Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately refused to provide him access to the library. Mr C was an untried prisoner located within an area of the prison that was for those requiring protection.

The prison rules confirm that prisons should make arrangements to allow prisoners to access library services, but also that privileges – including library access - can vary for different categories of prisoners, and for those detained in certain parts of the prison. The Scottish Prison Service told us that the council provided the main library service but that this facility did not extend to untried prisoners. Instead, untried prisoners could access an in-hall library. However, in the particular hall that Mr C was in, there were operational difficulties in granting him access to the in-hall library. He was unable to access either that or the main library (as he was an untried prisoner), which is why he complained. We noted that the prison's internal complaints committee had considered Mr C's complaint, and recommended that steps be taken to enable him to access a library service which the governor had accepted.

In light of the evidence available, we were satisfied the prison had the authority to restrict access to the main prison library for some prisoner groups. Because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about restricted access. However, we did uphold his complaint about complaints handling. We found that the response to his complaint should have more clearly outlined the prison rules and the reasons why Mr C did not have the same access to the main library as other prisoners.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failures our investigation identified; and
• take steps to remind relevant staff that written responses to complaints should be clear and accurate.

Summary

We received a complaint that prison officers had not handled a prisoner's incoming post in line with prison rules and had not handled his complaint to the SPS reasonably. However, the prisoner later contacted us to say that the complaint had been made to us without his knowledge or agreement. We agreed with his request that the complaint be withdrawn.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to investigate his complaint appropriately. Mr C had complained to the prison because he said money that had been sent to him in a letter had gone missing. In response to Mr C's complaint, the prison said a full investigation had been carried out and no evidence of tampering with his mail had been identified.

The Scottish Prison Service provided us with a copy of the written statement made by the officer who opened Mr C's mail. That statement confirmed Mr C's mail had been opened in his presence and no money was inside the envelope. The evidence available confirmed the prison took Mr C's complaint seriously and took proper steps to investigate it. In light of this, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison governor did not handle his complaint appropriately. He had complained to the governor that language used in an email suggested untruthfulness on his part. He also complained that the staff member who wrote the email recorded inaccurate information in a note of the outcome of one of his complaints, and he asked for an explanation of this. The governor had interviewed the staff member about the language in the email exchange and had concluded that it was open to individual interpretation. In addition, the governor noted that Mr C had previously complained about the error in the note and that a manager had responded in writing apologising for the mistake and assuring him that the note would be amended and re-issued. The governor acknowledged that this had not at first happened, but confirmed that it had since been done.

We examined the information that the governor considered while investigating these complaints. We found that, by speaking directly with the staff member, the governor had taken proper steps to investigate Mr C's concerns about the email. However, although we considered it unreasonable to expect the governor to decide whether untruthfulness was implied, we took the view that the language used could be perceived as biased, whether or not that was the intention. It would, therefore, have been reasonable for the governor to assure Mr C that staff had been reminded to avoid using language that could cause offence or be misinterpreted. We also found that the error in the written note had been acknowledged but was not at first corrected and that, when responding to Mr C's complaints, neither the manager nor the governor had explained why this happened. We took the view that they should have done so and, because of the failings identified, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified following our investigation of his complaint;
• remind staff involved with complaints handling that they should avoid using language that could be misinterpreted; and
• explain to Mr C why the error occurred in the written note.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, told us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were preventing him from progressing within the prison system towards parole by requiring him to do unnecessary courses. The courses in question were agreed by the SPS at a meeting that took account of an assessment that a prison psychologist had carried out. Mr C's complaint was that the assessment was not done properly.

We explained to Mr C that it was for the SPS, not us, to decide what courses a prisoner should undertake. Our role in his complaint, therefore, was to consider whether the psychologist had appropriately followed the relevant guidance.

Our investigation showed that the psychologist had not fully followed the guidance when doing her assessment, so we upheld the complaint. That did not mean, however, that the conclusions of her assessment were wrong - it simply meant she had not fully followed the guidance when assessing Mr C.

However, the SPS themselves had already identified the shortcomings before Mr C complained to us and had put them right by arranging another assessment by a different psychologist. This was then considered at another SPS meeting (where it was agreed that Mr C should do the coursework agreed at the earlier meeting). Therefore, we made no recommendations for further action.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service did not follow procedures when they downgraded him from less secure conditions to more secure. During our investigation, Mr C told us that he was applying for legal aid for judicial review of the prison's actions in relation to the matter he had complained to us about. We cannot investigate complaints if they are the subject of legal action. In view of this, we closed Mr C's complaint. However, we told him to contact us again if his application for legal aid was unsuccessful.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably failed to explain to him why they had imposed security measures on him that meant he was unable to attend work or education.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) confirmed that Mr C had been placed on risk management precautions. These were measures introduced by the prison to create a safe environment for prisoners and staff, and only related to those prisoners who were deemed to present a risk to others and where it was felt additional conditions should be in place. They said Mr C had received a written note outlining the precautions, and his case manager also met with him to discuss them. They said that, in Mr C's case, they decided to put the precautions in place because of concerns raised in his risk assessment report and his behaviour in the past. They pointed to information in Mr C's risk assessment report that they felt supported their decision. As Mr C had received a document confirming the precautions, and had been involved in discussions with his case manager and as part of the complaints process, we did not uphold his complaint.

Mr C also complained that the governor failed to complete his complaint form appropriately. In particular, the governor had not indicated whether he accepted the internal complaints committee (ICC) decision on Mr C's complaint. In line with the normal process, a governor should tick the relevant box to confirm they accept the decision. If a governor decides not to accept the ICC’s decision, they are required to provide a written explanation for this by completing the relevant section on the form.

The SPS confirmed they had spoken with the governor about this and he confirmed that not ticking the relevant box was an oversight. The SPS said the governor apologised and confirmed he accepted the ICC’s decision on Mr C's complaint. We noted that the governor had not recorded any objection to the decision, and we took the view that the failure to tick the box was not significant and were satisfied with the explanation provided by the SPS. However, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint because the governor had not completed the form properly.

Summary

Mr C complained about how a company acting on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled his complaint about his experiences in a sheriff court cell.

As our investigation found that the company had reasonably investigated the complaint and replied to Mr C, we did not uphold his complaint. We noted, however, that in their replies the company had not included information to signpost him to us or to tell him of our usual timescales within which we need to receive complaints. As this is contrary to the requirements of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002, we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• arrange for the company to include SPSO signposting information in their responses to complainants, and demonstrate to us that the company have taken this action.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on closed visits (where a prisoner and a visitor cannot make physical contact) due to his unacceptable behaviour. Mr C complained to us because he said the prison failed to review his closed visits status appropriately. He said he was not told that this was being reviewed, was not given the opportunity to make representations and was not told the outcome of the reviews.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the prison initially indicated that the correct process had been followed. We asked them to provide evidence to show us that this had happened. In response, they said that reviews of Mr C's closed visit status did take place. They could not, however, provide sufficient evidence to show us that this had actually happened, because the relevant paperwork was incomplete or unavailable. In the light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in the prison's handling of the reviews of his closed visits status.
• 

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that a family member was inappropriately refused entry to the prison to attend his case management meeting. The prison told Mr C that this was because the person had not been invited to attend. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C disputed that they were not invited and sent us a copy of a letter he said the person received asking them to attend the meeting.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said that when Mr C was told that his case management meeting would be taking place, he was given instructions on what he should do if he wanted a family member there. In particular, he needed to complete a form with the details of who he wanted to attend the meeting and the prison would then invite that person. The SPS said that he did not return that form. They also told us that the prison did not send the letter Mr C sent us. In light of the evidence we saw, we did not uphold his complaint.