An alarming five out of the 13 cells at one of the region’s most active courts have been deemed to be not fire safe, and a review by HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) could result in the court being closed. The problems in the five cells are said to be structural, and they cannot be made safe.
There are now fears of increased pressure on other magistrates’ courts in the region after a number of closures in the North East — implemented to cut costs.
Northumbria Police Chief Inspector Sean Mckenna told the Chronicle why the cells failed the fire risk assessment:
There are structural issues with the layout of the cell complex which does not meet modern requirements. This is not a maintenance issue and it cannot be remedied in this building. Discussions are under way with all parties to look at future court cell provision.
In the meantime Northumbria Police has been in discussion with HM Courts & Tribunals Service to ensure that the cell accommodation is used to optimum capacity to ensure the Magistrates’ Court is able to function effectively.
The five unsafe cells are currently not in use. “We are working with the police and Prison Escort Custody Services to ensure the smooth running of the court using the remaining cells,” a HMCTS spokesman told the newspaper. “We are currently reviewing the position in relation to the substandard cells.”
This month, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published a generic risk assessment for fighting fires in places of lawful detention. It recognised that there are particular dangers unique to fighting fires in a court, prison, or police station. For example, the use of self-locking doors is quite common, while there is also the possibility of unpredictable and disruptive behaviour from detainees that fire and rescue officers may be trying to rescue. Roofs, walls, and other structures may be protected with razor wire.
It is not clear whether the Newcastle court failed a risk assessment specifically in relation to a fire service’s ability to access the cells, though this would back up the claim that the problem was structural and could not be fixed.
The DCLG guidance states:
Operational risk assessments for places of lawful detention must be as comprehensive and detailed as possible. As layout will vary significantly from one establishment to another, it is important and necessary for the details of each operational plan to be determined by the Fire and Rescue Authority with regards to local circumstances and after full consultation with the relevant authority.
Related posts:
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
The post on the magistrates court not meeting fire safety standards is quite a concern, this I am afraid has been seen by many of my Salvus collegues when risk assessing Custody suites that have a direct link to courts and those that ‘stand alone’Many issues revolve around not only the lack of structural and fire stopping compartmentation, but also those engaged to manage the area of detention. The police buildings design guide gives clear guidance on the layours, compartmentation, provision of warning systems and evacuation planning(NB a new design feature should ensure the building does not need full evacuation… Read more »
Didn`t Police cells come uder “Crown Property” originally?
As such, in the fairly recent past these were exempt from the H&S@WAct 1974.
Also, may have been similarly exempt from fire regs. but that is just a surmise.
With all the changes, and need to update, as to my knowledge “Crown Property” is still valid have changes been made recently where Crown property, (such as these cells) been sold off, and in that lies the problem as they are now, in effect “between two stools”??
Just a thought!
interesting to know, but it a bit sad… as remind me of simular problems with outdated fire safety in Canadian Jails…
When we read this article in detail we come to know that Magistrates’ court cells’ failure to pass the fire risk assessment is not due to negligence as we get the impression at the outset. It is a structural problem inherent in the design of the building which appears to be because of old design. It is good to see though that efforts are underway to take fire safety into account in future court buildings.
@ AndrewF, do you think that there is lack of harmony or liaison among the people from different agencies? Regarding your concerns about the training of evacuation personnel, is it their negligence? Or is it that they are not provided proper training by the concerned departments? They are supposed to know the time when they should start evacuating the building in case of fire.