Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had victimised him because he had complained. He explained that, after he put in a complaint about a staff member, he was moved to another location in the prison. His new location had a negative impact on him because he had no access to education or work, he was locked up for extended periods and he was subjected to abuse from other prisoners.

When we asked the Scottish Prison Service for further information, they explained that, when Mr C's sentence ended (which was around the same time as he made his complaint), he was the subject of another warrant. Under the prison rules this meant he became classed as an 'untried' prisoner. As such, he was moved to a more appropriate location, and his privileges and entitlements under the prison rules changed. There was no evidence to support Mr C's view that the move was the result of him complaining, so we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not following their book-purchasing procedures. He then complained to us, but our investigation showed that this was not the case.

He also complained, however, that the internal complaints committee (ICC) chair did not meet him before the ICC heard his complaint. This hearing is part of the SPS complaints handling process. At that stage, a prisoner may request specific witnesses to be called for the hearing. Prison rules state that an ICC chair can refuse a witness if they have discussed this with the prisoner and are reasonably satisfied that the evidence the witness would be likely to give would be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. In such a case, the chair must tell the prisoner of this decision before the hearing. However, there is no requirement on ICC chairs to produce any written note, either to confirm that a discussion took place before the hearing or to record what was said at it. This lack of evidence can make it difficult to consider such complaints. In this case, we concluded that there had not been a pre-ICC hearing and that the ICC chair had not, therefore, complied with the prison rules.

We were concerned that this difficulty in determining complaints where there is a lack of evidence about pre-ICC discussions was a recurring theme in complaints to us. We had previously made recommendations to the SPS to try to address this problem and had asked the SPS to tell us what they intended to do to address the issue. Given that recent recommendation, we decided to make no further recommendation about that on this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the shortcomings our investigation identified.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had decided that he no longer needed to be managed under their process for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm. Mr C had been managed under this process for a number of days, as he had carried out acts of self-harm. During that period, two medical reports had been obtained identifying that he was at risk of further self-harm, and successive case conferences had also reached the decision that he was at risk of this.

However, a fifth case conference decided that Mr C was not at risk. Despite this, the action plan that the SPS put in place after this decision outlined a number of potential risks and risk management interventions. Mr C carried out a further act of self-harm and was put back on the process. We considered that the SPS should have obtained a further medical report on Mr C before deciding that he no longer needed to be managed under the process. There was no evidence that they had done so and we upheld the complaint, as well as his complaint that they had not responded to some of the questions on his complaint form.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• make the staff involved in the decision aware of our finding on the matter; and
• issue a written apology to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service did not highlight on his computer records the names of prisoners who assaulted him in a particular prison. He said this was necessary so that staff would always be aware that he was to be kept separated from them. He was also unhappy that another prison did not fully respond to his complaint about this.

Our investigation found that the day after the assault Mr C was transferred to a second prison for his safety. Staff at the first prison had recorded the incident in his security file, to which only certain staff had access. We also found that it was normal practice after an assault for an entry to be made in a prisoner's computer records so that prison officers in any establishment would be aware of known enemies and whether they should be kept separated. Although Mr C was relocated the next day, the first prison had not made this link on Mr C's records. Staff there could not input this information because he had transferred, but they should have contacted staff at the second prison to have this done. We also identified that another prison took steps to have Mr C's computer records updated with his known enemies after he complained. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that this had been properly explained to him.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• draw to the attention of relevant staff in the first prison the importance of ensuring that steps are taken to update a prisoner's computer records with information about known enemies and whether they have to be kept separated; and
• share our findings with staff at the prison who dealt with Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, said the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not provide relevant and accurate information in his parole dossier. He said they did not share with the parole board information about his disagreement with intelligence information held about him, and that inaccurate information about a staff assault was included in a report prepared by an officer. Mr C said that, in fact, he had prevented a staff member from being assaulted.

The SPS confirmed a note was added to Mr C's intelligence file noting that he disagreed with the information but they did not provide a copy of that note to the parole board. They also acknowledged that the reference to a staff assault in the report was inaccurate. We asked them if they had amended the information. They told us they did not, because the parole board accepted Mr C's explanation, and because the parole board did not refer to the alleged staff assault in their decision on his case.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. It was not clear to us why the SPS did not let the parole board know about Mr C's disagreement with the information held about him. Although a prisoner can submit self-representations to the parole board, we felt it was fair for the SPS to also provide that information, given it was available when they prepared Mr C's dossier. We were also disappointed that they did not take steps to correct the inaccuracy in the report about the alleged staff assault even though they agreed the information was wrong. The SPS have a responsibility to ensure that non-intelligence information held about a prisoner is up-to-date, relevant and accurate.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• advise staff responsible for preparing prisoners' parole dossiers to ensure that relevant, up-to-date and accurate information is contained in the file, including any record of a prisoner's disagreement with intelligence held about them;
• ensure both prisoners and staff are aware of the steps that should be taken by a prisoner if they have concerns about the information contained within their dossier; and
• review the information contained in Mr C's file relating to the alleged staff assault and take appropriate corrective action.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was assaulted and injured on three separate occasions. As the third assault was serious, he was placed in a protected section of the prison. Mr C complained about being held in protected conditions over the period of a year. In response to the complaint, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) advised Mr C that he was separated from his known enemies for his own safety. Mr C then complained to us because he had not agreed to be placed in protected conditions.

We acknowledged that the SPS had a duty of care to Mr C in terms of ensuring his safety from potential harm. Although they told us that Mr C had requested protection on a number of occasions after being assaulted, they were unable to provide documentary evidence to support this. Written guidance about the protection assessment process in place at the time said that a prisoner's written agreement should be obtained when placing them in protected conditions. We were critical of the fact that there was no evidence to show that Mr C went through the proper assessment process and his consent was obtained, either when he was placed in protected conditions after the assaults or when he remained in protected conditions at a later date. We also found no evidence to show that his protection status was regularly reviewed in line with the guidance. We upheld the complaint as we concluded that there was no evidence to support the SPS's account that Mr C had requested protection or that they had sought his agreement when placing him under protection.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• conduct an audit of prisoners' files held in the prison to ensure that protection agreement forms have been completed and six monthly reviews conducted; and
• ensure that relevant prison staff are fully aware of the guidance about this that was issued to all prisons on 3 May 2012.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had an external work placement, but was suspended from this because the prison said he had breached the conditions of his temporary release licence. Mr C complained that the prison did not deal with or investigate this in line with their procedures. He also complained that the prison did not handle Risk Management Team (RMT) matters in line with their procedures, and did not adequately deal with his complaints about all these matters.

During our investigation we found that Mr C had signed to agree that he had read the licence conditions attached to his temporary release. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) took the view that he had breached these conditions as his placement had closed early one day, but he had not contacted the prison when this happened. This was a discretionary decision that the SPS were entitled to take. We were also satisfied that the prison investigated the alleged breach of licence conditions in line with their normal process, and that it was correctly dealt with through the risk management process. Mr C spoke at the RMT meeting that considered the matter, and his account of what happened was noted in the minute of that meeting. We were also satisfied that the SPS dealt with his complaints in line with their process.

Although we did not uphold the complaints, we noted that Mr C said he was not given a copy of the relevant paperwork. The SPS said that he was, but were unable to provide evidence of it, so we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• take steps to ensure a prisoner confirms receipt when provided with a copy of an adverse circumstances report and any related paperwork.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to transfer him to an appropriate prison.

Our investigation found that the SPS were entitled to hold Mr C in the prison he was currently in, and we did not uphold his complaint. The SPS also told us, however, that they had agreed that Mr C would transfer to a more appropriate prison when a suitable time to do that was identified.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison inappropriately identified him as being suitable for the substance related offending behaviour programme. Mr C was unhappy with this because he said substance misuse was not part of his offence.

The prison told Mr C that because of the nature of his previous convictions, and the assessment carried out as to whether he was suitable for the programme, they were satisfied the outcome was appropriate. The Scottish Prison Service information leaflet on programmes confirmed that when substance misuse is related to an individual prisoner's offending behaviour, they will be targeted for the programme. The information available to the prison confirmed that substance misuse was an element of Mr C's previous convictions and because of that, he was selected as suitable. We were satisfied the prison appropriately identified Mr C as being suitable for the programme and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison did not address his concerns about the temperature in his residential hall. We made enquiries of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), and found that complaints were received from prisoners about the temperature in the hall. Steps were taken to resolve this, including providing advice to prisoners on how to keep the temperature within the hall at an optimum level. In addition, the heating temperature was increased and checks were carried out to make sure the system was operating properly.

As we were satisfied that the prison took appropriate action after the complaints were made, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.