Prisons

Summary

Mr C attended his brother's integrated case management (ICM) case conference. This meeting is held each year when the prisoner and those involved in supporting them get together to discuss their sentence management.

A document used to minute the discussions is then shared with all attendees. On receiving this document, Mr C wrote to the ICM coordinator raising concerns about inaccuracies and omissions in the record. The ICM coordinator responded to Mr C confirming that the content of his letter had been noted and placed on file. Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Services' (SPS) handling of his submission about the ICM case conference record was unreasonable. Mr C also complained that the SPS failed to properly address his complaint.

In response to Mr C's complaint about the way his submission was handled, the SPS told him that his brother's own submission had been filed and was used as the record that both Mr C and his brother felt that the minutes captured were inaccurate.

We found that the relevant guidance indicates that all attendees at the case conference have a responsibility to check that the minute is an accurate, factual representation of discussions held and that they are content that their contribution has been accurately reflected. It confirms that attendees should notify the chair within 14 days of receiving the document of any concerns or requests for changes. The guidance does not explain how requests for amendments from any of the attendees should be considered, recorded or filed. Therefore, the administrative handling of this part of the process is a matter of discretion for the SPS to decide on.

By inviting all attendees to check that the minute is an accurate, factual representation of the discussions held, our view is that it is reasonable for all attendees to expect that any comments made by them, particularly regarding factual error or omission of irrelevant information or inclusion of relevant information are considered, and where appropriate, changes are made. We also concluded that the SPS' response to Mr C's complaint did not properly address the issue raised by him. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to properly address his complaint and for not handling his submission reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• The SPS should review Mr C's submission in relation to the ICM case conference and consider what changes, if any, will be made to the record of the case conference. The SPS should share the findings of their review with Mr C, highlighting any changes agreed and, where appropriate, offer an explanation as to why requested amendments have not been included.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The SPS should reflect on our findings and consider what process could be introduced to support section 10.7 of the ICM guidance to ensure submissions made by all attendees about the record of the ICM case conference are given fair and reasonable consideration and that this is communicated in an appropriate way.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C said that mail sent to him by recorded delivery, which arrived at the prison, had not been received by him. Mr C said that he did not sign the mail log. This is a document used by the prison to record that a prisoner has received recorded mail items that have arrived for them. Mr C believed the signatures shown were forged.

The prison concluded that all recorded delivery mail addressed to Mr C, and received at the prison on the dates in question, had been signed for by him.

Mr C said that the prison failed to handle his mail appropriately. He also complained that their handling of his complaints was unreasonable. Mr C was unhappy with the time taken to investigate the matter and felt no information was shared with him during the investigation. Mr C also said that no relevant investigation was carried out. He felt an expert should have been asked to analyse the signatures shown on the mail log.

We could not determine one way or the other whether the signatures shown on the mail log sheets in question were Mr C's and considered a proportionate investigation had been carried out. There was no evidence to cast doubt on the findings of the Scottish Prison Service's (SPS) investigation. On balance, and with the absence of any further reliable corroborating evidence, we concluded that Mr C's mail appeared to have been handled appropriately by the SPS. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the handling of Mr C's complaints, we felt that the investigation carried out by the SPS was reasonable and proportionate. However, we concluded that steps should have been taken at an early stage to notify Mr C that the investigation of his complaint would not be completed within the timescale set out in the Prison Rules. He should also have been advised of a new timescale and of any further delays in finalising the investigation of his complaint. In addition to this, we concluded that although several discussions were said to have taken place between staff and Mr C to keep him informed of the ongoing investigation, no record of when those discussions, or their content, were kept. In light of this, we upheld this aspect of complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not handling his complaints reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• SPS should handle complaints in line with prison rules and complaint handling guidance.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

C complained on behalf of their spouse (A) regarding the lack of support the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) provided in relation to assisting A to participate in an offending management course, specifically that they needed a translator to assist them. During our investigation, SPS apologised to A for the delay in matters related to their management. A was reassessed and a decision was taken that they did not require to complete the course. C then withdrew the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he did not receive his meals in prison when he was off his work placement for a week. He has a nut allergy and had requested to be placed on a special diet list. His work placement was within the kitchens so he was usually able to prepare his own meals. However, he complained that he was not placed on the special diet list, resulting in him not receiving meals when he was off work.

In responding to his complaint, the prison indicated that Mr C had not been on the special diet list, but had since been added to it following receipt of confirmation of his allergy from the healthcare team. However, the prison then told us that no instruction had been received from the healthcare team indicating any special dietary needs that Mr C could not manage himself. They acknowledged there had been issues in the past with Mr C not receiving the correct meals, which led to him being offered a job in the kitchens.

While we considered that the prison had demonstrated flexibility in allowing Mr C the freedom to control his food intake, we were unable to conclusively determine the arrangements in place to ensure his dietary needs are met when he is not working in the kitchens. On balance, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to clarify the confusion surrounding his dietary requirements, which led to him not receiving some meals.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The prison should write to Mr C to clarify what arrangements are in place to ensure his dietary needs are met, with a copy to kitchen staff and a copy to our office.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s booking system is unreasonable. She said that it prevented her from returning to her work and education activities after an arranged visit. Ms C said that when she is scheduled to attend a visit that lasts up to an hour, a three hour slot is assigned and she has to return to her cell after the visit and remain there for the remaining duration of the slot. She was concerned that it would affect her parole if she did not attend activities.

We found that SPS provided a clear rationale (in terms of security and logistics) as to why three hour slots are assigned to individuals when they attend a scheduled visit. The SPS also advised that individuals can be taken to work or education activities after their visit if time permits. They confirmed that it would not affect Ms C's parole or progression if she could not attend activities due to a visit or appointment. We considered the booking system to be reasonable and, therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) made inaccurate statements about him in a letter. Mr C disagreed with views expressed by prison staff that were repeated in the letter.

We found that records provided by the SPS supported the content of the letter. While we noted Mr C’s disagreement with the opinions of SPS staff as repeated in the letter and Mr C’s reasons for disagreeing, his disagreement was not itself evidence of maladministration on the part of the SPS. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C submitted a lost property claim to the prison service, alleging that some items of his property had gone missing after he handed his laundry bag in to the prison laundry. Mr C complained to us about the way the prison service handled his lost property claim, and about their handling of his complaint.

We found that Mr C's lost property claim had been handled appropriately. The prison service accepted that Mr C's kitbag had not been returned from the laundry, and had initially offered compensation for a lost t-shirt and lost shorts. They refused to compensate him for the loss of branded boxer shorts, saying they considered these items disposable once in use and explaining that they do not itemise them on prisoner's property cards so cannot track them as they do with other property. After Mr C escalated his complaint and it was investigated further, it became apparent that the t-shirt and shorts had in fact been handed out two months after he submitted his claim. The offer of compensation was therefore retracted.

Mr C said that the prison service had failed to record the number of pairs and brand of boxer shorts handed in, which he said was contrary to prison policy. We thought that the prison service could not reasonably be expected to itemise and note the brand of all items of underwear being handed into prisons, and we considered that their position was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to the complaints handling, the prison service had accepted some shortcomings in the original complaints response. Other than this, we found that they had responded within prescribed timescales and had given clear reasons for their decisions. We, therefore, did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was found guilty of a breach of discipline for refusing an order to return to his cell. He submitted a disciplinary appeal, claiming that he had refused to return to his cell as he was being bullied and victimised by other prisoners in the residential hall. He also submitted a complaint that his bullying allegation had not been adequately investigated. His appeal was barred by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) as it was not submitted within 14 days of the decision, as per prison rule 118. The SPS responded to Mr C's complaint, noting that their investigation had found no evidence to substantiate his bullying allegation. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

Mr C complained that the SPS failed to appropriately investigate his complaint. The SPS were unable to provide us with evidence that an appropriate investigation had been carried out. They said that the investigating officer had not produced a written report and had since left the organisation. They told us that they had since improved their process and it is now compulsory for investigating officers to provide a written investigation report. We upheld Mr C's complaint and asked the SPS to provide evidence of their new process.

Mr C also complained about the decision to time limit his disciplinary appeal. The SPS confirmed that they have no discretion to consider an appeal submitted later than 14 days from the date of the decision. They acknowledged that existing guidance and forms do not make this clear and confirmed plans were in place to revise these. As an interim measure, they proposed to issue a Governors  &  Managers Action Notice (GMA) and amend prisoner notices to highlight the 14 day time limit. While the SPS had made it clear to Mr C that they had time limited his appeal as it was outwith the 14 days, they subsequently entered into discussion with him regarding the circumstances he put forward for the late submission. This gave the impression that his late appeal could potentially have been considered had the SPS deemed his circumstances exceptional, when that was not the case. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the lack of evidence of an appropriate investigation of his complaint having been carried out. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Re-investigate Mr C's complaint, ensuring that the findings are appropriately documented.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Until the SPS are able to complete their review of the disciplinary appeal guidance and planned review of the relevant forms, the SPS should raise a GMA highlighting to staff the time limit set out in rule 118, and reminding them of the importance of making prisoners aware of this; and update the prisoner notices on disciplinary appeals to highlight the time limit set out in rule 118. In both instances, it should be made clear that appeals will not be considered outwith this time limit, irrespective of circumstances.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C wanted to progress from his current prison to the open estate (OE), with a view to getting parole and being released. His prison's risk management ream (RMT) decided that Mr C should first progress to the national top end (NTE - accommodation for low-supervision prisoners nearing the end of medium to long sentences). Mr C felt that the decision to not approve his application for the OE was unreasonable and he brought his complaint to us.

Mr C felt that he was ready for progression to the OE and that he was not given a chance to prove he had changed. We found that the RMT did not doubt the sincerity of Mr C's belief that he was ready. However, in considering all the information available to them, the RMT decided that Mr C would be progressed to the NTE where he would be given a chance to prove he had changed. The reasoning for this was that the NTE was a structured and supportive environment in which Mr C could practice appropriate coping and problem solving strategies. If successful in the NTE, Mr C would improve his chance of getting parole. We did not find evidence that the prison's actions in progressing Mr C to the NTE rather than the OE were unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the pornographic magazines stocked by the prion's supplier were aimed at heterosexual men. Mr C asked for access to equivalent homosexual pornographic magazines. The prison said that magazines were subject to the stock held by the supplier and that the supplier could not accommodate one-off requests. Mr C then submitted an Equality and Diversity Form and complained that this was not acknowledged by the prison.

We found that the prison had recently changed its policy to now allow prisoners to purchase pornographic magazines through the sundry purchases process. This decision was a matter of discretion for the Governor. Our office has no role in determining what policy the prison should have on this issue.

However, we were concerned that the prison had not carried out an Equality Impact Assessment before changing their policy on access to pornographic magazines. The prison did not have an objection to Mr C receiving homosexual pornographic magazines, however, their suggested possible solutions would not give Mr C the same access privileges that prisoners purchasing heterosexual pornographic magazines had.

We also found that the prison had failed to progress Mr C's Equality and Diversity Form. We noted that the purpose of these forms and who is responsible for processing them is not clear. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Following the review of the policy (recommended below) the prison service should review Mr C's specific situation.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The prison service should now carry out an Equality Impact Assessment. Following that, they should review their policy in light of the Equality Impact Assessment.
• The prison service should review the use and purpose of the Equality and Diversity Form.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.