The prison was given an inspection in November 2022 and the full report can be read at the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the links below. In their latest report the inspectors said:
A part of the long-term high secure estate, HMP Garth is a category B training establishment located near Leyland in Lancashire. With a capacity for 845 adult men, at the time of our inspection some 790 were in residence, most of them assessed as presenting a high or very high risk of harm and serving lengthy sentences for serious offences. Although Garth is a comparatively modern establishment by HMPPS standards – opening in 1988 – it was already showing its age and seemed to us to be in need of some significant investment and refurbishment. However, nearly every prisoner had their own cell, and their appreciation of this was evidenced by the good condition in which most prisoners kept their accommodation.
This was our first return to Garth since 2019, when we reported on a much[1]improved prison that was achieving reasonably good outcomes in three of our healthy prison tests. Only in safety was improvement clearly required. At this inspection we found that the prison was still achieving some good rehabilitative outcomes and was also now much safer, but had deteriorated in respectful treatment, largely owing to the ageing infrastructure and weaknesses in relationships between staff and prisoners. We observed some very significant shortcomings in the delivery of purposeful activity, which on this inspection was judged poor.
Safety, not unreasonably, was the stated priority for leaders and the prison showed its capabilities most clearly in this area. Security was well managed and several indicators, such as reduced violence and less use of force, pointed to improvement. The prison was providing some very encouraging and preventative interventions targeted at more vulnerable prisoners, as well as some useful multidisciplinary support for those in segregation. Similarly, the prison was not complacent about its responsibilities for reducing suicide and self-harm, but despite a fall in self-harm rates, the scale of the challenge faced by the prison was to be seen in the three self-inflicted deaths and six other apparently non-natural deaths that had occurred since we last inspected.
The priority given to safety was not, however, in balance with the prison’s broader purpose. Several policies, notably legacy practices from the time of the pandemic, were being retained and justified, it was claimed, for the purpose of promoting safety, but were in fact impeding the regime and limiting prisoner access to meaningful work, education, interventions, and even time out of cell. Safety will always be a priority, but a priority that must facilitate the institution’s responsibility to operate in the broader public interest, ensuring meaningful training and progress through a sentence that allows prisoners to reduce their risk of reoffending. The approach at Garth lacked that balance, leading to significant frustration among both prisoners and those providing services to them.
Notwithstanding our criticisms, we had confidence in the leadership of the prison, who were capable, collaborative, and imaginative. Communication was good and leaders were open to new ideas. The prison’s commitment to the promotion of keywork was also a strength, although delivery was still at an early stage. Going forward, the priorities for the prison should include: delivering a more dynamic daily regime where all prisoners are active, without prejudicing safety; new investment in the built environment; and building the confidence and capability of the staff in managing and relating to prisoners.
Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
December 2022
The inspectors also provide a brief list of their major concerns
What needs to improve at HMP Garth
During this inspection we identified 15 key concerns, of which five should be treated as priorities. Priority concerns are those that are most important to improving outcomes for prisoners. They require immediate attention by leaders and managers.
Leaders should make sure that all concerns identified here are addressed and that progress is tracked through a plan which sets out how and when the concerns will be resolved. The plan should be provided to HMI Prisons.
Priority concerns
- Many aspects of the prison were in very poor condition. Lots of cells had insufficient furniture and some flooring was in decay, while most shower rooms were in a poor state and lacked privacy.
- The rate of non-attendance at health appointments was far too high. This impaired the efficient use of health resources, including clinicians’ time.
- Prisoners did not receive adequate time out of cell. The regime did not give them enough access to purposeful activity, especially through unemployment, the cohorting arrangements, and staff shortage.
- There were too few education spaces, and not enough of the available spaces in education, skills, and work were allocated. Attendance in education, skills and work activities was poor.
- Leaders did not provide a high-quality curriculum to meet the needs of the population, including support for those with additional learning needs. There was no effective quality assurance of education, skills and work.
Key concerns
- Not enough was done to ensure prisoner safety following their arrival at the prison. Private risk interviews were too often superficial, lacked sufficient attention to risks and vulnerabilities, and were not followed up systematically on the following day.
- The use of body-worn video cameras during incidents involving force was too low. Important evidence showing the justification for force and attempts at de-escalation was not, therefore, routinely recorded.
- Drugs were too easily available. The mandatory drug testing rate was high, and searching procedures were insufficient.
- Too many staff were passive or distant in their interactions with prisoners. The lack of time out of cell and an effective key worker scheme had a detrimental effect on staff-prisoner relationships, while staff did not always challenge low-level poor behaviour.
- The application and complaint systems were not working well, with too many prisoners receiving answers late or not at all. When they did receive an answer, it often did not adequately address the issue raised.
- Too little was being done to understand and meet the needs of prisoners from protected characteristic groups across the prison. There was no needs analysis or strategic direction, which were necessary to support the promotion of equality. Consultation was infrequent and the analysis of data was too limited.
- Poor infection prevention standards in clinical areas could expose patients to harm.
- Governance of medicines management was not robust, which was linked to the shortage of pharmacy staff.
- Leaders did not make sure that all prisoners received information, advice and guidance towards finding appropriate education, training or employment on release.
- Many prisoners felt stuck at Garth and could not progress in their sentence. Some routine reviews of security category were late and many who had been recategorised were not moved to a prison offering the right opportunities for them.
Care Quality Commission regulatory recommendation
Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way for service users. This includes the proper and safe management of medicines.
To read the full reports, go to the Ministry of Justice site or follow the links below:
- Inspection report (975 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Garth by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (7–18 November 2022)
- HMP Garth (601.54 kB), Report on an announced inspection of HMP Garth (17 December 2018 – 18 January 2019)
- HMP Garth (680.51 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Garth (9-20 January 2017)
- HMP Garth, Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Garth (11 – 22 August 2014)
- HMP Garth, Unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP Garth (3 – 5 April 2012)
- HMP Garth, Announced inspection of HMP Garth (30 March – 3 April 2009