HMP Cardiff

Gallery

From Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-SA where not otherwise stated).

• 

  Photo by Richard Sutcliffe via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

• 

  Photo by Robin Drayton via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

• 

  Photo by mattbuck (category) via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

• 

  Photo by Richard Sutcliffe via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

• 

  Photo by Eirian Evans via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

• 

  Photo by Richard Sutcliffe via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0)

• 

  Photo by Dominic Nelson via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Reports

• HMIP8 May 2024

  Cardiff is a category B reception and resettlement prison, which at the time of our inspection, was holding 737 prisoners. It had a significant remand and unsentenced population and many prisoners were recalled, which contributed to a rapid turnover of population. Men were held in a mix of accommodation types: some of these dated from the early 19th century, while others were added in the late 1990s. The location, character and structure of the prison, as well as the operational challenges it faced, meant Cardiff was a frontline institution, receiving men from the streets and managing considerable day-to-day risk. It is all the more pleasing therefore, to report that, despite these challenges, Cardiff was doing significantly better than comparable institutions. We last inspected the prison in 2019, when we reported outcomes that were reasonably good or better in all of our healthy prison tests. At this inspection, despite some deterioration in the provision of purposeful activity, we judged outcomes to be reasonably good against all four tests. The prison was calm and settled, and although a quarter of prisoners in our survey told us they felt unsafe, Cardiff was performing better than similar prisons against most safety measures. Violence, for example, was relatively low and the prison was working hard to reduce it further. We found no prisoners who were self-isolating, and use of force by staff had fallen. There were, however, some exceptions to these trends. Forty per cent of prisoners told us they thought drugs were easy to access, and this was confirmed by mandatory testing which suggested about a quarter of all prisoners were active drug users at the time of the inspection. Since 2019, 10 men had taken their own lives in the prison. However, there was evidence to suggest the prison was working hard to improve this situation, and there had been a fall of 38% in the number of men harming themselves. Good quality staff-prisoner relationships underpinned a respectful culture. Staff appeared competent and consistent in their dealings with prisoners, although these qualities were not reflected in the delivery of key work, which was weak. The prison was very overcrowded, but despite the age of many of the buildings standards and cleanliness were good. Access to amenities and services was reasonable, and consultation with prisoners and procedures to facilitate redress were generally effective. Although outcomes remained mixed for different protected characteristic groups, the promotion of fair treatment had been identified as a priority. Work to better understand the needs of young adults was encouraging. During our spot checks we found about 28% of prisoners locked in their cells during the working day. Although time unlocked was not as good as in 2019, it was better and more consistently delivered than at most comparable prisons. Our colleagues in Estyn assessed education, skills and work provision as ‘good’. There was effective work to promote family ties, assess risk of harm, deliver interventions, and manage sentences and public protection, but improvements to key work would have enhanced provision significantly. Resettlement services needed to be improved and better coordinated. This is an encouraging report on a competent prison, which sets something of a benchmark for this type of establishment. The governor and her senior team were visible, approachable and set clear standards. The active support and supervision officers received was reflected in their confidence as a group and the sense of order in the prison. Prisoners were treated respectfully and they trusted staff because they were reliable. While there was much to do, we had every confidence that the reasonable outcomes we observed were embedded and could be maintained, and that the governor’s ambitions for further improvement could be achieved. Charlie Taylor HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

  source