HMP Aylesbury safer and more respectful, inspectors find, but drugs and self-harm persist

HMP Aylesbury had become a much safer prison, according to HM Inspectorate of Prisons. Violence had fallen sharply and now ran below the level at comparable jails. The inspectorate’s report, published in May 2026, followed an inspection that ended in February 2026.

Inspectors also found serious problems. Around a quarter of the men were active drug users, according to prison data. Self-harm had risen significantly, and support for men at risk was not robust enough.

Aylesbury is a category C training prison, a jail meant to give men work, education and courses before release. It used to hold long-term young adults before taking on its current role. It held 370 men at the time, against an operational capacity of 402.

Improved grades

The inspectorate tests every adult prison against four healthy prison tests: safety, respect, purposeful activity and preparation for release. Purposeful activity covers education, work and time out of cell.

Aylesbury scored reasonably good for safety and for respect. It scored not sufficiently good for purposeful activity and for preparation for release. At the previous full inspection, whose report came out in March 2023, safety and respect scored not sufficiently good and purposeful activity scored poor. The inspectorate also published an independent review of progress in October 2023.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Charlie Taylor described Aylesbury as “an improving prison that has benefited from committed staff and a clear sense of purpose from senior leaders.” He said the priority now was to consolidate that progress.

Inspectors raised 10 key concerns, four of them priorities. The priorities covered high drug use, rising self-harm, a narrow curriculum and long waits for sentence plans.

Overall, HMP Aylesbury is an improving prison that has benefited from committed staff and a clear sense of purpose from senior leaders.

Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

Violence down, self-harm up

Men gave positive accounts of their first days. In the inspectorate’s survey, 87% said staff treated them well in reception, and 90% said they felt safe on their first night. Around eight men arrived each week, many from outside the area.

Only 27% of men said they had ever felt unsafe, lower than at similar prisons. Men credited a predictable regime, clear communication and specialist units. These included an Academy wing for learners and a unit for men committed to staying off drugs. Inspectors judged that incentivised substance-free living unit better developed than most they see.

Use of force had fallen steadily and now matched similar category C prisons. Staff used batons twice and never used PAVA, an incapacitant spray. Body-worn cameras captured 88% of incidents. The segregation unit, where men are held apart from others, was well run, and inspectors found it unusually allowed men to attend work.

The rise in self-harm worried inspectors. ACCT, the case management process for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm, lacked rigour. Inspectors found inconsistent case coordination, sparse care plans and gaps in records. The report said leaders were not focused enough on drug supply or rising self-harm. Limited national investment in CCTV also hampered efforts to stop drugs getting in.

Education and sentence progress

Unemployment was low and men got good time out of cell. Leaders had set up an Employment Advisory Board to build links with employers. Even so, inspectors judged the quality of education, training and work below the standard expected in a training prison.

The curriculum lacked breadth and ambition. Attendance was inconsistent, and too many men did not value their work roles. Teachers also did not revisit learning on radicalisation and extremism, so most learners did not understand the risks.

Preparation for release needed further work. Many men waited too long for an initial sentence progression plan. Offender management support was inconsistent and often late, and delays in reaching accredited programmes held men back.

Other concerns included an applications system that often left men without replies. A shortage of prison escorts also limited access to hospital care, creating what the report called unnecessary clinical risk.

Leadership

The governor had been in post for just over 18 months and had set a clear direction, backed by a four-year strategy. Recruitment and retention had improved, giving the prison more stable staffing. Health care leadership had also improved.

Inspectors found the assurance picture mixed. Some information leaders shared before the visit did not match what inspectors found on site. Leaders did not always use data well to spot new safety risks.

Inspectors recorded four examples of notable positive practice. These included a calm accessibility visits room for vulnerable visitors and a weekly meeting to support men found under the influence of drugs.