Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service failed to transfer him to the closest appropriate establishment to his postcode. We identified that the establishment Mr C had in mind was not appropriate as it did not provide a course he was required to complete. He was later moved to an appropriate establishment and listed for the relevant course. He was satisfied with this and decided not to pursue his complaint further.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) delayed in repairing a phone that he reported broken. We found that the SPS had not taken any action to repair the phone for over two weeks after Mr C complained about it and we upheld his complaint.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the SPS had handled his complaint about this. In their initial response, they said that the fault had been reported. When we investigated this, we found no evidence that this had happened. When we asked for an explanation, the SPS told us that they had confused this with another problem that was affecting phones in the prison. Mr C then made a further complaint about the matter. In their response to this, the SPS again confused the two problems and told him that the fault had been reported and resolved. This was incorrect and we found that there had been a clear failure by the SPS to investigate and address a relatively straightforward complaint. Their responses to Mr C were clearly inaccurate and we also upheld this aspect of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• take steps to ensure that there is an effective process in place for identifying phones in the prison, logging reports of phone faults and ensuring that they are investigated and repaired;
• issue a written apology to Mr C for the failures we identified in relation to the handling of his complaint; and
• issue a reminder to the staff involved in handling Mr C's complaint that the issue complained about should be adequately investigated in line with the prison rules and the SPS's staff guidance on prisoner complaints and disciplinary appeals.

Summary

Mr C complained that when he transferred from prison 1 to prison 2 some of his property went missing and that this was not properly investigated, although he submitted a claim form in December 2012. He told us that prison 2 had made several attempts to contact prison 1 to have his claim fully investigated but the matter remained unresolved.

We found no record of Mr C having submitted a claim form in December 2012. We did find, however, that in January 2013 prison 1 had forwarded various items belonging to him to prison 2, which suggested that there was an issue with his property around this time. We noted that although in August 2013 prison 2 sent prison 1 a claim form that Mr C completed, and made attempts to follow this up, prison 1 did not reach a decision on the claim until April 2014. Although the SPS have no national timescales for resolving lost property claims forms, we concluded that prison 1 delayed unreasonably in responding to Mr C's claim. Furthermore, they did not provide sufficient information to show how they investigated the claim or any reasons to justify their initial compensation offer. As there was evidence of various items having gone missing, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• review their initial offer of compensation to better reflect the loss of the missing items identified; and
• ensure prison 1 review their lost property claims procedure with a view to ensuring details of the investigation are documented and timely decisions are made.

Summary

Mr C complained that some of his property went missing when he was moved from one prison to another. Mr C disagreed with the outcome of his property claim. He said it was unreasonable for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to say that he was responsible for the property when he was not present when it was packed. We found that the SPS had followed the correct procedures in dealing with Mr C's property. When Mr C entered prison the property was recorded on a property card and was signed into his use. When Mr C was being moved to another prison two officers packed his property and recorded it on the appropriate form. Mr C was not present because he had not adhered to prison rules and was in segregation. As there was no procedural failing on the part of the SPS we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was placed on report for breaching prison rules, for which he was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing. Mr C complained that he did not think the prison followed the correct process because the officer that placed him on report was not called to the hearing.

We obtained a copy of the record taken at Mr C's hearing which confirmed that prior to the proceeding starting, he was asked if he was prepared to accept the written evidence presented without requiring the reporting officer to appear in person. Mr C confirmed that he was, however, the record noted that he asked for the reporting officer to attend once the hearing had started. In addition, the record also confirmed Mr C said he understood the charge and the purpose of the hearing.

The prison rules say a prisoner can request that a witness be called and the request must be granted when the prison is reasonably satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give will be relevant to the determination of the charge. In addition, the relevant staff guidance says that the reporting officer must be present should the prisoner or the adjudicator consider it necessary. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) also advised us that a prisoner could request for the reporting officer to be present at any time during the process but if they had already indicated that they were prepared to accept the evidence presented without the need for the reporting officer to be present then the decision on whether to agree to a later request to call the reporting officer was at the discretion of the adjudicator.

We were satisfied that Mr C was given the opportunity to call the reporting officer and because of that we did not uphold his complaint. However, we did ask the SPS to review the guidance to ensure it clearly reflected the position.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• review the wording of the relevant paragraph within the disciplinary hearings guide to ensure it clearly reflects the SPS' position in relation to the attendance of the reporting officer at disciplinary hearings.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way his application for home detention was dealt with. He told us that the decision was based on outdated information about him. He said that a member of staff involved with the application was a former neighbour. We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were entitled to take into account information about Mr C's past history. We found that the issue of conflict of interest had been considered and had been dismissed because the person concerned was not involved in decision-making. However, whilst the SPS had explained this to Mr C they had not kept a proper record of the conversation and had not explained it in writing to Mr C.

Mr C told us that the proper process had not been followed in dealing with his appeals. We agreed in reviewing the case that Mr C's appeals had not been logged or responded to in the way they should have. We found that the original reason given to Mr C for the refusal of home detention was incorrect and, in effect, encouraged him to make a new application from a different address which had no prospect of being approved. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint, but as the SPS had accepted their failings and had taken steps taken to address the issues directly with the members of staff concerned, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the prison's decision not to allow him to have his hi-fi system in use. He was unhappy as he had been allowed to use this in his previous prison. The prison explained to him that they do not permit the use of systems with detachable speakers.

We asked the prison about this and they provided us a copy of their policy which supported their decision. They noted that there was not yet a national policy for permissible electrical items and it was down to the discretion of prison governors to set a local policy for each prison.

As the prison's decision was in line with their local policy, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we acknowledged the current potential for inconsistencies across the prison estate and noted that we are aware this was already being looked at, with a view to setting a standardised national policy.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison failed to review his supervision level appropriately. He said that when he was recalled to prison for a driving offence, he should have been assigned low supervision. He also questioned why the decision of residential staff to assign him low supervision at his review six months later was overruled by a senior manager who decided Mr C should remain at medium supervision level.

We reviewed Mr C's supervision level review forms and noted that, when he arrived back in prison, he was assigned high supervision level in line with prison rules which confirm that all prisoners, on reception, must be assigned this. An immediate review took place and Mr C's supervision was reduced to medium. There was no evidence to support his claim that he should have been assigned low supervision because he was recalled for a driving offence. The evidence confirmed that because he had a number of poor behavioural reports over the years whilst in prison, medium supervision was considered to be the appropriate level.

In Mr C's review six months after he was recalled to prison, the information confirmed that residential staff had indicated that he could be assigned low supervision. However, when the form was passed to the review board, they did not agree and said that Mr C's supervision level should be maintained at medium because he had recently received poor reports. We were satisfied the prison's handling of Mr C's reviews were appropriate and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he cannot attend Friday prayers in prison. The prison explained to Mr C that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s Islamic chaplaincy adviser had advised that prisons did not need to hold prayers on Fridays and that the same applied to other religions because they did not follow traditional service days.

We found that the prison rules say that every prisoner is entitled to observe the requirements and engage in the practices of their religion or belief. They also say prisoners are entitled to attend religious services or meetings arranged by members of the chaplaincy team. In addition, prison governors are required to tell prisoners what facilities or arrangements are in place for the purpose of practising their religion.

The SPS told us that their Islamic chaplaincy adviser confirmed that providing prayers on a day of the week which is suitable to the prison was appropriate. The adviser confirmed there was no requirement to provide prayers on Fridays, and that whilst in prison, whenever prayers take place they are considered as a benefit. The SPS confirmed that, for example, in the prison Mr C was located, Muslim prayers were held on Mondays and Roman Catholic Mass was held on Mondays for some prisoners, and Wednesdays for others. In light of this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C was pursuing a full-time education programme in prison and complained when it was stopped. He said he had had serious literacy difficulties but that the education provision had helped him hugely and he wanted to access more education opportunities.

We established that the prison had provided far more education for Mr C than prisoners usually receive. This was largely because of his literacy difficulties and the difficulty he had in obtaining work in the prison. The prison agreed with him that he had done very well and had achieved a number of accredited qualifications but said the time had come for him to transfer some of what he had learnt into work activity, which they wanted to arrange for him in the prison. They also said that they needed to use some of their resources to help other prisoners with greater needs, but that they were still providing six hours of education a week for Mr C and would continue to try to meet his wishes. We considered that they had acted appropriately and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.