Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to provide him with support to deal with his drug addiction. We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not responsible for providing this particular support, as it was a matter for the NHS. Mr C said he was seeking specific medication, and that the SPS should transfer him to another prison in the hope of getting the medication. The SPS said this was not a valid reason for transfer because a prison transfer would not necessarily resolve Mr C’s wish to obtain specific medication. This is because prescribing medication is a matter for the NHS, not the SPS. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to carry out a generic assessment (GA) for him (an assessment of a prisoner to determine what work programmes they should carry out in order to progress from a closed prison to a facility for life sentence prisoners, prior to them moving to open prison). He raised a number of issues, including that the SPS unreasonably refused to carry out a GA until he had signed a document outlining what would be discussed at one-to-one sessions he was required to attend with social work and then attended these sessions. Mr C also complained that the SPS failed to reasonably follow their complaints procedure when dealing with his complaint about the GA.

The SPS said that a GA could not take place until Mr C completed the social work one-to-one sessions, and that these sessions superseded the GA process. However, the SPS were not able to refer this office to any document which stated that this was the case, and the advice from the SPS’s senior psychologist at their headquarters was that there was no documentation to support this. The senior psychologist said that work with social work should not negate the need for a GA.

Given concerns raised by the SPS regarding Mr C’s co-operation in the social work one-to-one sessions, it did not seem unreasonable that he was asked to sign a document specifying an agreed code of conduct for the sessions. However, as the one-to-one sessions were separate from the GA process, we were critical of the SPS for refusing to carry out a GA until Mr C had signed a code of conduct document and completed the sessions.

We also found that the SPS failed to reasonably follow their complaints procedure, and we considered that their actions prolonged the complaints process unnecessarily in this case.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• feed back our decisions on Mr C's two complaints to the staff involved in his case; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to follow the relevant policy when dealing with his progression. In particular, Mr C said he remained in closed conditions six years after the expiry of the punishment part of his sentence when he should have progressed through less secure conditions before reaching open conditions.

In response to Mr C's complaint on the matter, the SPS said they were managing his progression in line with the relevant policies in place. In particular, in relation to those prisoners serving a life sentence, the SPS risk management and progression guidance indicates that a prisoner's preparation-for-release phase can start no earlier than four years before the expiry of the punishment part of their sentence. However, the guidance clearly states that the timing describes the best-case scenario and other factors such as a prisoner's supervision level, conduct in custody, drug test results and participation in offending behaviour programmes may affect the timing of the release phase. In addition, the SPS told us that in Mr C's case, whilst the punishment part of his sentence had expired, he had outstanding programme needs that must be addressed before he could be considered for progression to less secure conditions.

It is clear that the timings described in the guidance set out the best-case scenario and each prisoner’s case will be dealt with on its own merits, taking into account their own individual circumstances. The guidance does not suggest there is an automatic progression route for prisoners with fixed timescales. Instead, it sets out a framework within which the SPS can assess the needs of, and risks presented by, individual prisoners. The evidence available in Mr C's case indicated that his progression was being managed by the SPS in line with the relevant policy and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that an inaccurate statement had been inappropriately recorded in a note outlining the risk management team's (RMT) discussion of his case. He said that the statement indicated that several attempts had been made to engage him in a type of therapy. Mr C disputed that. In response to his complaint, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said it was not possible or helpful to trace who made the statement. However, it was agreed that the RMT should discuss Mr C's denial that he had refused to engage with the therapy at their next meeting.

We asked the SPS to tell us whether the statement recorded by the RMT about Mr C was accurate and based on factual information. The SPS provided extracts from the notes of discussions held at various meetings which they felt supported the statement recorded. The SPS also explained that whilst working with Mr C in general, staff would have used the therapy techniques but he would not have been aware of that. They accepted that it was not clear from the statement recorded by the RMT that this was the case. The SPS acknowledged that the statement implied Mr C had been provided with specific work, not that techniques were being used during general work with him. In addition, the SPS told us that the RMT had not discussed the matter again as had been agreed.

In considering Mr C's complaint, we looked at whether the statement recorded was accurate and whether it had been recorded appropriately. In our view, the statement led the reader to believe that attempts to have Mr C engage in therapy work were unsuccessful. We considered that whilst the statement was not necessarily inaccurate, it was not completely accurate either. We were concerned that the language used was misleading, and open to misinterpretation and because of that, we considered that the information had been recorded inappropriately. We were also concerned because, in their written response to Mr C's complaint, the SPS noted an inaccurate reflection of the misleading statement.

Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• take immediate steps to appropriately record the position in relation to Mr C's involvement with the therapy.

Summary

Mr C repeatedly pressed the call button in his cell and was placed on a disciplinary report by prison officers. Mr C complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about this because he said he pressed the call button because he was unwell. Mr C then complained to us about how the SPS handled his complaint.

We found there was an unreasonable delay in the SPS dealing with Mr C's complaints, and that his initial complaint was not handled in line with the relevant guidance. Mr C made more than one complaint to the SPS, and his last complaint to them was dealt with at all stages of the process by the same officer, which we found to be unreasonable. We also found that the responses provided to Mr C were not in keeping with the complaints guidance and were not entirely reasonable in the circumstances. In addition, we found that in dealing with Mr C's last complaint, the SPS did not handle his request for witnesses in line with the complaints guidance. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• review the handling of this complaint with the relevant prison to ensure these failings do not occur in the future; and
• remind the relevant prison of the timescales and the process for delays in exceptional circumstances as set out in the staff guidance on prisoner complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was inappropriately released from prison on interim liberation on a Sunday. He also complained that there was an unreasonable delay in assigning his low supervision level and that the handling of his application for early release under the home detention curfew (HDC) scheme was inappropriate.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us that Mr C was granted interim liberation on the Friday but prison staff only noticed the fax sent by the court on the Sunday. Because of that, there was a delay in releasing Mr C on interim liberation. Therefore, whilst we did not see any evidence to suggest that it was inappropriate to release a prisoner on a Sunday, we did consider that there had been a delay in releasing Mr C on interim liberation so we upheld his complaint.

In addition, the SPS told us Mr C was assigned low supervision level but his computerised record was not updated until a month later. This meant that Mr C was unable to apply for HDC as quickly as he should have been. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Finally, Mr C received a letter indicating that his HDC application had been considered in full, but it went on to say that he was not a suitable candidate for early release because further information was required. We asked the SPS why a letter had been issued to Mr C refusing his HDC application but also suggesting that further information was needed. They told us that was normal process. The SPS also said information was missing from Mr C's community assessment report. However, the information they told us was missing was actually available in the report. We agreed that the handling of Mr C's HDC application was inappropriate and upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation indentified; and
• share our findings with the controllers at the prison and advise us of the steps that will be taken to avoid the same thing from happening again.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not transfer him to another prison nearer to his family, so they could visit him.

It was clear that Mr C was frustrated that his family could not visit, as they lived some distance away from his prison. However, we found that the SPS made reasonable efforts to transfer him nearer to his family over a period of time. Unfortunately, this was stalled for a number of valid reasons, including operational difficulties faced by Mr C's preferred prison. The SPS eventually managed to transfer Mr C to the prison nearest to his family. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was escorted to hospital. An officer packed some of Mr C's clothing into a bag to take to hospital. Mr C then submitted a claim to the prison because he said that the clothing that was packed by the officer had gone missing. The prison did not uphold Mr C's claim. He complained to us that the prison's handling of his claim for lost property was unreasonable because staff failed to investigate the matter properly. In addition, he said staff incorrectly marked the missing items as 'condemned' (destroyed at the request of the prisoner) on his property card. Mr C said he asked staff to remove the missing items from his property card as he said that the items had been lost by staff.

Mr C's property card suggested that the items he claimed were missing were in his use before being condemned by staff. Mr C disputed asking staff to condemn the property but the evidence available showed that he submitted a condemn mandate form which clearly states that the items listed will be condemned, therefore, we concluded that staff appropriately condemned the items. In addition, Mr C's care plan from the time in question confirmed that he was permitted to have his own clothing in use, and the record completed on the day he was taken to hospital did not show that any property was taken with Mr C to or from hospital. In light of the evidence available, we concluded that the prison's handling of Mr C's claim was appropriate. The information we saw demonstrated that the prison's decision on Mr C's claim was based on the evidence available and, because of that, we did not uphold the complaint.

Having reviewed Mr C's complaint forms, we also considered that the prison's handling of his complaints was reasonable. We recognised that Mr C considered that the prison failed to properly investigate the loss of his initial claim form. However, in their response, the prison confirmed that the form could not be located and they apologised for that. The prison also invited Mr C to submit a new claim form. In our view, the prison's response was reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the prison's handling of his complaint about staff entering his cell and removing all items except his mattress and pillow. When Mr C made his initial complaint, the prison took steps to investigate what had happened. Following that, staff were reminded of the appropriate steps that should be taken when a prisoner makes threats about self-harm. However, the prison failed to identify that Mr C was only left with a mattress and pillow. Because of that, the governor incorrectly stated that he was left with all of his bedding items. This could have been avoided if steps had been taken to clarify exactly what bedding Mr C was left with. In addition, we reviewed the written replies that were issued to Mr C's in response to his complaints and we did not consider that the points he raised were addressed appropriately. Therefore, we concluded that the prison failed to deal with Mr C's complaints appropriately and we upheld his complaint to us.

Summary

Mr C asked the prison to cover the cost of providing him with contact lenses instead of glasses. The prison advised Mr C that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) would not cover the cost of contact lenses, only glasses. Mr C complained that the prison failed to appropriately consider his request because they failed to seek any clinical advice about whether he needed contact lenses, and he said he had previously received them in a different prison.

We asked the SPS to tell us if steps had been taken by the prison to confirm whether an optician had recommended that Mr C receive contact lenses instead of glasses. We also asked whether steps had been taken to check whether the other prison had provided Mr C with contact lenses. In their response, the SPS provided a statement from the other prison which confirmed that they had not purchased contact lenses for Mr C. The SPS also received confirmation from the health centre that the optician had not recommended that Mr C wear contact lenses instead of glasses, and there was no medical reason why Mr C could not wear glasses. This information was only sought by the prison following our enquiry to the SPS about Mr C's complaint.

At the time of making his complaint, the prison did not take steps to check whether Mr C had previously been issued contact lenses. They also did not clarify whether Mr C did in fact require contact lenses. We considered that both of those steps should have been taken by the prison at the time of investigating Mr C's request and therefore we upheld the complaint.

We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the prison failed to handle his complaint appropriately. In particular, the information provided by the SPS indicated that the chairperson of the internal complaints committee (ICC) invited the health care manager to attend the hearing but she chose not to. We concluded that the chairperson considered that the evidence the health centre manager would have brought was of relevance and value to the ICC's consideration of Mr C's complaint. However, there is nothing contained within the prison rules which suggests that a witness can be compelled to attend an ICC hearing. Instead, the rules indicate that a witness can be called by the prisoner to give evidence in support of their complaint and the ICC chair can decide whether the witness will be permitted to attend. There is no suggestion that the witness must attend even if they are permitted to do so by the ICC chair. However, as noted earlier, we considered that steps should have been taken by the prison to explore whether the optician had recommended that Mr C wear contact lenses as opposed to glasses. The ICC could have, with Mr C's consent, obtained that information easily and without the health care manager's attendance at the hearing. Taking those steps would have ensured the ICC had access to the relevant information that the health care manager could have brought to the hearing before reaching their decision on Mr C's complaint. The SPS accepted that they did not respond to Mr C's complaint within the relevant timescale and offered an apology. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• provide feedback to the relevant members of staff in relation to the handling of Mr C's request to ensure that all relevant information is obtained prior to taking decisions;
• explore what their position would be if a clinician recommended a prisoner be supplied with contact lenses instead of glasses; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation highlighted about the prison's handling of his complaint.