Related Downloads
This inspection, undertaken jointly by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) and Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS), aimed to assess the treatment of, and conditions for, individuals detained at St Leonards police custody centre in the Edinburgh local policing division. The report provides an analysis of the quality of custody centre operations and the provision of healthcare services. It outlines key findings identified during our inspection and makes five recommendations for Police Scotland concerning custody operations. It highlights previous recommendations made in recent inspections of other custody centres across Scotland where the same, or similar, issues were found to be evident. The report also makes five recommendations for NHS Lothian, which has responsibility for the provision of healthcare at the centre.
Additional
- St Leonards custody centre serves Edinburgh (E) Division and the local area commands of Midlothian and East Lothian in Lothians and Scottish Borders (J) division.
- Some custody staff considered that the organisation was not responding effectively to ongoing pressures within the custody environment. Visibility and engagement from senior management was referred to as limited, with contact largely confined to first-line supervision.
- Custody staff, including supervisors, were unfamiliar with the content or location of the Business Continuity Management Plan (BCMP). Operational continuity appeared to be based on informal assumptions rather than documented local contingency arrangements.
- Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the distinct roles of custody sergeants and CJPCSO team leaders. Proactive steps were taken to ensure clarity when new team leaders commenced, which inspectors assessed as positive practice.
- Recently upgraded charge bar facilities were bright and spacious and intended to increase processing capacity. However, confidentiality during detainee processing was limited due to the layout and noise levels, with conversations audible to others.
- Queuing at custody centres by arresting officers with detainees was common. While the three-charge-bar model was well intentioned, staffing levels meant that all charge bars were rarely operated simultaneously, resulting in delays and negative feedback from detainees and escorting officers.
- Staff highlighted inefficiencies arising from poor integration of police IT systems, resulting in repeated data entry and increased risk of error. These issues were compounded by staffing pressures, system limitations, spontaneous incidents and the absence of sufficient mobile IT devices. The removal of electronic tablets was viewed negatively by some staff.
- Local policing officers described custody staff as helpful and accommodating. However, limited staffing resilience within custody was acknowledged as adversely affecting morale, with processing frequently experienced as lengthy and arduous.
- Detainee hygiene provision was limited to hand and face washing facilities, including at weekends. Although acknowledged by staff as being less than desired, this practice had become normalised and was corroborated by independent custody visitors.
- In August 2025, 809 NCS custody records were created, of which 81 were reviewed by inspectors. The average detention period was 13 hours and 29 minutes, consistent with national figures.
- Children were managed appropriately: none were placed in cells, the longest detention period was under five hours, and CRI oversight of children in custody showed improvement. Inspectors also found no cases where detainees were held unnecessarily following a decision to release, indicating improvement from previous inspections.
- CRI oversight had strengthened, with comments recorded in 18 records reviewed, relating to extension reviews, dip sampling and child-focused scrutiny, which inspectors viewed as positive practice.
- Compliance issues remained. In one case, a detainee’s refusal to engage on legal rights was not revisited before release. In three cases where a solicitor was requested, there was no evidence that contact had been made.
- Forty records were assessed as high risk but initially managed under level-one observations. In five cases, care plans were escalated promptly following supervisory review, however, a third of cases lacked documented risk mitigation measures.
- Care plans and handovers routinely lacked case-specific detail. Records frequently relied on generic, copy-and-paste entries placed in free-text notes rather than designated sections, diminishing their evidential and operational value.
- Delays in recording observation visits on NCS persisted, with an average delay of 17 minutes and a maximum delay of 45 minutes.
- All custody staff interviewed reported that the custody centre was understaffed, with limited resilience, which routinely compromised task completion.
- Healthcare management and oversight was provided through NHS Lothian’s Royal Edinburgh Hospital and Associated Services (REAS) governance structures. Twice-daily staff huddles, that included NHS Lothians courts liaison service, supported safe and coordinated care by enabling timely information sharing and joint decision-making for vulnerable individuals. Regular engagement with Police Scotland and structured governance meetings ensured accountability and service alignment.
- The most recent IPC audit did not identify any issues with the environment. However, the audit process was ineffective as damage was clearly visible to the walls, flooring and to woodwork around the hand wash basin in the treatment room. It was unclear from speaking with healthcare staff if this damage had been reported to Police Scotland who are responsible for carrying out repairs to the environment, including the treatment room.
- Custody and healthcare staff appropriately referred detainees to addiction and outreach services, including Change Grow Live, Turning Point and Apex. Inspectors observed evidence of referrals, signposting and access to naloxone when nursing staff were on site.