Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not allow him to use his personal bedding while in the separation and reintegration unit, a separate part of the prison.

We considered what Mr C told us, as well as comments from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). In addition, we looked at The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2006. We found that the prison were required to provide Mr C with bedding, which they did. We also found that the system of privileges in prison can be different for prisoners detained in specific parts of the prison, and that the prison had discretion to decide that a prisoner may or may not have certain items in use when in that unit. Mr C did not like the prison-issue bedding but that, in itself, was not evidence of a failure on the part of the prison. We were satisfied that the prison reached a decision they were entitled to take, in line with the rules, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

However, we were concerned about an argument put forward by the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) in not upholding Mr C's complaint. We were not convinced that, in terms of the prison rules, there was a distinction between storage of property in a prisoner's cell, and items in use, and so we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• reflect on the ICC response to Mr C, to ensure that it was a reasonable reflection of the prison rules.

Summary

Mr C complained about the process the prison applied at his disciplinary hearing (a process that looks at whether a prisoner has broken prison rules, and if so, what punishment to award). Our role in looking at this type of complaint is to consider whether the prison followed the correct process before deciding whether the prisoner was guilty of breaking the rules. We are not a further route for prisoners to appeal against that decision and we cannot overturn it.

Mr C complained that the adjudicator of the hearing refused to call witnesses he had identified or to view CCTV footage. Mr C said prison rules said that before finding a prisoner guilty of breaking prison rules, the adjudicator should be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt. Because the adjudicator refused to call Mr C's witnesses or view the CCTV footage, Mr C questioned how the adjudicator could have been satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty of breaking the rules.

The rules confirm that at the disciplinary hearing, a prisoner may request that a witness be called. This request must be granted where the adjudicator is reasonably satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give will be relevant to deciding on the charge. The supporting guidance also says that the adjudicator is responsible for assessing the truth of each statement given in evidence at the hearing and for deciding whether the prisoner is guilty of breaking the rules. In Mr C's case, the adjudicator confirmed that he would call witnesses if he felt it was appropriate to do so. However, after hearing the statement from the officer who witnessed Mr C breaking the rules, the adjudicator confirmed that he did not need to call Mr C's witnesses or view the CCTV footage. We found that the adjudicator had the discretion to refuse to call Mr C's witnesses or to view the CCTV footage, and he was also responsible for assessing the truth of the various statements. We considered that the process applied at Mr C's disciplinary hearing was appropriate and carried out in line with the relevant procedure, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s decision to refuse his application for release on home detention curfew (HDC) because the immigration department were considering deporting him at the end of his sentence. We found that prisoners can only be statutorily excluded from release on HDC when they have been formally notified of a decision to deport them, and when Mr C's application was refused, no formal decision had yet been taken on his case.

Following this refusal, the SPS issued guidance to staff clarifying how to interpret the relevant legislation. This guidance was issued before Mr C appealed the decision on his case but, despite this, the SPS did not identify that they had previously interpreted the legislation incorrectly. The appeal was rejected but the SPS later realised that this should not have happened and reopened the case. They then contacted the immigration department for an update and found out that there were no plans to issue a formal decision until nearer the end of Mr C's custodial sentence. However, as the SPS had highlighted the importance of receiving a formal decision for HDC purposes, one was issued, which allowed the SPS to properly determine Mr C's application.

As updated staff guidance had already been issued, and Mr C's case had been reopened and assessed appropriately, all that was left in this particular case was for us to ask the SPS to apologise to Mr C. However, we were concerned that receipt of a formal deportation order is crucial in terms of processing HDC applications, and the immigration department do not routinely issue the orders until late in the prison sentence. We, therefore, made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• review their HDC policy to ensure that, where possible, their requirements are compatible with the policies of the UK Visas and Immigration department; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not follow relevant policy in dealing with his progression through the prison system to less secure conditions, in preparation for his eventual release. Mr C felt that two Scottish Prison Service (SPS) policies about progression were contradictory. He also complained about how the SPS handled his complaint.

We looked at the relevant SPS policies and found that they did not set out an automatic progression route with mandatory timescales. Instead, they set out a framework within which SPS staff could assess the needs of, and risks presented by, prisoners. Each prisoner's case is dealt with on its individual merits, taking into account a number of relevant factors, with timescales presented as a guide. One of the policies clearly stated that it was setting out a best case scenario, and that the time taken to progress could be longer or shorter than suggested. We could not see any contradiction, in administrative terms, between the relevant SPS policies. Having looked at the records for Mr C's case, we could not conclude that his prison unreasonably failed to follow policy in dealing with his progression. In addition, we were satisfied that the SPS' handling of Mr C's complaint was adequate in the circumstances.

Summary

Mr C complained that the adjudicator's handling of his disciplinary hearing was inappropriate. We obtained a copy of the record taken at the hearing, and reviewed the relevant Scottish Prison Service guidance document to assess whether the hearing was carried out appropriately.

We were satisfied that the adjudicator's handling of Mr C's disciplinary hearing was appropriate and in line with prison rules and the relevant guidance.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately ignored instructions issued by the prison health centre. He said he was to be provided with a suitable chair and orthopaedic mattress because of back pain. The prison said they checked with the health centre who confirmed that there was no medical requirement for Mr C to receive the items, but he disputed that.

We checked the position with the health board responsible for the prison health centre, who initially told us the prison health centre did support Mr C's request for the chair and mattress. However, the board then told us that this was wrong. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service checked with the prison doctor, who reviewed Mr C's medical record and confirmed that he did not need to be provided with the chair or mattress. Because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his request for access to cell cleaning facilities at the weekends. He was also unhappy with the way the SPS handled his complaint. 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 prison 1 did not properly investigate his claim for his lost property after he submitted two claim forms. When Mr C was transferred from prison 2 to prison 1, he signed on his property card that he had a mobile phone in storage in prison 2, but there was no record of it having being received by prison 1 when he arrived there. Although prison 1 had obtained evidence that Mr C had a mobile phone before transfer, they rejected his claim on the basis that there was no evidence to show that prison 2 sent it. They also said that Mr C had signed a form to say that his property was correct.

We found that prison 1 should have pursued the matter with prison 2 on Mr C's behalf, as there was evidence to show that the mobile phone had been in storage there and then gone missing. We acknowledged that prison 2 appeared to have looked for evidence during their investigation of the claim, but we decided that they unreasonably overlooked evidence of the mobile phone having gone missing while in the care of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). This has since been acknowledged by the SPS during our investigation.

We were also critical there was no evidence to show that prison 1 told Mr C in writing of the reasons why they had rejected his first claim form. In addition, they did not appear to have told him how to appeal their decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• consider reimbursing Mr C for the cost of the mobile phone; and
• ensure staff at prison 1 notify prisoners in writing of the reasons why a claim has been rejected and give information about appealing the decision in accordance with the claims procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his property when he was transferred between prisons. He also complained that the SPS did not handle his complaint properly. Mr C was released from prison whilst we were investigating his complaint and he did not provide us with a forwarding address. We were unable to make contact with him despite several enquiries. Therefore, we closed his case in line with our procedures.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison manager had refused to contact the on-call doctor after Mr C was sick and got something stuck in his throat, causing him chest pain. Mr C said that the prison did not act in accordance with the prison rules because a healthcare professional must be notified of any prisoner whose physical or mental condition appears to require attention. He also complained that staff removed various items from his cell contrary to the prison rules that set out that sufficient bedding must be provided for a prisoner's warmth and health. He said he was cold during the night and suffered pain the next morning.

In responding to the complaint, the prison governor explained that Mr C was being managed under a suicide risk management strategy because of self-harming, which meant staff had to carry out 15 minute observations in accordance with his care plan. As Mr C had hidden under the bed, staff had to remove various items that were considered potentially harmful. This allowed staff to maintain their duty of care to him by being able to freely observe him.

We found that the officers who were observing Mr C raised an incident report that he had handed them an item which he had apparently vomited. However, there was no evidence to show that they had witnessed him being sick or were aware of anything stuck in his throat. Nevertheless, we were concerned that staff did not check in more detail and question why Mr C had the item, given that for safety reasons he was not allowed anything in his cell at this time. Had staff properly investigated this, it is likely they would have established what had happened and so, on balance, we upheld the complaint.

We did not find any evidence to show that the prison acted unreasonably in removing items from Mr C's cell, as staff were required to clearly observe him for his safety, in line with his care plan. We were, however, critical that the governor had not responded to Mr C's complaint about staff not contacting the on-call doctor and made recommendations about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• take appropriate steps to ensure similar incidents are fully investigated and documented in the observation records;
• share our findings with the governor to ensure that full responses are provided to complaints; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings we identified.