Technology in Prisons: Innovation, Rights, and Legal Oversight in England and Wales

Driven by chronic overcrowding, budget constraints, these technological innovations promise greater efficiency, enhanced rehabilitation, and improved communication, but they also present significant legal and ethical challenges. While these developments are often framed as modernising interventions, they present fundamental legal questions. For those working in law, prison technology must be interrogated not only for its utility, but for its impact on fairness, procedural justice, accountability, and human rights.

A Digital Turn in the Prison System of England and Wales

In 2017, prisons such as HMP Berwyn and HMP Wayland piloted in-cell telephones and basic computers to allow prisoners to manage some of their day-to-day tasks and reduce the workload of prison officers. Later, through its 2021 Prisons Strategy White Paper, the Ministry of Justice set out a clear vision for a digitally enabled prison estate. The aim was for technology to enhance security, improve rehabilitation outcomes, and make the prison estate more efficient. Simultaneously, video-enabled court appearances, accelerated during the pandemic, have become commonplace for remand and sentencing hearings. 2022 saw the opening of HMP Five Wells, a digitally constructed prison framed as the first 'smart' prison to implement cutting edge technologies to keep the public safe while supporting prisoners to turn their backs on crime for good (1). More recently, after implementing it in 19 prisons, the Ministry of Justice announced plans to expand the Launchpad programme by May 2025 (2). The initiative provides people in prison with secure in-cell laptops, giving them access to digital services designed to support rehabilitation.

This digital turn attempts to respond to some enduring operational challenges within the prison system; technology can streamline operations, reduce costs, and offer prisoners more autonomy in managing their education, wellbeing, and release planning. However, a Ministry of Justice commissioned evaluation has cautioned that digital transformation must be pursued with care, especially in environments where liberty is already restricted and accountability diffuse (3).

Access and Autonomy: In-Cell Technology

One of the most prominent changes has been the introduction of in-cell laptops via the Launchpad programme. Following a pilot in 19 prisons, the MoJ confirmed plans to expand Launchpad across the estate by May 2025. The initiative provides people in prison with secure laptops in their cells, allowing them to access digital education platforms, book visits, or communicate with support services like the Samaritans. The aim is to increase autonomy and to reduce reliance on prison staff. According to the 2020 evaluation, such tools have the potential to reduce tensions on wings, improve mental health, and increase engagement with rehabilitative services and strengthen family ties.

Yet access remains inconsistent. Older prisoners often lack the infrastructure required, eligibility criteria based on sentence type, security category, adjudication history, and people on remand, all have the potential to limit uptake and exclude participation. From a legal perspective, this uneven distribution has the potential to raise concerns under the Equality Act 2010 and Article 14 of the ECHR, particularly if digital access, education and wellbeing tools become factors in parole hearings and sentence planning.

Procedural Justice and Remote Hearings

The use of video-link technology for court hearings can present another dilemma. While efficient, there is growing evidence that remote participation may hinder a defendant's ability to engage meaningfully in proceedings. Research by Transform Justice (4), Centre for Justice Innovation (5), and Fair Trials (6) has highlighted the risk of defendants being unable to consult properly with counsel, understand proceedings, or feel 'present' in the courtroom. For practitioners, safeguards under Article 6 of the ECHR, the right to a fair trial, may raise concerns, particularly in relation to a defendant's right to legal assistance (7). While virtual justice has its place, it must not be allowed to erode procedural safeguards. Lawyers must ensure that digital expedience does not come at the cost of justice.

Digital Access?

There is no denying that education in prison is lacking digitally. The government can introduce as many faux initiatives as they like, but if the infrastructure is lacking, then the whole thing fails. The introduction of in cell laptops is a huge leap forward, but only for the prisons that adopt them, and are willing to pay for them. For example, HMP Full Sutton invested in a number of laptops (15) from Coracle Inside, a company that provides secure laptops. These were then given to the Open University student prisoners. In theory - amazing! In reality, the laptops have to be charged before given to the prisoner; they are not connected to the cloud and only hold small amounts of data. This means that once the device is full, the prisoner must wait for the education department to download the content onto the virtual campus and recharge the device before the prisoner can have it back. On average, a prisoner can expect to have 5-7 days of useful time with a laptop per month.

There is an IT qualification that is offered within prison, but only to level 3, and it is not offered to everyone, and not everyone wants to study it. If a prisoner wants to study, they have to apply to go to education, depending on the daily routine, that might not be possible. Prisoners might not be in prison long enough to complete any meaningful education programme. Added to that, wages within the prison are lowest for education, and prisoners will earn more working in other areas of the prison.

Education is very much a rehabilitative tool that is under used and undervalued with the prison environment. If a prison is understaffed, education is the first thing to be reduced. An educated prisoner is one that is more likely to reintegrate with society. A digitally educated prisoner who is set up to be able to navigate a digital world stands an even greater chance of thriving post release (8).

People should be sent to prison 'as' punishment and not 'for' punishment. Access to education, and in particular, digital education is an important part of society, why not make it an important part of the microcosm of society that is a prison. Accessibility must be treated as a core legal obligation, not a secondary technical challenge.

Algorithmic Decision Making

As prisons become increasingly data-driven, tools like OASys (Offender Assessment System) and other algorithmic risk models hold influence over key decisions such as categorisation, parole, and early release. Yet these tools remain opaque and problematic. Prisoners and legal representatives are rarely provided with a clear understanding of how scores are calculated or how to challenge them. This lack of transparency is deeply contentious in a system governed by the rule of law, particularly in relation to Human Rights (9). Legal professionals must advocate for explainable AI, meaningful audit rights, and independent review mechanisms.

Legal Oversight and the Way Forward

As a tool in prison technology has promise. However, its design, implementation, and governance must reflect the values of fairness and equity. The legal profession has a critical role to play in:

• Ensuring procedural fairness in remote hearings
• Challenging digital inequalities that undermine education
• Scrutinising algorithmic decision making

As prison systems become more digitised, legal oversight is essential. Without it, we risk building digital systems that are less fair, less accountable, and reinforce existing harms.