Often fed by opposition politicians, BBC Scotland, the Herald or the Scotsman regularly shout about problems in Scottish prisons or in police custody, such as overcrowding:

Had they something like this report on police custody suites in Sussex, they’d be in heaven. Though written in that understated way typical in official reports, the abuses are clear.

First, little progress between inspections:

We last inspected custody facilities in Sussex Police in 2016. Because of concerns following that inspection, and the limited progress made against our recommendations when we visited the force a year later to assess this, we prioritised the force for a full re-inspection. This inspection found that of the 34 recommendations made during that previous inspection,13 had been achieved, five had been partially achieved and 15 had not been achieved.

Second, the failure to make suicide more difficult:

However, there were many potential ligature points across the custody estate,
including some that were still remaining since our previous inspection. Four of the custody suites (including Chichester) were provided and maintained under contractual arrangements with Tascor, which made it more difficult, and hindered the force’s ability, to make some of the improvements needed. Although the force had taken some actions to offset or manage the risks posed by the potential ligature points, these were not enough to consistently ensure safe detention.

Third, inadequate training of private security staff:

While initial training for custody officers was good, their ongoing support and development was more limited, and the force had insufficient oversight
over the training provided to the custody assistants employed by Tascor.

Fourth, use of force unrecorded:

Data on the use of force in custody were not readily available or reliable, and not all officers completed use of force forms as required. This meant that Sussex Police could not assure itself, the Police and Crime Commissioner and the public that the use of force in custody was always safe and proportionate.

Fifth, mental health:

The recording of details for detainees waiting for mental health assessments was particularly poor. Quality assurance processes were inconsistent, and were not embedded or robust enough to identify the concerns we found.