Data is aggregated from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date.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.
UK YOI prison operated by HM Prison & Probation Service. Listed in the GOV.UK Find a prison directory.
Background
HM Prison Pentonville (informally "The Ville") is an English Category B men's prison, operated by His Majesty's Prison Service. Pentonville Prison is not in Pentonville, but is located further north, on the Caledonian Road in the Barnsbury area of the London Borough of Islington, north London.
at the time of this inspection. It is never an easy jail to run, with overcrowded cells, crumbling infrastructure and a fast-changing population that includes many men who are mentally ill, addicted to drugs and homeless, or who are had seriously deteriorated, with scores of poor in our healthy prison assessments for safety, purposeful activity and preparation for release, and not pillows or cutlery. Due to the national population pressures, some men spent the jail where staff could not tell us who they were or which cell they were in. In or suicide was cursory at best and we found staff who were supposed to be from both staff and prisoners.
— UK IMB Annual Report (2024) —
Safety: 4.1 Reception and induction Four different Governors headed the early days in custody (EDIC) wing during the reporting year, so some fresh approaches were short-lived. Reception processed over 22,000 movements in and out of the prison. Reception staff were observed to treat new arrivals with respect, compassion and efficiency. When asked by Board members, prisoners generally said they were [...]
Respect: 5.1 Accommodation, food Accommodation Pentonville was built in 1842 to accommodate 540 prisoners in single cells. By the end of March 2025, the unlock figure was 1180, with two men living in cells originally built for a single prisoner. These 12 x 8ft cells had a bunk bed, a table and a chair, although there was not always adequate furniture for both occupants of a shared cell. Cells had a [...]
Purposeful activity: From the Board’s observations, the education programme in Pentonville is a great resource and is appreciated by the prisoners, with the courses and the teachers receiving praise. An internal audit by the provider, Novus, reported in March 2025 that: ‘Learners’ behaviour and attitudes across the department are exceptional… reflecting high expectations set by leaders and managers.’ Nevertheless, [...]
Preparation for release: Offender management unit (OMU) In its three previous annual reports, the Board has been critical of the OMU. This reporting year, 14% of all applications to the Board related to OMU services, similar to the previous year. Continuing from last year, there have been a series of different government-imposed measures, which have placed substantially increased demands on the OMU. These were [...]
Visiting
in 2019 was no exception to this sorry history, but at our scrutiny visit in 2020 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 Independent reviews of progress (IRPs) are a new type of visit designed to improve
Mailing
Format: Prisoner Name & Number, HMP Pentonville, HMP/YOI Pentonville Caledonian Road London N7 8TT See map Help us to improve this page. Give us your feedback in this 2-minute survey .. Use Send Money to a Prisoner (GOV.UK) for funds — cash not accepted.
Practical info
assessments for safety, purposeful activity and preparation for release, and not The ineffective allocations system meant that many jobs or education places the whereabouts of their prisoners during the working day; symptomatic of a prison in disarray. Attendance at education was poor with many prisoners failing bike maintenance, that were designed to help them find work on leaving the jail. Overall, the numbers getting into work on release was very low. make sure that prisoners are released on the correct day.
Known issues
many men who are mentally ill, addicted to drugs and homeless, or who are prisoners had killed themselves. Support for those who were at risk of self-harm or suicide was cursory at best and we found staff who were supposed to be from both staff and prisoners. Levels of violence were high, often fuelled by the ingress of drugs into the jail, and inspectors frequently smelt cannabis on the much reduced violence, a well-run segregation unit and better governance of force. Nevertheless, there was still a high rate of illicit drug use, there had been seven self-inflicted deaths since 2019 and care for those at risk of self-harm violence.
Notable inmates
Crippen (1910), Oscar Wilde (briefly, 1895), George Blake (escaped 1966), Andy Coulson.
Contact & address
HMP/YOI Pentonville Caledonian Road London N7 8TT See map Help us to improve this page. Give us your feedback in this 2-minute survey ., London N7 8TT
Pentonville is a historic, reception prison in North London that held 1,189 men
at the time of this inspection. It is never an easy jail to run, with overcrowded
cells, crumbling infrastructure and a fast-changing population that includes
many men who are mentally ill, addicted to drugs and homeless, or who are
involved with criminal gangs. At this inspection, however, we found a prison that
had seriously deteriorated, with scores of poor in our healthy prison
assessments for safety, purposeful activity and preparation for release, and not
sufficiently good for respect. As a result of the very worrying findings, I issued
an Urgent Notification to the Secretary of State.
The treatment of new arrivals to the jail was completely inadequate; prisoners
were placed in ill-equipped cells without some basic items such as bedding,
pillows or cutlery. Due to the national population pressures, some men spent
their first night in the prison housed not on the induction wing, but elsewhere in
the jail where staff could not tell us who they were or which cell they were in. In
our survey, 44% of prisoners said they felt unsafe at the time of the inspection,
the highest number in any reception prison during my time as Chief Inspector.
The care for some of the most vulnerable was appalling and so far in 2025 three
prisoners had killed themselves. Support for those who were at risk of self-harm
or suicide was cursory at best and we found staff who were supposed to be
looking after men on constant watch asleep, reading or entirely absent.
Many of the wings at Pentonville were chaotic and noisy with lots of shouting
from both staff and prisoners. Levels of violence were high, often fuelled by the
ingress of drugs into the jail, and inspectors frequently smelt cannabis on the
wings. Relationships between prisoners and staff were often poor and prisoners
complained that staff seemed to be indifferent to them or their needs. While
there were many dedicated staff members at the jail, inspectors witnessed an
apparent lack of care from too many officers.
The ineffective allocations system meant that many jobs or education places
were not filled, meaning that the vast majority of prisoners spent more than 22
hours a day locked in their cells. Staff on one wing were unable to account for
the whereabouts of their prisoners during the working day; symptomatic of a
prison in disarray. Attendance at education was poor with many prisoners failing
to turn up to their lessons. For a few men, there were some activities, such as
bike maintenance, that were designed to help them find work on leaving the jail.
Overall, the numbers getting into work on release was very low.
There were some more positive findings in this inspection. A dedicated health
care team managed to deliver a good service, with some particularly good
levels of care for some very unwell men on the inpatient unit. The incentivised
substance free living (ISFL) unit was better than we often see, with men given
good support to address their addiction. The well-regarded Time for Change
programme, run by an experienced custody manager, supported some of the
younger men at Pentonville.
Inspectors were shocked to find that staff were consistently failing to calculate
prisoners’ sentence length correctly. This is a fundamentally important task to
make sure that prisoners are released on the correct day. At Pentonville, this
work was not being done accurately or in a timely fashion, meaning that many
men had been kept in the prison after their sentence should have ended. While
we believe that most had only been released a day late, there may have been
others who were held for longer.
In this report we describe comprehensive failures by leaders to make sure that
there was effective oversight and management of some of the basic operations
of a reception prison.
It will take support and investment from the prison service to turn round this this
4.1 Reception and induction Four different Governors headed the early days in custody (EDIC) wing during the reporting year, so some fresh approaches were short-lived. Reception processed over 22,000 movements in and out of the prison. Reception staff were observed to treat new arrivals with respect, compassion and efficiency. When asked by Board members, prisoners generally said they were treated with respect. New arrivals were interviewed by a trained officer, but a lack of privacy may have inhibited frankness, which contributes to risk assessment. Men were also interviewed by a nurse and referred, if necessary, to the GP who was on duty each evening. Prison orderlies (trusted prisoners who take on work to provide services that contribute to the running of the prison) were a cheerful presence and gave the new arrivals kit and an induction booklet and served a hot meal. Prisoners arriving on transfer often brought several bags of property and had to choose one, which was searched by prison officers, emptying it on to the floor, before the prisoner could take it to his cell. There was a body scanner in reception but still no scanner for property, which the Board believes could make the process more respectful and quicker. Despite the emphasis on decency by the Governor, the standard of first-night cells slipped. Random checks by the Board (or a Governor) sometimes found essentials missing, such as a pillow, blanket or kettle and, occasionally, a cell was filthy. Housekeeping [...]
5.1 Accommodation, food Accommodation Pentonville was built in 1842 to accommodate 540 prisoners in single cells. By the end of March 2025, the unlock figure was 1180, with two men living in cells originally built for a single prisoner. These 12 x 8ft cells had a bunk bed, a table and a chair, although there was not always adequate furniture for both occupants of a shared cell. Cells had a toilet, but not all had effective screening. Furthermore, the crumbling fabric of the building was susceptible to continual infestations of mice, cockroaches, flies and rats. This was evidenced in the shutting down of the kitchens in April 2024 for 14 weeks due to a rat infestation. Blitzes by a pest-control company provided only temporary respite with rats frequently being found behind boxed-in pipework in the cells. Although in-cell TVs and phones alleviated boredom and allowed contact with the outside world, the potential health hazard of living with vermin, together with the lack of privacy and cramped conditions, are not decent or humane. Major problems with the fabric and infrastructure of the prison were evidenced in the regular applications from prisoners to the Board relating to the antiquated heating and plumbing systems. Problems with plumbing, drainage, heating and hot water occurred regularly, affecting personal hygiene. Some of the higher landings experienced intolerable temperatures in the summer, made worse by new windows that did not allow air flow. Several showers had [...]
Offender management unit (OMU) In its three previous annual reports, the Board has been critical of the OMU. This reporting year, 14% of all applications to the Board related to OMU services, similar to the previous year. Continuing from last year, there have been a series of different government-imposed measures, which have placed substantially increased demands on the OMU. These were implemented to manage prison overcrowding by releasing some prisoners early. These initiatives are extremely complex and require additional training of already overburdened staff. This inevitably resulted in a lack of time to deal with the routine services provided by the team. In addition, due to the high number of prisoners on remand, there were 20-35 immediate releases each week. These required extensive, rapid and accurate checks and resulted in a backlog of sentence calculations and transfers for other prisoners. All of these are matters of extreme frustration and anxiety for prisoners. By early March, there were between 60 and 70 sentence calculations outstanding. It also meant that there was no resumption of wing-based OMU clinics, which happened for a brief period during the last reporting year and were much appreciated by the prisoners. The following measures have been introduced to support the OMU: • since December, there have been two heads of the OMU, one operational and one non-operational. The operational appointment was initially temporary, with a permanent appointment made by [...]
From the Board’s observations, the education programme in Pentonville is a great resource and is appreciated by the prisoners, with the courses and the teachers receiving praise. An internal audit by the provider, Novus, reported in March 2025 that: ‘Learners’ behaviour and attitudes across the department are exceptional… reflecting high expectations set by leaders and managers.’ Nevertheless, throughout the year, late unlocking by wing staff remained a frustration, as this meant attendance and punctuality were erratic. In December, a payment was introduced for taking the basic skills assessment (BSA), usually on day two in the prison and a requirement for getting a job or participation in education, but this ended on 31 March. This was unfortunate, as it appeared to have a positive effect. In February, when the scheme was fully embedded, induction attendance was 94% and education attendance was 60%. This fell in March, possibly because prisoners knew the incentive was due to be stopped. A wide variety of courses and activities was delivered, including the following: Customer service Fire Safety Duke of Edinburgh Bronze and Silver Awareness Awards Food safety Peer Mentoring Vocalise with the University of Law Painting and Business Enterprise Distance Learning with The Open Decorating University Barbering Maths Criminology Level 3 with Westminster University Writing Group E nglish Business with Urban Lawyers Radio Production ESOL Public speaking with John Bercow The library [...]
1.1
HMP Pentonville in North London is one of the oldest prisons in the
country. It received its first prisoners in 1842 and was designed to hold
520 people in single cells. Today, it is a category B reception prison,
holding over 1,100 remand and convicted male prisoners aged 18 and
over.
1.2
At our previous inspections of HMP Pentonville in 2019 and 2022 we
made the following judgements about outcomes for prisoners.
Figure 1: HMP Pentonville healthy prison outcomes in 2019 and 2022
Good
Reasonably
good
Not sufficiently
good
Poor
HMP Pentonville in north London is one the oldest prisons in the country. It
received its first prisoners in 1842 and was designed to hold 520 people in
single cells. In recent times, it has routinely been one of most challenging and
troubled prisons, with a succession of poor inspections. Our last full inspection
in 2019 was no exception to this sorry history, but at our scrutiny visit in 2020
we saw evidence of fragile progress.
At this inspection, the promise of improvements had been realised in part, but
many serious concerns remained, including some fundamental weaknesses in
offender management and provision of activities. Safety had improved, with
much reduced violence, a well-run segregation unit and better governance of
force. Nevertheless, there was still a high rate of illicit drug use, there had been
seven self-inflicted deaths since 2019 and care for those at risk of self-harm
was not yet good enough. In addition, time out of cell and constructive activities
were seen, at least in the short-term, as acceptable collateral damage in the
drive to improve safety. This approach did not sufficiently recognise that an
institution that promotes safety is also one that considers the impact of lengthy
periods of lock-up on mental health and on prisoners’ chances of being
released into society with the skills that might help them to stay out of trouble.
There were other indications of a prison that was headed in the right direction.
For example, it was positive to see the ambitious long-term vision represented
by the plan for a new unit intended to care for neurodiverse prisoners, and the
unusually good work that was done to support young offenders. Leaders had
also taken steps to address deep-rooted problems in the staff culture and
capability even if results were, so far, limited. However, Pentonville has had
more false dawns than most prisons. It is an indication of the profound problems
it faces that, despite the improvements that were being made and the
considerable dedication and capability of its leaders, outcomes for prisoners
were still not good enough in any of our healthy prison tests.
This report gives the reasons for these judgements in some detail, but one
concern is worthy of particular mention. Pentonville remains a cramped early
Victorian relic, with claustrophobic wings and a crumbling physical infrastructure
that require constant repair and refurbishment to meet the most basic standards
of decency. The prison currently holds over 1,100 prisoners and this number is
continuing to rise. While it has added some new living units, the increased
capacity has come about largely by placing two people in cells designed for
one. Over 60% of prisoners are in overcrowded cells and the prison’s footprint
is not markedly different from when it held fewer than half the current number. It
is hard to avoid the conclusion that Pentonville cannot safely and decently care
for its current population, as illustrated, for example, by the high number of
prisoners with mental health needs who could not get prompt appointments,
and the wholly inadequate access to purposeful activity. If the prison is to make
further progress, national leaders need to accept the limitations of an
establishment that has to work harder than most to battle through its entrenched
problems.
Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
August 2022
Contents
HMP Pentonville
3
Contents
Glossary of terms
4
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. Appendix
25
Review team
25
4
HMP Pentonville
Glossary of terms
We try to make our reports as clear as possible, and this short glossary should help to explain any
terms you find labelled with an asterisk in this report. If need an explanation on any other terms,
please see the longer glossary in our ‘Guide for writing inspection reports’, available on our website
at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/about-our-inspections/
Challenge, support and intervention plan (CSIP)
CSIPs are used by all adult prisons to manage those prisoners who are violent or pose a heightened
risk of being violent. These prisoners are managed and supported on a plan with individualised
targets and regular reviews. Some prisons also use the CSIP framework to support victims of
violence.
Key work
Introduced under the offender management in custody (OMiC) model, prison officer key workers
aim to have regular contact with named prisoners.
Urgent Notification
Where HM Chief Inspector of Prisons identifies significant concerns on the treatment and conditions
of those detained in prisons, he may write to the Secretary of State within seven calendar days of the
end of the inspection, providing notification of the significant concerns and the reasons for those
concerns. See: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/about-hmi-prisons/urgent-
notifications/
About this report
HMP Pentonville
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 a new type of visit 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. 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/
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 April 2019 for further detail on the
original findings: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.
