Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) delayed sending all of his property when he was transferred from his previous prison to his current prison. Mr C also complained about how the prisons had dealt with his concerns and complaints about his property.

We found that Mr C's property was not returned to him until eight months after his transfer, and Mr C said there were still missing items. The SPS' records showed that the items Mr C specified were at his previous prison, but they were not recorded as being received at his current prison. Based on the records, we concluded that all of Mr C's property had not been returned to him.

Over a period of several months, Mr C tried to get his property returned by speaking to several different prison staff. Information we obtained from the SPS did not record any action being taken about Mr C's property until he complained, and although both Mr C and the SPS agreed that some action was taken, it had no effect until after Mr C complained. We could not find evidence of any coordinated effort between the two prisons in trying to locate and return all of Mr C's property. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• ensure that both prisons work together and with Mr C to compare his property records to determine what, if any, items of property are missing;
• provide replacements, or provide Mr C with funds to purchase replacements for all items that are confirmed as missing;
• apologise to Mr C for the failure to send all of his property with him, and their failure to locate and return his property in a reasonable time; and
• examine what should have happened in this case compared with what did happen, in order to work out what went wrong and why, and determine what measures they will take to prevent it from happening again. This examination and its findings should be copied to us.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his post programme report (the report) which was required eight weeks after the completion of his treatment programme. Mr C complained that, due to the delay in completing the report, his tribunal hearing had been adjourned and had the hearing not been adjourned authorisation for his release from prison may have been given. Also, as a result of the adjournment of the tribunal, his annual review which had been held in May would now be held in November.

The evidence showed that there had been an unreasonable delay in the completion of Mr C's report, so we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the hearing had also been adjourned for other reasons, including that Mr C was required to undertake further elements of the treatment programme. We found that even had the report not been delayed it was very unlikely that Mr C would have been able to complete all outstanding work by the date of the tribunal held in May.

We were aware that the SPS had taken action in response to a previous complaint to us in relation to avoiding unnecessary delays in the completion of reports. In addition, the SPS had taken action to address the specific factors faced by the prison at the time of this complaint which had impacted on the prison's ability to complete reports. As a result we recommended that the SPS apologise to Mr C for the delay in completing his report.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in completing his post programme report.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of the programmes he needed to complete in prison before he could be considered for early release. However, Mr C was freed from prison whilst we were investigating his complaint and did not provide us with a contact address. Although the SPS provided a contact address, Mr C did not respond to our attempts to contact him there, and we had no option but to close our file on his case.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably failed to make appropriate arrangements for him to attend court. In their response to his complaint, the prison told Mr C that he had not requested to go to court and, in any event, prisoners would not be ordered to attend civil hearings. In support of his complaint, Mr C provided a copy of the court order which confirmed that the sheriff had asked him to appear. He also provided a note that had been typed by an officer which said he was to attend court and confirmed that a manager had given Mr C permission to take paperwork with him.

Based on what the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us, there is no clearly understood process in place that outlines what arrangements can, or should, be made to enable a prisoner to attend a civil hearing at court and whether a prisoner would pay for the transport. The decision on whether to allow a prisoner to attend that type of hearing appears to be a discretionary one for the governor and that is not unusual. Governors have a wide range of discretion. However, it is important that the process for seeking and obtaining approval in a situation like Mr C's is clear and understood.

Having examined the information available in Mr C's case, and having asked the SPS for more information, it was not clear exactly what happened in Mr C's case or what should have happened. The SPS told us that Mr C did not ask to attend court or inform prison staff that he had been ordered to appear. However, the note typed by an officer indicated that Mr C was to attend court and had been given permission to take paperwork with him. In our view, the note suggested that Mr C did inform staff that he was to attend court but it was not clear whether he specified that it was for a civil hearing. Nevertheless, we considered the typed note indicated that an officer and a manager discussed Mr C's attendance at court with him and because of that, we believe proper steps should have been taken to explore whether Mr C had been ordered to attend court and whether transport should be arranged. Those steps did not happen in Mr C's case and, therefore, we concluded that the prison unreasonably failed to make appropriate arrangements to allow him to attend court and we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• reflect on Mr C's case and consider what steps can be taken to avoid the same thing from happening again;
• feed back any learning to both us and Mr C; and
• provide a letter for Mr C to give to the sheriff outlining why he did not attend court on the date ordered.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison's handling of his complaint about an officer was poor. In particular, he said the prison agreed to arrange a meeting between him and the officer in an effort to resolve his concerns but that did not happen.

Our investigation confirmed that the initial meeting did not take place and Mr C was not given any explanation for that. When he escalated his complaint, it was agreed that the meeting would be rescheduled. However, that meeting also did not go ahead because the officer was not available but the prison informed Mr C that it had been rearranged for a later date.

In line with good complaints handling, we felt it would have been appropriate for the manager to follow up with Mr C to find out whether he was satisfied following the outcome of the meeting. If that had happened, the manager would have identified at an earlier stage that the meeting had not taken place and steps could have been taken to reschedule it without Mr C having to escalate his complaint. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failures we found with the handling of his complaint; and
• offer Mr C the opportunity to meet with the officer to discuss his concerns as outlined in his initial complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been placed on report for possessing two unauthorised DVDs, despite them not being specifically listed as unauthorised. Mr C also complained that he had then been punished a second time by having his community access withdrawn by the risk management team.

We found that, under prison rules, the prison had the discretion to deem the DVDs as unauthorised. We also found that the disciplinary process and the risk management process are separate and the prison was entitled to use both of them. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to have a matchstick model kit in use. He said a manager approved his request to purchase the kit and other prisoners had the same kit in use.

The prison is authorised in line with the prison rules to refuse to allow prisoners to have items of property in use that they consider to be a risk to the security or good order of the prison. In Mr C's case, the prison had concerns about the type of cutting tool supplied with the model kit. At the time of approving Mr C's request, the manager had been unaware of the type of cutting tool supplied with the kit. The prison also expressed concern about giving Mr C the kit without the cutting tool because they said there was a risk that an improvised cutting tool could be used. Therefore, the prison decided that Mr C could not have the kit in use. The prison also confirmed that other prisoners did not have the same kit in use. It was clear that the prison were authorised in line with prison rules to refuse to allow Mr C to have the model kit in use and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not give him written notice explaining why he was being removed from his work placement. Mr C also complained that his prison did not use evidence in their decision to place him in secure conditions, did not follow the risk management process, and did not follow the process for reviewing his supervision level.

We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not required to give Mr C notice that he was being recalled from placement because, in fact, Mr C was not recalled; rather, his placement had finished. In addition, the prison rules did not require notice to be given; rather, it specified that a written explanation should be provided which, because Mr C was not recalled, did not apply in this case.

In terms of the evidence used to put Mr C in secure conditions, we were satisfied that the SPS acted in line with their procedures. The SPS were allowed to evaluate changes in a prisoner’s circumstances or behaviour, using information gathered from relevant sources, to help them consider if a prisoner posed a threat to the security or good order of the prison. We also found that the SPS followed the risk management process and the process for reviewing his supervision level. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service failed to appropriately explain why he was returned to closed conditions. The decision was taken to remove Mr C from the open estate (an area with less secure prison conditions) because reports were received which indicated that he was refusing to engage appropriately with support staff to help reduce his risk. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C said even though he had been returned to closed conditions, his supervision level remained low and he understood that had not been downgraded.

In looking at Mr C's complaint, we obtained a copy of the relevant documentation which was completed prior to returning him to closed conditions. It was clear the risk management team (RMT) at the open estate had concerns about Mr C's engagement with support staff and because of that, they felt he could not be managed in open conditions. In addition, Mr C was given the opportunity to put forward representations but he refused. The RMT’s decision was set out clearly and we were also satisfied that Mr C was given reasonable responses to his complaints. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C was suspected of assaulting another prisoner (Mr B). A disciplinary hearing was held and Mr C was found guilty. Mr C appealed this finding on the basis that the adjudicator had accepted verbal evidence from two prison officers, which Mr C said had been fabricated. Mr C was also dissatisfied that his request to have Mr B present as a witness at the appeal hearing was rejected, and that his complaint was not properly dealt with by prison staff.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints about evidence and the witness. We found that it was reasonable and in accordance with the prison rules for the adjudicator to accept the verbal evidence from the two prison officers, given that their recollection of events was provided within 24 hours of the assault allegations having been raised and investigated. We also considered that the adjudicator had taken into account additional evidence from CCTV footage and from Mr C's response at the disciplinary hearing. In relation to Mr C's request to have Mr B attend the appeal hearing, we considered it was reasonable for Mr B not to have attended for his personal safety. The chair took steps to find out from Mr C what he wanted to ask Mr B, and shared this information with Mr C at the disciplinary hearing.

We concluded that the appeals form provided misleading information to Mr C that he could also complain about the finding of guilt through the Scottish Prison Service's complaints procedure. This is contrary to the prison rules and Scottish Ministers' Directions which set out that a prisoner must be signposted to us if they remain unhappy with the outcome of the appeal hearing. We upheld this complaint and made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure the wording set out in the appeals paperwork is amended to take into account the relevant prison rules and Scottish Ministers' Directions.