Prisons

Summary

Mr and Mrs C tried to collect their son's property from a prison but were unable to do so. They complained that the prison failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that they could collect the property and did not respond appropriately to their complaint.

In response, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had told Mr and Mrs C that they could not collect the property because staff had not taken it to the correct collection area. However, in responding to our enquiries, they confirmed that the prison's actions in handling the property were in fact correct. They explained that the problem occurred because, when Mr and Mrs C tried to collect the property, the member of staff in the collection area was unaware that it was there. Although the SPS confirmed that the prison were reviewing the process, we upheld Mr and Mrs C's complaint and made a recommendation.

In considering whether the prison responded appropriately to their complaint, we identified that the response contained a number of inaccuracies and because of that, we also upheld this part of Mr and Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• tell us what steps the prison took to review the relevant procedure and confirm what changes, if any, have been implemented; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the inaccuracies in their response to the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to follow relevant procedures in providing him with food; specifically, that one meal provided to him was lower than the required temperature. Mr C said he saw food records which had missing days and dates, and that he spoke to staff who told him a meal had not been probed to check its temperature. Mr C said he had lost trust in the prison's ability to provide meals that were safe to eat.

We have no role in ensuring the health and safety of prison food. Our role in this case was to consider whether the prison acted in line with relevant processes or procedures. We looked at the food records and found that some entries were missed from the daily hot temperature record sheet. This evidence was accepted by the prison when they dealt with Mr C's complaint. It meant that the prison were unable to demonstrate that meals served each day had been probed, to ensure they were above the required minimum temperature of 63°C. As this was not compliant with the prison's food safety manual and The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

In response to Mr C's complaint the prison carried out an audit of compliance with the food safety manual over a number of weeks, which we found to be reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. However, we were concerned that one part of the prison did not provide the necessary data sheets for the audit and, therefore, we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure that all halls audited or inspected for compliance with the food safety manual provide the necessary data when requested to do so, and copy the results to us.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to deal appropriately with his requests to be transferred to a different prison.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) are entitled to decide how best to manage the prison population. Therefore, it is up to them to decide whether or not to grant transfer requests, taking into account all relevant information. We cannot question these decisions unless there is evidence that they have not been taken properly. Neither can we have a prisoner placed in a particular prison. Our role is to consider whether the SPS act in line with relevant processes or procedures.

We looked at information provided by Mr C and the SPS, and we found that although it took a number of months for Mr C to be transferred, this was reasonable in the circumstances. It was clear that SPS staff made reasonable efforts to have Mr C transferred to an appropriate prison; however, in doing so, they had to take into account several factors about the receiving prison's population, in addition to Mr C's own situation. We were satisfied that the SPS dealt with Mr C's transfer requests appropriately and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison he was in failed to make adequate arrangements for the provision of halal food. He said that he wanted the imam for the prison to taste random halal meals, as he considered that the halal goods brought into the prison were not halal by the time they reached prisoners' plates.

The prison rules say that the prison governor must taste and check samples of the food. They must also ensure that every prisoner is provided with food that takes into account, as far as practical, the prisoner's age, health and religious, cultural, dietary or other requirements. However, there is no requirement for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to arrange for an imam to taste halal food. During our investigation, the prison told us that halal food is prepared separately, and that utensils are sterilised before use to prevent cross-contamination. They said that, once the meat is prepared, it is placed into individual containers and is then refrigerated or frozen and the containers stored in separate sections. They also sent us halal certificates from their meat suppliers.

Mr C also wanted his food to be served by a Muslim prisoner. Ideally, halal food would be served by a practising Muslim and we could understand Mr C's concerns that, in the prison, it was not. However, there was no requirement for the SPS to arrange this and the decision on who served halal food in the prison was one for them to make, which we could not question in the absence of any evidence of maladministration in the taking of that decision.

We found that the SPS had made reasonable arrangements to provide halal food in the prison, and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained because he had concerns about the safety of the area that he and other prisoners worked in and he did not think the prison had addressed these properly. He also complained that he was not being paid weekly, and because he felt that the prison had not considered his circumstances appropriately when allocating work to him.

In his complaint to the prison, Mr C said he had not received appropriate inductions and he made a number of observations about the work being carried out. He also raised concerns about an incident that had taken in place in which another prisoner was injured. In response, the prison confirmed that all reported accidents were fully investigated and records kept. They told Mr C that he was required to work. We considered that the prison appropriately addressed his concerns about the incident involving the other prisoner. We also considered that it was unreasonable for Mr C to complain about not receiving the appropriate inductions, because he had refused to attend work. However, the prison did not respond at all to his observations of the work being carried out and we felt they should have, so we upheld this aspect of his complaint and made a recommendation.

Prison rules require prisoners to work. However, Mr C had made it clear to the prison that he was not prepared to attend work. The prison provided evidence to show us the steps they had taken to consider Mr C's circumstances before allocating work to him and we found these to have been appropriate. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaints about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise for not responding fully to the concerns Mr C raised in his complaint.

Summary

Mr C sent a wash bag to the prison laundry but did not receive it back. He said it appeared that his laundry bag had been stolen and he submitted a compensation claim. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) rejected Mr C's claim and said that any property held in use by a prisoner was entirely at his or her own risk, as stated on their property card. Mr C complained to us that the SPS's decision-making in respect of his claim was unreasonable.

It was clear from the evidence obtained that the only means by which Mr C was able to have his clothes washed in the prison was to use their laundry service. From the point at which he placed his belongings in his laundry bag and they were removed from his possession, along with his completed laundry sheet, he could not reasonably be expected to be responsible for their return. The prison provided the laundry service and were, therefore, responsible for returning Mr C's belongings to him. We took the view that it was unreasonable for the prison to rely on the disclaimer on Mr C's property card to absolve themselves of any responsibility for returning his belongings to him.

We found that the SPS did not have a system in place to adequately track prisoners' laundry, failed to fully investigate Mr C's claim and reach a conclusion on what happened to his laundry bag and failed to take responsibility for his laundry by applying the property card disclaimer. We concluded that their decision-making in respect of Mr C's claim for lost laundry was unreasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• feed back our decision on Mr C's complaint to the staff involved;
• reconsider Mr C's claim for loss of property taking into account the points contained in our decision on his complaint; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to clarify his circumstances in relation to his fitness to work and was reported for not working. He was also concerned about the handling of his representations about this.

During our investigation the SPS provided evidence that Mr C had seen a prison doctor, who had deemed him fit to work, although not with machinery, before he was reported for not working. The prison doctor had also considered the risk assessments for the workshed Mr C was allocated to and deemed it to be suitable.

While we were satisfied that in general the SPS had dealt with Mr C's complaints in line with the complaints process, we were concerned that when Mr C had asked for assistance at a number of internal complaints committee (ICC) hearings, this was not always acknowledged on the paperwork. We also noted that three committee members were not always present at the ICC as required. During our investigation the SPS reminded staff of the need to follow the correct procedures in relation to providing the relevant paperwork to a prisoner. They also agreed to remind staff of the need to follow the process when a prisoner requires assistance at a ICC. We, therefore, made only one recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• remind staff of the need to ensure that at least three members are present at the ICC in line with guidance.

Summary

Mr C was told he did not need to do any more courses while in prison and in due course he was released. He was later recalled to prison and was then told that he did need to do more coursework. He complained that this was inappropriate. During our consideration of Mr C's complaint, the SPS resolved the matter for him and he decided to withdraw the complaint. Therefore, we took no further action on it.

Summary

Mr C complained that the governor at his prison did not investigate his confidential complaint, which included an allegation Mr C made about the actions of a member of prison staff.

Prisoners can make complaints about routine matters. They can also make complaints about exceptionally sensitive or serious matters, which are treated as confidential complaints that go directly to the prison governor. We found there was no guidance for governors on what matters could be considered exceptionally sensitive or serious and thus appropriate to be dealt with under the confidential process. There was also a lack of clarity about which process should be used to deal with prisoners' allegations against prison staff. We found that the governor failed to provide Mr C with reasons for deciding that his complaint was not about a confidential matter; and that the prison did not keep a proper record of his confidential complaint, as they were supposed to.

We took the view that an allegation made by a prisoner about a member of staff would appear to be a matter of serious concern for a governor, even if such an allegation later proved to be unfounded. In addition, we did not think it was reasonable for a member of staff's peers to investigate, consider the evidence, and reach a conclusion about an allegation against that member of staff. We decided that the governor should have either given Mr C reasons for not investigating his complaint, or should have investigated it. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• remind relevant prison staff of the need to record and file a copy of confidential complaints, as well as providing reasons for the governor's decision when a confidential complaint is considered not to be of an exceptionally sensitive or serious nature;
• provide guidance to governors on the types of complaint which might be considered to be of an exceptionally sensitive or serious nature and, therefore, should be dealt with under the confidential process; and
• amend the complaints guidance so it is clear which process should be used to deal with allegations against staff that are made by prisoners.

Summary

Mr C complained that prison staff opened an item of post from his solicitor, which they should have passed to him unopened.

Post in prison must be strictly handled, so that prisoners do not receive inappropriate items. Incoming mail is, therefore, opened by prison officers. However, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) recognise that some post should be regarded as confidential and passed to prisoners unopened, including correspondence from legal advisers such as solicitors. The SPS have arrangements in place to identify such post, which should then not be opened by prison staff.

In this case, the solicitor had not followed the agreed process to enable the SPS staff to identify their correspondence with Mr C, but had simply marked it as 'private and confidential'. The correspondence was, therefore, opened because this was not enough to qualify it to be passed on unopened. We considered that the SPS had acted appropriately. We also noted that, to resolve the matter, when Mr C complained to the SPS they said they would contact the solicitor to remind them of the process. Our investigation confirmed that the SPS had done that.