United Kingdom · South-East & East · Sussex
Data is aggregated from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always verify with primary sources before acting on any figure. See data sources.
For families
Step-by-step guidance using the United Kingdom system — addresses, money services, visit booking, what to bring on your first visit.
UK YOI prison operated by HM Prison & Probation Service. Listed in the GOV.UK Find a prison directory.
Capacity
—
Current population
—
Occupancy
—
Year opened
—
Operational
Figures from official sources · verified 7 Jul 2026 · methodology
Operator
HM Prison & Probation ServicePopulation held
male
Opened
—
Region
South-East & East
Security level
—
Death-row facility
No
inspection. The population is characterised by high turnover, with 65% of clear progress. In our healthy prison tests, we judged outcomes to be compared to our previous 2024 inspection. For safety and purposeful activity, outcomes were assessed as ‘not sufficiently good’, although this too marked an Progress had also been made in reducing violence and improving early days feedback from new arrivals, but late arrivals and poor privacy during safety Staff-prisoner relationships were a clear strength, with 80% of prisoners reporting respectful treatment by staff. — UK IMB Annual Report (2024) — Safety: 4.1 Reception and induction 4.1.1 The prison revised its reception and induction processes for new prisoners during 2024, and the Board’s view is that the new processes are much improved. Reception and the early days centre (EDC) are managed by the same head of function, which strengthens co-ordination. Shortages of kit noted in previous years have all but disappeared, and the EDC is generally [...] Respect: 5.1 Accommodation, clothing, food 5.1.1 Prisoners at HMP Lewes are mostly accommodated in buildings built in the mid-nineteenth century which require significant and ongoing work and investment to maintain a decent living environment. These simple facts present persistent challenges to staff and prisoners alike. Nonetheless, the Board notes that accommodation and shared areas have been [...] Purposeful activity: 7.1.1 Milton Keynes College has been the education provider since April 2023 and has increased the number and range of education sessions. A new manager was appointed in April 2024, and whilst urgent building work and staffing shortfalls led to the suspension of some sessions early in 2024, the situation has improved. 7.1.2 A prisoner’s abilities in English and maths are assessed as part of their [...] Preparation for release: 7.3.1 The prison’s offender management unit (OMU) supports the management of a prisoner through their sentence and aims to reduce reoffending. OMU’s work over 2024 was shaped by the rise in the prison’s population, particularly the number of remand prisoners, from around 50% of the population at the start of the Board’s reporting period to 73% at the end. The Board has previously registered [...]
relationships than during our last two visits. The attrition rate of staff was still high but found on our last visit. There continued to be insufficient activity places for the remanded prisoners who did not always get their entitlement to visits and had only All visits carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons contribute to the UK’s response to its requires that all places of detention are visited regularly by independent bodies – known as recommendations to be followed up, IRP visits may be conducted jointly with Ofsted inspection visits.
with only four prisoners subject to phone or mail monitoring, a scarcely credible complained of difficulties with getting phone numbers added to their approved
resettlement prison for adult men, holding 558 prisoners at the time of this support, purposeful activity, and effective resettlement planning. ‘reasonably good’ for respect and preparation for release; both improvements compared to our previous 2024 inspection. For safety and purposeful activity, improvement in the purposeful activity test. reporting respectful treatment by staff.
Progress had also been made in reducing violence and improving early days support, but self-harm rates remained high, and safeguarding arrangements The ingress of drugs was a serious problem at Lewes and this was a cause of some of the increases in violence and the use of force. Although there had been a recent reduction in assaults, it was too early to tell if this was the beginning of a trend. The levels of self-harm at the jail continued to be too high, some of which was no The oversight of those at risk of suicide or self-harm was poor with paperwork
Derived signal — not a judgement. How it's calculated
What the score is responding to:
This facility scores 46. The national average across 584 scored United Kingdom facilities is 4 — 42 points above national average.
Same country, matched on type + security level where possible.
Built in the 19th century, HMP Lewes in Sussex is a category B reception and resettlement prison for adult men, holding 558 prisoners at the time of this inspection. The population is characterised by high turnover, with 65% of prisoners on remand or unsentenced and 85% having been at the prison for less than six months. A recurring theme of our inspection was the significant operational challenges this fact creates, particularly in delivering consistent support, purposeful activity, and effective resettlement planning. Overall, however, we found a prison that, commendably, was evidencing very clear progress. In our healthy prison tests, we judged outcomes to be ‘reasonably good’ for respect and preparation for release; both improvements compared to our previous 2024 inspection. For safety and purposeful activity, outcomes were assessed as ‘not sufficiently good’, although this too marked an improvement in the purposeful activity test. Progress had also been made in reducing violence and improving early days support, but self-harm rates remained high, and safeguarding arrangements were inconsistent. The prison had revised its early days processes, seeking feedback from new arrivals, but late arrivals and poor privacy during safety interviews hindered both the support the prison was able to give and the identification of risk. The use of force had increased, and although oversight had improved, data was not always used effectively to support accountability or identify learning. Staff-prisoner relationships were a clear strength, with 80% of prisoners reporting respectful treatment by staff. The key worker scheme had improved in coverage but remained inconsistent in quality and frequency. Living conditions varied widely, but while the innovative Lewes Assurance and Multi-Skills (LAMS) prisoner team had refurbished many areas to a good standard, much of the infrastructure remained in poor condition, with graffiti, damaged fittings, and unreliable heating and hot water. Food quality and quantity were a source of significant dissatisfaction, and the applications system was ineffective, leading to frustration and delays in resolving basic issues. Equality and inclusion work had stalled since the last inspection. Forums for prisoners with protected characteristics were poorly attended and had limited impact. Disparities in treatment, particularly for black and minority ethnic prisoners, remained unaddressed. However, support for neurodivergent prisoners was a notable strength, with a dedicated unit (K wing) offering tailored support from trained staff. The chaplaincy team played a strong and influential role in supporting inclusion and rehabilitation, including for young adults and foreign nationals. Although time out of cell had improved and the regime was more reliable, 40% of prisoners remained unemployed. Ofsted assessed the overall effectiveness of education, skills, and work as requiring improvement. Attendance at activity was inconsistent, and while the curriculum was broadly appropriate, teaching quality varied, and some tutors failed to stretch more able learners. The recording of progress in workshops was poor, limiting prisoners’ understanding of their skill development. The gym and library were well used and offered a range of activities, but recreational opportunities on the wings were limited. Leaders had responded proactively to the significant and relatively recent rise in the number of remanded and short-stay prisoners by introducing a new strategy and improving coordination between departments. The pre-release team was well led, and initiatives such as the pre-release café and through-the-gate mentoring showed promise. However, 20% of prisoners were still released homeless, and the lack of a strategic housing lead remained a significant gap. Support for obtaining ID and right-to-work documents had improved, with over
In 2022, our unannounced inspection of HMP Lewes was concerning enough for us to return for an independent review of progress (IRP) in February last year. Disappointingly during that review, we found that things had got even worse, with some prisoners routinely getting less than an hour out of their cell a day, a shortage of frontline officers and a staff team with low morale. Unusually therefore, I decided that we would conduct an announced inspection, giving the prison six months’ notice to prepare. A new governor arrived at the jail in August 2023 and I am pleased to report that he had begun to make some good progress with the many challenges that faced this run-down, overcrowded Victorian prison. He had worked on improving the capability and confidence of his staff team, of which a high proportion had fewer than two years’ experience, and we were pleased to see noticeably better staff-prisoner relationships than during our last two visits. The attrition rate of staff was still high but was lower than at our IRP. The governor had introduced a cooked breakfast which was welcomed by prisoners, although they complained that milk was no longer available. Leaders had improved prisoners’ ability to get basic kit such as bedding and clean clothes and a team of skilled prisoners was working around the jail to improve cells and communal areas. It was disappointing that although the prison was cleaner, there remained ingrained dirt in some of the communal areas and rubbish outside had not been cleared away. The ingress of drugs was a serious problem at Lewes and this was a cause of some of the increases in violence and the use of force. Although there had been a recent reduction in assaults, it was too early to tell if this was the beginning of a trend. The amount of time that prisoners spent unlocked was better than at the last inspection but was still not as good as we have seen elsewhere. A concerted effort by leaders to improve the reliability of the regime meant that there were no longer the frequent, unplanned cancellations of education or the closure of the library we found on our last visit. There continued to be insufficient activity places for the population and the quality of some of the teaching was not good enough. Assessments had identified the poor literacy and maths levels of many prisoners, but although there was a reading strategy which was much better developed than in other prisons, there were not enough classes to meet this need. Attendance at education was poor, in part due to the scheduling of gym sessions during lesson time. Our score for our test of preparation for release fell from reasonably good to not sufficiently good, partly because of the pressure that a high-churning remand population was putting on the prison. There was not yet enough provision for remanded prisoners who did not always get their entitlement to visits and had only limited support from the offender management unit in addressing their immediate housing needs. There were some worrying holes in public protection arrangements with only four prisoners subject to phone or mail monitoring, a scarcely credible number in a prison of this type. We report some serious concerns with the introduction of the end of custody supervised licence scheme that allowed for some prisoners to be released 18 days early. I hope that these are teething troubles and that as the scheme becomes embedded some of these problems will reduce. At Lewes we found too many prisoners released homeless, including on the scheme, and there was some chaotic planning for prisoners who were being released at short notice. The levels of self-harm at the jail continued to be too high, some of which was no doubt caused by the day-to-day frustrations of prisoners, such as long periods of lock up (particularly at weekends), the poor response to applications, difficulties with
4.1 Reception and induction 4.1.1 The prison revised its reception and induction processes for new prisoners during 2024, and the Board’s view is that the new processes are much improved. Reception and the early days centre (EDC) are managed by the same head of function, which strengthens co-ordination. Shortages of kit noted in previous years have all but disappeared, and the EDC is generally clean and tidy. 4.1.2 This was achieved despite the surge in prisoner numbers during the first half of 2024, including large numbers of remand prisoners from beyond the prison’s Kent, Surrey and Sussex (KSS) catchment area. Reception and the EDC often had to stay open late into the night to process new arrivals, and parts of the induction process might be delayed: this can be tiring and distressing for prisoners and staff alike. Population pressures continue and the Board remains concerned about the use of F wing as an overflow when the EDC is full. When this happens, inductions can be missed, exercise restricted, first night calls delayed, and safety issues can arise. 4.1.3 Health assessments and the management of medication for new arrivals in reception has improved, with a prescriber on duty into the evening. However, the absence of a psychiatrist in the prison for parts of 2024 (see section 6.3.1) meant delays in meeting the needs of some prisoners with mental health problems. The provision of appropriate medication for new prisoners with physical conditions could also be delayed [...]
7.3.1 The prison’s offender management unit (OMU) supports the management of a prisoner through their sentence and aims to reduce reoffending. OMU’s work over 2024 was shaped by the rise in the prison’s population, particularly the number of remand prisoners, from around 50% of the population at the start of the Board’s reporting period to 73% at the end. The Board has previously registered concerns over the lack of support for remand prisoners and so welcomes OMU’s more recent focus on their needs, and work being done to develop a remand strategy. 7.3.2 The Board acknowledges the hard work of OMU and the prison’s pre-release planning teams to respond to a series of national schemes to reduce prisoner numbers. In 2023, the end of custody supervised licence scheme (ECSL) was 29 introduced. It was revised in early 2024, and again later in the year with a new early release scheme, SDS40. HMP Lewes is a local category B prison, so the number of early releases were not significant, but managing the complexities whilst continuing normal work was challenging. Changes to the home detention curfew (HDC) scheme in 2024 had limited impact given the low proportion of sentenced prisoners at Lewes: HDC releases amounted to no more than 25 during 2024. 7.3.3 OMU’s staffing levels were broadly stable over the Board’s reporting period. Although there was not a full complement of prisoner offender managers (POMs), the Board was not aware of any detrimental effect on sentenced prisoners: [...]
7.1.1 Milton Keynes College has been the education provider since April 2023 and has increased the number and range of education sessions. A new manager was appointed in April 2024, and whilst urgent building work and staffing shortfalls led to the suspension of some sessions early in 2024, the situation has improved. 7.1.2 A prisoner’s abilities in English and maths are assessed as part of their prison induction, and the results shape their personal learning plan. Around two-thirds of Lewes prisoners record low levels of literacy and numeracy (only half have scores equal or greater than the average 11-year-old and 7% achieve the minimum score), and this drives efforts to help develop such skills. Note that the population fluctuates, and the latest quarter had more prisoners with secondary education skill levels. 7.1.3 Attracting and retaining learners can be a challenge given the rapid population turnover, the number of remand prisoners (in prison until their trial or subsequent sentence hearing) and of prisoners on 14-day recall (back in prison because they broke the terms of their licence agreement after release). Education attendance improved up to October 2024 and averaged 60% of allocated places each month over the reporting period. However, attendance has fallen since the introduction of an improved regime, and the prison is working to address this: educational officers have worked to support staff and prisoners during educational delivery time and engage with [...]
5.1 Accommodation, clothing, food 5.1.1 Prisoners at HMP Lewes are mostly accommodated in buildings built in the mid-nineteenth century which require significant and ongoing work and investment to maintain a decent living environment. These simple facts present persistent challenges to staff and prisoners alike. Nonetheless, the Board notes that accommodation and shared areas have been refurbished, redecorated and are noticeably cleaner. This progress was reaffirmed when, towards the end of the Board’s reporting period, the HMPPS performance assurance & risk group awarded an amber/green rating for the quality of living standards (rated red in 2019). 5.1.2 However, problems with the heating and hot water supply persist. The main gas supply was disconnected following a gas leak in November 2023 and temporary boilers quickly installed: credit goes to the teams that worked at pace to achieve this. However, heating and hot water supply across all wings is inconsistent: frequently too cold, although M wing could often be stiflingly hot. The Board notes the prison’s efforts to secure funds to renew the system, which will be a major undertaking. We note the efforts as well of the GFSL team in liaison with the relevant contractors to keep the system working. However, the arrangement is expensive and bad for the environment, whilst the outcome for prisoners is unacceptable in the Board’s view. 5.1.3 A power surge in January 2025 damaged the control panel on F Wing and caused a fault [...]
1.1 HMP Lewes was built in 1853 and is a category B reception prison, with the primary function of holding prisoners from courts in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. It holds up to 624 prisoners. 1.2 At our previous inspections of HMP Lewes in 2019 and 2022 we made the following judgements about outcomes for prisoners. Figure 1: HMP Lewes healthy prison outcomes in 2022 Good Reasonably good Not sufficiently good Poor
This was a disappointing inspection of a prison that had made some good progress at our 2019 independent review of progress (IRP). There is no doubt that pandemic restrictions have hampered the ambitious governor in her work to improve the jail, but nevertheless the recovery was too slow. The allocation of work or education was not functioning properly, and so there were no meaningful activities for most prisoners, who were spending 22 hours locked up during the week while workshops and classrooms remained empty. Despite the high level of unemployed prisoners, standards of cleanliness on the wings had deteriorated – rigorous routine cleaning was not taking place. Similarly, many cells had extensive graffiti on the walls that was still visible despite being painted over. Prisoners were struggling to access some basic needs. For example, new arrivals to the jail were only given one set of clothes, which meant that they had no replacements when items were sent to be washed. They also frequently complained of difficulties with getting phone numbers added to their approved list, so it took a long time for them to make contact with their families. I spoke to one young man, in prison for the first time, who said he had not been able to let anyone know where he was. The oversight of those at risk of suicide or self-harm was poor with paperwork incomplete or inadequate. It was concerning that many prisoners who were on an assessment, care in custody, and teamwork plan (ACCT) said they did not feel cared for, especially in a jail that contains many vulnerable men who have only recently come into custody. When we last inspected in 2019, we found that the partnership between health care and the prison was not working effectively. It was, therefore, disappointing at this inspection to find that some of the problems had still not been satisfactorily resolved and that the service to prisoners was not yet good enough. The governor’s personal involvement in finding solutions gave us some confidence that these issues could be addressed. The prison suffered from difficulties with recruiting sufficient high-quality staff in what is a relatively wealthy part of the country. This problem was particularly acute for operational support grades (OSG) and administrative staff; these roles were essential to a properly functioning prison. Security vetting processes were taking so long that prospective recruits were taking jobs elsewhere. The prison had developed a strategy to support new recruits, and the backlog of training was being addressed as pandemic restrictions were lifted. Many staff members were, however, still leaving after short periods of service. We were pleased to see an improvement in offender management and resettlement services. There were some good functional leaders in place which led to a welcome increase in our score for rehabilitation and release planning, but scores for safety, respect and purposeful activity from our healthy prison tests were not good enough. Lewes is a difficult prison to staff and run with old buildings that are expensive to maintain, but there needs to be a greater focus on getting some of the basics right. There is the opportunity to build momentum with what could be an effective leadership team to get this prison back on track and make it a better place for prisoners to stay and staff to work. Much will rest on the governor and the deputy who have shown great commitment to the prison through a difficult couple of years to drive forward the necessary improvements. Charlie Taylor HM Chief Inspector of Prisons May 2022
Contents HMP Lewes 3 Contents About this report 5 Key findings 7 Section 1. Chief Inspector’s summary 10 Section 2. Progress against the key concerns and recommendations and Ofsted themes 13 Section 3. Appendices 23 Appendix I: Review team 23 Appendix II: Photographs 24 Contents 4 HMP Lewes Glossary of terms We try to make our reports as clear as possible, but if you find terms that you do not know, please see the glossary in our ‘Guide for writing inspection reports’ on our website at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/about-our-inspections/ About this report HMP Lewes 5 About this report A1 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) is an independent, statutory organisation which reports on the treatment and conditions of those detained in prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres, immigration detention facilities, police and court custody and military detention. A2 All visits carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons contribute to the UK’s response to its international obligations under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). OPCAT requires that all places of detention are visited regularly by independent bodies – known as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) – which monitor the treatment of and conditions for detainees. HM Inspectorate of Prisons is one of several bodies making up the NPM in the UK. A3 Independent reviews of progress (IRPs) are designed to improve accountability to ministers about the progress prisons make towards achieving HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ recommendations in between inspections. IRPs will take place at the discretion of the Chief Inspector when a full inspection suggests the prison would benefit from additional scrutiny, and will focus on a limited number of the recommendations made at the inspection. IRPs will therefore not result in assessments against our healthy prison tests.1 A4 The aims of IRPs are to: - assess progress against selected key recommendations - support improvement - identify any emerging difficulties or lack of progress at an early stage - assess the sufficiency of the leadership and management response to our main concerns at the full inspection. A5 This report contains a summary from the Chief Inspector and a brief record of our findings in relation to each recommendation we have followed up. The reader may find it helpful to refer to the report of the full inspection, carried out in January 2019 for further detail on the original findings.2 IRP methodology A6 IRPs will be announced at least three months in advance and will take place eight to 12 months after the full inspection. When we announce an IRP, we will identify which recommendations we intend to follow up (usually no more than 15). Depending on the recommendations to be followed up, IRP visits may be conducted jointly with Ofsted (England), Estyn (Wales), the Care Quality Commission and the General Pharmaceutical Council. This joint work ensures expert knowledge is deployed and avoids multiple inspection visits. A7 During our three-day visit, we will collect a range of evidence about the progress in implementing each selected recommendation. Sources of evidence will include observation, discussions with prisoners, staff and relevant third parties, documentation and data. 1 HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ healthy prison tests are safety, respect, purposeful activity and rehabilitation and release planning. For more information see our website: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/our-expectations/ 2 https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/hmp-lewes-2/. Abou
How many of our profile fields are populated. We surface this so families and researchers know the limits.
Under CC-BY-4.0. Include the URL and access date; the site is a living reference and entries can change.
World Prisons. (2026). HMP Lewes. Retrieved July 21, 2026, from https://worldprisons.com/prisons/hmp-lewes
"HMP Lewes." World Prisons. Accessed July 21, 2026. https://worldprisons.com/prisons/hmp-lewes.
@misc{worldprisons-hmp-lewes,
author = {{World Prisons}},
title = {HMP Lewes},
year = {2026},
url = {https://worldprisons.com/prisons/hmp-lewes},
urldate = {2026-07-21}
}