HMP Leicester had the highest assault rate among comparable reception prisons, according to HM Inspectorate of Prisons. Inspectors also found that use of force ran considerably higher than at similar jails.
The inspectorate’s report, published in November 2025, followed fieldwork that ended in August 2025. It found that outcomes for safety and purposeful activity had deteriorated since the previous inspection in 2023. The prison held on to reasonably good outcomes for respect and for preparation for release.
Leicester is a small reception prison for men in the East Midlands, taking people directly from the courts. It held 328 men during the inspection, against an operational capacity of 332. The main building dates from 1874, and its gatehouse from 1825.
Grades slip on safety and activity
Inspectors rated Leicester not sufficiently good for safety and poor for purposeful activity, which covers education, work and time out of cell. They rated respect and preparation for release reasonably good.
In 2023, the prison scored reasonably good for safety and not sufficiently good for purposeful activity. Both of those grades have now fallen by one step.
Of the 13 concerns raised in 2023, leaders had addressed six and left six unaddressed. One no longer applied. The prison had dealt with every earlier safety concern. Yet three of the four concerns about purposeful activity remained. This time inspectors raised 14 key concerns, five of them priorities.
High turnover and the transience of the population shaped much of what we found.
Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Violence, drugs and health care
Chief Inspector of Prisons Charlie Taylor wrote that high turnover and the transience of the population “shaped much of what we found”. Average stays lasted about six weeks. The prison received 2,236 new prisoners a year, and monthly arrivals had passed 200 since April 2025.
Recorded violence remained too high. Drug use was also a problem. The positive mandatory drug testing rate stood at 29%, and prisoners faced persistent delays in getting substance misuse support. Leaders attended drug strategy meetings poorly, and the meetings produced no meaningful action.
Health care gave inspectors further concern. Provision was fragile, with high staff vacancy rates. Many patients missed appointments, and officers supervised medication hatches ineffectively. Patients waited far too long for transfer to specialist mental health beds under the Mental Health Act. Some had no care plans for long-term conditions.
The report noted that health leadership had begun to improve after a change of provider. However, long-standing problems persisted without credible plans to fix them.
Worn cells and an unreliable regime
Living conditions remained inadequate. Many cells on the main wing had damaged flooring and windows, worn fittings and poor ventilation. The prison’s in-use certified normal capacity, the number it can hold without crowding, stood at 211, so many men shared cramped cells.
Leaders had invested in showers, roofing, CCTV and the gym. Inspectors said these works addressed some critical risks, but prisoners barely noticed them.
Daily routines were unreliable. Roll checks often ran late, unlock times varied and staff could not always account for where prisoners were. At weekends, prisoners could expect less than two hours out of their cells on Saturdays and Sundays.
Education, skills and work remained weak. The curriculum lacked ambition, attendance was too low and punctuality was poor. Too many prisoners left without relevant skills for employment. Many with additional learning needs did not get the support they required.
Strengths in relationships and resettlement
The report recorded real strengths. Staff-prisoner relationships were good, and staff retention had much improved. Three-quarters of staff who answered the inspectorate’s survey said they understood the governor’s priorities. The long-serving governor retired a week before the inspection, and the deputy was acting in the role.
Family contact worked well. Prisoners had good access to visits, including extra evening and weekend sessions, in a welcoming hall. Library use had also improved.
Inspectors singled out the refurbished gym, open seven days a week, as notable positive practice. It ran sessions for men held in segregation and for those referred by health care. A second example was a checklist that helped staff consider key risks when interviewing new arrivals.
Resettlement work was strong. Offender management, public protection and resettlement staff worked side by side, with good links to outside agencies. New employment and resettlement hubs and a departure lounge added to that work. Even so, too many prisoners left Leicester homeless.
Mr Taylor summed up the prison as “well led” with committed staff. He added that the cramped and ageing buildings, a lack of work and a transient population had hampered progress.
The inspectorate later published an independent review of progress at Leicester in September 2026. That visit assessed progress against the key concerns from this inspection.
About this story
This story is based on HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ report on HMP Leicester, published on 17 November 2025, following an inspection that ended in August 2025. All figures and judgements are the inspectorate’s. Read the full inspection report · See the prison’s profile in our directory.
