Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was downgraded from open prison conditions after an incident, because he was suspected of breaching prison rules. He was placed on a misconduct report and the matter was referred to the police. The police did not take any further action and, ultimately, there was no hearing on the misconduct report. Mr C then complained that in his generic assessment paperwork and his parole dossier the Scottish Prison Services (SPS) referred to both the misconduct report and the related police investigation. He felt it was inappropriate for them to do so because the police did not take any action and he was not found guilty of breaching prison rules.

The SPS confirmed that, following the incident, Mr C was placed on a misconduct report but that the disciplinary hearing to decide whether he was guilty of the charge did not take place. As the police did not conclude their enquiries quickly enough the SPS had been unable to hold the hearing (to decide whether Mr C had breached prison rules) within the relevant timescale. The SPS confirmed that information about the misconduct report had been deleted from Mr C's record. They also explained, however, that despite both these outcomes it was still necessary to refer to the incident that resulted in Mr C being downgraded, to assess his risk and to identify any appropriate interventions to reduce it.

The evidence confirmed that the SPS had referred to both matters in Mr C's records. That information was, however, factual and as such they were entitled to refer to it. We were, therefore, satisfied that their reference to the information was appropriate, and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had complained directly to the prison governor, as he considered that his complaint was about a confidential matter. Under the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) complaints procedure, prisoners can do this where they think that their complaint is about a confidential matter that is of an exceptionally sensitive or serious nature. The governor, however, told Mr C that he did not consider that the complaint was about such a matter. In these cases, the prisoner can then make the complaint through the standard complaints procedure. However, Mr C referred his complaint about the SPS direct to us.

Under our legislation, we cannot normally investigate complaints until they have been through the whole complaints procedure of the organisation complained about, unless it is not reasonable to expect this to have happened. As Mr C had not taken his complaint through the complaints procedure, we told him that he should do so, and that he could refer it to us if he remained unhappy after receiving the SPS's final response. We also asked the SPS to make this procedure clearer to prisoners when replying to complaints to governors that they did not consider were about confidential matters.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had his family order a games console from an online company, and have it sent to the prison for him. However, the prison refused to allow Mr C to have the item in use and he complained that this was unreasonable.

The Scottish Prison Service provided us with a copy of the prison's items in use list, which confirmed that prisoners were only allowed to purchase games consoles from certain approved suppliers and that payment for these must be made from the prisoner's personal cash account. As Mr C did not follow the correct process when purchasing his games console, the prison refused to allow him to have it.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were refusing to allow him to buy the books he wanted. He claimed there was a complete ban on introducing literature into the prison.

We found that prisoners could ask to buy books, and that if the books were appropriate, and a prisoner had enough money, these could then be bought through the prison's authorised suppliers. We also found that the prison had made enquiries on Mr C's behalf about the books he wanted, and not all of these were available through authorised suppliers. Mr C could have those that were available, but would have to pay for them himself and, given the cost, he needed to save enough money to buy them. We found no evidence of a ban, and no evidence that the prison prevented Mr C from buying books.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had not put measures in place to assist with his special dietary requirements. He made suggestions to prison staff as to what might help overcome the problem and was unhappy that they did not respond favourably to these. He left his complaint hearing prematurely as he said it had become clear to him that help was being refused. He said that the complaints committee refused to follow this up by providing the reasons for the refusal in writing. He said that their written response merely noted the refusal and Mr C's failure to engage with them.

Mr C explained to us that his dietary requirements were the result of a medical condition, of which he could provide evidence. However, the prison told us that as they had not received this evidence, they did not consider that any special provisions were necessary. They acknowledged, however, that they should have given Mr C a written explanation of their decision and said that they would highlight this to staff.

In the absence of a medical instruction, we noted that it was for the prison to decide whether to put special arrangements in place for Mr C, so we did not uphold his complaint. We were critical that the complaints committee had not provided written reasons for their decision, but as the prison had already acknowledged this and taken steps to address it, we had no recommendations to make.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison did not handle his mail appropriately. He said he was given three items of legal mail several days after they were posted, and suspected the prison had held his mail back longer than they should have. Mr C also complained that items sent by him first class had been delayed in being issued. In response to Mr C's complaints, the prison confirmed there was no record of his mail being screened and the mail log showed the items were passed to him without delay.

We asked the prison to confirm whether any special measures were in place which resulted in Mr C's mail undergoing checks outwith the normal procedure. The prison said no such measures were in place and provided us with copies of the relevant mail log. This showed that Mr C's mail had been received in the prison and issued to him on the same day. As there was no evidence of inappropriate mail handling, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prison staff had decided to restrict his partner to closed visits (when the prisoner and his visitor are separated by a pane of glass). On some occasions, his partner was refused entry altogether. The prison confirmed that the restrictions on these visits were in place because of concerns about his partner's behaviour towards staff. They told us about the types of behaviours they had witnessed and provided supporting statements from staff. They also confirmed that they had reviewed the arrangements after three months, as they were required to do. We told Mr C that the prison were entitled to take action if they had concerns, and that we cannot question that decision unless there is evidence that it was not taken properly.

Mr C also complained that he was not invited to his complaint hearing about this, despite having said he wanted to attend. He said he did not know it had taken place until he received the decision. The prison told us that Mr C was invited to attend but failed to do so. They provided a copy of the attendance sheet recording his failure to attend. As we could not reconcile the conflicting accounts of what happened, we did not uphold this complaint. We noted, however, that the written note from the hearing did not mention that Mr C was not there. We considered that it would have been good practice for this to have been noted and made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• remind staff acting as internal complaints committee chairpersons that, as a matter of good practice, the written note of the hearing should make it clear when a prisoner has failed to attend.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that obstacles were being put in the way of his progression through the prison system towards parole, including that he had been deselected from a rehabilitation programme. However, our investigation revealed that this was not the case and that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had been acting appropriately in relation to his progression. Decisions to deselect are for the SPS to take, but we can look at how the decision was made. We saw a lot of evidence of the reasons for the decision, and found that the SPS had taken it properly.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, applied for home detention curfew (also known as electronic tagging - it enables certain prisoners to be released, with a tag which checks that they stay at a particular location at certain times of the day or night). When his application was rejected, he complained to us that this decision was based on inaccurate information about his behaviour in prison. On investigation, we found that the records showed that there was evidence of such behaviour. We did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison several times because he said they did not give him enough time to eat lunch before the exercise period. He said that because of new arrangements exercise was being called much earlier from Monday to Thursday, which meant prisoners were not being given enough time to eat.

In response to Mr C's complaints, the prison accepted that staff had, at times, called for the exercise period too early. They apologised to Mr C and issued a notice to staff confirming that the afternoon exercise period should not be called for before 13:00. They also confirmed that this would be monitored to ensure staff were complying with the instruction.

The evidence we saw confirmed the prison had provided several assurances to Mr C that they were taking a number of steps to prevent this exercise period from being called too early. However, we also found that Mr C had continued to submit complaints because the instruction was being ignored. We upheld his complaint, as it was clear that the prison had failed to effectively resolve the problem, which they themselves had accepted.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• provide us with evidence of the monitoring they say has been carried out; and
• confirm what actions will be taken to effectively resolve Mr C's complaint.