Prison ombudsman's shocking report reveals historic systemic culture of abuse at Detention Centre

In October 2023 the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Chalk, commissioned the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) to undertake an independent investigation into the abuse of inmates at Medomsley Detention Centre.

The centre, which was designed to hold offenders aged between 17 and 21, was in operation from 1961 to 1987, and the offences for which the young men were sentenced ranged from shoplifting and non-payment of fines to robbery.

The investigation was commissioned after investigations by Durham Constabulary between 2001 and 2023 reported widespread physical and sexual abuse of over 2,000 inmates at Medomsley.

Today (November 12), the report has been published showing the shocking scale of the abuse.

Within the report the prison ombudsman said: “The physical abuse began as soon as inmates entered the centre, with cases of abuse whilst bathing or being strip searched, and where inmates were forced to inflict violence upon each other.

“The sexual abuse committed by prison staff ranged from acts of sexual touching to oral, and rape. The sexual abuse was painful and degrading, with acts of a sadistic nature.”

In total, 2,077 victims came forward as part of Operation Seabrook, Durham Constabulary’s investigation into abuse at Medomsley. As of August 2025, the Government Legal Department has received 2,852 claims alleging sexual and/ or physical abuse at Medomsley.

The report names two key reported perpetrators of the abuse; Neville Husband and Leslie Johnston. Of the 549 documented sexual abuse allegations, the report states 388 allegations were made against Husband, of which 338 report him as the primary abuser. The report states 33 sexual abuse allegations name Johnston as the abuser or refer to him as ‘the storeman’.

The ombudsman was also highly critical of the leadership of the detention centre and their failings to address the abuse of inmates.

The ombudsman said: “The leadership of the Prison Service knew that physical punishments were being used by staff to discipline inmates.

“Leaders at every level at Medomsley, including the warden, failed in their duty to protect the best interests of those under their charge.

“Either staff in leadership roles were aware of the abuse, in which case they were complicit, or they lacked dedication and professional curiosity to such an extent as to not be professionally competent.

“There were disclosures of abuse to the warden, including the warden himself witnessing abuse.

“Evidence suggests that many prison staff knew about or suspected that Husband was sexually abusing inmates but took no action to stop it.

“The failure of leadership to set appropriate standards of behaviour meant that poor working practices were allowed to continue, and the leadership was not intrusive enough about the serious injuries caused to inmates, or in investigating jokes and suggestions about sexual abuse.

“Inmates were not protected. The lack of governance meant that violence was able to become a legitimate part of the regime without any repercussions and oversight was entirely ineffective.

“This allowed an imbalance of power to develop among staff, meaning staff such as Husband and Johnston, bypassed the rules and exploited these vulnerabilities.”

The ombudsman also criticised the prison authorities.

He added: “The knowledge of abuse by the Prison Service, the police, the Home Office and other organisations of authority was ignored and dismissed. Sending these young men to Medomsley was supposed to instil them with more ordered, law-abiding lives. The authorities failed in their duty to keep detainees safe.”

The report did add that based on the available information, there is no evidence that education staff, health or social services were aware of the systemic sexual abuse taking place at Medomsley.

During its operation, two inmates died, deaths which the ombudsman said were “arguably avoidable and were not followed by any meaningful review on the part of the Prison Service or the Home Office”.

In his report summary, the ombudsman highlighted the inherent power imbalance at Medomsley between staff and which “meant inmates could be threatened with loss of remission, be reported for minor or false violations and have their complaints disregarded”.

He added: “This removed all opportunity for them to report or stop the abuse from occurring.

“The influence and power that Husband commanded over other staff, including wardens, allowed sexual abuse to occur and to continue unchallenged, because policies and safeguards were not followed and staff were not empowered to speak out, through fear or a belief that Husband had the backing of senior leaders.

“Husband and Johnston’s prolific offending took place against a lack of intrusive leadership and a cultural environment where rule breaking was the norm and an imbalance of power was allowed to develop.”

The report also highlighted the long-term impact of the abuse on the victims.

The ombudsmen said: “Our investigation shows that many staff at Medomsley did either know or suspect that sexual abuse of trainees was taking place.

“This has understandably left victims angry about why nobody did anything to stop the abuse of young trainees, some of whom were children.

“This anger has been compounded due to the fact that victims have been unable to achieve justice by seeing Husband or Johnston held fully accountable or other perpetrators convicted, either due to the public interest issue regarding Husband or because other perpetrators had died or were too ill to be prosecuted.”

Husband was finally convicted of sexual assault and was jailed in 2003 and again in 2005. He died in 2010.

Five people were eventually convicted for their part in the abuse. One defendant was ruled not fit to stand trial and another died while awaiting court proceedings.