PhD Blog – How can we make sense of the experiences of a growing number of Eastern European women in English prisons?

1448056554235This new contribution to the PhG guest blog is from Magdalena Tomaszewska. Magdalena is a second-year PhD candidate at the University of Surrey. Her PhD explores the treatment and experiences of female Eastern European prisoners in England and Wales (particularly those from the A8 and A2 accession countries to the EU). Working across 3 prisons in England and a third sector organisation providing support for female foreign national prisoners, she examines the lived realities of incarceration for these women, taking into account their socio-cultural backgrounds, relationships with staff and other prisoners, and the effects of the penal policy shifts which have prioritised removal of ‘foreigners’.

This project builds on her Masters research which explored the experiences of female foreign national prisoners in one prison in the South East of England and has been awarded Howard League’s John Sunley prize. Magdalena’s broad research interests lie in the area exploring linkages between identity, imprisonment and immigration control, especially in the context of women’s imprisonment. Alongside her doctoral studies, she is working with the University College London and a user-led charity User Voice co-coordinating a large-scale trial testing the merits of mentalisation based treatment (MBT) for offenders diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).

Contact: m.tomaszewska@surrey.ac.uk


How can we make sense of the experiences of a growing number of Eastern European women in English prisons?

Anna, originally from the Czech Republic, came to the UK at the age of 10 and has lived here ever since. After committing a drug-related offence, she was sentenced to just over 3 years imprisonment. In addition to her custodial term she was also informed that she was going to be deported from the UK on the completion of her sentence, since, as it was explained to her, as a ‘foreign criminal’ she had ‘no right to remain in the UK’. She was released from HMP Peterborough earlier this year having successfully appealed her case.

Anna is one of a growing number of Eastern European women currently held in prisons throughout England and Wales. Since 2004, when 11 countries of the former Eastern Bloc[1] joined the European Union, the number of female prisoners originating from these countries has risen dramatically (even though the overall proportion of foreign nationals in the female estate has remained at a 11%) (MoJ, 2016). Today, within a population which counts nearly 80 countries, every third inmate comes from Eastern Europe, with Poland and Romania as the top two. Overall however, these women have remained invisible, apart from a handful of third sector accounts which emphasize their vulnerability to exploitation through trafficking (e.g. Prison Reform Trust, 2012), or press reports which lump them together with men, portraying them under the label of ‘dangerous Eastern European criminals’[2], and with it fuelling the demands for more streamlined deportations.[3]

Both of these perspectives are problematic. For one, given the difficulty in identifying victims of trafficking via the National Referral Mechanism it is tricky to assess how big a problem trafficking is amongst the incarcerated East European women (Gelsthorpe and Hales, 2012). It would be difficult to deduce that from the nature of offences which predominantly land them in prison, which PRT (2012) reports as theft and handling or drugs offences. At the same time, violent offences among this population are lower than for their British counterparts. Majority serve their first and only prison sentences, with a ‘very low’ risk of reoffending. In this sense, there is also little to support the argument that these women are especially dangerous.

These discussions however divert attention away from the changes that have already taken root in the female prison system. When Anna arrived at HMP Bronzefield in 2013, it had been 5 years since the UK Borders Act 2007 came into power, requiring all EEA nationals sentenced to more than 2 years imprisonment to be – in line with section 32 (5) of the Act – mandatorily deported from the UK[4]. This, as Kaufman (2012) has shown, was further accompanied by broader logistical arrangements between the Prison Service and the Home Office under the ‘hubs and spokes’ agreement, whereby non-citizens (especially those under deportation orders) are to be concentrated in specific foreign national ‘hub’ prisons which are furnished with full time immigration staff who are to facilitate a more efficient deportation process.

In 2013, on the recommendation of the NOMS Women’s Custodial Estate Review (2013), this system was adopted in the female estate. As the report advised, a female foreign national hub was to be created at HMP Peterborough, ‘taking into account best practice from the male hub and spoke system’ (p.6). Much like in the male estate then, the female prison system took it upon itself to systematically identify and segregate women who ‘do not belong in the UK’.

In my research I explore the experiences of currently the largest regional group within the female foreign prison population – Eastern European women – who ‘do time’ under these conditions. Taking inspiration from the scholarship which looks to questions about identity at the intersection of gender, race, and class to cast light on the prison as a space ‘permeated’ by broader social inequalities (e.g. Phillips and Earle, 2011; Bosworth and Kaufman, 2012), I am interviewing currently and formerly incarcerated Eastern European women as well as a range of practitioners working with them (prison officers, legal case workers), documenting accounts like that of Anna, who shortly before being transferred to HMP Peterborough was told by one prisoner that this was a place where “all you Russian prostitutes go to”, and where she could, according to one prison officer, “find the support of those with the same “culture”. Politics of identity, as Kaufman (2012, p. 18) observes, ‘are central to the practice of punishment’.

Stories such as Anna’s can offer new insights into this work, especially when it comes to documenting the relationship between imprisonment and nationality. Authors such as Emma Kaufman and Mary Bosworth have led this effort, developing illuminating accounts on how the practice of deportation and treatment of many non-citizens caught up in it (especially those originating from former British colonies) implicates the British prison in the exercise of ‘collective [postcolonial] amnesia’. The positioning of East European prisoners like Anna clearly doesn’t fit this frame. Instead, it seems to speak to anxieties about more recent, ‘suspect white’ migrants from poorer parts of Europe, who, although conform to racialized understandings of what it means to be European, are subject to gendered, classed and racialized framing as ‘other’, based on language and cultural difference (Bhui, 2016).

Thinking more broadly about the emerging themes, many important changes are currently taking place in the arena of British immigration policy. As the fieldwork for this project gathers pace, the British government is set to start the process of taking the UK out of the European Union. Although it seems that for now, the topic of foreign national prisoners as well as the specifics of immigration policy where it crosses paths with the prison system remain lower down the list of negotiation priorities for Theresa May, it is yet to be seen what effect Brexit will have on the carceral lives of the growing ranks of female prisoners from Eastern Europe (as well as those from wider EU) held in British penitentiary institutions. For Anna, one thing was clear: “Learn to live with uncertainty”.

References

Bhui, H. (2016), ‘Place of Race in understanding immigration control and the detention of foreign nationals’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16 (3), pp. 267 – 285.

Bosworth, M. and Kaufman, E. (2012), ‘Gender and Punishment’, in Simon, J. and Sparks, R. (eds.) Handbook of Punishment and Society, London: Sage.

Gelsthorpe, L. and Hales, L. (2012), ‘Criminalisation of Migrant Women’, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, UK, available at: http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/loraine_gelsthorpe/criminalreport29july12.pdf.

Kaufman, E. (2012), ‘Finding Foreigners: Race and the Politics of Memory in British Prisons’, Population, Space and Place, 18 (6), pp. 701 – 714.

Ministry of Justice (2016), Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2016, London Ministry of Justice.

National Offender Management Service (2013), Women’s Custodial Estate Review, available at: http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-client-groups/adult-offenders/nationaloffendermanagementservice/155762womens-custodial-estate-review.pdf.

Phillips, C. and Earle, R. (2011), ‘Cultural diversity, ethnicity and race relations in prison’ in Crewe, B. and Bennett, J. (eds.) The Prisoner, London: Routledge.

Prison Reform Trust (2012), ‘No way out: A briefing paper on foreign national women in prison in England and Wales’, (online), available at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/portals/0/documents/nowayout.pdf.

Footnotes

[1] The 2004 A8 accession countries include: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia. The 2007 A2 accession countries include: Bulgaria and Romania. In 2013 Croatia also joined the EU.

[2] See for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614279/Poland-tops-league-foreign-inmates-UK-jails-ahead-Ireland-Jamaica.html.

[3] See for example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3622924/EU-killers-rapists-ve-failed-deport-UK-s-inability-expel-thousands-foreign-criminals-undermines-case-EU-say-MPs.html, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2291020/more-than-130-polish-criminals-jailed-in-the-uk-should-have-been-deported-in-past-four-years-bungling-officials-admit/, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/eu-referendum-more-than-13000-foreign-criminals-awaiting-deportation-from-uk-a7063026.html.

[4] This rule also applies to all non-EEA nationals sentenced to more than 1 year in prison.

Advertisements

BSC Talking Points – David Honeywell, The purpose of prison.

On the first Monday of each month the BSC postgraduate community hold a talking points session on Facebook. Here we or a guest contributor pick a topic to discuss live on-line, in our facebook group, for an hour.

The BSC talking points series resumes this Monday 3rd October with a discussion led by David Honeywell. David is a convict criminologist and lecturer from University of York. David is nearing completion of his PhD that is about ex prisoners in higher education in relation to changing identities and desistance. 

Read David’s latest article in the conversation – ‘No wonder prisons are getting more violent, they’re full to the brim’ by David Honeywell – then join us on the facebook page , Monday 8-9pm for the next BSC Talking Points #getinvolved

 

Image credit: Peter Davidson

 

#BSCConf16 Poster Round-up UPDATED

Here is a selection of the posters presented at the conference today. Well done to Sian Lewis, PhD student at Loughborough University who is researching sexual harrasment on the London transport network. Her fabulous poster won the postgraduate poster prize. Many congratulations Sian!


@sianlewis89


H.williamson2@brighton.ac.uk

 20160707_141110-01(1)

 
@MatczakAnia

Damian.terrill@coventry.ac.uk

K1250368@kingston.ac.uk

@Jessicae13Eaton

@HippoMoom

@jamie_ferrill

@RealJoePayne

@northern_wonder

@charrrr_xx


@NicolaAHarding
Pictures courtesy of Charlene Crossley @Charrrr_xx

Don’t see yours? Tweet me @NicolaAHarding or Email Nicola.harding@stu.mmu.ac.uk and I will update the post, we would love to see them!

PhD Blog – Vulnerability in Police Custody: Implementing the Appropriate Adult Safeguard

This weeks contribution to the PhD blog is from Roxanna Dehaghani.

photo rox

Roxanna is a third year PhD candidate and Graduate Teaching Assistant at Leicester Law School, University of Leicester. She is also currently  a Visiting Scholar at the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast. Roxanna’s research, funded by the University of Leicester, focuses on the implementation of the appropriate adult safeguard in police custody, namely how an adult suspect comes to be recognised as vulnerable. This includes an examination of how custody officers define and identify vulnerability. Roxanna’s research has involved qualitative research methods, namely non-participant observation in custody and semi-structured interviews with custody officers.

The following blog post gives a brief overview of one of the elements of Roxanna’s doctoral work. If you would like to contact her you can email her roxanna.dehaghani@le.ac.uk or tweet her @roxanna_law.

Vulnerability in Police Custody: Implementing the Appropriate Adult Safeguard

 Vulnerable suspects – that is those who are under 18, or above 18 and with a ‘mental disorder’ or ‘mental vulnerability’ – should be provided with an appropriate adult when in police custody (see Code C to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)). See also Codes D and H). The appropriate adult safeguard is required to facilitate communication, support, assist and advise the suspect and ensure that the police are acting fairly (Code C 2014, para 11.17. See also Home Office Guide for Appropriate Adults 2011). In short, it is designed to protect the vulnerable suspect from providing false or misleading information – information that could lead to false conviction. However, as previous research has established, there are issues with its implementation in practice (Bean and Nemitz 1995; Bradley 2009; Brown, Ellis, and Larcombe 1992; Bucke and Brown 1997; Gudjonsson et al 1993; Irving and McKenzie, 1989; Medford, Gudjonsson and Pearse 2000; National Appropriate Adult Network 2015; Palmer and Hart 1996; Phillips and Brown 1998. See also Bradley 2009; Cummins 2007; McKinnon and Grubin 2010). In 2003, a study indicated that 600 vulnerable adults brought into custody within a month were not provided with an appropriate adult (Medford, Gudjonsson and Pearse 2003: 253). In relation to those with mental illness, an analysis of custody records in the East Midlands illustrated that an appropriate adult was only used in 38 instances (0.016%) rather than the estimated 14% (Bradley 2009: 43). The recent National Appropriate Adult Network report (2015: Paper A: 4) suggested that the issue is manifold – identification rates are low because of:

A lack of effective and systematic screening, a lack of training for the police, …no visual or behaviour clues…, the influence of alcohol or drugs complicating the assessment, a disregard of self-reporting, the failure to use historical information… to identify learning disabilities, [suspect reluctance to disclose], [the use of standardised questions].

Previous studies have, therefore, established that there are impediments to the identification of vulnerability and the implementation of the appropriate adult safeguard. On the whole they suggested that the issues lay with identification practices. Of course, failure to identify vulnerability or implement the appropriate adult safeguard may not necessarily lead to erroneous conviction – section 76 of PACE requires that the court exclude confessions which could be considered unreliable, and section 78 of PACE permits that the court exclude evidence where the fairness of the proceedings demand it. Early identification of vulnerability can, however, ensure that justice is delivered (or at least not delayed), thus protecting the integrity of the individual and the process. Considering that many cases fail to reach the courts due to the propensity with the English criminal justice system for plea-bargaining (see Criminal Justice Act (CJA 2003) 2003, s 144 (1)) and out-of-court disposals (CJA 2003 s 23) non-implementation has the potential for being costly as the failure to safeguard will remain undetected.

Identification is not the only factor in the implementation of the safeguard. For example, as Bean and Nemitz indicated, the issue lies not necessarily with how vulnerability is identified; rather it arises as a result of how custody officers make sense of the information provided to them (1995). The identification of vulnerability is subject to the custody officer’s construction of vulnerability (see Dehaghani, forthcoming). This construction may not necessarily marry with the Code C definition – it certainly did not align with my own interpretation of vulnerability. It is through unpacking and exploring how vulnerability is defined, in addition to how vulnerability is identified and why certain decisions are made, that we can arrive at a better understanding of the implementation of the appropriate adult safeguard in police custody.

References

Bean, P., and Nemitz, T. (1995), Out of depth and out of sight. Loughborough: University of Loughborough.

Bradley, K.J.C (2009), Review of People with Mental Health Problems or Learning Disabilities in the Criminal Justice System. London: Department of Health.

Brown, D., Ellis, T., and Larcombe, K. (1992), Changing the Code: Police Detention Under the Revised PACE codes of Practice (Home Office Research Study No 129). London: Home Office.

Bucke, T., and Brown, D. (1997), In Police Custody: Police Powers and Suspects’ Rights under the Revised PACE codes of practice (Home Office Research Study No 174). London: Home Office.

Cummins, I. (2007), ‘A Path Not Taken? Mentally Disordered Offenders and the Criminal Justice System’ Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 28 (3-4), 267-281.

Dehaghani, R. (forthcoming), ‘He’s just not that vulnerable: Exploring the Implementation of the Appropriate Adult Safeguard in Police Custody’ Howard Journal of Crime and Justice.

Gudjonsson, G., Clare, I., Rutter, S. and Pearse, J. (1993), Persons at Risk During Interviews in Police Custody: The Identification of Vulnerabilities (Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure Research Study No 12). London: Home Office.

Home Office (2014), Revised Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers. Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, Code C. London: Crown.

Home Office (2014), Revised code of practice in connection with detention, treatment and questioning by police officers under the Terrorism Act 2000. Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. Code H. London: Crown.

Home Office (2010), Code of Practice for the Identification of Persons by Police Officers. Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. Code D. London: Crown.

Irving, B., and Mckenzie, I. (1989), Police Interrogation: The Effects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. London: Police Foundation.

Medford, S., Gudjonsson, G.H. and Pearse, J. (2003), ‘The efficacy of the appropriate adult safeguard during police interviewing’ Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8(2), 253-266.

McKinnon, I. and Grubin, D. (2010) ‘Health screening in police custody’ Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 17, 209–212.

National Appropriate Adult Network (2015), There to help: Ensuring provision of appropriate adults for mentally vulnerable adults detained or interviewed by police. National Appropriate Adult Network.

Palmer, C. and Hart, M. (1996), A PACE in the right direction?: The effectiveness of safeguards in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for mentally disordered and mentally handicapped suspects – A South Yorkshire Study. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.

Phillips, C. and Brown, D. (1998), Entry into the Criminal Justice System: A Survey of Police Arrests and their Outcomes (Home Office Research Study No 185). London: Home Office.

Legislation

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

Criminal Justice Act 2003