David Greenwood, Head of Abuse at Switalskis, shares the horrifying truth behind detention institutions across the country. With the release of the Prison and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) Report representing a crucial step towards recognition of the significant scale of abuse, it begs to question how it was allowed to continue for so long.

David reports: “In 2001, a former detainee at Medomsley Detention Centre (“MDC”) walked into my office and shared his experience of the widespread abuse suffered by boys at the centre. That conversation marked the beginning of a long journey. One to uncover how state employees could commit such horrific acts, and how so many others turned a blind eye for so long.”

From this conversation, it soon became clear to David that Medomsley did not stand in isolation. Over the years, he has gathered testimonies from 243 men who were physically and sexually abused while detained as boys in similar institutions across the country.

Between the 1960s and 1990s, a violent culture was allowed to thrive within detention centres and borstals. Beatings, humiliation and physical “discipline” were routine. Many boys also suffered sexual assaults.

The lifelong impact

Imagine being locked away in an environment where violence was constant and safety was non-existent. For many survivors, those experiences left deep psychological scars that shaped their lives.

David comments: “The men I have spoken to describe lifelong struggles with authority, employment, and relationships. The trauma they endured as boys has limited their opportunities and wellbeing in adulthood. This was not just a failure of individual officers, it was a systemic failure by successive governments and civil servants who allowed detention centres to become places of cruelty and fear.”

The long fight for accountability

Since 2001, there have been repeated calls for a public inquiry into Medomsley. Despite overwhelming evidence, these calls have been ignored by successive governments.

In 2019, Switalskis specialist Abuse team had hoped that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) would finally examine Medomsley. When the request was refused, and government ministers again declined to act, three survivors instructed David and the team to launch a judicial review to seek a full, judge-led public inquiry.

The compromise reached with the government was a review by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), with survivors’ input into the terms of reference.

The PPO report

The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) report, published on 12 November 2025, represents an important step towards official recognition of the scale of the abuse and the failures of multiple state agencies - including the prison service, police, probation and NHS.

These institutions had the abuse in plain sight, yet did nothing to stop it. This pattern was not confined to Medomsley, but repeated across 28 detention centres nationwide, including Send, Whatton, Portland, Foston Hall, Eastwood Park, Wetherby and many more.

The report sets out new evidence showing how civil servants at the Home Office failed to halt the violence and condemns the inaction of governors and prison officers.

What the report fails to do

While the PPO’s findings are welcome, significant questions remain unanswered:

1. Psychological harm – The report does not address the long-term mental health impact on former detainees or the social and economic consequences of the “short, sharp shock” regime.
2. Police failings – It does not explain why police investigations in 2003 and 2005 were so limited and failed to uncover the true scale of abuse.
3. Lack of accountability – The report does not name the governors under whose watch these atrocities took place.
4. Missed opportunities – It fails to identify the critical moments when decisive action could have stopped abusive officers in their tracks.

The call for a full public inquiry

While this report is a milestone, it is far from the end. Survivors deserve a full public inquiry to uncover the truth about state-sponsored violence in youth detention, expose those responsible, and ensure lessons are learned for future generations.

Switalskis will continue to work alongside MPs and survivors to campaign for a comprehensive public inquiry - one that finally delivers the justice, recognition, and accountability these men have waited decades to see.

Supporting survivors of abuse

The Abuse team at Switalskis represent many survivors of abuse who are seeking truth and justice after being failed by the institutions meant to protect them.

If you were affected by abuse in a detention centre or similar setting, our specialist team can help you explore your legal options with sensitivity, understanding, and care.

Contact our specialist Abuse Team to speak confidentially to one of our specialist solicitors.

Terms of reference for the PPO report into Medomsley

Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC) Special Investigation:

Terms of Reference

Definitions

For the purposes of these Terms of Reference:

“Abuse” refers to any sexual or physical abuse, but may also refer more broadly to the type of regime employed at MDC.

“Authorities” refers to relevant public bodies and their employees, including the police, probation, the prison service, health and social care services, inspectorates, charities, local government and central government.

Purpose

The Secretary of State for Justice has commissioned the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) to carry out an investigation into what the Authorities knew about the abuse that took place at MDC between 1961 and 1987, whether there were opportunities for the Authorities to have taken action or intervened at that time, and what actions (if any) were taken by the Authorities in such instances. 

MDC was a detention facility open between 1961 and 1987 that held men aged 17-21. Former inmates have since reported being subjected to abuse while detained at MDC. Police investigations since the 1990s have led to eight former members of staff being convicted of physical and sexual assault, and misconduct in a public office.

The PPO is not commissioned to re-investigate the facts of the abuse at MDC, nor to re-investigate individual incidents.

Scope of Investigation

1. To obtain the documentary evidence held by Durham Police (or any other police force) as part of their criminal investigations.

1. To gather any evidence held by Government departments, including but not limited to, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Home Office.

1. To review the evidence available to establish where staff within the establishment were aware of the abuse at MDC, when and what action (if any) they took.

1. To review the evidence available to establish whether any of the Authorities were aware of the abuse at MDC, when and what action (if any) they took.

1. To establish a timeline of what was known by whom about the abuse at MDC at the time and what if any, action was taken and when it was taken.

1. To establish whether government and/or operational policy at the time played a role in the abuse at MDC.

Investigation

The PPO may defer all or part of the investigation if, or, when the police are conducting a criminal investigation in parallel. The decision to defer will be made in discussion with the police force.

Though it may now be difficult to trace surviving former members of staff and officials, and there is no legal power to compel them to co-operate, the PPO may need to engage with or interview former staff or officials where this is deemed beneficial to the investigation. Formal statements may be requested from individuals as required. The Secretary of State for Justice will, if requested, aid the PPO in contacting officials and encouraging their participation in the investigation.

The PPO may also request information and/or documents from the Authorities. The Secretary of State for Justice expects all relevant authorities to ensure that the Ombudsman has unfettered access to all relevant material, held both in hard copy and electronically, that is required for the purposes of this investigation. This includes classified material, physical and mental health information, and information originating from or held by other organisations (e.g. contractors (or their sub-contractors) providing services to or on behalf of the Authorities. All material will be managed in accordance with PPO policy and the relevant information legislation. Should the PPO not be initially granted access by any authority to any information that the PPO reasonably requires to undertake its investigation, the Secretary of State for Justice will support the PPO in overcoming any issues or barriers. 

The Ombudsman will consider representations as to the necessity of particular material being provided, the means by which it is provided and any sensitivity connected with future publication, but the final decision rests with the Ombudsman who will define the material required based on the needs of the investigation.

As part of the investigation, the PPO will set out their victim/family liaison strategy which will explain how the PPO will engage with victims and families during the investigation.

Output of the Investigation

The PPO will carry out an investigation covering the areas identified at points 1-6 above. Following the investigation, the PPO will prepare and publish a written report of their findings.

An interim report, and a draft of the final report, will be provided to key stakeholders (including the Secretary of State for Justice) prior to publication. The content of the report is solely at the discretion of the PPO. The PPO will consider responses to factual accuracy checks, but will exercise their own discretion on what, if any, changes to make.

The PPO can only base their report on the evidence available as part of the investigation.

If during the investigation the PPO identify any gaps in the evidence or any missed opportunities, they will highlight them in the written report.