Recurring concern

Unreliable arrangements for facilitating prisoner visits

First to latest report 28 Jul 2017 — 25 Oct 2024

Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
3
Stated actions linked to this concern
4

What this concern includes

Includes failures in dedicated prisoner-visit arrangements, including accommodating behaviour-related barriers, providing accessible booking and contact routes, arranging visits, supporting communication with visitors and adapting procedures when ordinary arrangements cannot be used.

What is not included
  • Excludes general family involvement, family communication or care-planning failures where no prisoner-visit arrangement is deficient.
  • Excludes routine prison access, security or custody processes unrelated to arranging or completing visits.
  • Excludes ordinary visitor inconvenience or dissatisfaction where no continuing barrier to a necessary visit is identified.
  • Excludes failures in clinical, mental-health or custodial care after a visit has been reliably arranged and completed.

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. West London

    AI-generated summary

    Frank Steve Rios OSPINA · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Frank Steve Rios OSPINA died by suicide in detention, with the cause of death recorded as ligature compression of the neck and coronary heart disease. The report raised concerns about the failure to make a Rule 35(2) report after apparent suicide attempts, inconsistent understanding of the reporting process, the conduct and oversight of a closed family visit, and difficulties faced by his non-English-speaking mother in arranging visits and telephone calls.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide accessible multilingual communications for arranging visits

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) Frank's mother does not speak English and found it very difficult to arrange a visit. In fact rather than successfully navigate the system, she just turned up and was permitted to see her son as set out above. Telephone calls were not facilitated with an interpreter. The web site where visits should be booked is entirely and only in English. This is a facility that by definition detains foreign nationals and predictably some of the family members do not speak English. A quick check of the local authority website (Hammersmith and Fulham) revealed a full immediate translation facility into over 100 languages, and so this is readily available technology. The Home Office and MITIE should consider the communications currently available to relatives trying to visit their loved ones and whether these can be improved by reasonable adjustments. ”

    Source location

    Frank Steve Rios OSPINA · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Translate IRC and residential holding facility visitor information into the top 20 languages and develop supporting translation-enabled webpages.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My officials have taken action to explore options to translate the visitor information for IRCs and Residential Short-Term Holding Facilities on Gov.uk and the development of web pages to enable translation is underway. Officials have commissioned the translation of the current visitor information into the top 20 languages of those in detention. Allowing time to translate the relevant information and the development of relevant web pages, we expect this work to be complete by the end of January 2025.”

    Source location

    Response from Home Office
    Page 2 · response
    Published 15 July 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Share translation-project learning with suppliers and endorse translated visitor-information pages on supplier websites.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Learning from this undertaking will be shared with our suppliers, and we will be endorsing the translation of visitor information pages on their respective websites.”

    Source location

    Response from Home Office
    Page 3 · response
    Published 15 July 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement the Recite website service across immigration-removal-centre visitor pages, providing translated web content and accessibility customisation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In terms of website translation services, C&C has now implemented a website translation and accessibility service called ‘Recite’ for use by visitors across each of its immigration removal centres, including HIRC. As such, there is now an accessibility button on the bottom right-hand side of each page of the Company’s website, which provides multiple options including the translation of all web content into 100 written languages and 65 ‘text to speech’ voices. Users are also able to utilise the ‘Recite’ function in order to customise the text to their preference, including colour, font style, spacing and layout. The Recite function is available across the entire mitie.com website.”

    Source location

    Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 July 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    No known in-call two-way translation system is available between people inside and outside the centre, so email remains the preferred communication method.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Company has worked with the Home Office to identify what reasonable adjustments may be made to its systems in order to make the process of visiting HIRC more accessible. As confirmed at the Inquest by Frances Hardy, Director of Detention Services for the Home Office, whilst all efforts are made to accommodate visitors whose first language is not English, such as utilising a member of staff who also speaks the same language and the Big Word translation service, there is currently no known system which would act as an in-call two-way translation service between those inside and outside of HIRC. The preferred method of communicating information or submitting a visit request is therefore by email, as this can be translated where required, and details on how to contact HIRC (including details of the Safer Community Helpline) is set out clearly on the Company’s website.”

    Source location

    Response from Mitie Care and Custody Limited
    Page 4 · response
    Published 15 July 2025

    Open published response

  2. London (City)

    AI-generated summary

    SARAH LYNNE REED · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Sarah Lynne Reed took her own life on 11 January 2016 in a single-occupancy cell at HMP Holloway, using a ligature made from bed linen. The report identifies concerns about delays in obtaining fitness-to-plead reports, management of her medication and deteriorating mental health, inappropriate reduction of observations, delays and deficiencies in care planning, and cancelled visits that contributed to her isolation.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Excessive cancellation of prisoner visits

    Wider context from the report

    “(14) The jury concluded that the number of cancelled visits was unacceptable, particularly for a prisoner such as Sarah with Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder where engagement is a principal means of treatment. ”

    Source location

    SARAH LYNNE REED · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to facilitate prisoner visits despite behaviour-related barriers

    Wider context from the report

    “(17) The Coroner also observes that with a little thought and effort arrangements could be made for a visit to Sarah even when her mental state had affected her behaviour. For example, on one occasion on 2 January 2016 (and apparently on one occasion only), Sarah’s mother was allowed to see Sarah in the adjudication room on the Segregation Unit (where Sarah was then housed). It is clear from the evidence that this visit was helpful to Sarah and that more completed visits would have assisted her. The jury so found. ”

    Source location

    SARAH LYNNE REED · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review visits policy and develop a new framework addressing cancellation, visitor information, rebooking and support for families and friends.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Our current policies on visits do not provide specific guidance on the issues that you have raised. They are being reviewed and the issues raised will be considered when the new policy framework, due to be launched in the summer of 2018, is being developed. In accordance with our general approach the framework will include less detailed prescription than the current policy, but it will provide guidance on how best to support families and friends with prison visits, including in relation to the points that you have raised.”

    Source location

    2017-0208-Response-by-NOMS
    Page 4 · response
    Published 1 August 2017

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    HMPPS will provide the response regarding procedures for cancelling prison visits.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We have had a discussion with HMPPS who have agreed to provide a response regarding the procedure for cancelling visits.”

    Source location

    2017-0238-Response-by-CNWL-NHS-Trust
    Page 4 · response
    Published 1 August 2017

    Open published response

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026