Not so multicultural prison: Polish prisoners in a transitional prison system

Introduction

Annually, over 10,000 foreign nationals are detained in UK in prisons and Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs). As of 31 March 2014, their number in England and Wales stood at 10,649, constituting 12 per cent of the overall prison population (Ministry of Justice, 2014: 8). In Northern Ireland, on which this article concentrates, they make up 8 per cent of the overall population (NIPS, 2014). While foreign national prisoners in the UK (including in Northern Ireland) constitute a diverse group (Cooney, 2013), available research evidence suggests that they share many vulnerabilities in prison: language barriers; problems with family contact; difficulties in accessing information, services and assistance; and the ever-present threat of deportation (Bhui, 2004; HMCIP, 2006, 2007; Prison Reform Trust, 2004, 2012). Many report isolation within prison regimes, mental health difficulties, anxiety caused by unresolved immigration issues and lack of preparation for release. Their understanding of the criminal justice process and of life in prisons in the UK is often limited (Bhui, 2004, 2007).

The growing body of research focusing on the issues faced by foreign national prisoners in both the penal and immigration detention estates is often framed with reference to their unequal access to prison regimes and services and developing recommendations for prison policies aimed at redressing such inequality. A body of work has recently been developed in relation to their experiences of prison-facilitated border control (Bosworth, 2011; Kaufman, 2012) and to the meaning of identity within the context of the ever-closer relationship between the criminal justice and immigration control systems (Bosworth, 2012). Notwithstanding this work, there remains little consideration of how prisoners of different nationalities negotiate their life inside prisons and what their relationships with other prisoners and staff are like (but see Dirkzwager and Kruttshnitt, 2012; Kruttschnitt et al., 2013). Their direct voices are largely muted in recent prison ethnographies, even those which otherwise take a detailed look at inter-prisoner relationships and which include foreign national prisoners in their interview sample (Phillips, 2012). In particular, White European foreign national prisoners, such as those of Polish origin, do not fit neatly with the current understanding of race relations and racism (Crewe, 2009; Edgar and Martin, 2004; Genders and Player, 1989; Phillips, 2008, 2012). More generally, the daily lives of foreign national prisoners remain ‘one of the most routinely overlooked aspects of imprisonment’ (Kaufman, 2012: 701), leaving a significant gap in our understanding.

The study conducted by the author with a group of Polish male prisoners in HMP Maghaberry (high security) and HMP Magilligan (medium security) was aimed at addressing this gap. The overall aim of the research was to consider how prisoners, individually and as a group, negotiate their time in custody in a changing prison system, and to provide critical analysis of their experiences. As part of this analysis, the following article focuses on how Polish prisoners develop and maintain relationships with each other; how they relate to other prisoners and staff, and how they make sense of the prison regime. Before turning to the details of this discussion, it is important, however, to set out the context of their imprisonment.

Research Context and Methodology

Unlike England and Wales, the ‘multicultural prison’ (Phillips, 2012) is new to Northern Ireland, which has little history of diversity among either prisoners or staff. Instead, many histories of incarceration here are linked to the history of a violent conflict. From the use of detention without trial in the late 1960s and early 1970s in an attempt to quell dissent, to the imprisonment of large numbers of Republican and Loyalist prisoners throughout the conflict (McEvoy, 2001; McKeown, 2001), prisons ‘not only served to contain resistance but were also sites to “break” prisoners, deny their political status and enforce restrictive and brutalising regimes’ (Wahidin et al., 2012: 458). Seventeen years after the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement of 1998 (the Agreement), and the release of the majority of politically motivated prisoners, the conflict continues to cast a long shadow over prisons in Northern Ireland. HMP Maghaberry accommodates around 100 separated (paramilitary) prisoners every day (PRT, 2011a: 81). The death of David Black, a prison officer shot dead on his way to work in November 2012, serves as a stark reminder that staff (29 of whom lost their lives earlier in the conflict) remain under threat from dissident Republican paramilitary groups.

The continuing impact of the jurisdiction’s violent past is evident in the daily running of the prisons. Unlike the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland), reformed after the so-called Patten Report (Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, 1999), the Prison Service did not see a ‘regime change’ immediately after the Agreement. Since 1998, subsequent inspections of Northern Ireland’s three prisons documented a system struggling to focus on appropriate provision in the areas of prisoner care and safety and to address appropriately over 1500 recommendations for improvement made by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI NI) between 2005 and 2011 (PRT, 2011a: 29; see also Wahidin et al., 2012 for a more detailed discussion).

The continued criticism and the lack of significant progress in implementing the changes led to the establishment in 2010 of the Prison Review Team, led by Dame Anne Owers, former Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales. The Prison Review Team’s interim report, published in February 2011, found that the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) ‘had become a demoralised and dysfunctional service, resigned to bad press and routine criticism’ (PRT, 2011a: 4) and that despite high levels of spending (estimated at the time of the report at £95,000 per prisoner per year), ‘the service is not effectively contributing towards a safer society, and there are serious problems of governance, accountability, performance and culture’ (PRT, 2011a: 9). Security-focused approaches to prison management were a direct consequence of the way in which the Service operated during the conflict (PRT, 2011a: 11) and all three prisons were found to have ‘unacceptably poor regimes, which waste resources and do not allow prisoners access to the activities and interventions they need to support change and reduce reoffending’ (PRT, 2011a: 12). The hard-hitting report summarized the changes required at all levels: from vision and mission of the prison system, its management, staff recruitment and training, approaches to rehabilitation and resettlement, the provision of appropriate healthcare, to addressing finally the inadequate physical facilities, in particular for women and young offenders (PRT, 2011a, 2011b). The Prison Review Team made 40 different recommendations. In the first two years since the final report, four of those recommendations have been assessed as implemented (PROG, 2013: 26).

In the shadow of the recently undertaken programme of reform, another, less visible transition in the prisons has been evident and it is this transition that directly influenced the author’s research interest in this area. In recent years, Northern Ireland witnessed an unprecedented level of inward migration, partly facilitated by the end of large scale armed violence (McVeigh, 2015; Martynowicz and Jarman, 2009). According to the 2011 Census, the proportion in the general population of those born outside of the UK and Ireland ¹ increased to 4.5 per cent from 2.5 per cent in 2001 (NINIS, 2002, 2012). The proportion of Black and Minority Ethnic communities increased from 1 per cent to 2 per cent in the same time (Northern Ireland Assembly, 2013: 3). Alongside this change in the general population, the prison population changed radically as well. Statistics published by the NIPS show that at the end of 2013, there were 142 foreign national prisoners across the three prisons (including 17 women), constituting 8 per cent of the prison population (for women, this proportion increases to nearly 29 per cent; NIPS, 2014). Fifty-six per cent of those prisoners are on remand (NIPS, 2014: 11). The increasing diversity by nationality is also evident, with 21 prisoners from 10 countries held at Magilligan Prison in 2010 (CJI NI, 2010) and Maghaberry holding prisoners from 22 different countries in 2009 (CJI NI, 2009). The trend in imprisonment of foreign nationals has replicated the tendency observed elsewhere in the UK of their over-representation in prison in comparison to the numbers in the community (Banks, 2011; Kaufman and Bosworth, 2013). Ironically, the ‘prisoner society’ is now much more diverse than many communities on the outside.

As alluded to above, foreign national prisoners in Northern Ireland are held in a system which overall struggles to adapt to provision for peacetime populations. In its final report published in October 2011, the Prison Review Team observed that foreign national prisoners have largely been unsupported (PRT, 2011b: 34). Their treatment exhibited ‘a considerable degree of cultural and racial blindness’ (PRT, 2011b: 39) with prisoners reporting varying degrees of discriminatory attitudes and treatment by prison staff. Prisoners reported feeling depressed and isolated, a feeling compounded by difficulties in access to visits or telephone calls to their relatives or friends. However, of the 40 recommendations made by the Prison Review Team in 2011, only one refers directly to the situation of foreign national prisoners, stipulating that an improvement is required in the keeping of records of the use of interpretation and that support groups should be established for those prisoners in all prisons (PRT, 2011b: 39).

Despite some progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Prison Review Team, many challenges remain. Thus, while praising the introduction of systems to monitor the diversity of the prison population, the Prison Review Oversight Group commented that ‘the key issue is the actual provision of services that reflect the societal and cultural needs of foreign national prisoners’ (PROG, 2013: 22). The Oversight Group was still ‘to be convinced that such “real support” is being offered’ (PROG, 2013: 22). Additionally, as the diversity of the prison population in Northern Ireland increases, this is not matched by an increase in the diversity of staff. Across all prisons, the vast majority of staff are male, White and Protestant (at Maghaberry Prison, for example, in 2012 over 80 per cent of prison grade staff came from the Protestant community; CJI NI, 2012: 65). ² The recruitment in 2013 of prison grade staff (first in 17 years), while potentially renewing the skills pool, has been marked by a ‘relative lack of balance in community representation’ (PROG, 2013: 8) and the Prison Service still needs to ‘ensure that the workforce is representative of the community’ (PROG, 2013: 23).

This overall context constituted the background to this research. During the first stage of fieldwork, 13 Polish prisoners held in HMP Maghaberry (high security) and HMP Magilligan (medium security) took part in either in-depth, formal, semi-structured interviews (nine) or a small group interview (four). ³ All interviewees self-selected following initial presentations of the research during the Foreign National Forum in both prisons. One interviewee asked to be added to the list on the advice of another. In addition to formal interviews, two other prisoners participated in lengthy informal conversations. ⁴

Seven of the formal individual interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed, as was the small group interview. Contemporaneous notes were taken of the other two interviews. In the interviews, prisoners were asked to explore a variety of their experiences, including histories of migration to Northern Ireland, their individual circumstances before coming to prison and their experiences of prison life, as well as their plans after release. While not asked specifically about the details of their cases or histories of offending, the majority of interviewees made reference to those throughout the meetings. Formal interviews in Maghaberry Prison took place in a classroom in the Offender Management Unit, while the small group interview in Magilligan took place in a classroom on a residential unit. All conversations took place in private, out of earshot and without the physical presence of staff. In addition to formal and informal individual conversations, contextual notes were taken during the observation of five meetings of the Polish Foreign National Forum (four in Maghaberry and one in Magilligan Prison) held between September 2013 and June 2014, and following all prison visits. ⁵ The study was approved by the University Research Ethics Committee at Ulster University, and access was granted and facilitated by the Northern Ireland Prison Service.

The decision to focus the research on one specific group was dictated by two factors. First, despite the existing recognition of their diversity (Cooney, 2013), the experiences of foreign national prisoners are often presented as being somehow those of a homogenous group. By focusing on Polish prisoners, it was hoped to achieve a detailed insight into the experiences of one group with a shared national identity and to explore how, if at all, that shared identity impacts on their experiences of prison, their relationships with other prisoners and prison staff. Second, as a fluently bi-lingual researcher (Polish–English), the author was able to interview prisoners in their first language, avoiding therefore the issues arising out of working with interpreters, where meanings can be ‘lost in translation’ (Van Nes et al., 2010) or need to be actively negotiated through third persons’ understanding of what is being said (Temple and Young, 2004). ⁶ This created the opportunity not only to engage deeply with meaning, but also with the language of incarceration developed by prisoners, sometimes bearing the marks of previous experiences of custody in Poland, at other times newly constructed from English terms, adjusted by prisoners to ‘fit in’ with the Polish language and its meaning in a prison environment. These constructions of meaning are part of the development of their own coping mechanisms, passed on to new prisoners as part of the peer-to-peer induction on which they often depend to adjust to life behind prison walls. It was also hoped that engaging with prisoners in their first language will ensure that their voices break out of the ‘total institution’ (Goffman, 1961) in which they are often doubly silenced through both the power relationships in prisons, as well as their unfamiliarity with the English language and resulting inability of many to express their views. In relation to the research process itself, being a bi-lingual researcher was not, however, without its own ethical challenges. In particular, the author was asked on numerous occasions by prisoners and staff to assist with interpretation, and by prisoners to help with information and conveying requests to staff. Inevitably, the author’s presence, therefore, had a significant impact on the research environment and the actions of both prisoners and staff that were of interest to this study.

Negotiating Life in a Changing Prison

The first stage of fieldwork for the research took place between September 2013 and June 2014. The interviews encompassed a complex mix of those who served sentences of different lengths for offences committed in Northern Ireland; were held on remand for offences committed in Northern Ireland; were held in detention pending a decision in extradition proceedings, having been previously sentenced for offences committed in Poland and those who were held in detention pending a decision in European Arrest Warrant proceedings on charges which were yet to be considered. At the time of the first interviews, none were subject to an immigration warrant relating to deportation proceedings after sentence. The difference in individual circumstances meant that the interviewees’ focus in relation to their time in prison varied – some concentrating on ‘doing time’ but not engaging with the prison regime; some engaging with work and education; others still very much focused on their cases and contacts with legal representatives and the courts, with little engagement with the prison regime or the prison life more generally.

The issues identified in brief in the reports of the Prison Review Team and the Prison Review Oversight Group referred to above, were clearly mirrored in the prisoners’ experiences. Overall, there appeared to be little attempt to integrate prisoners from this group in the male prisons, and initiatives such as the Foreign National Forum, while a positive development, struggled at the time to provide a structure for effective support. The interviews gave the impression of a life in a very fragmented prison and despite the proclamation of one of the interviewees that prisoners on his wing treat each other ‘like family’, there was little evidence of that familiarity in the testimonies of others. In contrast to the view of Bosworth’s (2012: 133) interviewees, who asserted that in their experience nationality was often subsumed by a shared prisoner identity, there was little evidence of a collective identity stretching beyond the national group. While occasionally reaching out to others, either to offer assistance or just to socialize, Polish prisoners often referred to their ‘lack of need’ to integrate into or to be part of the broader ‘prisoner society’ (Crewe, 2009). It was difficult to discern whether this was a result of a conscious decision not to get involved, or a reaction to the way in which the prison itself isolated them in many cases. Instead, they drifted towards each other and actively sought opportunities to be placed on the same wings and to share cells. There was little indication that their desire to connect with each other was an expression of loyalty (Crewe, 2014) driven by shared nationality. However, they sought company, information and support from other Polish prisoners which, as Crewe (2009: 364) observed in a broader context, ‘buffered them from insecurities and hardships’ of prison life. The desire to remain close to one’s own national group was very much dictated by the opportunity to communicate with others, which suggests the creation of a pragmatic group identity: ‘because of the language, you know, because I’ve been with other Polish prisoners here all that time now … it’s best to be with another Polish [prisoner], right?’ (Interview 1).

As alluded to earlier, Polish prisoners often asked to share cells to aid such communication and alleviate social isolation and staff answered those requests positively in many cases. Being together helped prisoners to take part in informal networks of support in the prison, an arrangement of particular importance to those whose command of English was poor. At the time of the first stage of the fieldwork, prisoners regularly reported that no written information was available to them on induction, other than a brief description of how to access healthcare, and they found the initial days in custody particularly difficult. Other Polish prisoners were, therefore, the source for those newly committed of finding out the details of the operation of the prison regime and on occasion also of signposting to lawyers and other sources of support and advice. As one interviewee explained, ‘I didn’t get [any information], it was one of the other prisoners or one of the Polish guys who have been here for longer, they told me what is what, explained’ (Interview 2).

When an opportunity arose to meet others from across the prison (for example, in English classes, at Mass or during the Foreign National Forum), those meetings were often used to exchange news and information in a larger group. One of the interviewees joked that ‘[e]veryone knows everything that’s going on, I don’t know how [laughs]’ (Interview 2), stressing the importance of those formal and informal meetings as a coping mechanism. Due to their much smaller number in Magilligan prison, Polish prisoners were spread across the different houses and often lived on their own. There, they made reference to their time in Maghaberry (where they all would have been at some stage, on remand) being ‘better’ despite it being a prison with stricter rules, as ‘doing time’ was easier in a larger group. No matter which prison, however, the opportunities to meet outside of the scheduled activity were rare, and the feelings of isolation therefore greater for those who did not benefit from being accommodated with other Polish prisoners. There is no question that wanting to be together as much as possible was part of the adaptation to the prison regime; being in a group alleviated some of the vulnerability resulting from being imprisoned abroad and played an important part in dealing with the pains of confinement (Sykes, 1958), that were amplified by linguistic exclusion and lack of structured support.

While mostly not trying purposefully to situate themselves as ‘separate and different from the majority of other prisoners’ (Phillips, 2008: 324), the interviewees did on occasion underline some distinction with reference to their particular national group. Recalling a number of occasions when ‘Irish’ prisoners damaged their cells on the wing in outbursts of violence, one of the interviewees stated, for example, how ‘[u]s, Polish, we don’t do these kinds of things’ (Interview 1). Some of the Polish prisoners interviewed also made a point of stating that they ‘do not do drugs’ like the ‘local’ prisoners do. While aware of the background to the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland, most expressed the preference of ‘staying out of it’ and recalled positive experiences of their life in local communities before coming to prison. Interestingly, however, while declaring wanting to ‘stay out of’ the sectarian divide, many appeared to have internalized the language of such divisions while referring to ‘Irish’ or ‘British’ prisoners to describe the ‘local’ prison population, as well as attempting at times to identify other prisoners with reference to their assumed religious and political affiliation. This distinction was often based on their presumptions of the others’ identity rather than any experience of the person’s actual background but the legacy of the conflict was clearly present in their attempts at making sense of their situation and in the ways they were treated by other prisoners and staff.

Direct experience of sectarianism was rare, but for some Polish prisoners differential treatment because of their perceived religion was a source of great anxiety. One interviewee in particular recalled how another prisoner called him a ‘Fenian bastard’ (an abusive term used to describe Irish Catholics) during exercise. That experience came as a shock to him as he has not been subjected to sectarianism in the community. The interviewee felt very uncomfortable and was concerned about his safety from then on, saying:

Life is stressful here, it really is. … Because, you know, I am a Catholic and there is this Catholic/Protestant thing. … I’ve been living in Protestant areas for years, didn’t have any problems. … Never. But what’s happening in here is really… you have to be careful. (Interview 3)

In general, prisoners described a somewhat distant relationship with other prisoners on the wings. Understandably, it was easier for those prisoners who speak English to forge relationships with other prisoners, across different national groups. One interviewee recalled how he often invited ‘Irish’ prisoners to his cell for a chat and how he was on good terms with a number of Lithuanian prisoners on the wing (Interview 5). Another described how he tried to help anyone that joined his wing ‘because you have local prisoners coming in and they don’t have a clue either. Why wouldn’t I help if someone needs help?’ (Interview 3). Despite those individual attempts at contact, when asked about their relationship with other prisoners, the interviewees mostly provided short answers such as ‘it’s fine’. Co-existence based on the principle of ‘live and let live’ appeared to be the norm, as one interviewee explained, ‘I can’t complain. There are exchanges sometimes, you know, but no, everything’s fine. If you don’t look for trouble, everything’s fine’ (Interview 2).

Just as with other prisoners, relationships with staff appeared mostly distant. Adding to this distance was the language barrier, and very few interviewees reported interpretation being used on the wings. Even in what can be called ‘official’ meetings, such as those regarding sentence planning, prisoners often had to insist on an interpreter being provided rather than this provision being automatic for those who did not have sufficient English (Small group interview 1). The prisoners’ main reason to communicate with staff on the wings was to make a request or get additional information; as one prisoner put it, ‘I just don’t talk to them very much, there is no need’ (Interview 2). Those who otherwise felt isolated in the prison appreciated more active engagement from staff, mentioning by name those officers who stopped to have a chat or to ask them whether they needed any assistance. A couple of interviewees mentioned officers who learned a few words in Polish (such as ‘good morning/dzień dobry’ or ‘hello/cześć’), stating that they appreciated the effort on the part of those individuals to communicate with them, even on a very basic level. Openly hostile behaviour from staff was rarely referred to in the interviews and while describing some individual officers as ‘crazies’ (Interview 4), or, with a bit of irony, as ‘jokers’ (Small group interview 1), they were perceived to be an exception (Interview 5). Generally, ‘problematic’ officers were perceived as such by all or almost all prisoners on certain wings, regardless of nationality. However, on the occasions when openly racist comments from staff did occur, these were of a serious nature, and prisoners provided examples of resistance to being stereotyped and actively challenging staff behaviour. One interviewee recalled being asked if he was ‘a communist’ and being shouted at in German while on his way to work reporting that ‘[the officer said] “schneller, raus!”, in German, you know’ (Interview 6). ⁷ He further recalled how he told the officer in question that he would complain directly to the Governor, bypassing ‘official procedures’ of complaining to a Senior Officer on the wing: ‘It wasn’t even two minutes before he [the officer] came into my cell, shook my hand, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry”, and so on’ (Interview 6).

While this event provides an example of when Polish prisoners successfully challenged inappropriate staff behaviour, others expressed frustration that their complaints were not translated or appropriately handled and sometimes sounded resigned to the differential treatment ‘[b]ecause you know, let’s be honest now, they did not ask for us to be here, right?’ (Interview 1). That latter sentiment can also be indicative of their more general relationship with the country in which they have been imprisoned. The majority of interviewees have lived in Northern Ireland for quite some time, nine years being the longest. None had any immediate plans to go back to Poland and they often linked their plans after release to remaining in Northern Ireland, re-establishing their lives on the outside. They often stated their new (geographical) belonging clearly, with one interviewee saying: ‘I am from [names a place in Northern Ireland]’ – (Interview 4), indicating strong identification with his new ‘home’. Another recalled how his challenging his extradition was important as he planned to remain here for years to come because ‘I’ve lived here for [many] years and I will live here for [many] more years. My life is here’ (Interview 5).

Their feelings of national belonging may have largely been unchanged, with one interviewee proclaiming ‘I was born Polish and I will die Polish!’ (Interview 7) but their post-release plans were clear: they wanted to go back to work, continue or re-establish their relationships with families and friends, settle back into their routines outside of the prison walls in their ‘new’ communities in Northern Ireland. They were, however, very mindful that their plans may come to an abrupt end if they get deported at the end of their sentence, many becoming visibly unnerved after they received deportation paperwork. Nervousness, combined with confusion, was always palpable when interviews were held not long after they received the paperwork from the then UK Border Agency. They were asked to fill in complex and long questionnaires in English about many details of their lives, including about their offence and sentence. The frustration with the process was clear – prisoners did not know what the forms were for; they did not know what the decision-making process regarding deportation is; no-one explained to them how to prepare for deportation; what to do with their belongings outside; how to transfer money from their bank accounts and so on. Stories and advice were exchanged in meetings, with prisoners reflecting on previous experiences of people they knew to have been deported before them. Their reactions were varied – from open defiance and refusal to sign any documents before proper consultation with lawyers, to quiet acceptance of the fact that their time in Northern Ireland will come to an abrupt end on the date of their release from prison. Not everyone, however, wanted to stay: ‘if I’m not deported, I will stay two, maybe three months, to earn some money … and then I’m going back to Poland. … I don’t like this country, most people don’t. … it’s a dangerous place’ (Interview 6).

Conclusions

Despite their concerns about isolation and communication difficulties, prisoners often referred to ‘doing time’ in Northern Ireland being easier than in Poland where prison conditions were known to them to have been much harsher, either because of their own prior experience of custody there or because they recalled the experiences of others. Active resistance to the prison regime could have hampered their chances of serving their full sentences here and some openly admitted that they do not want to ‘rock the boat’ for fear of being transferred to Poland. In what is an impossible choice, the ‘pains of imprisonment’ (Sykes, 1958) were perceived to be more bearable in a prison in Northern Ireland.

This does not mean, however, that they allowed imprisonment to be ‘done to them’ and some did actively challenge the lack of information, lack of interpretation, lack of access to some services (such as healthcare), as well as challenging what they saw as discriminatory practices of prison staff. While some were very concerned ‘with their circumstances at the completion of their sentences’ (i.e. with possible extradition or deportation) (Phillips, 2012: 101), others also very much concerned themselves with the conditions of their detention. They did not shy away from laying bare their issues during the Polish Foreign National Forum or to express their frustration at issues not being dealt with or answers not being provided to their queries. Far from being passive in what can be an overwhelming environment of a foreign prison, many have exercised their agency to challenge it. They did, however, seem to choose their battles and often took those aspects of prison life that they had no control over with a pinch of salt, a lot of humour or simply quiet resignation.

The way in which prisoners respond to isolation and exclusion is to establish a pragmatic group identity, based on a shared language. This, supported by the practice of co-accommodation of prisoners by nationality, inadvertently contributes to segregation and prisoners are placed into ‘mono-cultural’ boxes inside what may appear from the outside as an increasingly diverse prison. While the prisoners appreciate the fact that they can live together in a larger group (especially in Maghaberry Prison), and that their requests for cell-sharing are answered quickly and positively, their need to rely on each other for information and support raises serious questions about how prisons are discharging their duty of care towards them. Further analysis is needed, for example, as to whether such decisions by staff stem from their concerns about prisoners’ isolation or are taken simply for convenience and easier management of this particular group. Further analysis is also needed of the connection between the apparent distance between the prisoners and staff, examples of reported discrimination in the use of discretion or ‘informal partiality’ (Edgar and Martin, 2004) and racism (including institutional) in a system regularly assessed as underperforming in relation to the basics of prison regime, as well as being ‘culturally blind’ (PRT, 2011b: 39).

The managerialism, which has pervaded approaches to penal reform in Northern Ireland in the past (McEvoy, 2001), is clearly visible in the current transitional process of reform. Echoing this, the strategy for dealing with foreign national prisoners seems to favour the bureaucratic safety of monitoring systems over more active provision of services and support that would make a difference to their situation. However, even those systems do not capture their experiences of differential treatment as they do not provide disaggregation of much of the data by nationality. An often-confusing mixture of attempts at inclusion (such as the organization of the Foreign National Fora for prisoners of certain nationalities) and exclusionary practices (such as the failure – until very recently – to provide basic information about the regime in languages other than English) necessitate prisoners’ self-reliance and self-sufficiency within a system that they often struggle to understand. What is clear is that many of them live in a prison within prison, with a high wall of communication barriers around them, suspended before the moment of entry into custody and the ever-looming moment of deportation. The ‘real support’ referred to by the Prison Review Oversight Group (PROG, 2013) is much more likely to be provided by prisoners to other prisoners, than the prison system itself.