Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that he was handcuffed in his cell and told by a manager that the handcuffs would be removed when his self-harming urges went away. Mr C said that he had not shown signs of aggression or self-harm, and that the type of handcuffs used were normally for external escorts. Mr C was also unhappy about the length of time it took for the prison governor to respond to his complaint.

In responding to the complaint the prison said that the manager had authorised the use of handcuffs for a short time whilst officers searched Mr C because he had said he had an item in his possession that could cause him harm. He was handcuffed to avoid causing any further damage to existing self-inflicted wounds. However, the governor acknowledged that there were other options open to officers rather than using metal handcuffs, and said that they would notify staff of these.

We found that records made at the time indicated that Mr C was initially restrained by three officers and then handcuffed by a manager to enable them to search for the item without causing him harm. Nevertheless, the prison had accepted that the use of metal handcuffs was inappropriate and had apologised to Mr C. We were satisfied with the action taken by the prison prior to our involvement, specifically that they apologised directly to Mr C and had discussed with the manager the other options available should a similar incident arise. However, we were critical that the governor took three and a half weeks to respond to the complaint with no justifiable reason given for the delay. Whilst Mr C had received an apology, we made a further recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• remind the governor to inform prisoners in a timely manner if a response to their complaint cannot be provided within seven days, along with the reason for this, and that they are given a timescale in which the decision will be provided.

Summary

Mr C complained that because the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to appropriately process his property, he lost two items. Mr C said that they failed to record or itemise his belongings correctly, failed to place them in sealed bags and mixed them up with those of another prisoner.

The evidence showed that at several stages the SPS failed to follow their procedures and appropriately process Mr C's property, and it was clear from their own investigation of his complaint that they had found failings. However, the SPS did not appear to have taken any action to remedy these, despite repeated prompts from us to do so, and we criticised them for this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the staff involved to ensure that such failings do not occur in future;
• reconsider Mr C's claim for lost property, taking into account the failings identified in this case; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the prison handled an item of mail that had been sent to him from his solicitor. In particular, Mr C considered that the item of mail has been opened before it was given to him. Mr C also said that the prison failed to handle his complaint on the matter appropriately.

Our investigation found that the prison had a system in place which allowed staff to identify and record any damaged letters that arrived at the prison. They also had a process in place for staff to follow when an item of privileged mail - which included mail from a prisoner's solicitor - is opened in error. In Mr C's case, the prison advised that they did not consider his item of mail to be damaged, or opened in error, and because of that, the procedures referred to were not applied. Therefore, we considered the prison's handling of Mr C's mail to be reasonable. We also considered that the prison's overall handling of Mr C's complaint was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaints. However, during our investigation we did identify some issues that we made recommendations to the Scottish Prison Service about.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• remind staff to respond to each issue raised in a complaint including any complaints handing matters;
• review the SPS staff guidance on prisoner complaints to ensure it is consistent with the prison rules; and
• consider revising the PCF1 (complaints) form to include the information sought by the witness information request form.

Summary

Mr C applied to transfer to an English prison to be near his family for visiting purposes. Although his application was granted, this took some time, and Mr C thought it was unlikely that he would be transferred before his liberation date later that year. As a result, Mr C applied for progression to the open estate (an area with less secure prison conditions) for the remainder of his term instead.

However, his application to be moved to the open estate was declined as he had not been given an assessment to determine what programmes he would benefit from, or completed any programmes. Although Mr C had indicated he was interested in completing any programmes which were considered useful for him, his assessment had been put on hold due to his request for transfer to an English prison.

Mr C complained to our office about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his applications for transfer to an English prison and for the open estate, as well as their handling of his requests to be assessed for programmes. 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 at this address, and we had no option but to close our file on his case.

Summary

Mr C submitted four complaint forms to the prison governor alleging assaults by prison staff and issues related to a strip search. He then submitted four more forms the following month, saying that his concerns had not been investigated.

In response to the complaint, the governor told Mr C that the allegations of assault had been referred to the police for investigation. However, because the police did not take matters further due to insufficient evidence, the prison did not undertake a local investigation.

We upheld Mr C's complaint as our investigation found that, although the police investigation did not find enough evidence to pursue criminal actions, the governor had not clearly demonstrated that the prison had dealt with the complaints. We were critical that despite submitting eight complaint forms directly to the governor, it had not been properly explained to Mr C - or to us - whether staff handled him in accordance with the prison rules, and their control and restraint guidance.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• investigate whether or not staff handled Mr C in line with the prison rules and their control and restraint manual;
• investigate Mr C's allegations that nursing staff were present during a strip search and whether this was in accordance with the prison rules and their standard operating procedure for conducting searches; and
• draw our findings to the governor's attention to ensure that complaints are fully investigated and responded to.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not given a mattress or bedding on a particular evening after the prison placed him in segregation. He said that he had not self-harmed, displayed erratic behaviour or damaged property until after he was moved to another cell.

We did not find evidence to support comments by a prison officer that Mr C damaged property immediately before being transferred to a segregation cell. Nevertheless, there was evidence suggesting he had self-harmed, and that staff had tried to allow him to remain in his usual cell. However, when staff tried to remove items from his cell for safety reasons Mr C made further suicidal comments, which resulted in him being transferred to a safer environment, in accordance with the suicide risk procedure.

There was evidence to show that attempts were made to place him under observation in two segregation cells. However, he damaged one of the cells by removing the electrical sockets, and attempted to do similar damage to the other one. This resulted in him being transferred to a special cell with no sockets. He was noted to be non-compliant with staff and a decision was taken not to give him bedding or open the cell door because of his unpredictable behaviour and past history. The prison have a duty to ensure that a prisoner is provided with sufficient bedding for warmth and health. However, they also have discretion to remove items from a cell as they see fit. Whilst it was not ideal that Mr C had no bedding, the room was heated and he had access to a sleeping plinth. We found no evidence to show that the prison failed to follow their procedures when managing Mr C under the suicide risk management strategy.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison refused his request for escorted day absence (EDA) so he could visit a relative who was medically unable to travel to the prison. Mr C said his previous prisons had granted him EDAs to see the same relative, and the situation had not changed, so he could not understand why his request was refused.

The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 and the Scottish Prison Rules (Escorted Day Absence) Direction 2011 set out the criteria for EDAs. It is clear from this legislation that prison governors have discretion to decide whether an EDA application is being made in exceptional circumstances. The SPSO cannot challenge this discretion. However, even where there is discretion, such decisions must be justified on the basis of available evidence, and this information should be recorded. This ensures that, where appropriate, the process used to reach such decisions can be scrutinised, to ensure that the process is followed appropriately and, therefore, the decisions are not arbitrary.

In Mr C's case, neither his prison nor the Scottish Prison Service centrally were able to provide us with a copy of his completed EDA application. Therefore, there was no evidence that the EDA process was followed appropriately to its completion. In addition, Mr C's prison did not explain in their responses to his complaints, or in their response to our enquiry, why they did not consider his case to be exceptional circumstances. Given this, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

While we understand the need for prison governors to be able to make decisions in their prison based on local conditions and the specific circumstances of individual cases, the apparent lack of guidance on what might be considered exceptional circumstances for an EDA could lead to apparent unfair inconsistency between individual prisons which is difficult to explain. Therefore, we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to explain why his case was not considered to be exceptional circumstances;
• remind all prisons of the importance of keeping complete, accurate and current information in a prisoner's core file; and
• provide guidance to prison governors on what might constitute exceptional circumstances for an escorted day absence.

Summary

Mr C complained to the prison because he considered that staff had failed to follow his care plan appropriately. He then complained to us that the prison's investigation of his complaint was inadequate even though they upheld it and agreed to take forward changes. In particular, Mr C did not consider that some of what they had said about his behaviour was accurate and he felt they did not respond fully to the issues he raised.

We obtained copies of the evidence that the prison looked at as part of their investigation of Mr C's complaint. We identified that there was information to support the prison's version of events in relation to Mr C's behaviour even though he disagreed. However, it was clear that the prison failed to acknowledge, or respond to, all of the issues Mr C raised but we were satisfied that the overall outcome of the complaint was appropriate. Therefore, we concluded that the prison's investigation was adequate and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison did not provide a meal to mark a religious holiday. We noted that there was no requirement on the prison to provide such a meal. However, our investigation indicated that they did provide a meal which was better than usual meals and which was intended to mark the religious holiday. The prison said they had also taken the opportunity to broaden the understanding of other prisoners who were not observing the holiday by making the menu available to all prisoners and by including an explanation on the menu. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained because he said the prison was paying him an unfair wage. He also said they failed to handle his complaint appropriately.

Our investigation highlighted that there were prisoners employed in the same work party working the same hours as Mr C but receiving a higher wage than him. A new work timetable was introduced by the prison prior to Mr C's arrival and because of that, the hours those prisoners previously worked were reduced. The SPS national wage earning policy says that prisoners should not be penalised for wage earning if work or activity is reduced due to operational reasons. As a result, the prison continued to pay those prisoners the wage they received prior to their hours being reduced. In Mr C's case, he began work after the new timetable was brought in. As he was being paid in line with the policy in place at the time we, therefore, did not uphold his complaint. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the prison handled his complaint to them.