List (E-List)
2.3
Exceptionally, there are a very small number of prisoners who are not Cat A, E-List or RS
but may still be identified as presenting a high risk of significant harm prejudicial to the
safety of the escort, and any other person in and around the court and who will require
heightened security at court. This may include prisoners who have made explicit threats to
the court or the jury.
2.4
High risk prisoners identified to the court as presenting a significant risk of escape, violence
or danger have priority for the use of Prison Court Video Link (PCVL) or have their case
allocated to a secure court building and court room with a secure dock. NOMS staff must
make every effort to assist the Court in making its decision.
Required Actions
Prisoners are managed to ensure their safety, the safety of staff and the public
2.5
Prisoners must be assessed on reception into custody to identify those who may present a
heightened risk of escape or of causing significant harm, i.e. potential violence or disorder
in the Court setting. These will be prisoners identified as Cat A, E List, RS and those
outside of these categories who have been identified as presenting a significant risk of
harm i.e. potential violence or disorder in the Court setting.
2.6
Establishments must maintain records denoting as a minimum the prisoners name/number
Court and outcome for all Custody Management Direction Forms submitted (CMDF’s, see
Annex C). This will enable establishments to present data to their regional Court user group
and also enable HQ to monitor and conduct a review post implementation.
2.7
The court List Officer will be advised by the establishment of those prisoners who have
been identified as Cat A, E List, RS or as presenting significant risk of harm i.e. potential
violence or disorder in the Court setting. Annex A provides a suggested standard format
email which requests prioritisation of listing for hearings via PCVL or a secure court.
2.8
The notification must be sent via designated functional email box, to the court, copied to the
Prisoner Escort Contractor Services (PECS), within 4 days of the prisoner’s reception into
custody or at any subsequent stage at which information or intelligence becomes available
that identifies a heightened risk.. It must be sent on the authority of the Head of Security.
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 5
2.9
The court List Officer will provide the establishment and PECS Contractors with a response
within 1 week outlining the arrangements for listing the case.
2.10
There is a working assumption as detailed in the HMCTS/NOMS protocol that all prisoners
notified as high risk i.e. Cat A, E-List or RS and exceptionally those presenting a significant
risk of harm i.e. potential violence or disorder in the Court setting, will be allocated PCVL
and/or secure dock facilities, where legislation allows. Where a secure listing cannot be
provided, the court List Officer will provide the reasons to the establishment so that
alternative security measures can be considered. Annex B provides a list of factors to be
considered when requesting additional security measures.
2.11
Where it is necessary to consider alternative security measures, a Court Management
Directions Form (CMDF, Annex C) must be submitted by the establishment via the
designated functional email box to the court List Officer and PECS Contractors at least 1
week before the commencement of the hearing.
2.12
The CMDF must set out evidence of the prisoner’s identified risk of escape or violence and
request the court’s approval for security measures to mitigate the risks. The CMDF (Annex
C) must be informed by a full risk assessment of the prisoner include details of current
custodial behaviour. (Annex E provides a guidance note for the completion of the CMDF
which must not be sent to the court). Where a request is made for mechanical restraints,
healthcare must be consulted to identify if there are any existing medical conditions which
may be exacerbated by a prolonger period in mechanical restraints. It is essential that the
CMDF form is completed as fully and accurately as possible. In the past courts have
rejected cases for additional security because of inadequate evidence of risk
presented to the court.
2.13
The application requests consideration of additional security measures. These are:





Use of approved mechanical restraints.
Use of approved discreet restraints. These are a new type of restraint specifically
designed so as not to be visible to a jury when the prisoner is in the witness box and
are less obtrusive than other measures and are therefore less likely to prejudice a
fair trial. Policy for discreet restraints is being developed and will be published
shortly.
Deployment of additional escort staff or police in the courtroom or armed police in
the court building (the decision to deploy armed police is the responsibility of the
police and the decision to allow this measure is for the Senior Presiding Judge).
Securing the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings.
In exceptional circumstances, moving the hearing to the prison.
2.14
The application must be supported by current, specific and credible evidence that the
security measures being requested are both necessary and proportionate to the identified
risk and that the risk cannot effectively be managed in any other way. The CMDF must be
signed by the Head of Security or a more senior manager and sent to the Court List Officer.
2.15
The CMDF must be passed via the court List Officer to the Judge hearing the case. The
Judge will make a decision after consulting with the relevant parties, including the defence
and the CPS. It may prove prudent for Prison staff to at an early point, liaise with the CPS
consideration should be given to doing so through the Police.
2.16
An application for the use of approved restraints will normally be granted only:

Where there are good grounds for believing that the prisoner poses a significant risk
of trying to escape from the court and / or a risk of causing serious harm towards
those persons in court or the public generally should an escape attempt be
successful
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 6
And

2.17
Where there is no other viable means of preventing escape or serious harm.
The court List Officer will advise the establishment and PECS contractor of the outcome of
the application.
Late Applications
2.18
There will be occasions when it is not possible to submit a CMDF one week prior to the
commencement of the hearing. In particular, when intelligence or information indicating a
heightened risk is received only a short time in advance of the production.
2.19
In those circumstances, the process will be:


The PER must be endorsed by the establishment identifying the nature of the risk
The PECS contractor must be advised by Reception staff that a CMDF will be
submitted to the court prior to the start of proceedings
Security Department must complete a CMDF at the earliest opportunity on the day
of the production (identifying the request for approved restraints / approved discreet
restraints) - this must be emailed to the court as soon as it is completed and prior to
the court commencing hearings.
It is accepted that limited information may be available in these instances, but it remains the
establishment’s responsibility to provide the court with a completed CMDF giving as full a
picture as possible of identified and potential risks.
Productions to civil, family Immigration and coroner’s courts
2.20
The instructions in this document apply equally to the production of high risk prisoners to
civil, family, Immigration and coroner’s courts. It is unlikely that these venues will provide
either secure holding facilities or court rooms and therefore the production of any prisoner
to these courts carries additional risks.
2.21
Consideration should be given to the use of PCVL or moving the hearing to a more secure
court. If this is not possible, arrangements must be requested to ensure the security of the
production, including the availability of secure holding room facilities.
2.22
For prisoner productions outside of the Criminal Courts Prison staff must identify the need
and requirement for the prisoner to attend court. The risk assessment will form part of the
decision making process and set out the security measures required to manage the risks
identified. Prisons should make early contact with Court managers to discuss security
measures such as court room security, use of approved restraints and secure holding
rooms or any heightened risks regarding the prisoner and where required liaise to make
alternative arrangements.
2.23
In all circumstances where prisoners identified as a heightened risk are required to appear
in civil, family Immigration or coroner’s courts – early contact and consultation with the
relevant Court staff is required.
Prisoners giving evidence from the Witness Box
2.24
Higher risk prisoners required to give evidence from an insecure witness box pose a
significant security risk.
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 7
2.25
Where a prisoner is required to transfer from a secure dock to an insecure witness box, in
circumstances where it is judged that there is a significant risk of escape or of significant
harm an application must be made by the establishment for the court to consider additional
security measures over and above standard escort procedures This must be done via a
CMDF following the process detailed at 2.12.
2.26
These measures will be:





Use of approved restraints, including discreet restraints particularly where the
prisoner is giving evidence in the witness box (including clearing the court room
while the prisoner in restraints moves between the dock and witness box)
Deployment of additional escort staff or police in the courtroom or armed police in
the court building
Securing the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings
Giving evidence from the secure dock
Use of PCVL, where the prisoner is not the defendant
Procedures for Escort Contractors
2.27
There may be circumstances where risk is only identified en route to the court or at court
when the prisoner is produced by the police.
2.28
Where this is the case, PECS Contractor will make a request for additional security via a
CMDF- Escort Contractor (Annex D) an guidance note for completion is given at Annex F
which must not be sent to the court.
2.29
PECS Contractors must ensure that there are procedures in place to produce Custody
Direction Management Forms when a risk is identified whilst the prisoner is in the custody
of the escort contractor.
Review Process
Relevant stakeholders are able to contribute to the security and safety of the external movement
of prisoners
2.30
In the event that the court refuses an application for heightened security measures, the
court will provide reasons for the refusal to enable the Governor of the dispatching prison to
resubmit the CMDF with additional information that may persuade the court to reverse the
original decision. Additionally, with the approval of the relevant DDC, the Governor may
also make further representations to engage in direct dialogue with the court regarding the
application.
2.31
In the event that the Court refuses an application made by PECS Contractors for
heightened security measures the PECS Contractors must ensure that there are
procedures in place for re-submission of the Custody Direction Management Form.
2.32
Regular (at least quarterly) meetings will be held locally including representatives from the
judiciary, court (court operations manager), establishment (custody and security
departments) and escort contractor.
2.33
These meetings are a forum to discuss issues pertinent to the safe secure and smooth
running of court productions and provide an opportunity for all parties to raise any
operational concerns including over the quality of CMDF paperwork submitted.
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 8
Annex A
Court Risk Identification Email - Suggested Standard Format
Court Risk Notification
Prisoner Name
Prisoner Number
The above remand prisoner was received into HMP………………….on…xx / xx / 20xx.
She/He has been identified as a *Cat A / *Restricted Status / *E-List Prisoner or posing a * serious
risk of escape / *risk of serious harm others due to (*delete as appropriate and provide details):-
and therefore we request the following measures for future court proceedings and appearances in
order to reduce these risks.

Hearing via Prison-Court Video Link facility

Hearing held within a secure dock
We await your response.
Head of Security & Intelligence
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 9
Annex B
Court Security
Due the variations in design and facilities available at each court room, the following issues should
be considered.
Dock
There are a range of docks in use in courts, in broad terms these are:




Enclosed (fully secure) dock – the dock is a sealed unit, a protective screen is either ceiling
height or the dock has a false ceiling
Partial screened (partially secure) dock – the dock has a protective screen, normally 3.2m
from the floor of the dock to the top of the screen. There is a gap between the top of the
screen and the ceiling
Unscreened (insecure) dock – there is no protective screen to prevent the defendant from
jumping out
No dock – youth courts and non criminal courts do no generally have docks, instead the
defendant will stand or sit at a desk
As far as reasonably possible, all prisoners and especially Category A prisoners, produced at court
for criminal hearings should be produced to courtrooms with fully or partially secure docks.
However if a serious risk is identified, there may be a request for a fully secure dock.
Witness box
Prisoners required to give evidence will normally use the witness box which provides no protection
to prevent escape or violence. The risk posed by the prisoner when using the witness box,
including while exiting the secure dock and crossing the open court, is to be managed by escorting
staff. This can normally be achieved by positioning the escorting staff at strategic points, if the risk
of escape or violence is assessed to be so serious it cannot be managed through standard escort
procedures locally, alternative measures must be requested via the CMDF.
Custody area
The majority of courts hearing criminal matters have a secure custody area; there is a risk when
prisoners are produced to non criminal courts where there are no secure facilities. When a
prisoner is to be produced to such a court, the contractor will identify in advance, a waiting area to
use, ideally away from other public areas and in a secure location. If the prisoner to be produced
is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more
secure location.
Link between court and custody / cells area
The majority of criminal courts have a secure link direct from each dock to the custody area; many
of these are a series of tunnels under the court building. In some locations, more so in courts
hearing non criminal matters, prisoners may have to be escorted through public areas. As public
protection is paramount, escorting staff will normally use restraints to minimise any risk of escape
or violence. If the prisoner to be produced is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a
request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.
Transfer from escort vehicle to court
Many criminal courts have a secure vehicle lock with direct access to the custody area. However
there are a number of courts where this is not possible; either there is no vehicle lock, or not all
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 10
vehicles are able to access a lock due to their size. In these circumstances the prisoner will
normally be transferred from the vehicle using public access and the escorting staff may use
mechanical restraints to minimise the risk of escape or violence. If the prisoner to be produced is
assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more
secure location.
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 11
Annex C
CUSTODY MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS FORM – HMPS
Application to court for improving security arrangements to be completed by the dispatching prison
and submitted to the Court at least 7 days before the prisoner is due in court
For the Attention of:
Section A – Prisoner Details
1. Request from HMP:
2.Escort provider : HMP………………………….. / SERCO – WINCANTON /GEO AMEY
(Delete)
3. Prisoner Name:
5. NOMS No:
7. Court Appearing:
4. DOB:
6. Date of
Appearance:
8. Reason:
E.g. – Administrative
/Trial/Witness/
9. Offence:
10. Security Category:
11. Current Escape
list Status:
Yes/No
Section B – Request Details
12. Reason for
Request :
(Please refer to the guidance
and set out the grounds for
making the request with risk
assessment. The nature of the
offence is not a ground to
support the application)
13. What action is the
Prison Service
seeking:
(Use of Video Link/Secure
Dock/approved
Restraints/Discreet Restraints,
change of court, extra staff)
Section C – Supporting Information
14.
Previous or current
escape history or
heighten risk
15.Prisoner
behaviour in Prison or
on Escort
(IEP warnings, Adjudications,
violence, Self Harm, Dirty
Protest
16. Has the prisoner
recently been refused
Parole, or not been
downgraded after a
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 12
Category A review:
17. Relevant up to
date Risk Information
18. Any medical
condition which may
be exacerbated by the
use of cuffs in the
court setting for
lengthy periods.
Healthcare
professional to
consider:
19. Completed by
Name:/Grade
20. Endorsed by
Name/Grade
21. Date:
22. Telephone No:
23. Designated
secure email:
Section D – Court Decision
Application GRANTED/REFUSED/PART ACCEPTED* (Delete as appropriate)
*Reason (where
application refused or
part acceptance):
Resident Judge/Case
Judge over the case
informed:
Resident Judge/Case
Judge comments:
Signed by
Officer of the Court:
Date:
Any further
comments:
Following the decision this is to be copied to the court custody contractor
For the Attention of:
Court Custody Contractor designated email:
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 13
Annex D
CUSTODY MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS FORM – ESCORT CONTRACTOR
Application to court for improving security arrangements to be completed by the Escort Contractor
due to an incident that occurred on route to the court that may require enhanced security at court.
For the Attention of:
Section A – Prisoner Details
1. Request from Escort
SERCO – WINCANTON / GEO AMEY (Delete)
Contractor:
2. Prisoner Name:
4. NOMS No:
6. Court Appearing:
3. DOB:
5. Date of
Appearance:
7. Reason:
E.g. – Administrative
/Trial/Witness/
8. Offence:
Section B – Request Details
9. Reason for Request :
(Please refer to the guidance and set
out the grounds for making the
request due to the incident that
occurred on route. The nature of the
offence is not a ground to support the
application)
10. What action is the
Escort Contractor
seeking:
(Secure Dock, Restraints/Discreet
Restraints, change of court and / or
extra staff)
Section C – Supporting Information
11. Has any supporting
information been asked
for from the prison? If so
what? Provide details.
12. For requests to
use approved restraints
in court Healthcare to be
consulted.
13. Contactor Name:
14. Contractor
Signature:
15. Date:
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 14
Section D – Court Decision
Application GRANTED/REFUSED/PART ACCEPTED* (Delete as appropriate)
*Reason (where
application refused or
part acceptance):
Resident Judge/Case
Judge over the case
informed:
Resident Judge/Case
Judge comments:
Signed by
Officer of the Court:
Date:
Any further
comments:
Section E - Contractors Actions
Following the decision this is to be copied to the court custody contractor area office
For the Attention of:
Court Custody
Contractor Fax No:
Attach copy to PER
and mark PER
accordingly :
Contactor Name:
Contractor Signature:
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 15
Annex E
This Guidance on completing the Custody Management Directions Form is for prison
management use – To strengthen the argument as much detail as possible must be
shared. This guidance must not be sent to the Court.
Section A – Prisoner Details
1. Prison name
2.
Who is providing the escort
3.
Prisoner Full Name
4.
DOB
5.
NOMS No
6.
Date of Appearance
7.
Destination and type of Court appearing - i.e. Crown Court, Magistrate Court, Coroner
Court, County Court, Youth Court or Family Court.
8.
Administrative (Pleas and Directions/Trial/Witness)
9.
Offence either convicted or charged with.
10. Category of Prisoner (If Category A – Exceptional ,High Risk or Standard)
11. Currently on E List or Previous E List – Yes or No (With Dates)
Section B - Request Details
12 This should be the key argument for the request;
Considerations:
 Is the access to the court insecure? e.g. Debus from street, no secure cells
 Is prisoner being moved across a public area?
 Is the hearing held in an insecure dock?
 Could the case be moved?
 Is the journey necessary? (Refer to Prison Court Video Link Guidance)
13. Considerations:
 Could the case be moved?
 Could Video Link be used?
 Application of Approved Restraints - Dock or Witness
 Use of Secure dock, Secure court room
Section C – Supporting Information
14. Any dates, and details – was it attempted escape or actual Escape – from Police,
Court or Prison or Hospital. Any heighten risks – has prisoner received any bad news
lately.
15. Evidence of Custodial Behaviour or on Escorts - (IEP warnings, Adjudications,
Violence, Self Harm, Dirty Protest or erratic Behaviours )
16. Any recent changes in circumstances i.e. a parole refusal, Cat A review, ROTL, Re
categorisation or Categorisation refusal.
17. Include details of any risks including sanitised information from the Intelligence
System, ensuring the source is protected. Consider intelligence for external agencies
but refer to the handling code before sharing.(PIO, SBPIO, Local Police)
18. Any medical condition which may be exacerbated by cuffing in the Court setting for
lengthy periods. - Prison healthcare will need to be consulted for all requests for
cuffing in court.
19. Name/grade of person completing the form
20 Name/grade of senior manager endorsing the form
21 Date of application
22. Your direct telephone contact details
23. Confirm your designated functional email box
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
PAGE 16
Annex F
This Guidance on completing the Custody Management Directions Form is for PECS
Contractors management use – To strengthen the argument as much detail as possible
must be shared. This guidance must not be sent to the Court.
Section A – Prisoner Details
1.
Who is making the request and providing the escort
2.
Prisoner Full Name
3.
DOB
4.
NOMS number if relevant
5.
Date of Court Appearance
6.
Court details
7.
Reason for attendance; Pleas and Directions/Trial/Witness/First appearance
8.
Offence either convicted or charged with
Section B - Request Details
9.
This should be the key argument for the request and contain details of the incident
that occurred en route.
PECs should also consider:
 Is the access to the court insecure? e.g. Debus from street, no secure cells
 Is prisoner being moved across a public area?
 Is the hearing held in an insecure dock?
 Could the case be moved?
10.
What additional security measures are you requesting?
 Secure dock – reasons for
 Could alternative court be considered?
 Application of Approved Restraints/Discreet Restraints - Dock or Witness
 Use of Secure dock, Secure court room
 Deployment of additional staff
Section C – Supporting Information
11. Detail any supporting historical information supplied from HMPS; previous incidents –
any previous relevant category details.
12. If requesting use of approved restraints in Court then a healthcare professional must
be consulted for all requests; they will consider and advise if there are/maybe medical
conditions that will be exacerbated by prolonged use of restraints in the court setting.
Colleagues should consider consulting healthcare at the sending prison establishment
or the medical staff at the discharging Police station.
13. Contractor details and person submitting form identified.
14.. Contractor signature.
15: Date of application
PSI 26/2015 – AI 12/2015
ISSUE DATE 23/07/2015
Annex G
Security of Prisoners
at Court
Protocol between:
 National Offender Management Service
 Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service
Not Protectively Marked
Contents
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Background
2
3
General Principles for the Management of Court
Proceedings for High Risk Prisoners
3
4
Productions to Civil, Family and Coroner’s Courts
4
5
Process
5
6
Actions to Mitigate Identified Risk
6
7
Prisoners Giving Evidence from the Witness Box
7
8
Procedures for Escort Contractors
8
9
Review
8
10
Timings
9
11
Responsibilities
9
12
National and Local Level Meetings
11
13
Signatories
11
Annex A Court Productions of Category A and Restricted
Status Prisoners
12
Annex B Escape List
15
Annex C Court Risk Identification Email - Suggested Standard
Format
16
Annex D Restraints
17
Annex E Court Management Direction Forms
19
Annex F Court Security
23
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
1.
Introduction
1.1.
This document sets out the framework of procedures agreed by Michael
Spurr CB, Chief Executive Officer of the National Offender Management
Service (NOMS) and Natalie Ceeney CBE, Chief Executive Officer of Her
Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) for the safe and secure
management of court proceedings involving the small minority of prisoners
who present a high risk of escape or of causing serious harm when outside
prison. The procedures ensure that adequate security measures are in place
to mitigate risk without compromising delivery of justice or the defendant’s
right to a fair trial.
1.2.
This protocol applies equally to proceedings in Magistrate and Crown Courts,
the Court of Appeal, High Court and all civil, family and coroner’s courts.
1.3.
The Criminal Practice Directions have been updated and include the
procedures laid out in this protocol (see CPD General Matters 3L Security of
Prisoners at Court.
1.4.
The desired outcomes are:

Prisoners are taken outside the secure environment of the prison
only when absolutely necessary in the interests of justice.

The use of video link is maximised as far as is legislatively
possible.

The risks associated with individual prisoners during a production
to court are identified and managed appropriately, including
through targeted use of secure court buildings, secure docks and
application of approved restraints.

There is an effective means of communication, information sharing
and cooperation between the National Offender Management
1
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
Service, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the
judiciary.

There is a clear understanding of respective responsibilities and
accountability.

Public protection, the efficient delivery of justice and the
maintenance of public confidence in the Criminal Justice System is
supported through ensuring that prisoners committed into custody
do not escape or cause harm whilst at court.
2.
2.1.
Background
NOMS, and by extension the Ministry of Justice, is at its most vulnerable to
prisoner escape when prisoners are taken outside of the secure perimeter of
the prison and, in particular, when they are produced to locations with little
physical security to prevent their attempting to escape or causing serious
harm to the public. Escapes from court represent the majority of escapes from
custody and not only result in a risk of harm to the public but damage public
confidence in the Criminal Justice System.
2.2.
For the majority of prisoners produced at court, NOMS’ standard escort
security measures will be sufficient to ensure the safety and security of the
proceedings. However, in a small minority of cases, the risks presented by
an individual prisoner will be so great that heightened security measures will
be needed to ensure the prisoner remains in secure custody and/or to ensure
the safety of staff and others in the vicinity of the court and the general public
at large.
2.3.
In the main, the prisoners for whom heightened security measures will be
necessary are:

Category A and Restricted Status (RS) prisoners (see Annex A),

Prisoners on the Escape List (E-List) (see Annex B).
2
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
2.4.
Prisoners in these categories represent a significant risk of escape or, would
be highly dangerous to the public, the police or the security of the state if they
were to escape even if there is no evidence of a raised escape risk.
2.5.
Exceptionally, there are a very small number of prisoners who do not meet
the general criteria of Category A, E-List or RS but may still be identified as
presenting a high risk of violence prejudicial to the safety of the escort or
those in and around the court or of posing a danger to the public and will
require heightened security at court. This may include prisoners who have
made explicit threats to the court, jury, etc.
3.
General Principles for the Management of Court
Proceedings for High Risk Prisoners
3.1.
Court listing is a judicial responsibility and function. The overall purpose is to
ensure that all cases are brought to a hearing or trial in accordance with the
interests of justice, that all resources available for criminal justice are
deployed as effectively as possible and that, consistent with the needs of
victims, witnesses and defendants, cases are heard by an appropriate Judge
or bench with the minimum of delay.
3.2.
High risk prisoners identified to the court as presenting a significant risk of
escape, violence in court or danger to those in the court and its environs and
to the public at large will, as far as is possible, have administrative and
remand appearances listed for disposal via a Prison Court Video Link (PCVL)
and will have priority for the use of video equipment. In some cases this may
require temporarily lodging the prisoner at an alternative prison that has
appropriate facilities for the duration of the proceedings, or for the case to be
moved to a court where PCVL can be facilitated. The use of prison video link
technology is strongly supported by HMCTS and the judiciary, and List
Officers will work with the judiciary to ensure this is used appropriately.
3
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
3.3.
In all other proceedings that require the appearance in person of a high risk
prisoner, the proceedings will be listed to an appropriately secure court
building and to a court room with a secure (enclosed or ceiling high) dock.
3.4.
Where it is not possible to provide either a PCVL or a secure dock, or where
the prisoner has to move between the dock and an insecure witness box, an
application will be made to the court for consideration of additional security
measures including:

Use of approved restraints. This includes mechanical restraints
and discreet restraints. The latter are specifically designed so as
not to be visible to a jury when the prisoner is in the witness box.
They are less obtrusive than very large numbers of escort officers
in the court room and therefore less likely to prejudice a fair trial;

Deployment of additional escort staff or police in the courtroom or
armed police in the court building; NB. The decision to deploy an
armed escort is for the Chief Inspector of the relevant
borough/police area; the decision to allow the armed escort in or
around the court room is for the Senior Presiding Judge.
4.
4.1.

Securing the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings;

In exceptional circumstances, moving the hearing to the prison.
Productions to Civil, Family and Coroner’s Courts
The processes in this document apply equally to the production of high risk
prisoners to civil, family and coroner’s courts. Unless co-located with criminal
courts, it is unlikely that these venues will provide either secure holding
facilities or court rooms and therefore the production of any prisoner to these
courts carries an additional risk of the prisoner’s escape or of causing harm
In order to mitigate this, consideration should be given to the use of PCVL if
appropriate, or to moving the hearing to a more secure court. If the hearing
cannot be moved, then arrangements must be put in place to ensure the
4
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
security of the production including the availability of secure lodging facilities
for periods when the prisoner is not required in the courtroom.
4.2.
Production requests to civil, family and coroner’s courts may be made at short
notice and court List Officers and NOMS staff need to ensure a flexible
approach to requests for additional security.
5.
5.1.
Process
All prisoners will be assessed on reception into custody to identify those who
may present a heightened risk of escape or of causing serious harm on being
taken outside the secure perimeter of the establishment. While the majority
of Category A, E-List and RS prisoners will be identified on reception, a
minority will be identified later following emerging information or intelligence.
Assessments may therefore change at short notice.
5.2.
All Category A, E List and RS prisoners, and those small number otherwise
assessed as presenting a significant risk of violence or harm, and who have a
court hearing pending, will be notified to the court List Officer. A suggested
standard format email is provided at Annex C.
5.3.
The email provides details to the court of the risk presented by the prisoner
and requests prioritisation of listing of future proceedings for hearing via a
PCVL or in a secure court. The email will be sent on the authority of the Head
of Security at the establishment and will be sent to the court List Officer,
copied to the Prisoner Escort Contractor Services, within 4 days of the
prisoner’s reception into custody or at any subsequent stage at which
heightened risk during production to court is identified.
5.4.
The court List Officer receiving the email notification must provide the
establishment with a response within one week outlining arrangements for
listing the case. There is a presumption that all prisoners notified as high risk
(Category A, E-List or RS and exceptionally those presenting serious violence
or harm) will be allocated PCVL and/or secure dock facilities. Where the court
5
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
cannot provide a secure listing, the reasons for this must be provided to the
establishment so that alternative security measures can be considered.
6.
6.1.
Actions to Mitigate Identified Risk
In some cases, it may be possible to manage the risks identified by
deployment of additional numbers of dock officers. Where the nature of the
risk is so serious that an increased deployment of staff is insufficient to
manage the identified risk, or would in itself be so obtrusive as to prejudice a
fair trial, then the following measures may be required:

The case to be reconsidered for hearing via PCVL including
transfer of the hearing to a court where PCVL is available;

The case to be transferred to an alternative appropriately secure
court;

The use of mechanical restraints or discreet restraints on the
prisoner for all or part of the proceedings.
6.2.

Securing the court room for all or part of the proceedings;

Use of (armed) police in the court building.
Having identified the alternative measures necessary for the security of the
court production, the establishment must submit a Court Management
Directions Form (CMDF, see annex E) setting out evidence of the prisoner’s
identified risk of escape or risk of violence and requesting the court’s approval
of security measures to mitigate the risks. This form will be informed by a full
risk assessment of the prisoner.
6.3.
The CMDF must be sent to the court List Officer and escort contractor
responsible for the escort.
6.4.
The CMDF will clearly set out the risks associated with the individual prisoner,
the security measures that are being requested and details of the contingency
arrangements (including financial implications, and the implications for
delivery of a fair trial for the prisoner) for dealing with the risk should the
6
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
application be denied. The application must be supported by current, specific
and credible evidence that the security measures requested are both
necessary and proportionate to the identified risk and that the risk cannot
effectively be managed in any other way. The CMDF must be signed by the
Head of Security at the establishment.
6.5.
If the court approves transfer of the case, the court List Officer, in accordance
with the Criminal Practice Direction XIII Listing will liaise with the
establishment, prosecuting authority and the defence regarding witness
issues.
6.6.
An application to the court for the use of restraints or any other security
measures that may affect the conduct of a trial must be passed immediately
to the Judge having conduct of the case. The Judge will make a decision after
consulting with the defence and the Crown Prosecution Service.
An
application for the use of approved restraints will normally be granted only:

where there are good grounds for believing that the prisoner poses
a significant risk of trying to escape from the court (beyond the
assumed motivation of all prisoners to escape) and/or a risk of
causing serious harm towards those persons in court or the public
generally should an escape attempt be successful and;

where there is no other viable means of preventing escape or
serious harm.
7.
7.1.
Prisoners Giving Evidence from the Witness Box
High risk prisoners required to give evidence from an insecure witness box
pose a significant security risk. In circumstances where such prisoners are
required to move from a secure dock to an insecure witness box, an
application will be made for the court to consider approving additional security
measures including:
7
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court

Use of approved restraints. This includes mechanical restraints
and/or discreet restraints. The latter are specifically designed so
as not to be visible to a jury when the prisoner is in the witness
box. They are less obtrusive than large numbers of escort officers
in the court room and therefore less likely to prejudice a fair trial;

Deployment of additional escort staff or police in the courtroom or
armed police in the court building; NB. The decision to deploy an
armed escort is for the Chief Inspector of the relevant
borough/police area; the decision to allow the armed escort in or
around the court room is for the Senior Presiding Judge.
8.
8.1.

Securing the courtroom for all or part of the proceedings;

Giving evidence from the secure dock;

Use of PCVL, where the prisoner is not the defendant.
Procedures for Escort Contractors
There may be some circumstances where risk is only identified after the
prisoner has left the prison in the custody of the escort contractors or when
the prisoner is received at court from the police.
Contractors may make
requests themselves for additional security in court.
8.2.
Requests by escort contractors for additional security must be made on the
CMDF –contractors form (Annex E), and submitted using the process
described above.
9.
9.1.
Review Process
In the event that the court refuses an application for heightened security
measures, the Governor of the dispatching prison may re-submit the
8
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
application with any additional information that may persuade the court to
reverse the original decision and may, with the approval of the relevant senior
regional manager (DDC, NOMS) make further representations to engage in a
direct dialogue with the court regarding the application.
10. Timing
10.1.
All prisoners will be assessed in terms of the security of court productions
within 4 days of reception into custody and the relevant court notified of any
security issues as soon as these are identified. The court will send a
response outlining provisional arrangements for the listing of the proceedings
within a week of receipt of this information and will confirm arrangements at
least a week prior to the hearing date.
10.2.
If required, the CMDF must be submitted to the court and escort contractor as
soon as possible following receipt of confirmation of the listing of proceedings
and ideally a week in advance of the proceedings. However, there will be
occasions when this is not possible. In particular, when intelligence or
information indicating a heightened risk is received only a short time in
advance of the production. In such circumstances, the court will require a full
explanation of why a late application has been made.
11. Responsibilities
National Offender Management Service
11.1.
It is the responsibility of NOMS to ensure that any prisoner due to be
produced at court, and who has a heightened risk of escape or risk of causing
serious harm to persons in the court or its wider environs, has his or her risks
identified at the earliest possible stage. These risks must then be notified to
the court so that procedures can be put in place to manage the risk.
9
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
11.2.
In exercise of this responsibility, the establishment will carry out an initial sift
of all prisoners received into prison followed by a full risk assessment of any
prisoner identified by the sift as presenting a significant risk. As far as
possible, risk will be managed by NOMS through deployment of sufficient
numbers of escort staff. Where this is assessed as inadequate to the
identified risk, then NOMS will request heightened security measures
including PCVL, secure dock, or other additional security at court. An
application for heightened security measures will be submitted only for those
prisoners for whom PCVL or a secure court is not available and who present
such a serious risk that the safety and security of the production cannot
otherwise be assured. An application for heightened security will be
supported by clear evidence of the risk and will be authorised by the Head of
Security of the establishment from which the prisoner will be produced.
Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunals Service
11.3.
In any case where a prisoner is notified to the court as presenting a
heightened risk of escape or risk of serious harm, the court List Office will
endeavour to list the case for hearing via a PCVL at their court or will make
alternative arrangements to accommodate this at a court within their cluster.
As far as possible, court List Officers will ensure that all prisoners notified as
being categorised as Category A, E-List, RS or otherwise presenting a high
risk of violence or danger to the public, will have preliminary and PCMH
hearings listed via PCVL. If the nature of the proceedings precludes listing for
hearing via PCVL the case will be moved to a court with a secure dock and
the court List Officer will engage with the Regional Listing coordinator as
appropriate.
11.4.
In cases where the establishment has submitted a Court Management
Directions Form requesting heightened security measures in court, the court
List Officer will liaise with the judiciary, defence and prosecuting authorities
and will inform the establishment of the decision as soon as possible by
secure email, and ideally within one week prior to the court hearing.
Consideration by Court
10
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
11.5.
The court will give due consideration to the evidence provided in support of
an application for heightened security measures in court. Where the
application is refused, the court will provide the establishment with reasons
for the refusal to enable the establishment to make a revised application or to
put in place alternative measures to secure the production.
12.
National and Local Level Meetings
National Prisoner Productions Strategy Group
12.1.
A quarterly meeting will be held with representatives from NOMS, HMCTS
and the judiciary. This will take a strategic overview of the relationship and
joint working arrangements. [The Group will agree terms of reference]
Local Level Meetings
12.2.
Regular (at least quarterly) meetings will be held on a local basis. Attendees
at this meeting are to include representatives from the judiciary, court (court
operations manager), establishment (custody office and security department)
and escort contractor. These meetings are a forum to discuss issues pertinent
to the smooth running of court productions and provide an opportunity for all
parties to raise any operational concerns including concerns over the quality
of entries or nature of Court Management Directions Form.
13.
Signatories
Michael Spurr CB, Chief Executive Officer of the National Offender
Management Service
11
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
Natalie Ceeney CBE, Chief Executive Officer of Her Majesty’s Courts and
Tribunals Service
12
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
COURT PRODUCTIONS
OF CATEGORY
RESTRICTED STATUS PRISONERS
ANNEX A
A AND
Definitions
Category A
A prisoner whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public, or the police or
the security of the State, and for whom the aim must be to make escape impossible.
Categorisation is predicated on dangerousness. However, once a prisoner has been
categorised as Category A, he or she is then placed in one of three escape risk
categories.
Standard Escape Risk: No specific information or intelligence to suggest that there
is a threat of escape.
High Escape Risk: As Standard Escape Risk, however, one or more of a number of
factors are present which suggest that the prisoner may pose a raised escape risk.
The factors include:

access to finances, resources and/or associates that could assist an
escape attempt

Position in an organised crime group

Nature of current/previous offending

Links to terrorist network

Previous escape(s) from custody

At least one of the above factors plus predictable escorts to be undertaken
(e.g. court production, hospital treatment).

Length of time to serve (where any of the other factors above are also
present)
Exceptional Escape Risk: As High Escape Risk, however, credible information or
intelligence received either internally or from external agencies would suggest that an
escape attempt is being planned and the threat is such that the individual requires
conditions of heightened security in order to mitigate this risk.
13
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
Category A status may be applied to adult male prisoners, women and young
offenders (18-21), although prisoners in the latter two categories are rarely placed in
Category A. Remand prisoners who meet the criteria for Category A are held as
provisional Category A prisoners. Their categorisation is reviewed following
conviction and sentencing. Unlike other prisoners who are categorised by the holding
establishment, the Deputy Director of High Security is responsible for the
categorisation and allocation of Category A prisoners.
All Category A prisoners are held in the High Security Estate. This estate comprises
8 establishments, of which 3 have a remand function and a further 3 can
exceptionally hold remand prisoners. It is possible therefore that the escort of
Category A prisoners to court may involve greater distances (and therefore be at
increased risk of an assisted escape attempt).
Restricted Status
A Restricted Status prisoner is any female, young person or young adult prisoner,
convicted or on remand, whose escape would present a serious risk to the public and
who is required to be held in designated secure accommodation.
Unlike Category A prisoners, Restricted Status prisoners do not have escape risk
classifications. The designated secure accommodation and security procedures are
deemed sufficient to achieve the aim of making escape impossible for these
prisoners. The Deputy Director of High Security is responsible for the categorisation
of Restricted Status prisoners (but may delegate decision-making as with Category A
prisoners).
Although Restricted Status prisoner can be managed outside the High Security
Estate while in custody (because of their small numbers), such prisoners are treated
as Category A prisoners on each occasion they leave the secure perimeter of the
establishment.
Category A and Restricted Status productions are not carried out under the standard
prisoner escort and custody contract but by escorts and vehicles from the High
Security Prisons Estate. Prior to each production, the prisoner and court to which the
14
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
prisoner is to be produced are risk assessed in order to identify appropriate risk
management strategies.
Category A and Restricted Status prisoners are held in one of 12 designated
establishments. The majority of unconvicted male prisoners will be held in HMP
Belmarsh, HMP Manchester or HMP Woodhill rather than in the closed
establishment, and as such some court productions may involve longer journey times
increasing the security risks and costs involved. The productions use specialist
vehicles and prison staff. Substantial additional costs will be incurred by the police
should a firearms escort be required.
15
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
ANNEX B
ESCAPE LIST
A prisoner identified as posing a risk of potential escape is assessed to establish if
additional security requirements are required to manage the risk. Where the risk is
considered sufficient to merit additional security, the prisoner is placed on the escape
list (E-list).
The prisoner will then be subject to certain processes, including restricted activities
and increased monitoring whilst in the secure custody of the establishment, and high
visibility clothing and additional restraints or staff if outside the establishment on
escort.
The prisoner is subject to regular reviews and will remain subject to E-list provisions
for the duration that the risk of escape is assessed to be present.
From Spring 2015, there are three classifications of E-list, these are described below.
E-list-Standard is for those prisoners assessed as presenting a risk of escape both
from a closed establishment and from escort. The processes to be applied to E-listStandard
prisoners offer additional security
both
inside
and
outside
the
establishment.
E-list-Escort is for those prisoners who are not assessed as possessing the ability or
determination to escape from a closed establishment but who require increased
security during escort outside of the establishment.
E-list-Heightened is for the very small number of prisoners who do not meet the
criteria for Category A / Restricted Status but the nature and extent of their escape
risk requires that they are held in the High Security Estate.
E-list prisoners produced to court will generally be escorted under the PECS contract
with the exception of E-List-Heightened who will be escorted by staff and vehicles
from the High Security Prisons Estate.
16
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
ANNEX C
Court Risk Identification Email - Suggested Standard
Format
Court Risk Notification
Prisoner Name
Prisoner Number
The above remand prisoner was received into HMP xxx….on…xx / xx / xx……..
S/He has been identified as a *Cat A / *Restricted Status / *E-List Prisoner or posing a * serious risk
of escape / *risk of serious harm others due to (provide details) :-
and therefore we request the following measures for future court proceedings and
appearances in order to reduce these risks.

Hearing via Prison-Court Video Link facility

Hearing held within a secure dock
We await your response.
Head of Security & Intelligence
17
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
ANNEX D
RESTRAINTS
There are three types of approved mechanical restraint that are in use at courts;
ratchet cuffs, standard cuffs and escort chains. Ratchet and standard cuffs appear
similar and both comprise of metal bracelets linked together. Ratchet cuffs are
adjustable bracelets and are relatively lightweight. There are three types of ratchet
cuff in use; a standard ratchet and a thin wristed ratchet cuff are used by prison staff,
Hyatt cuffs are used by PECS. Standard cuffs are fixed size bracelets, using inserts
where necessary and relatively heavy, these are only used by NOMS staff. The
escort chain has two bracelets, similar to ratchets cuffs linked by a metal chain,
which is approximately two metres long. NOMS does not use the police style rigid
handcuffs on its prisoners. A risk assessment will indicate the type and formation of
restraint to be used.
Restraints may be used in the following formations:

Single cuffed prisoner
One set of restraints (either ratchet or standard) is applied to the prisoner linking
both wrists together.

Single cuffed prisoner to officer
One set of restraints (either ratchet or standard) is applied to both the prisoner
and escorting member of staff. Both the escorting member of staff and prisoner
have a free hand.

Double cuffed prisoner to officer
Two sets of restraints (either ratchet or standard) are applied, one linking both the
prisoner’s wrists, the second linking the prisoner to the escorting member of staff.

Escort chain
The escort chain is applied to both the prisoner and escorting member of staff,
both have a free hand. The escort chain can be used as part of double cuffing
described above.
18
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
Discreet restraints
Discreet restraints comprise of a Velcro strip wrapped around the prisoner’s ankle
with an additional plastic locking mechanism over the ankle strap. The ankle strap is
connected to the escorting member of staff by a two metre heavy duty webbing strip.
The webbing strip is attached to the belt buckle of the escorting staff by a heavy duty
plastic clip.
Discreet restraints, as the name suggests offer a discreet method of restraint; the
ankle strap is not constrictive and barely visible if applied under trousers. There are
no metal fittings, other than the belt clip which is attached to the escorting member of
staff. The webbing strip allows freedom of movement, including using stairs, within a
two metre radius of the member of staff and can be lifted to prevent trip hazards.
While it will not prevent a prisoner from attempting to escape, the noise made by any
attempt to remove the strap will alert escort staff while also acting as a hindrance
which will enable escorting staff to restrain the prisoner, either by approved use of
force methods, or mechanical restraints.
19
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
ANNEX E
COURT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FORMS
CUSTODY MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS FORM – ESCORT CONTRACTOR
Application to court for improving security arrangements to be completed by the Escort
Contractor due to an incident that occurred on route to the court that may require enhanced
security at court.
For the Attention of:
Section A – Prisoner Details
1. Request from Escort
Contractor:
SERCO – WINCANTON / GEO AMEY (Delete)
2. Prisoner Name:
4. NOMS No:
6. Court Appearing:
3. DOB:
5. Date of
Appearance:
7. Reason:
E.g. –
Administrative
/Trial/Witness/
8. Offence:
Section B – Request Details
9. Reason for Request :
(Please refer to the
guidance and set out the
grounds for making the
request due to the incident
that occurred on route. The
nature of the offence is not
a ground to support the
application)
10. What action is the
Escort Contractor
seeking:
(Secure Dock,
Restraints/Discreet
Restraints, change of court
and / or extra staff)
Section C – Supporting Information
20
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
11. Has any supporting
information been asked
for from the prison? If so
what? Provide details.
12. For requests to use
approved restraints in
court Healthcare to be
consulted.
13. Contactor Name:
14. Contractor
Signature:
15. Date:
Section D – Court Decision
Application GRANTED/REFUSED/PART ACCEPTED* (Delete as appropriate)
*Reason (where
application refused
or part acceptance):
Resident Judge/Case
Judge over the case
informed:
Resident Judge/Case
Judge comments:
Signed by
Officer of the Court:
Date:
Any further
comments:
Section E - Contractors Actions
Following the decision this is to be copied to the court custody contractor area office
For the Attention of:
Court Custody
Contractor Fax No:
Attach copy to PER
and mark PER
accordingly :
Contactor Name:
Contractor Signature:
21
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
CUSTODY MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS FORM – HMPS
Application to court for improving security arrangements to be completed by the dispatching
prison and submitted to the Court at least 7 days before the prisoner is due in court
For the Attention of:
Section A – Prisoner Details
1. Request from HMP:
2.Escort provider :
HMP………………………….. / SERCO – WINCANTON /GEO
AMEY (Delete)
3. Prisoner Name:
5. NOMS No:
7. Court Appearing:
4. DOB:
6. Date of
Appearance:
8. Reason:
E.g. –
Administrative
/Trial/Witness/
9. Offence:
10. Security Category:
11. Current Escape
list Status:
Yes/No
Section B – Request Details
12. Reason for Request :
(Please refer to the
guidance and set out the
grounds for making the
request with risk
assessment. The nature of
the offence is not a ground
to support the application)
13. What action is the
Prison Service seeking:
(Use of Video Link/Secure
Dock/approved
Restraints/Discreet
Restraints, change of
court, extra staff)
Section C – Supporting Information
14.
Previous or current
escape history or
heighten risk
22
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
15.Prisoner behaviour in
Prison or on Escort
(IEP warnings,
Adjudications, violence,
Self Harm, Dirty Protest
16. Has the prisoner
recently been refused
Parole, or not been
downgraded after a
Category A review:
17. Relevant up to date
Risk Information
18. Any medical
condition which may be
exacerbated by the use
of cuffs in the court
setting for lengthy
periods. Healthcare
professional to consider:
19. Head of Security
Name:
20. Head of Security
Signature:
21. Date:
22. Telephone No:
23. Designated secure
email:
Section D – Court Decision
Application GRANTED/REFUSED/PART ACCEPTED* (Delete as appropriate)
*Reason (where
application refused or
part acceptance):
Resident Judge/Case
Judge over the case
informed:
Resident Judge/Case
Judge comments:
Signed by
Officer of the Court:
Date:
Any further
comments:
23
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
Following the decision this is to be copied to the court custody contractor
For the Attention of:
Court Custody Contractor
designated email:
ANNEX F
COURT SECURITY
Due to the variation in design and facilities available at each court room, the following
issues should be considered.
Dock
There are a range of docks in use in courts, in broad terms these are:

Enclosed (fully secure) dock – the dock is sealed unit, a protective
screen is either ceiling height or the dock has a false ceiling.

Partial screened (partially secure) dock – the dock has a protective
screen, normally 3.2m from the floor of the dock to the top of the
screen. There is a gap between the top of the screen and the ceiling.

Unscreened (insecure) dock – there is no protective screen to prevent
the defendant from jumping out.

No dock – youth courts and non criminal courts do not generally have
docks, instead the defendant will stand or sit at a desk.
As far as reasonably possible, all prisoners and especially Category A prisoners,
produced at court for criminal hearings should produced to courtrooms with fully or
partially secure docks. However if a serious risk is identified, there may be a request
for a fully secure dock.
Witness box
Prisoners required to give evidence will normally use the witness box which provides
no protection to prevent escape or violence. The risk posed by use of the witness
box, including exiting the secure dock and crossing open court, is to be managed by
24
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
escorting staff. This can normally be achieved by positioning the staff at strategic
points, using additional staff if necessary. If the risk of escape or violence is
assessed to be so serious it cannot be managed by additional staff, alternative
measures will be requested via the CMDF.
Custody area
The majority of courts hearing criminal matters have a secure custody area; there is
a risk when prisoners are produced to non criminal courts where there are no secure
facilities. When a prisoner is to be produced to such a court, the contractor will
identify, in advance, a waiting area to use, ideally away from other public areas and
may even use an alternative secure location. If the prisoner to be produced is
assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the hearing to
PCVL or a more secure location.
Link between court and custody / cells area
The majority of criminal courts have a secure link direct from each dock to the
custody area; many of these are a series of tunnels under the court building. In some
locations, more so in courts hearing non-criminal matters, prisoners may have to be
escorted through public areas. As public protection is paramount, escorting staff will
normally use restraints to minimise any risk of escape or violence. If the prisoner to
be produced is assessed to be a significant risk, there may be a request to move the
hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.
Transfer from escort vehicle to court
Many criminal courts have a secure vehicle lock with direct access to the custody
area. However there are a number of courts where this is not possible; either there is
no vehicle lock, or not all vehicles are able to access a lock due to their size. In these
circumstances the prisoner will normally be transferred from the vehicle using public
access and the escorting staff may use mechanical restraints to minimise the risk of
escape or violence. If the prisoner to be produced is assessed to be a significant risk,
there may be a request to move the hearing to PCVL or a more secure location.
25
Protocol on the Security of Prisons at Court
26