Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison were inappropriately failing to comply with the wage earning policy. Mr C was employed in the recycling party, and he described some of the tasks undertaken as being unpleasant. The wage earning policy confirms that bonuses are available for some work duties when the tasks undertaken are exceptional or unpleasant.

The prison told us that previously the recycling party did receive the bonus payment, but that after an audit it was found that bonuses were being paid for reasons not covered by the wage earning policy. A review was carried out and only those work parties carrying out the activities described in the policy then continued to receive the bonus payment. The prison decided the tasks carried out within the recycling party were not particularly exceptional or unpleasant and, because of that, the recycling party no longer received the bonus payment.

We found that the prison are responsible for deciding whether to pay the task related bonus to certain work parties and that they had explained why the recycling party did not meet the requirements. We were satisfied the prison were applying the wage earning policy appropriately and, because of that, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, told us that the prison did not investigate his complaint appropriately. Mr C had complained that his parole dossier (the documents prepared by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for the parole board) contained inaccurate information. In particular, the dossier said that Mr C had assaulted a prison officer, which Mr C said was untrue.

In responding to his complaint, the prison had suggested that the information referred to stemmed from one of two possible incidents. However, when we made enquiries with the SPS, they confirmed that no such incident had taken place and said the inaccurate information was contained within a report prepared by an assessor for another purpose. We upheld Mr C's complaint, because we found that the prison's response to his complaint was inaccurate and misleading.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to adequately investigate the circumstances of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately refused his request to send money from his prisoner cash account to his family.

Our investigation found that the prison rules say that the prison governor is entitled to decide the maximum amount of money that any prisoner may withdraw. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service's finance guidance confirms that, as a rule, the maximum amount a prisoner may send out will be no more than the amount he had when he arrived in prison. In Mr C's case, he did not any have money with him when he was admitted to prison. We were satisfied that the prison were authorised to refuse Mr C's request, and as we saw no evidence of administrative failure we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were failing to progress him in line with the risk management and progression guidance. That guidance outlines the procedures that should be followed by prisons when considering a prisoner for transfer to less secure conditions.

Our investigation found that Mr C is serving a life sentence, with a punishment element that does not end for a number of years. The guidance describes a four-year release phase, which can commence no earlier than four years before the expiry of the prisoner's punishment part. However, the guidance also says that policy describes a 'best case scenario', and that other factors such as a prisoner's supervision level and participation in offending behaviour programmes may affect the time of their release phase. In addition, the SPS have provided guidance to prisons on how to prioritise prisoners' access to offending behaviour programmes. This says that prisoners serving a life sentence will be prioritised depending on when the punishment part of their sentence expires, and we found that Mr C still had over seven years of the punishment part of his sentence to serve. We were satisfied the prison were preparing Mr C for progression to less secure conditions in line with relevant policies and, because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had a particular job in prison, which he said he had worked hard to obtain and which he enjoyed. He said that he had discussed some problems with a female member of staff but had then been accused of making inappropriate remarks to her and having an inappropriate relationship with her. He complained that he had, therefore, been unreasonably moved to a different job in the prison.

It is for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not for us, to decide how jobs in prison are allocated to prisoners. Our role was to consider the way in which they took the decision to remove Mr C from the job in question. Our investigation showed that they had had concerns about Mr C's comments to, and about, the officer. Given that, it was appropriate that they should consider removing him. In those circumstances, we would have expected them to have spoken to Mr C, and both his and the SPS' accounts showed that they had done so, making the reasons clear to him. They also decided that, because of his previous good behaviour, they would take no further action and would give him another job of equal status and pay, which was appropriate practice. We found no evidence that the SPS acted wrongly in making their decision, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C loaned some of his t-shirts to another prisoner and then transferred to another establishment for a short period. After his return to the prison, he asked staff to retrieve his t-shirts, but was told that the t-shirts were not on his property card. They had in fact been disposed of and could not be reissued to him. Mr C submitted a claim and a formal complaint but the prison maintained their position on the matter.

In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C complained that the prison had not taken account of the information on his property card. He provided us with a copy of this, showing the t-shirts in question, and he said he had shown this to prison staff. We asked the prison if they had taken this into account, and they provided us with evidence that it had been reviewed as part of Mr C's claim. The card showed that the t-shirts had been signed into use by Mr C but that he had then given them to another prisoner. The prison explained that when this happens it should be done through the prison reception, with a request for the items to be removed from the donating prisoner's property card and added to that of the receiving prisoner. Mr C had not done this, and had not alerted staff to the situation at the time of his transfers. The t-shirts were found to be in the possession of the other prisoner but not on his property card and, as he did not tell staff that the t-shirts belonged to Mr C, they were disposed of.

As we were satisfied that the prison had taken account of all relevant information when responding to Mr C's complaint, and as it appeared the issue could have been avoided had Mr C followed the correct process, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison governor that an officer had discussed her personal information with another prisoner. The governor acknowledged that the other prisoner had tried to discuss Ms C's circumstances, but indicated that the officer had only responded with a dismissive comment, and had not disclosed any of Ms C's personal information. Nonetheless, the governor arranged for a reminder to be issued to staff to exercise caution in future, to guard against potential breaches of confidentiality.

Ms C complained to us that the governor had not fully investigated her complaint. She said that he had spoken with the officer but not to the other prisoner. We asked the governor why he had not spoken with that person, and he explained that he did not feel that the prisoner would have offered a balanced or accurate account of events. He was also concerned that discussing the complaint with her might have had a negative impact on her relationship with Ms C.

We were not persuaded, however, that the reasons offered by the governor provided sufficient justification for choosing not to interview a relevant party to the complaint. We did not consider it appropriate for the governor to simply have accepted the officer's account without obtaining the other side of the story. We, therefore, upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure that, where possible, all relevant parties to a complaint are interviewed prior to a definitive finding being reached on that complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, went on home leave from the prison for a week. Before doing so, he put clothes and other items in a sealed storage box. While he was on home leave, he was arrested and returned to another prison. When his belongings were forwarded to him at the other prison, he found that there were a number of items missing. He made a financial claim to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for the missing items but this was refused.

Although we could not look at the outcome of the claim, we could look at how the SPS handled it and, in particular, whether they considered all relevant information in reaching their decision. Following careful review of all the paperwork provided to us, we considered that the most relevant information to be the list of items Mr C had in use before he went on home leave; the list of items noted as coming out of his storage box before being forwarded to him at the other prison; the list of items noted as received at the other prison; the claim form and investigating officer's report; and the information provided to prisoners about their responsibility for property in use. The SPS response to Mr C showed that all this information was considered when they reached their decision, and we did not uphold his complaint.

In the course of our investigation, however, we noted that at the heart of this complaint is that what Mr C said went into his storage box is not what came out. Normally, when a prisoner returns from home leave, they will be there to see the box being unsealed and opened. However, where the prisoner cannot be present, prison staff open the box, and in those circumstances there is potential for a prisoner to claim that items have gone missing. From our discussions with the prison, we understand that in practice, because of this, a storage box is opened and emptied in front of two members of staff. This practice is not referred to in the guide for dealing with prisoners who fail to return to the prison they were in and so, although we made no formal recommendation, we suggested to the SPS that they should consider including this so that it forms part of the formal process.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had not investigated his complaint that four packets of tobacco were stolen from his cell. We contacted the SPS for further information about this. In their response, they said that Mr C had never submitted a claim to be reimbursed for the tobacco. They agreed to send him a copy of the claim form along with information about how to submit a claim.

Mr C told us that he would do this, and that if the SPS agreed to reimburse him for the four packets of tobacco, this would resolve his complaint. Mr C also said that as the SPS were going to consider reimbursing him, he was happy for us to close his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was issued with mail on a Sunday, when it should have been issued on a Saturday. He also complained that the prison failed to ensure that staff adhered to the procedures regarding cell searches, as well as those for handling and responding to his complaints.

We asked the prison about mail deliveries, and it was clear that mail should not be delivered on a Sunday, unless there are exceptional circumstances. As Mr C had clearly received mail on some Sundays, which was evidenced by more than one complaint to the prison about this and by the prison's responses, we upheld this complaint.

On the matter of the cell search, our investigation found that the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 give the SPS the right to search a prisoner's cell, and any items of property in their possession, at any time. Although the SPS has this right, it is moderated by the requirement to carry out a search quickly and decently and with proper regard for a prisoner's dignity. There were, however, no records of the search that Mr C complained about and in the absence of such evidence, we could not uphold this complaint.

The prison staff dealing with Mr C's initial complaints did not offer to speak to him within 48 hours of receiving the complaints, as required. In dealing with his complaint about mail delivery, the prison also did not provide an explanation for the delay at any stage of the complaints process. As we would expect this to be provided, and the complaints process to be followed, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• provide the Ombudsman with evidence that mail delivery is now part of the weekend duty manager's checks;
• provide the Ombudsman with records to demonstrate that mail delivery has taken place on Saturdays; and
• remind residential first line managers of the need to provide a summary of their investigation and the evidence to support their decision, as stated on the prisoner complaints form.