Separation in Oakhill secure training centre

This is an extremely busy period for the Howard League. If you follow our work closely, you will know that we are raising awareness about the scale of the prison overcrowding crisis and putting forward proposals for a lasting solution. We have submitted evidence to an independent review of sentencing and are poised to respond to its final report, which is expected within days. We have convened an expert panel to explore how we can end the IPP scandal for good. And we will shortly announce news about the steps we have taken to challenge the government’s decision to allow PAVA spray to be used on children.

To this long list we can add that we have issued legal proceedings in the High Court, because a secure training centre has been locking up children and young people alone in their rooms for longer than the law allows.

Oakhill is a secure training centre in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, run by G4S. It holds up to 80 boys and girls, aged 12 to 19, who are deemed too vulnerable to be accommodated in a young offender institution. It was rated as inadequate by Ofsted, HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in their last full inspection in October 2024, “because of significant shortfalls in the help and protection of children, especially in the use of single separation”. (“Single separation” is a technical term that comes up in inspection reports from time to time; you also see “removal from association”, or “segregation”, or “separation”, or “isolation”, which all mean, effectively, the same thing – children being held alone, away from other children.)

We have been raising concerns with the Youth Custody Service, which monitors G4S’s contract, and Oakhill since April 2024, about the policies and practices of separating children held at Oakhill. These concerns, together with the serious criticisms made by Ofsted, HMIP and CQC, appear to have led to a revision of the policies governing removal from association at Oakhill, but there are still problems, and now we have applied to the court for permission to proceed with a claim for a judicial review.

Locking children alone in their rooms for lengthy periods can have a serious adverse impact on their mental health.

We say that a new policy, which came into force at Oakhill in February 2025, is unlawful. Staff have been told that they can keep a child alone in their room for longer than three hours in a 24-hour period, if they observe and speak to the child through their door at five-minute intervals. This is contrary to Rule 36(3) of the secure training centre rules, which imposes a clear three-hour time limit on the separation, even if a child is observed.

It is well established that children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects associated with isolation from others, and locking children alone in their rooms for lengthy periods can have a serious adverse impact on their mental health.

The damaging impact of isolation is recognised in the Ministry of Justice’s own policies. The Managing and Minimising Separation policy, which applies in all custodial settings holding children, highlights the dangers, including: “Exposing children to physiological and mental stresses can result in learning difficulties, behavioural problems and health problems…Being locked up for long periods of time can result in feelings of apathy, depression and a loss of hope which can harm relationships with members of staff…Isolating children for long periods can increase the likelihood of conflict and violence and may be counterproductive to the rehabilitative aims of the secure setting.”

Given the younger age and increased vulnerability of children detained in secure training centres, the rules governing when a child might be removed from association, and for how long they can be locked alone in their rooms, are far stricter than the rules which apply in young offender institutions. However, the current policy gives children at Oakhill even less protection than children held in YOIs, where there are statutory procedures requiring internal and external scrutiny of the decision to separate a child.

We expect to hear the government’s response next month, and then the court will decide whether the case should proceed to a full hearing.

Sinead MacCann
Managing Solicitor

Comments

• Amanda Swan says:

  8 Jun 2025 at 2:17 pm

  I still find myself extremely passionate about these areas of ‘criminal justice’ as a psychotherapist and mother myself. Knowing from personal and professional experience how our environment shapes us, even when we are exposed short term to adverse conditions. I try to understand the government’s motives for this kind of treatment and I can’t find a good one. It’s not detaining always for safely – it’s taking a child from one bad situation to another, but the second one is not so obvious in the short term although becomes so apparent in the long term. I’m trying to find a constructive role in the criminal justice system so that I can help support this cause as well as do my own private practice work. Keep up the good work Howard League, I closely observing your work.

  Reply