Official Reports Major prison reports often arise through politically embarrassing scandals. Recent inquiries have included the Woolf Report (1991) on prison uprisings and the Learmont Report (1995) on escapes by Category A prisoners. In addition, under the terms of Prison Service Order 1300, there have been a number of small scale prison inquiries examining controversies such as assaults on prisoners by staff, prisoner on prisoner violence, and allegations of racism. Since 2001 the Prison Service Investigations Unit has been responsible for internal reports. Prisoner complaints, suicides and other deaths in custody are reported on by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman as and when required, whilst Independent Monitoring Boards produce regular reports on the prison under their jurisdiction. Additionally the HM Chief Inspectorate reports on regular prison inspections as well as providing influential thematic studies. The authors of these official reports act as “authorities of delimitation” (Foucault, 1972: 41), authorizing a particular knowledge as the ‘true’ version of events. The key to understanding their role is through grasping the complex relationship between power, knowledge and the production of “truths”. Knowledge is not objectively or impartially fashioned. Rather knowledge is created or produced through the exercise of power, what Foucault described as the power/knowledge axis. Established in each society is a “regime of truth” (Foucault, 1980: 133). That is the political, economic and institutional mechanisms and procedures that originate, regulate, circulate and distribute statements pertaining to provide accurate descriptions of reality. It is through such a regime that distinctions between true and false statements are made. Official Reports are publications from government bodies such as the home office, national offender management service and the prison service. They are the official source of knowledge on how prisons operate, and include the publication of annual report and accounts, corporate plans, and framework documents. An official report may also be a specially commissioned inquiry into a problem acknowledged by the government as requiring high profile investigation, such as the Keith Report (2006).
Transcript
Official Reports
Major prison reports often arise through politically embarrassing scandals. Recent
inquiries have included the Woolf Report (1991) on prison uprisings and the Learmont
Report (1995) on escapes by Category A prisoners. In addition, under the terms of
Prison Service Order 1300, there have been a number of small scale prison inquiries
examining controversies such as assaults on prisoners by staff, prisoner on prisoner
violence, and allegations of racism. Since 2001 the Prison Service Investigations Unit has
been responsible for internal reports. Prisoner complaints, suicides and other deaths in
custody are reported on by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman as and when
required, whilst Independent Monitoring Boards produce regular reports on the prison
under their jurisdiction. Additionally the HM Chief Inspectorate reports on regular
prison inspections as well as providing influential thematic studies.
The authors of these official reports act as “authorities of delimitation” (Foucault,
1972: 41), authorizing a particular knowledge as the ‘true’ version of events. The key to
understanding their role is through grasping the complex relationship between power,
knowledge and the production of “truths”. Knowledge is not objectively or impartially
fashioned. Rather knowledge is created or produced through the exercise of power,
what Foucault described as the power/knowledge axis. Established in each society is a
“regime of truth” (Foucault, 1980: 133). That is the political, economic and institutional
mechanisms and procedures that originate, regulate, circulate and distribute statements
pertaining to provide accurate descriptions of reality. It is through such a regime that
distinctions between true and false statements are made.
Official Reports are publications from government bodies such as the home
office, national offender management service and the prison service. They are
the official source of knowledge on how prisons operate, and include the
publication of annual report and accounts, corporate plans, and framework
documents. An official report may also be a specially commissioned inquiry
into a problem acknowledged by the government as requiring high profile
investigation, such as the Keith Report (2006).
The regime of truth is exclusionary in that it places narrow confines on what can
be deemed as worthy of attention. Only certain ways of thinking are considered
appropriate and the discursive structure both rules in and rules out certain ways of
interpreting events What becomes constructed as the legitimate interpretation is linked
with hierarchies of credibility and power. For knowledge to be utilised the ‘knower’
must establish a right to speak, as the authority of a statement is linked to the status of
the speaker. Not all voices will be heard, and not all speakers are viewed with the same
standing or subsequently invested with the ability to provide a ‘truthful’ account of
events and circumstances. It is not just what is said, but also who says it. Each
statement maps out both its present usage and, as each statement leads on to further
statements, lays the parameters of what can be said in the future. The statements of
official reports are both instrumental in the production and reproduction of power
relations. In other words they perform a central role in how “penal truth” (Sim, 1994) is
institutionalised.
Though official inquiries present themselves as open and “entirely independent
of government” (Keith, 2006: 9), providing a thorough, comprehensive and impartial
account, they are not written within a power vacuum. They constitute, and are
constituted by, official penal discourse. Official Reports are a ‘view from above’,
disseminating authorised knowledge and defining and setting the parameters or scope
of a problem and possible means of resolution. As a result, certain ways of conceiving
imprisonment are presented as legitimate whilst others are de-legitimated and
effectively defined out or marginalised as ‘irrational’ social policy options.
For Burton & Carlen (1979: 13, 48) the function of official inquiries is “primarily
to allay, suspend and close off popular doubt” through representing “failure as
temporary, or no failure at all, and to re-establish the image of administrative and legal
coherence and rationality”. Through remedying “legitimacy deficits” (Ibid: 95), official
reports renew or guarantee the authority of the institutions of the capitalist state,
performing closure to debate and erasing contesting or critical approaches. They limit
damage by pointing out that after all the crises which led to the deployment of the
inquiry were not as serious as first thought, or that the failures uncovered are temporary
blips that can be easily rectified though new procedural reforms or closer adherence to
existing policies.
Yet official reports do not normally provide a whitewash. More likely, they
incorporate and re-articulate criticism within official discourses. In this way certain
problems and social harms are re-contextualized so that their potential to undermine the
legitimacy of official penal reality is dramatically curtailed. This being said, official
reports cannot address the deeply ingrained crises of moral and political penal
illegitimacy. They sidestep such issues by predicating their analysis upon individual
pathologies or, more progressively, focusing upon institutional cultures rather than
locating the prison within its broader socio-economic, political, or structural contexts.
In order to effectively analyze official inquiries it is necessary then to have an
appreciation of how they are influenced by other recent government publications. More
specifically, questions should be asked regarding the circumstances in which the report
was commissioned; who were the authors and advisors and their depth of expertise;
what timescale restraints were imposed; what was the administrative support and legal
powers of the inquiry; what were the terms of references and their interpretation; what
was the methodology adopted; what range of people submitted evidence; which voices
were privileged or denied legitimacy; what were the recommendations, how did they
conform or deviate from existing knowledges, and what was the response of
government.
A recent official inquiry that illustrates these themes is the Keith Report,
published 29th June 2006. This investigated Robert Stewart’s violent attack on his “pad
mate” Zahid Mubarek the night before Zahid was due to be released from Feltham YOI.
Zahid died eight days later on 28th March 2000. A public inquiry into the events which
led up to the murder, and how similar events could be prevented, followed a protracted
legal struggle brought by Zahids Uncle, Imtiaz Amin. Though the chairman of the
inquiry, Mr Justice Keith, adopted an open methodology, holding public hearings,
seminars and focus groups, and undertaking an extensive documentary review, he
interpreted the terms of reference in a restrictive way. In a bulky report (volume one
was to total 552 pages), Keith (2006: 32) maintained that he was not required to “provide
a comprehensive account of all the reasons for any systemic shortcomings which may
have contributed to what happened to Zahid”.
Although some prisoner evidence was accepted as reliable, their credibility was
generally cast in a negative light. For example, Keith (2006: 500) stated that with regards
to prisoners detailing previous offences and racist beliefs, “[i]nvariablly what the
prisoner says is not reliable … There is no reason to suppose that prisoners always tell
the truth”. 25 of the 63 chapters in volume one focus on the catalogue of failures to
identify or address Stewart’s problems. Yet here Keith simply reproduced dominant
official discourses, constructing Stewart’s racism and violence within medical
knowledges and individual pathologies on severe personality disorder.
The inquiry operated within the official definition of “institutional racism”
adopted by Lord Macpherson in his report on the death of Stephen Lawrence in 1999.
Feltham was “infected” (Ibid: 31) with institutional racism, and Keith provided a
damning account of the systemic failings of prison staff to adhere to procedural
guidelines (when they existed), and the dominance of a culture rooted in indifference
and insensitivity to racial and religious differences. Keith did recommend expanding
the current definition of institutional racism to include “institutional religious
intolerance”, though had to confess that this was “not a topic which the inquiry has
investigated” (Ibid: 546).
The 88 recommendations of the report largely proposed amendments or greater
adherence to prison service policies, sending a reassuring message that “much of what
would have been recommended is now in place” and that “many of the systematic
shortcomings this report has laid bare have been eliminated” (Ibid: 443). Keith did
question the evidence of some prison officers, naming and shaming those who he
deemed culpable, but was largely supportive of a prison service that was doing “the best
it can with the resources its has” (Ibid: 552). The report created closure, but failed to
consider the legitimacy of imprisonment within the exclusionary policies of state racism.
Official reports then, operate within given regimes of truth, clawing back
credibility and legitimacy. Certain explanations, solutions, and subjugated knowledges
are denied space, whilst the location of the prison with wider structural fault lines is
excluded from analysis, leading to the production of sanctioned knowledges,
circumventing acknowledgement of the crises of penal legitimacy.
Key texts and sources
Burton, F. & Carlen, P. (1979) Official Discourse: on discourse analysis, government publications, ideology and the state London: RKP Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology Of Knowledge London: Routledge Foucault, M. (1980) “Truth and Power” pp 109-133 in Gordon, C. (ed) (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977 by Michel Foucault London: Longman
Gilligan, G. & Pratt, J. (eds) (2004) Crime, Truth and Justice: Official inquiry, discourse,
knowledge Cullompton: Willan Keith, B. (2006) The Zahid Mubarek Inquiry: volume one London: TSO Sim, J. (1994) “Reforming the penal wasteland? A critical review of the Wolf Report” pp 31–45 in Player, E. & Jenkins, M. (eds) (1994) Prisons After Woolf: Reform Through Riot London: Routledge
