Our ref: FOI/56678/08/AL

Dear Mr McCarthy,

Freedom of Information Request

Thank you for your email of 17 November 2008 requesting the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:

I can confirm that the Department holds some information falling within the scope of your request and I have answered your questions in turn below.

In relation to Questions 1-4, I should explain that the disciplinary process in the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), including authority for commissioning investigations or suspending staff from duty, is devolved to a local level. The Service's conduct and discipline policy only applies to individuals who are directly employed by NOMS. Whilst the Service cannot take disciplinary action against individuals who are not directly employed by NOMS, such as education staff, Governors do have the authority to exclude these individuals from their site if their conduct fails to meet the standards expected. Such action would be taken following consultation with the individual's employer.

Suspension from duty is not a punitive measure and is normally on full basic pay. National policy requires that suspension only be used in exceptional circumstances (i.e. where there is a particular business risk, or risk to an individual, that cannot be mitigated by placing the member of staff on alternative or detached duty). Establishments are required to keep local records of any decision to suspend a member of staff from duty and to review these suspensions on a regular basis.

There is no requirement to automatically advise Headquarters each time a member of NOMS staff is suspended from duty; nor is there a requirement to notify Headquarters when a Governor excludes other individuals from their establishment. However, there is a requirement to inform Headquarters where a suspension has exceeded three months duration, so that the case can be monitored by the appropriate senior manager. This has been a requirement since March 2006.

In order to provide the information you are seeking in respect of the numbers of individuals suspended from duty or excluded from establishments in the last two years, we would need to contact all 138 prisons and ask them to check their local records. This would incur disproportionate cost. Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central Government is set at £600, which represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3 ½ working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

Central records of formal investigations undertaken within NOMS are held by the Corruption Prevention Unit's Investigation Support Section (ISS) and the Shared Service Centre (SSC) in Newport. Whilst information about the types and locations of formal investigations, their status and outcomes is held centrally, records of informal investigations are not. Such records would normally be maintained by managers at a local level.

Centrally held records of formal investigations are not categorised according to the names or grades of any individuals involved, as this information is not always apparent at the start of the investigation. Instead, the information is registered according to the nature of the incident or allegation under investigation. These formal investigations may cover the actions of one, many or even no staff, so it is not possible to relate the number of investigations to the number of staff as you request. Furthermore, the terms of reference for investigations do not always identify the name or status of the individual raising the original allegation or complaint. The specific information you are seeking could only be obtained by retrieving all of the paperwork relating to every investigation and reviewing each document, which would incur disproportionate cost.

Table 1 contains centrally held information about the numbers of formal investigations into allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards prisoners or allegations of a sexual/sexist nature that have been registered in England and Wales during the last two years. Investigations covered by your request could be registered under any of the four categories shown below. It is important to note that other investigations, not covered by your request, may also have been registered under these categories (e.g. inappropriate behaviour of a sexist/sexual nature towards staff) and, for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph, cannot be narrowed down without incurring disproportionate cost.

Investigations registered between 1 December 2006 and 30 November 2008

Table 1

¹ These investigations could include behaviour of a sexist/sexual nature towards staff, visitors or prisoners.

With regard to information sought in Question 5 of your request, I can confirm that the Department does not hold the information in the precise format that you have requested. However, we do hold some relevant information for period 2006 and 2007.

I should explain that Prisons are required to record all assault incidents including allegations on an incident reporting system. They are also required to investigate each incident. In the case of assaults of a sexual nature, our figures include a mixture of proven sexual assaults and allegations. They do not include every allegation as prisons may re-classify an incident if the investigation concludes that on the balance of probability the assault did not take place.

Assault information is recorded at establishment level in four categories: `Prisoner on Prisoner', `Prisoner on Officer', `Prisoner on Other' and `Other' (which may include non-prisoner perpetrators). For the purposes of this response, data has been provided on the `Prisoner on Prisoner' and `Other' categories, which most closely match sexual assaults reported by prisoners. The other two categories are mostly reported by staff. It is important to note that the `Other' category in Table 2 below may include some assaults which are not on prisoners.

Sexual assaults - Incidents¹ reported by prisoners

Table 2

¹ Figures include proven sexual assault incidents and some unproven allegations. Not all allegations are included as some, proven to be false, may have been reclassified.

² From 2007 figures do not include the three prisons (Albany, Camphill and Parkhurst) where the incident reporting has transferred to the NOMIS system.

Of the above 108 cases in 2007, 8 were prosecuted or have prosecutions pending. This is also the case for 15 of the 111 cases in 2006. The majority of the other cases were dealt with through the adjudication process. In a minority of cases no action is possible for example, in cases where assailants may be unknown or the victim refuses to identify them or to provide evidence to enable charges to be pressed.

You may also wish to note that assaults of a sexual nature account for approximately 1% of all reported assaults, the vast majority of which are prisoner on prisoner. Please also note that the information requested is drawn from an administrative system which processes more than 50, 000 incidents per year. The numbers provide a useful guide on the volume of sexual assaults but should not be treated as absolute.

I hope you find the above information helpful.

If you are unhappy with the result of your request for information, you may request an internal review within two calendar months of the date of this letter by writing to Data Access & Compliance Unit, Information Directorate, Ministry of Justice,1^st Floor - Area C, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Amrit Lotay (Ms)

Data Access & Compliance Unit

Page 4