Prison officers illegally strip-searched female inmates, High Court rules

Ruling has ‘significant implications for private government contracts in all fields’, campaigners claim

May Bulman
Social Affairs Correspondent
Friday 22 February 2019 13:52
Comments
Four female inmates at HMP Peterborough, a mixed sex jail run by Sodexo Limited, were subjected to ‘humiliating and embarrassing’ strip-searches during which ‘serious, systemic and widespread failures’ took place, the court found
Four female inmates at HMP Peterborough, a mixed sex jail run by Sodexo Limited, were subjected to ‘humiliating and embarrassing’ strip-searches during which ‘serious, systemic and widespread failures’ took place, the court found

Prison officers illegally subjected women to “humiliating and embarrassing” strip-searches at a privately run jail, the High Court has ruled – a judgment which campaigners said would have “significant implications for private government contracts in all fields”.

Sodexo Limited, which runs HMP Peterborough, admitted that it had carried out illegal strip-searches on three women and a woman who was in the process of transitioning to male.

One prisoner was told to remove and dispose of a sanitary towel. No adequate reasons were given for the search and no proper records were kept, despite evidence that the process can risk re-traumatising vulnerable women – many of whom will have experienced sexual or physical abuse.

Their treatment raised “serious questions” about the government’s monitoring of companies contracted to deliver prison services, their solicitor Samuel Genen said after the court found “serious, systemic and widespread failures” took place at the institution.

Sodexo conceded that the strip-searches were unlawful and accepted that there had been “systemic failings” at the prison, including deficient training of its staff in the correct procedures for strip-searching.

The claim against the company was settled, but the women maintained the claim against the government on the basis that it had contracted out the operation of a prison to a private corporation and was therefore incumbent to ensure that appropriate supervision and monitoring was in place.

Handing down his ruling, Mr Justice Julian Knowles said the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) had failed to provide “adequate and effective” protection to prevent breaches of the law in the context of strip-searching at the jail.

Mr Genen said the judgment highlighted the “stark failures” of both Sodexo and the government to protect the most basic rights of vulnerable women in their care.

“The entire system failed, and importantly the framework relied on continues be of real concern,” he said, urging that the MoJ must now answer “pressing questions” regarding their monitoring of the private companies contracted to deliver prison services.

He added: “The judgment has enormous implications for companies that continuously fail to meet the minimum standards for basic dignity of people in their care, such as private care homes, immigration detention centres and general contracting out of public services. The precedent set is important for accountability of both private and public bodies where human rights are potentially violated.”

Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the judgment would have “significant implications for private government contracts in all fields”.

She added: “The judgment makes clear that the state cannot outsource its human rights obligations and that it can be held accountable in domestic courts for a failure to monitor and supervise its private contractors.

“The critical finding of the court condemning the secretary of state was the failure not to have an adequate and effective system in place to prevent infringements in the first place.

“This is particularly egregious when it affected the strip-searching of female and transgender prisoners, the majority of whom have previously experienced sexual, physical or psychological abuse.”

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

The ruling comes after an inspection published last year found that female prisoners at HMP Peterborough were being subject to “excessive strip-searching”, which campaigners have described as “shameful”.

The prisons watchdog found that over a nine-week period, 70 women were strip-searched – “far more” than the levels usually seen in a women’s prison. They said reasons for these searches were often “unclear”, with staff in reception unable to provide consistent explanations of their rationale for undertaking them.

Figures show 57 per cent of women in prison in England and Wales have been victims of domestic violence, while 53 per cent have experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child, with female inmates often victims of much more serious offences than the ones for which they have been convicted.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in