Prisons

Summary

Ms C complained that the handling of her progression to less secure prison conditions had been unreasonable. She considered that the steps identified by the prison as her route to less secure conditions were inappropriate and because of that, she was being unreasonably prevented from progressing.

The prison wanted Ms C to participate in an offending behaviour programme before considering whether she was suitable to progress to less secure conditions. Ms C had been assessed as being suitable for the programme and the prison considered that her participation in it would help reduce any risk of reoffending. Prior to that happening, the prison wanted Ms C to undertake some preparatory work to ensure she could participate in the programme appropriately. The reason for that was because although Ms C admitted her offence, she did not accept that she had broken the law.

We reviewed the relevant policies and were satisfied that they supported the prison's position in relation to Ms C's progression. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to update his driving licence in time prior to his release. The prison said Mr C's release had not been confirmed and because of that, they did not consider it appropriate to update his licence. They said they would reconsider Mr C's request if his release was confirmed.

We felt the prison's response to Mr C's request was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison would not allow him to have certain hi fi equipment or felt tip pens. Prisons have lists of the sort of items that are, and are not, allowed. Our investigation, which included examination of the relevant list, showed that Mr C's hi fi equipment was above the allowed wattage and that felt tip pens were not allowed because of the potential they offered for concealing inappropriate items such as drugs. We concluded that the prison had acted appropriately in refusing the items.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison allowed him to buy trousers that were not in keeping with the items prisoners were allowed to have, and that they did not tell him about a 12.5 percent additional charge. Mr C also complained that the prison did not take account of his skin condition when providing him with trousers.

We found that Mr C should have been aware that he was not allowed to buy black trousers. However, we also found that prison staff were supposed to check whether items ordered were permitted; had this been done, Mr C's order would not have been processed. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. We did not recommend that the prison cover the cost of the trousers as Mr C could have returned them to the external company for a refund, but he chose not to.

In terms of the 12.5 percent additional charge, we were not satisfied that the prison had taken reasonable steps to ensure that Mr C was aware of charges for postal orders. The Scottish Prison Service could not provide evidence to support their view that Mr C had signed a disclaimer about the additional charge. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

We found that Mr C had not asked to be assessed by prison health centre staff for his skin condition, meaning no recommendation had been made by a healthcare professional about his condition. This meant the prison did not have to issue him with alternative trousers. We did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• refund the value of the 12.5 percent charge to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately failed to give him the opportunity to make representations prior to seeking to extend his removal from association. A prison can seek approval from Scottish Ministers to stop a prisoner from associating with others to maintain good order and discipline. The prison said Mr C had been unable and unwilling to make representations and it was unlikely that his representations would have been any different from the previous extension request. They also suggested that he was only entitled to make representations if the prison governor felt it was practicable to do so. Mr C disputed that he had been unable and unwilling to make representations and he also said he was entitled to make representations in line with prison rules.

The prison rules confirmed that Mr C was entitled to make representations prior to the request being submitted to Scottish Ministers for approval. The rules say that representations should be made in writing by the prisoner or transcribed by an officer or other official on the prisoner's behalf. We obtained a copy of the relevant paperwork and in the section that should be completed by the prisoner, it noted that Mr C was unable and unwilling to complete representations. However, instructions on the paperwork confirm that a witness should sign the form, and give reasons, if the prisoner refuses to complete representations. In Mr C's case, an officer signed the form but failed to note why he was unable and unwilling to give representations.

Based on the evidence available, we were unable to establish whether Mr C was unable or unwilling, or both, to give representations because the relevant paperwork was incomplete in important aspects. We concluded that the Scottish Prison Service could not adequately evidence that they had given Mr C the opportunity to make representations, or having given him the opportunity, he refused, when seeking to extend his removal from association. In addition, we felt the fact that Mr C had been given opportunities in the past to make representations was irrelevant and the issue was that the proper process had to be followed and the relevant paperwork completed correctly. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• reflect on Mr C's case and consider how errors can be avoided in the future;
• feed back any learning to us; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failures our investigation identified.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had breached the prison rules by refusing him access to a phone whist staff were searching cells in his area of the prison. We found that the SPS were entitled to do this, under the relevant prison rules and directions, and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the SPS's handling of his complaint about this matter. We found that the initial response to his complaint had been inadequate and had unnecessarily listed the phone calls that he had been able to make later that day. We also found that the chair of the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) should have met Mr C to discuss his request for witnesses to attend the hearing about his complaint. In view of these failings, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failure to handle his complaint appropriately; and
• make the staff involved in the handling of Mr C's complaint aware of our findings.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to provide prisoners with adequate access to weights and cardiovascular (CV) equipment and facilities. This related to the two fitness rooms within a residential hall, a weights room and CV room and the access to the main prison gym. Mr C was concerned about the removal of the weights room and the lack of maintenance of the CV room equipment. He also complained that the SPS failed to provide prisoners with adequate access to the prison's main gym.

We found that there was different access to the main gym, but that the prison has the authority to offer this, as the prison rules allow for different provisions to be in place for prisoners located in different parts of the prison. We did not find evidence that the SPS failed to provide prisoners with adequate access to weights and CV equipment and facilities and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, although the SPS's decision to remove the weights room was discretionary, we were concerned that there was a lack of clarity around the future use of this room.

Mr C also complained about the SPS's handling of his complaint. We found that, in general, the SPS had adequately investigated and responded to the majority of issues Mr C had raised, but we also found that they had failed to adequately respond to his complaint about a member of staff. We were also concerned that some information had not been detailed on the complaint form. In view of these failings we upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise for the shortcomings that our investigation identified;
• remind staff that the reason for refusing a request for assistance should be recorded on the internal complaints committee response; and
• remind staff involved in handling this complaint that the issue complained about should be adequately investigated in line with prison rules and staff guidance on prisoner complaints and disciplinary appeals.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to properly maintain the weights and cardiovascular equipment in two fitness rooms within a residential hall, a weights room and cardiovascular room. We did not find evidence to support this and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. The SPS had also, however, decided to remove what had been the weights room, and although this decision was discretionary, we were concerned that there was a lack of clarity around the future use of the room.

Mr C also complained that the SPS failed to provide prisoners with adequate access to the prison's main gym. We found that there was different access to the main gym, but that the prison has the authority to offer this, as the prison rules allow for different provisions to be in place for prisoners located in different parts of the prison. Again, we did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained about the SPS's handling of his complaint. We found that, although some information was not recorded as required by the complaints process, they had responded in reasonable terms. On balance, we did not uphold this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• finalise the plans for the former weights room as soon as possible and confirm this to us.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison unreasonably reversed their decision to allow him to move into a shared cell. We found that, as they acknowledged, the prison had made the wrong decision in allowing Mr C to move to a shared cell and, therefore, they were correcting their mistake when they returned him to a single cell. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we decided that the prison should have been more open with Mr C about what had happened. We were also of the view that the Scottish Prison Service should take action to prevent such a mistake from happening again. We made recommendations to address these points.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the initial decision to move him to a shared cell being taken without consideration of all relevant information and for failing to be open with him about this when dealing with his complaint; and
• remind hall staff at the prison that in appropriate cases they should consider seeking the opinion of professionals involved in case management before making the decision to move a prisoner to a different cell.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison's handling of his request to have a phone number added to his account was unreasonable. He said an officer told him that his request would be actioned the same day he submitted it but that did not happen. Instead, Mr C's request was actioned within three days. The directions to the prison rules say the governor may allow a prisoner to change their list of pre-approved phone numbers (referred to as a PAN list) as soon as practicable. In addition, the request form clearly states amendments will be processed within five working days. Therefore, we were satisfied the prison's handling of Mr C's request was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint.

Mr C also raised concerns about the prison's handling of his complaint. It was unclear if steps were taken by the prison to explore whether the officer had given Mr C misleading information in relation to the time it would take to deal with his request. We asked the prison about that and they told us that the chairperson of the internal complaints committee (ICC) had checked the position and was advised that the information Mr C said he received from an officer was out-of-date but that was not recorded in the written response. In addition, the ICC chairperson agreed to allow the officer Mr C had named as a witness to attend the discussion of the complaint but the officer refused to attend which Mr C said was inappropriate. We were satisfied that the evidence Mr C wanted the officer to bring to the discussion was available to the ICC without having the officer attend. Overall, we were satisfied that the handling of Mr C's complaint was appropriate but we did make some recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the potentially misleading information given to him initially about PAN lists being updated on Fridays;
• remind staff of the relevant timescale in place for requests to update phone lists;
• remind those staff acting as chairperson that when a witness refuses to attend an ICC hearing, the chairperson ensures they have all relevant evidence available before reaching a decision on the complaint; and
• remind those staff acting as chairperson to ensure that the written response to a complaint records the steps taken to investigate the complaint.