Category Archives: HM Prisons Inspectorate
HMP LINDHOLME – Nick Hardwick Chief Inspector of Prisons writes:
HMP Lindholme is a category C training prison with a category D wing that holds a total of about 1,000 men. The prison, near Doncaster, forms part of the ‘South Yorkshire cluster’ with HMP Moorland and HMP Hatfield. The category D side, ‘I wing’, had been used as an immigration removal centre (IRC) but this closed in January 2012 and the facility had been passed back for use by the Prison Service.
The inspection came at a difficult time for the prison. In November 2012 it was announced that all prisons in the South Yorkshire cluster would be moving into the private sector and, at the time of the inspection, the uncertainty this created added to the difficulty in running the prison.
However, these difficulties do not excuse the very poor findings of this inspection. Outcomes for prisoners across the prison as a whole were not good enough in too many areas, but the category D side was the worst establishment we have inspected in many years.
The category D side was separate from the main prison and should have provided an environment in which low-risk prisoners were prepared for release with purposeful activity and effective rehabilitation work. In practice, it appears that the funding that had been lost when the wing stopped being used as an IRC had not been replaced. The wing then had been forgotten and neglected, and so very little activity of any sort – by staff or prisoners – took place. It was an astonishing situation.
Reception, first night and induction arrangements on the category D side were perfunctory, and there was far too little subsequent contact between staff and prisoners. Prisoners on the wing were frightened. In our survey, 38% told us they had felt unsafe at some time, and 28% felt unsafe at the time of the inspection. This compared with 16% and 5% respectively at comparable prisons. Nothing had been done to address this. Drugs and alcohol were widely available and prisoners told us there were high levels of victimisation by other prisoners and staff.
The most basic services were not provided on the wing. There was no access to Listeners and no work on diversity and equality. Even chaplaincy services were inadequate. There were prayer meetings for Muslim prisoners but none for Christians, and some religious tensions were evident. In a recent incident, someone had defecated in the washing facilities for Muslim prayers; managers were unaware of this until we brought it to their attention.
The health needs of prisoners on the wing had not been assessed and it was difficult for prisoners to see a doctor if they were unwell. Staff were often not available to escort prisoners to health care on the category C side, and only 8% of prisoners told us it was easy to see a doctor, against the 59% comparator. There was simply no work or education available on site, apart from a few desultory domestic duties. The classrooms that had been used by the IRC were a sad sight, unused and piled high with discarded furniture and equipment. There was very little done to address prisoners offending behaviour or give them practical help to resettle successfully after release. There were a few opportunities for prisoners to maintain family ties or work outside the prison through release on temporary licence – but this was thoughtlessly limited because release and return times were not synchronised with the infrequent local bus service.
We brought our concerns about the category D side to the attention of the Chief Executive of NOMS immediately after the inspection. It was closed shortly afterwards and remains so. We welcome this and it should not re-open until the concerns we identify in this report have been addressed. However, it is unacceptable that the situation was allowed to develop. There is a danger in increasingly large and complex establishment, with remote governing governors, that failings in one part of an establishment may not be evident from the performance data for the prison as a whole. Nevertheless, all it took on the category D side at Lindholme was to spend a few minutes walking through it, see the abandoned classrooms, observe the absence of staff and listen to the prisoners’ concerns to realise something was seriously wrong. That should have been done sooner.
There were also significant problems in other parts of the prison. Most prisoners in the category C side were safe but care for those who needed extra support was inadequate. Procedures for supporting prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm were poor. Too many of these men were held in the segregation unit. Little support was available for prisoners who were vulnerable and being victimised or bullied by other prisoners. The only option they were offered was to be confined to their cell with no access to the regime. Those who declined had to sign a disclaimer – but this did not absolve staff from the consequences of neglect. Those who accepted often continued to be bullied, with threats shouted through their door. Many said their mental health deteriorated and most were eventually transferred out of the prison with nothing done to tackle the underlying problems. Drugs and alcohol were easily available here too, and action to address this was poorly coordinated.
The quality of the accommodation was reasonable and relationships between staff and prisoners, although mixed, were better than on the category D side. Basic processes, such as complaints, applications, catering, laundry and the property store, needed improvement. However, health care on the category C side was reasonably good and met prisoners’ needs.
The weaknesses in the prison’s diversity and equality work had a significant impact on the category C side. Prisoners did not have confidence in formal processes for resolving problems, such as the discrimination incident report system. They had raised this in consultation meetings, it was evidenced by the very low number of discrimination complaints being made but nothing had been done. Prisoners from black and minority ethnic groups reported more negatively than white prisoners. There was little support for foreign national prisoners. The needs of prisoners with disabilities were not identified or met. One distressed disabled prisoner told us he was constantly taunted by other prisoners and bullied for payment if he had to ask them for assistance in any way. He felt unable to report the incident for fear of retaliation.
Purposeful activity was much better on the category C side and a bright spot in an otherwise depressing picture. Too many prisoners were locked up in the working part of the day for a training prison, but for those in work, education or training, outcomes were good, the quality of training and teaching was good, and there was good leadership and management. Some vocational training, such as the construction workshop and bakery, was outstanding, there was a generally good work ethic and prisoners received effective help with literacy and numeracy. There was a good library, although access was too restricted, and PE provision was very good.
Resettlement work on the category C side required improvement. Offender management was under-resourced and large caseloads limited the contact enthusiastic and focused offender management staff could have with prisoners. Practical resettlement services were also very stretched but, on the whole, work on employment and substance misuse issues was good. Arrangements for visits were limited and there was very little constructive work to help prisoners maintain or improve their relationships with their families and children.
There were no offending behaviour programmes and prisoners who needed these had to transfer to HMP Moorland for the duration of the programme. However, because prisoners were anxious about where they would be accommodated and whether they would have a job when they returned to Lindholme, few chose to undertake the transfer, and nothing had been done to address these perceptions.
HMP Lindholme is a cause for real concern. The closure of the D side has reduced the immediate risks but legitimate prisoner grievances, the lack of activity, mixed staff-prisoner relationships and indications of some religious tensions, combined with the ready availability of drugs and alcohol, are an unhealthy mix. The uncertainty created by the prison’s move to the private sector cannot be allowed to delay the urgent improvements that are required.
Mark Leech editor of Converse the national newspaper for prisons in England and Wales said:
“This is a truly damning report which must rank as one of the worst reports I have certainly ever read- how on earth could it have been allowed to get to this point?
“Urgent action is needed to bring the Cat D side of Lindholme back into existence – and it must serve as a sobering lesson of the real dangers that exist with ‘clustering’ – where Governing Governors are on remote sites, leaving inadequate junior management grades to cope with situations they are neither trained to deal with nor have a right to expect will be dumped on them.
“Clustering may technically save money but in truth it costs far more than it ever saves in terms of care, future crime and people’s careers.”
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons,Nick Hardwick, above, in a report on Ashield Young Offender Institution published today says:
In January 2013, the Justice Secretary announced plans to close HMYOI Ashfield and re-role it as an adult prison. The inspectorate had plans to conduct an unannounced inspection of the establishment in February 2013. We decided to proceed with the inspection to ensure that the young people who continued to be held there were held safely and decently during the transition, and that plans in place to ensure their move to another establishment or release were well managed.
We focused the inspection on areas of greatest concern and produced this truncated report more quickly than usual so it could be of use before the establishment closed. Because we did not look at every area of the establishment, we have not graded it against each healthy prison test, as is our normal practice. As usual, we gave immediate, detailed feedback to the establishment and Youth Justice Board (YJB) at the end of the inspection.
At the time of the inspection, the establishment was just one-third full and held 123 young people, most of whom were aged 16 or 17. This compared with a population of 332 at the time of our last inspection, and an average of 237 in 2012. Ashfield had an operational capacity of 360.
Our concerns about safety appeared to have been justified. Despite the reduction in numbers held, there had been a sharp increase in self-harm incidents since the closure announcement. The number of formal disciplinary proceedings or adjudications was high, and fights and assaults accounted for two-thirds of the charges laid. The highest number of adjudications per 100 of the population was in January 2013. Levels of violence were high. There were 351 fights and 377 assaults in 2012 and staff told us there had been an increase in the overall number of violent incidents since the closure announcement. In the 12 months to January 2013, there had been 43 serious fights, of which 37 had resulted in serious injury and six in minor injury. Five staff had been assaulted in the same period. Use of force by staff was also high in 2012 and two boys had suffered broken bones following staff use of force.
As at other young offender institutions (YOIs), young people were routinely strip-searched when they entered or left reception. Of 3,773 such searches over the last 12 months, just one had resulted in a find.
Despite the levels of violence, young people did not tell us they did not feel safe. We were also pleased that the segregation unit had been closed since our last inspection, and there were some good systems to address the particularly poor behaviour of some young people.
The environment was reasonable, although needing some attention. Young people could have telephones in their cells, which was a good initiative. Relationships between staff and the young people were good. We were impressed by the way in which staff put their own anxieties about the change aside and did not let this affect their dealings with the young people. Health care was good.
Young people had good access to education and training. However, with the rundown of the establishment it was increasingly difficult to motivate the young people and there was a concern that provision for those transferring elsewhere would not be effectively linked to the work they had done at Ashfield.
During the course of the inspection, we were particularly concerned about resettlement and transition planning. There was a lack of effective joint strategic planning between the YJB and Ashfield. Poor communication between the interested parties was causing widespread confusion. Young people were becoming increasingly agitated because they did not understand what was happening. Some services would be discontinued before all young people had left Ashfield. Overall, we were not confident that the best interests of the young person were always considered.
We have reported our concern about high levels of violence at a number of recent inspections of YOIs holding children and young people. At Ashfield too, young people’s safety was compromised because they were exposed to unacceptable levels of violence – and there is some evidence the situation has deteriorated since the closure decision was announced. Planning for the closure itself was not effectively coordinated between the YJB and Ashfield, and the needs of individual young people were not carefully considered. The anxiety and uncertainty this created may well have contributed to the tension at the establishment. It certainly means that young people are not being adequately prepared for transfer or release. The establishment and the YJB will need to work effectively together, not just to improve the situation but also to ensure it does not deteriorate further.
Nick Hardwick, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, in a report to be published at midnight, says that in his final inspection of HMYOI Ashfield before it is re-roled from a juvenile institution to a category C adult male prison for sex offenders, he found there were high levels of violence, self-harm, along with high levels of force by staff in which two prisoners suffered broken bones.
Check back after midnight for full details of this shocking report.
Prison chiefs have linked an attack on a prison officer to the Lee Rigby murder and warned prison staff of an increased risk of threats, according to reports – while an increasing number of Muslim inmates complain they are being intimidated to join the Muslim Brotherhood, a prison gang, and some have received injuries following a refusal to do so.
A male prison officer was left with a broken cheekbone after being held hostage by three male prisoners, two aged 25 and one aged 26, at HMP Full Sutton in Yorkshire on Sunday.
An email circulated to staff in top-security jails and young offender institutions and seen by The Times said: “Three Muslim prisoners took an officer hostage in an office.
“Their demands indicated they supported radical Islamist extremism.
“All staff are reminded to remain vigilant to the increased risk of potential attacks on prison officers inspired by these and last Wednesday’s events.”
Counter-terrorism officers have been brought in to investigate the attack at the maximum security jail, during which a female warder was also injured.
So far, 10 people have been held by detectives investigating the young soldier’s death, including Adebowale and Adebolajo.
These include a 50-year-old man, arrested on Monday, who was released on bail yesterday.
A 22-year-old man arrested in Highbury, north London, on Sunday and three men detained on Saturday over the killing have all been released on bail, as has a fifth man, aged 29.
Two women, aged 29 and 31, were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to murder but later released without charge.
Mark Leech editor of Converse the national newspaper for prisoners in England and Wales said he was aware of an ‘increasing number of complaints’ from Muslim prisoners in the High Security prison estate who claim to have been intimidated to join the prison-based ‘Muslim Brotherhood’.
Mr Leech said: “Radicalisation of Muslims in the High Security Estate is nothing new and the existence of the Muslim Brotherhood is equally well-known, what I find disturbing is that I have seen an increasing number of Muslim inmates and their families complaining that their loved ones are being intimidated into joining this group and some have received injuries, perhaps unconnected with their refusal, after persistently declining to join.
“One firm of personal injury solicitors I am in touch with confirm they act for a Muslim inmate seriously injured in Full Sutton prison after he continually refused to join the Full Sutton Muslim Brotherhood – unusually and perhaps of significance is the fact that prison staff at HMP Full Sutton have given evidence supporting his case.
“Prison gangs like the Muslim Brotherhood can feed on fear and perpetrate a belief that there is safety in numbers – we should not forget that the Prison Inspection report published in April 2013 on Full Sutton said:
We had two main areas of concern. First, the perceptions of black and minority ethnic prisoners and Muslim prisoners about many aspects of their treatment and conditions were much more negative than for white and non-Muslim prisoners. For example, significantly fewer told us staff treated them with respect and significantly more said they felt unsafe.
“Treating all prisoners with respect and equality is the challenge for the management of Full Sutton, a Maximum Security prison which in so many other respects has shown itself well able to rise to difficult challenges and overcome them – and on this important one it must not be allowed to fail.”
In a Report published 30th April 2013 on Frankland High Security Prison, Nick Hardwick the Chief Inspector of Prisons said:
Frankland, situated near Durham, is one of five high security dispersal prisons in the country, intended to hold those posing the greatest risk to security and safety. With more than 800 prisoners, it is the largest dispersal prison, with many men serving sentences of great length and/or retaining the highest category A status. At our previous inspection in early 2011, we found an establishment that had made commendable progress. This unannounced inspection indicates that progress continues despite considerable challenges, including the recent murder of a prisoner and serious assaults on staff.
Risk is ever present in an institution like Frankland, yet the prison had commendably maintained equilibrium and was, by our judgement, generally safe. The findings of our survey were encouraging and indicated that most prisoners felt safer than in comparable establishments, although indicators were less positive for certain groups, particularly black and minority ethnic and vulnerable prisoners. Levels of violence were not high but when they happened they could be extreme. The resources for and management of security were commensurate with the risk, and security was normally applied proportionately. The quality of staff supervision on the vulnerable prisoner wings and in communal areas, as well as CCTV coverage in the vulnerable prisoner wings, could have been better. The diversion of prescribed medications was also a significant problem. Decisive action was needed to address prescribing practice at the prison.
Frankland covers an extensive area and accommodation varies greatly in age, type and quality. Most was reasonable and clean, and some, like the Westgate Unit, exceptional. Most staff were knowledgeable and respectful, and relationships with prisoners were generally good. The promotion of diversity was mixed overall, with some elements that were adequate but also clear gaps evident. It was a concern that many minority groups held comparatively negative perceptions about their treatment. The management of formal prisoner complaints was surprisingly poor.
Access to time out of cell was reasonable for most prisoners and there were broadly sufficient activity places to meet the needs of all. Education was offered on a part-time basis, again to broaden access, but it was clear that not all available activity places were used and we found just under a third of prisoners locked up during the working day. The management of learning and skills was reasonably good and further improvements were being made. Many qualitative measures, such as the range of provision and support on offer, as well as prisoner achievements, were encouraging.
Very few prisoners were discharged from Frankland but the prison had a critical role in addressing individual risks and progressing prisoners. Offender management and public protection arrangements seemed appropriate, although the prison still needed to make more analysis of the full extent of the resettlement needs of the population. Offending behaviour work was available and well managed and, unusually, there was significant work to address sex offenders who were in denial or seeking to minimise their offending. The Westgate Unit was impressive and provided intensive and long-term interventions to work with personality disordered prisoners. An independent evaluation of dangerous and severe personality disorder (DSPD) units at the prison would be invaluable in determining the effectiveness of this work, although current indications are encouraging.
This is a very good report. Frankland has had to deal with some very serious incidents in recent months. The prison has done this proportionately and in a way that has not derailed it or undermined its confidence. Overall, the outcomes for prisoners at this prison are reasonably good, and some of the most challenging prisoners in the system are well managed and cared for.
FRANKLAND PRISON FACTS & FIGURES
Task of the establishment: A high security category A and B dispersal prison, with the potential to accommodate category A remand prisoners
Prison status (public or private, with name of contractor if private): Public
Region/Department: High security
Number held: 812
Certified normal accommodation: 844
Operational capacity: 844
Date of last full inspection: November 2010 – date of this Inspection December 2012
Situated on the outskirts of Durham, the prison opened in 1983 with A, B, C, and D wings; it held adult convicted male prisoners serving sentences of over four years. In 1998, F and G wings were added. In 2005, Westgate opened as a self-contained treatment facility for prisoners with dangerous and severe personality disorders (DSPD); J wing was added in 2009.
Short description of residential units
A, B, C, and D wings, located in a separate secure compound, each had space for 108 vulnerable prisoners (including older and disabled prisoners) on landing B1; F wing had 120 places for non- vulnerable prisoners; G wing had 88 spaces for non-vulnerable prisoners and included G4, the reintegration landing for those who had been in segregation, which had 18 spaces; and J wing had 120 places for non-vulnerable prisoners. The Westgate DSPD Unit consisted of two units each accommodating 22 prisoners and one unit accommodating 21 prisoners (total 65 beds), while the segregation unit had 28 spaces and the health care unit 13 inpatient places. The PIPE Unit was based within the Westgate Unit and could accommodate up to 21 prisoners.
Name of governor/director: Paddy Fox
Escort contractor: GeoAmey
Health service commissioner and providers: NHS County Durham-North East Offender Commissioning Unit Care UK Tees, Esk and Wear NHS Foundation Trust
Learning and skills providers: The Manchester College
Independent Monitoring Board chair: Wendy Taylor
Mark Leech, editor of Converse the national newspaper for prisoners in England and Wales said:
“This is a very positive report, and all the more so given the recent murder of a prisoner and the serious staff assaults that have taken place.
“There were minor areas of concern, there always are – poor prisoner complaints being a surprising one as the Chief Inspector pointed out – but generally its a credit to the Governor and the staff at Frankland that they are able to manage a very difficult long-term population in the way that they so evidently do – other High Security Prisons have lessons to learn from Frankland.”
A prisoner at Full Sutton maximum security prison near York is in a critical condition after another prisoner slashed his throat with a knife.
Mark Leech, editor of Converse the national newspaper for prisoners in England and Wales said:
“Converse sources at the jail told the newspaper that the whole prison had gone into lock down following the assault on 25th April and the inmate was rushed to a local hosital where he is in a critical condition.”
Full Sutton is one of eight prisons which form part of the High Security Estate, holding long term prisoners including terrorists, murderers and those who will never be released
In the 2012 annual report by the Independent Monitoring Board for Full Sutton, the Board said assaults were down by 57 per cent since 2008, thanks to a good staff-prisoner relationships and a tight hold on security, but they warned that budget cuts of £1.1m in 2013/14 “will lead to a potential loss of control, making the prison unsafe for both staff and prisoners.”
A report by the Prisons Inspectorate earlier this year said that Full Sutton Prison near Pocklington “dealt very effectively with challenges other prisons find difficult to manage”.
It said that “levels of violence were low, drug use was low and there was a range of good quality, well-managed purposeful activity available.”
However Inspectors expressed concerns about the segregation unit where Inspectors criticised the unit for a “insufficient focus on improving behaviour and helping men reintegrate back on the main wings.”.
The report said: “It is generally an impressive establishment that maintains an effective balance between providing the necessary levels of security and affording the men it holds decent treatment and conditions.”
The jail was opened 11 years ago and holds around 600 of the country’s most serious offenders.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, in a report on Hindley Prison published today (25th April) says:
HM Young Offender Institution Hindley is a large establishment just outside Wigan with the capacity to hold 440 boys and young people aged 15 to 18. At the time of this inspection it was only just over one-third full.
First impressions are of a pretty bleak, prison-like environment and the obvious youth of many of those held. However, the inspection found commendable efforts to soften the environment, and some determined efforts to address some of the damage that had been done to these young people before they arrived at Hindley and reduce the damage they do to others. The arrangements for a young person’s first few days at Hindley were particularly good – although, as at other establishments, needlessly undermined by the NOMS requirement that every new arrival should be strip searched when they first arrived.
Many of the young people arriving at Hindley had poor previous experience of education – almost half told us they were 14 or younger when they last left school; nine out of 10 had been excluded; eight out of 10 had played truant. So it is a tribute to the establishment that the quality of education and activities was good, and that young people made good progress and obtained qualifications. It was very welcome that speech and language therapy was available when required. Standards of behaviour were much better than that seen in some schools. More could have been done to enable young people to get real work experience in the community, and it was frustrating that half left Hindley without a confirmed education or training place – threatening to waste the progress they had made there.
In other respects, the work to prepare young people for release was good, and better than we normally see. Few young people left without suitable accommodation to go to, and there was good support with family relationships, substance misuse and health issues, and managing money. Effective work was carried out throughout the sentence to address young people’s offending behaviour. The Willow unit provided necessary intensive support to a small number of young people with the most complex needs, although the effectiveness of the therapeutic approach adopted risked being undermined by the length of time these young people spent locked in their cells.
Although there had been efforts in some wings to make the environment more appropriate for young people, in others it remained bleak and austere. The establishment was generally clean and tidy and most cells were in reasonable condition. Most young people had about nine hours out of their cells each day and a decent amount of association time, although insufficient opportunity to work off energy exercising in the open air. There were concerns that imminent changes to the core day arising from a central directive might reduce time out of cell at Hindley – this would be very regrettable.
Relationships between staff and young people were generally good and some young people spoke very highly of the officers who dealt with them. I witnessed examples of some real kindness and effective care – one member of staff had somehow got a horse into the establishment for one very troubled and challenging boy from the Traveller community to care for. As he worked on the horse, she worked on the boy – to much greater effect than more conventional interventions might have achieved. However, we also heard persistent, consistent and credible complaints about the abusive behaviour of a small number of officers. The governor had taken robust action when inappropriate conduct by staff had been identified. These generally good relationships were underpinned by sound processes. Management of diversity and complaints was good, and health care and the chaplaincy both provided very good services.
Nevertheless, despite these real strengths, Hindley was not sufficiently safe. On average, there was a fight or assault almost every day, and some of these were very serious. We were not assured the establishment had an effective grip on what was happening. The number of perpetrators and victims on violence reduction or support measures was not consistent with the number of incidents, and data were not used effectively to identify and address patterns and trends. Investigations into some alleged bullying incidents were not sufficiently rigorous. The number of adjudications and lesser ‘minor reports’ were both much higher than we see elsewhere, with 1,800 adjudications in the first 10 months of 2012, and almost 3,000 minor reports in the same period. Some of these incidents could have been better dealt with more informally.
Use of force was also very high, although much did not involve full control and restraint. Staff sometimes put themselves in harm’s way to prevent injury to young people. Governance of the use of force had improved after some young people had been badly hurt two years previously. The segregation unit was cramped and run-down, and although relationships with staff were generally good, the regime was inadequate, especially for the few young people held there for lengthy periods.
Like all juvenile prisons, Hindley held some very unhappy young people. There had been a very sad self-inflicted death at the beginning of 2012, and the establishment had taken early action as a result of the findings of an investigation into the incident. The number of self-harm incidents remained high (although relatively low level) and, despite the reduction in the population, the number of incidents each month had grown by 18% over the previous year. However, we were not assured that the drive to learn and implement lessons from the death in 2012 was being sustained, and some staff were not clear about their responsibilities in this area.
We were concerned that the sheer volume of violent and self-harm incidents threatened to be overwhelming. For the most part, individual incidents were dealt with well but there needed to be more complete strategic oversight of the entire picture that made the links between bullying and self-harm and kept responses to both perpetrators and victims under review. The safeguarding committee with its external membership appeared to be best placed to do this.
Even only one-third full, and despite very good work, HMYOI Hindley illustrates the difficulty such establishments have in discharging their most fundamental responsibility – keeping the young people they hold safe. There has been a suggestion that as the number of young people in custody declines, those who continue to be held will be a more concentrated mix of the most challenging and unhappy young people. Other recent inspections of YOIs have also identified establishments having much greater difficulty in keeping young people safe.
The YJB, ministers and other policymakers should consider this very carefully as they plan the future development of the youth custody estate.
Mark Leech, editor of Converse the national prisoners newspaper for England and Wales said it was a ‘deeply troubling report’.
“No one reading this deeply troubling report can fail to be dismayed by the seriously high levels of self-harm and the high levels of use of force by staff.
“The fact that some rogue officers appear to be abusing prisoners is a matter which the police should be required to investigate – Hindley holds some very damaged young boys and young adults, it is vital they are not subject to physical abuse by staff who think they can get away with it.”
A damning report by the Prisons Inspectorate on Hindley prison, published on this site at 00.01hrs 25th April, shows a prison where the levels of self-harm and violence are ‘overwhelming’
Check back after midnight for full details