Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that he was put on closed visits (where a prisoner and their visitor cannot make physical contact) following an allegation of fighting. The prison was unable to demonstrate they had followed the correct process as paperwork which should have been completed was not obtainable. For this reason, we upheld the complaint. As the prison had already noted the missing paperwork and were conducting a review, we asked them to let us know the outcome of the review. Mr C was no longer on closed visits, and we asked the prison to apologise to Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C; and
• inform us of the results of the prison's review.

Summary

Mr C complained that his partner (Ms A) was banned from visiting him, and that after the ban was lifted Ms A would have to visit him in closed facilities for nine months. Mr C also complained that the prison did not consider his complaint properly, and that prison staff annotated part of the prison complaint form that was for his use.

We found that rule 77 of The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 gave the prison governor very broad discretion to ban a visitor, and did not state a time limit for a ban. Given this, we could not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

In most other respects, we were concerned about the prison's handling of this matter. Although rule 78 allows a governor to order that visits must be held in closed facilities, it states that such an order must be reviewed by the governor not less than once in every three months. In this case, the prison put the onus on Ms A after a nine month period, rather than on the governor not less than once in every three months as stated in the prison rules. We were of the view that the prison's letter to Ms A about the ban and the closed visits did not provide clear information about these restrictions and how they could be lifted.

Complaints that go to a prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) should be handled in line with rule 123 and the Scottish Prison Service's own complaints handling guidance. We found that the prison did not follow relevant parts of the prison rules and the guidance in relation to assistance for Mr C at the ICC hearing and calling witnesses. We were also concerned about the language used in the ICC's note of the hearing; and about the annotation of the complaint form by prison staff, as the form is the record of the complaint made and responses given at each stage of the process.

Given the process failings and issues we identified, we upheld the remaining aspects of Mr C's complaint and we made nine recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C in writing for the administrative failings we identified;
• apologise to Ms A in writing for the administrative failings we identified;
• remind relevant staff of the review timescale set out in Rule 78(3);
• review the imposition of closed visits on Ms A to ensure it is in line with Rule 78(3);
• consider the concerns we highlighted arising from the letter sent to Ms A about the ban and closed visits, to ensure that future letters to any person about a ban and/or closed visits are appropriate;
• write to Ms A setting out the terms of any remaining ban, explaining what supporting information she should supply to appeal the ban, setting out the terms of closed visits, explaining whether she needs to provide supporting information when writing to have closed visits lifted, and explaining what this supporting information should be;
• review the handling of the ICC in this case, and reflect on the ICC's approach and language as recorded in their note of the hearing, to ensure that the same failings are not repeated;
• remind relevant staff of Rule 123(7), GMA 36A/14 and the SPS complaints guidance in relation to assistance for prisoners and the attendance of witnesses at an ICC hearing; and
• ensure that staff do not annotate original Prisoner Complaint Forms (PCFs), and that unannotated original forms are returned to prisoners.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not respond to his complaint to them.

Our investigation showed that the officer who would have replied to the complaint considered that the language and tone of it were inappropriate, and that he told Mr C this, inviting him to resubmit the complaint with more appropriate wording. Mr C did so, and the officer then replied to the complaint.

We considered it was important that the officer did not simply refuse to answer the complaint. He explained to Mr C what he thought was wrong with it and gave him the chance to put that right. When Mr C followed his advice, he replied to the complaint. We considered that was an appropriate approach.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison had inadequate arrangements for him to access documents that were held for him in the reception area. Mr C also complained about how the prison handled his complaints about this matter.

During our investigation, Mr C told us that legal action he was taking against the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) would refer to incidents when he had not been granted access to his documents, which were a key part of his complaint to us. We decided that we could not take any further action on the complaint until the legal action was concluded and then, if Mr C returned to us with this complaint, we could only look at anything that had not, or could not, have been considered in court. Therefore, we closed the file on Mr C's complaint.

Summary

An escorting agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), transferred Mr C from hospital to their escort vehicle in order to transport him back to prison. Mr C complained about the way in which the escorting agency carried out that transfer and about their handling of his complaint.

When the escorting officers arrived to transfer him to the vehicle, they attempted to use a restraint method but would not explain why to Mr C. He resisted and, therefore, they carried him through the hospital to the vehicle. Mr C complained to us about being carried in full view of other people in the hospital and about the way in which they had carried him - for example, bending his back inappropriately and laying him face down on the floor when they needed a break from carrying him.

Our investigation found that, although an escorting officer had received authority from the agency's control centre for the restraint method, that was inappropriate. We also found Mr C should not have been moved in that way, and that such techniques were not taught, recognised or approved. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Mr C also had a number of complaints about the way the agency handled his complaint, such as that their reply did not address all of his concerns. Our investigation showed that their investigation of the complaint was thorough and appropriate, but we agreed with Mr C's complaints about their reply, which gave very little information. Our investigation showed that the investigation by the agency had revealed shortcomings and indicated that action, such as staff training, needed to be taken. However, their reply to Mr C gave no indication that any shortcomings had been identified or that any action would be taken as a result of his complaint. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Our investigation found significant shortcomings, however, our only recommendation was that the agency send a written apology to Mr C. This was because we had recently investigated similar complaints by Mr C about the agency, and they had indicated that they would be taking significant actions to help prevent shortcomings in the future. We considered it would be reasonable to give them the chance to carry out those actions.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C, on behalf of the escorting agency, for the shortcomings we identified regarding Mr C's transfer from hospital to the escort vehicle; and
• apologise to Mr C, on behalf of the escorting agency, for the shortcomings we identified regarding the handling of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C said he issued a letter to his solicitor and he requested that it be sent by special delivery. However, Mr C said an officer told him that his letter had been lost and asked him to resubmit it, which he did. Mr C said that it was unreasonable that his original letter was lost and that there had been an unreasonable delay in issuing the letter he resubmitted. He also complained that the prison did not respond appropriately to his complaint.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said it was unacceptable that Mr C's letter was lost. However, when we made enquiries with the SPS, they told us the officer identified by Mr C in his complaint had said he did not tell Mr C that his letter had been lost. Instead, the officer said Mr C approached him to say that a letter he had sent by standard delivery to his solicitor had not arrived. The officer said he advised Mr C to resubmit the letter. There was no other evidence available to support Mr C's position that his original letter had been lost by the prison.

We also looked at whether there had been an unreasonable delay in the SPS issuing Mr C's letter. The evidence available confirmed that the prison deducted the special delivery postage fee from Mr C's account, but his letter did not reach its destination until four days later. The SPS explained that all prisoner mail being sent by recorded or special delivery had to be hand-delivered to the nearest post office by a member of staff. They said it could not always be done on the day the letters were collected from prisoners. In Mr C's case, the SPS explained that his letter was collected on a Friday, taken to the post office after the weekend, before being delivered to its recipient on the Tuesday.

In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. However, we did agree that the prison did not respond appropriately to his complaint. It was apparent that steps were only taken to speak with the officer identified in Mr C's complaint after we made an enquiry to the SPS. We felt this should have been done when Mr C made his complaint to the prison.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• share our findings with relevant complaints handling staff and remind them to ensure that, where appropriate, individuals identified in complaints are interviewed.

Summary

Mr C complained about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) following their refusal of his application to be released under a Home Detention Curfew (HDC). At the first stage of the application process, the decision letter from the SPS stated that his application was refused because the address he had proposed was assessed as being unsuitable. The letter requested an alternative address. Mr C appealed this decision, stating the reasons he felt that the address was suitable. He also provided an alternative address in the event that the decision remained the same.

His appeal was also unsuccessful. The decision letter stated that not only was the address he provided unsuitable, he was also an unsuitable candidate. He attempted to get further information about this decision and to submit a further appeal. However, this was refused, and he was told he had exhausted the appeals process.

In answer to our enquiries, the SPS stated that Mr C had been assessed at the first stage as being an unsuitable candidate for release but that they had failed to communicate this to him. This was because a standard letter had been used that was meant to be used solely when applications were refused due to an unsuitable address. We felt that this meant Mr C had unreasonably been restricted from making a proper appeal of the decision and upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation;
• re-assess Mr C's application for release under HDC from the first stage, ensuring that the guidance is followed, and giving clear reasons for the decisions made; and
• provide training to relevant staff on the guidance, with particular focus on communication and recording of decisions.

Summary

The decision was taken to return Mr C to more secure conditions. This happened when concerns were raised about his appearance after his return to prison from an outside work placement in the community. Mr C complained because he said the proper process was not followed prior to that decision being taken. In particular, Mr C said he was not placed on report for breaching prison rules or his licence conditions. He was also unhappy that a more in-depth drug test was not carried out to prove he had not taken any illicit substances. Mr C also questioned why he had retained his low supervision level after being returned to closed conditions.

There is nothing contained within the prison rules or the relevant guidance to suggest that Mr C should have been placed on report. In addition, the prison used the normal drugs testing processes available to them. The decision to carry out any further testing would have been at the discretion of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), as was the decision to allow Mr C to retain his low supervision level.

We were satisfied that the process had been followed appropriately by the SPS, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C wanted to be transferred to the prison nearest his home for family reasons, and he complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had not taken his family circumstances into account in dealing with his transfer request. We found that the SPS were aware of Mr C's family circumstances and had discussed them with him. However, the SPS had also explained to Mr C the reasons why a transfer to his local prison was unlikely. There was no evidence that the SPS had failed to follow relevant procedures. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C had several wage deduction punishments imposed by the prison for different offences. Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately applied these punishments consecutively (so that the wage deductions were applied one after the other and continued for several months) instead of concurrently (such that each day of wage deduction counted towards all of the current punishments). He said that the prison guidance required punishments to be applied concurrently, unless they were specifically recorded as consecutive.

An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was held, which agreed with Mr C's interpretation of the guidance and ordered a review of Mr C’s wage deductions. However, the review did not take place, and Mr C complained about this. A second ICC was held which disagreed with the first decision and found that Mr C’s wages deductions were being applied correctly.

After investigating Mr C’s complaints we found that the guidance on this issue was unclear, and that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) was interpreting this differently in relation to wages and other kinds of punishments. Although we considered either interpretation would be reasonable, we were critical that the SPS was using two inconsistent interpretations at the same time. However, in Mr C’s case, we found that the approach taken was permitted by the rules and guidance, and Mr C had been treated consistently with other prisoners in a similar situation. Therefore, we found that the application of the wage deduction punishments was reasonable and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

However, we found that it was unreasonable that the recommendation of the first ICC was not carried out (due to an administrative error), and that Mr C was not given any apology for this. We were also critical that Mr C was given two inconsistent ICC decisions, as the ICC is the final stage for a prison complaint and care should be taken to ensure the decision is robust. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation identified;
• review their guidance on consecutive and concurrent punishments to ensure that there is a clear and consistent approach followed by all prisons;
• bring our findings on the two inconsistent ICC decisions to the attention of ICC members to prevent this situation recurring; and
• demonstrate to us that adequate steps have been taken to ensure ICC recommendations are implemented timeously (once they have been endorsed by the Governor).