Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to give him sufficient time to eat lunch before the exercise period. He also said the SPS unreasonably failed to provide one full hour's exercise time. Mr C was released from prison whilst we were investigating his complaint and did not provide us with a forwarding address. We were unable to make contact with him despite making several enquiries. Therefore, we closed his case in line with our procedures.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of complaints with the prison about disciplinary reports that were noted on his computerised record. Mr C asked the prison to provide copies of the relevant paperwork in relation to each report or remove them from his record. The prison confirmed that there was no paperwork available to support the particular entries Mr C had complained about. However, the prison said although the paperwork could not be located that, in itself, was not reason to doubt that the reports existed. The complaint we investigated was that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to remove disciplinary reports from Mr C's record.

The SPS disciplinary hearings guide says that the disciplinary paperwork should be retained for the period the prisoner remains in custody or three years after the outcome of the hearing, in case of a subsequent complaint or legal action. In addition, the SPS prisoner records retention schedule confirms that disciplinary paperwork should be retained for five years after the date of the hearing. In relation to Mr C's complaint, the SPS told us the paperwork relating to one of the reports was in storage but they were unable to access it at the time of responding to our enquiries. In addition, they were able to locate some of the disciplinary paperwork in relation to another report but they could not locate other paperwork and were unable to explain why. The SPS told us Mr C had accumulated over 140 disciplinary reports whilst in custody and, because of that, he was more susceptible to administrative errors.

It was clear that the disciplinary paperwork for each of the reports in question should have been retained by the SPS given that the timing of them fell within that outlined by both the disciplinary hearings guide and the records retention schedule. In relation to the paperwork that could not be located, the SPS were unable to provide evidence to support their position that the breaches of discipline occurred because they had been unable to provide copies of the relevant paperwork to substantiate the information recorded on the computer record. Therefore, we considered that their refusal to remove those particular reports from Mr C's record was unreasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• remove the reports in question (for which there was no paperwork available) from Mr C's record on their computerised prisoner records system;
• remove a report from Mr C's record on their computerised prisoner records system if the associated disciplinary paperwork cannot be retrieved from the storage facility; and
• remind relevant staff of the terms of the disciplinary hearings guide and the prisoner records retention schedule and how they relate to retaining disciplinary paperwork.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s arrangements in relation to Mr A's terminally ill mother were not handled properly. Mr C was concerned that Mr A was only allowed to spend 30 minutes with his mother at a hospice; that the security measures were excessive when Mr A visited his mother at the hospice and when he attended her funeral; that there was a lack of privacy when Mr C broke the news of her death to Mr A at the prison; that there was no reason to strip (body) search Mr A; and that the prison failed to respond properly to the complaints.

Whilst the evidence showed that there had been a delay of an hour in Mr A being escorted to the hospice, we found that the prison took reasonable steps to provide the resources they had available to allow Mr A to visit his mother at short notice after he had returned from court that same day. We also found that the prison followed their procedures in relation to the security measures in place when escorting Mr A to the hospice and to the funeral, so we did not uphold these complaints. However, we were critical that the prison did not have a record of their decision to refuse Mr A a further visit to the hospice so we made a recommendation to address this.

In relation to the strip (body) search, the SPS acted in accordance with the prison rules, in that they are entitled to search a prisoner at any time and we did not uphold this complaint. However, we recommended that the SPS consider recording strip (body) searches and develop guidance for staff. Subsequent to this, the SPS apologised for misinforming us that they had no staff guidance on the searching of prisoners. They provided written evidence of a protocol already in place.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the way his complaint was handled. Although the prison have since taken proactive steps to review their mail process and raise awareness with relevant staff, we still recommended that they apologise to Mr C because his complaints were not handled in line with their procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• remind staff at the prison to ensure their responses to all Escorted Exceptional Day Absence requests are recorded;
• consider recording when a prisoner is strip (body) searched and consider developing guidance for prison staff on prisoner searches; and
• apologise to Mr C for the inadequate handling of his complaint.

Summary

Ms C was given a life sentence in 2011 and throughout her time in custody she had not progressed to less secure conditions. Because of that, she complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to appropriately support her progression which meant that she would not be in a position to satisfy the parole board's requirements for release.

In line with the normal process, the SPS assessed Ms C's suitability for offending behaviour programmes. She met the criteria for the Female Offending Behaviour Programme. However, it was reported that Ms C had indicated that she would find group work intimidating and she wanted to be offered an alternative way to complete the work. Normally, a prisoner is required to address their offending behaviour through groupwork before they can be considered for progression to less secure conditions.

In recognition of Ms C's concerns, the prison arranged for preparatory work to take place, and the outcome of that work was reported to the prison's risk management team. In that report, it was noted that the preparatory work undertaken with Ms C was very similar to the programme work she would be required to participate in and she had been able to engage ppropriately. Therefore, the prison concluded that Ms C should participate in the programme prior to her application for progression to less secure conditions being considered.

It was clear Ms C felt unable to participate in group work. However, the evidence available indicated that the prison took appropriate action in an effort to support her participation in group work. In addition, the decision on how a prisoner should undertake offence-related work is a matter for the SPS to decide. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C alerted staff in the prison that he was experiencing chest pain, and it was agreed that he should attend hospital. However, Mr C decided not to attend and staff agreed to carry out regular observation checks on him throughout the night. Mr C complained because he said staff unreasonably failed to carry out observation checks on him. The prison said the checks were carried out but Mr C disputed that.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us that observations were only documented when the prisoner being monitored was being managed in line with the suicide risk management strategy and that Mr C was not being monitored under that policy. Instead, the SPS provided a copy of the log completed by the nightshift manager which confirmed that, after taking advice from the doctor, it was agreed that Mr C could not be forced to attend hospital and, because of that, his condition should be monitored throughout the night. We also obtained a copy of the entry recorded in Mr C's medical record which confirmed that he did not seek any intervention or assessment the following morning.

The information confirmed that there would normally only be a requirement for a prison to keep a record of any observation checks carried out if the prisoner being monitored is being managed under suicide risk management strategy. That did not apply in Mr C's case so the only record that existed was the log completed by the nightshift manager. The entry confirmed that the doctor had indicated that because Mr C refused to attend hospital, his condition should be monitored by staff throughout the night. The SPS confirmed to us that the nightshift manager advised that Mr C was monitored. Whilst we recognised Mr C's position that staff did not monitor him regularly, without further supporting evidence being available, we were unable to uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was escorted to the sheriff court by an escorting agency which provides all custody and court escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). He said that when he arrived, the escorting officers were instructed to keep him double cuffed. This meant that Mr C had one set of cuffs linking his wrists and a second set linking one of his wrists to an officer's wrist. Mr C said he remained in double cuffs until he was returned to prison. Because of that, Mr C complained that the agency held him in double cuffs for an unreasonably long period of time. In addition, he said they failed to carry out any risk assessment.

The agency told Mr C that every prisoner would be risk assessed throughout the day. They said the assessment would consider information supplied to them by partner agencies and could also include known behavioural factors from previous times when held in custody by the agency.

We reviewed the relevant operational instructions which confirmed that prior to taking a decision to hold a prisoner in double cuffs, a risk assessment should be carried out to assess whether they are required. In addition, the instructions confirmed that if an assessment indicates that double cuffs are required, permission should be sought from the sheriff. In Mr C's case, no evidence was offered by the agency to suggest that the relevant risk assessment or the appropriate permission was sought prior to taking the decision to hold him in double cuffs. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C, on behalf of the agency, for the failures that our investigation highlighted; and
• remind the agency of the requirement to make an appropriate record of any risk assessment carried out and permission sought when taking the decision to hold a prisoner in double cuffs at court.

Summary

Mr C was taken into his trial at the sheriff court whilst wearing double cuffs. This meant Mr C was wearing one set of cuffs to link his wrists together and a second set linking one of his wrists to the escorting officer's wrist. Mr C complained that the escorting agency inappropriately failed to seek permission to double cuff him. He said the agency also failed to provide an appropriate response to his complaint.

An agency provides all custody and court escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). That agency's operational instructions confirm that handcuffs in sheriff and jury trials will normally not be allowed. However, where a risk assessment dictates that handcuffs should be applied, the appropriate paperwork should be completed and forwarded to the clerk of court for approval by the sheriff. The instructions also confirm that the outcome of the request should be appropriately recorded. In Mr C's case, the SPS were unable to provide any evidence to show us that a risk assessment had been carried out prior to the decision taken to hold Mr C in double cuffs during his trial. Therefore, it was not clear why the decision was actually taken. In addition, there was no evidence available to confirm that the request was approved by the sheriff. We also concluded that the agency did not respond appropriately to Mr C's complaint because they failed to establish the facts in his case and because of that, it was unclear what had actually happened.

Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C, on behalf of the agency, for the failures that our investigation highlighted;
• remind the agency to ensure that appropriate records are kept to evidence that proper process has been followed prior to taking a decision to hold a prisoner in double cuffs during a trial; and
• provide feedback to the agency in relation to good practice when investigating and responding to complaints from prisoners.

Summary

Mr C complained because he said the prison unreasonably refused to progress him to open (lowest security) conditions. Instead, the risk management team (RMT) - the group responsible for considering whether a prisoner is suitable to progress to less secure conditions - decided that Mr C should transfer to the national top end facility before going to open conditions.

Mr C is serving an order for lifelong restriction (OLR) which is a sentence that provides for the lifelong supervision of high risk violent and sexual offenders and allows for a greater degree of intensive supervision to manage the risk that those individuals pose. The guidance which outlines how risk management is dealt with by the Scottish Prison Service confirms that OLR prisoners will normally transfer direct from closed conditions to the open conditions. However, it also confirms that they can go to a national top end facility if they have been placed there on the request of the RMT at the closed prison. In light of this, it was clear the RMT were entitled to take the decision to progress Mr C to national top end before open conditions and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Our investigation did highlight potential issues with the risk management process followed by the prison when dealing with Mr C's application for progression to less secure conditions. In particular, the guidance indicates that an OLR prisoner's progression to less secure conditions should only be approved once their risk management plan has been updated and agreed by the RMT before being approved by the Risk Management Authority (RMA). In Mr C's case, the RMT approved his progression to national top end before the RMA has approved his risk management plan. Therefore, although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint we did make recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings our investigation identified; and
• offer to meet with Mr C to discuss what has happened in his case and provide reassurance that his progression is being dealt with appropriately.

Summary

Mr C complained to his prison that officers appeared to know confidential information relating to his health. Mr C was not satisfied with the prison's response and so he complained to us.

We looked at the prison's records on Mr C's complaint, and we found that it had been difficult for them to establish the facts of the incident that led to the complaint. A prison manager interviewed officers involved, and their recollections were unable to confirm where the information about Mr C had originated. Although it was not possible to determine exactly what happened, we were satisfied that the overall approach taken by the prison and their response to Mr C's complaint was adequate in the circumstances and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, we felt it would be helpful if the prison shared with Mr C the investigation of his complaint and the conclusions reached, by giving him a copy of the prison manager's report. We also made a recommendation to address a concern raised by another prison manager during the prison's consideration of Mr C's complaint, given the importance of preserving the confidentiality of personal health-related information.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• consider giving Mr C a copy of the prison manager's investigation report; and
• discuss the concern about staff overhearing confidential health information with relevant prison and NHS staff to determine what steps could be taken to preserve the confidentiality of such information.

Summary

Mr C said the prison failed to reasonably investigate a complaint about the problems he had making an appeal against a disciplinary decision. Mr C's appeal was rejected because it was made too late. Mr C told the prison that an earlier appeal had been made within the two week deadline.

We agreed with Mr C. We found that the prison should have done more to investigate Mr C's claim that an earlier appeal had gone missing, both when Mr C raised the matter in a further appeal and, later, when he complained. Some sections of the forms which should have been filled in by the prison were incomplete or not signed. It was difficult to see how the prison had arrived at their decision. As there was no system in place for issuing receipts, Mr C had no way of proving that he had made an earlier appeal. The prison had no way of proving that an earlier appeal had not been made. We recommended that a system of issuing receipts is implemented for prisoners who want one.

We also found that the prison took too long to make a decision on the appeal Mr C made. They exceeded the 20 day timescale, without any explanation to Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• implement a system whereby prisoners are provided with a receipt for PAF 2 forms where they request one.