Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that some of his property went missing when he was transferred between prisons. He was unhappy that he was not given the opportunity to check his property immediately after the transfer, and said that the prison had withheld a substantial amount of canteen (food and drink) items. Mr C was also unhappy with the way in which the prison handled his complaint, saying that they did not respond to all of the large number of forms he submitted.

We did not uphold his complaint about the property, as our investigation found that there is no requirement under the prison rules for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to make a written record of any property a prisoner purchases in prison, or property that is perishable or edible. Whilst Mr C was not given the immediate opportunity to check his property after the transfer, neither the prison rules nor the prison's protocol on handling property specify a precise timescale within which this should take place. Although it would have been better if Mr C had been able to check his property sooner, there is no requirement for the SPS to make a written record of the canteen items he said went missing.

However, we did have some concerns about the way the prison handled Mr C's complaint. We found that they had not retained sufficient information to show how they had responded to some of his complaint forms.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• take steps to put in place an appropriate system for recording, monitoring and tracking prisoner complaints in the prison in line with their complaints procedure guidance.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that untried prisoners on remand were unable to buy newspapers. The prison had told him that they had a local policy which prevented this. They said that it was difficult to predict how long untried prisoners would be in the prison because they could be taken to court and released at very short notice. Because the remand population was more transient, the prison were concerned that they would be left to pay for newspapers when prisoners were released. Mr C said he was willing to pay for his newspaper in advance. He said it was illogical that remand prisoners could order things like fruit and greetings cards but not newspapers.

Our investigation found that newspapers had to be ordered a week in advance. Payment was not taken when goods were ordered but when they were delivered. Difficulties with the prison accounting system meant that debits and credits had to be concluded in the same financial week, so that the prison's account was balanced. Although we thought that the prison could have explained the position more fully to Mr C, we did not uphold his complaint as we found that the prison's actions were reasonable in the circumstances. We also noted that the Scottish Prison Service had since revised their procedure, and were on the point of introducing a new system that would allow remand prisoners to purchase newspapers, if they agreed that they would not be entitled to a refund if released.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison failed to take reasonable steps to improve television reception. He said his in-cell signal was poor and although repair work had been carried out, the problem was not fixed.

The prison told us that the repair work indicated that the system was operating appropriately. They said that their location and other factors, such as weather, impacted upon reception and because of that, there was only so much that could be done to try to improve this. We were satisfied the prison took reasonable and appropriate steps to address this, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about special security measures imposed on him while he was in prison. He had sent us a number of complaints around this time and after we began our investigation into this particular one it became clear that it was about the same issue as another complaint he had submitted. We, therefore, closed the complaint file as the matter was being dealt with under our case reference 201300685.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison that they had failed to respond to an earlier complaint that he had submitted. The prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) upheld this complaint, and recommended that his original complaint should be logged and responded to in line with their procedure. Mr C then complained to us when the prison had still not responded.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us that when Mr C's complaint paperwork was returned to the administration office after the ICC hearing, the database was not updated to record the ICC recommendation. This meant that the relevant officer was unaware the recommendation had been made. The SPS assured us that the system in place at the prison for logging and responding to complaints was robust, and that the failure to deal with Mr C's complaint was because of administrative error. They said the staff involved had been reminded of the importance of logging complaints to ensure they could be tracked and responded to in line with the complaints procedure.

Since complaining to us, Mr C has now received a response to his original complaint. However, we upheld his complaint to us because the prison did not log or respond to his original complaint within the relevant timescale, and because they also failed to action the ICC's recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to action the ICC's recommendation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on report for having items in his pocket that he was not supposed to have. One of the items was a tablet that a nurse suspected was Mr C's prescribed medication. The prison tested it and confirmed that it was Mr C's medication. He was charged and punished at a disciplinary hearing. He said that he was told he could have the tablet independently tested, but was then told that the whole tablet was used in the testing process. Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately failed to retain the tablet so that he could have it tested.

In line with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s drug testing policy, the prison should have completed a drug testing recording sheet and prepared a report for Mr C's disciplinary hearing. We asked to see that paperwork, but the SPS told us it was not available. They told us the approved drug testing kit was used and the result of the test was reported verbally to the adjudicator of the hearing. We asked them to confirm that prisoners were entitled to have substances that had given a positive result tested independently, and the SPS confirmed they were entitled to do that.

Mr C was denied the opportunity to have the tablet tested independently. The prison did not complete the required paperwork or prepare a report for the adjudicator. Because of that, we were unable to determine whether the prison correctly followed the process, and we upheld Mr C's complaint.

In addition, we noted that we had previously investigated a similar complaint (case number 201203443) in which we identified the same failings. At that time, we asked the SPS to remind all prison establishments of the obligation to follow the requirements of the drug testing policy, and they issued an action notice to all prisons in February 2013. In our decision on Mr C's complaint, we noted our disappointment that the same failing occurred in this case and made a recommendation relating to this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• review the circumstances of Mr C's case to decide whether appropriate corrective action should be taken;
• apologise to Mr C for not giving him the opportunity to have the tablet independently tested; and
• remind all prison establishments again of the obligation to follow the requirements of the presumptive drug testing policy.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison would not allow him to purchase a postal order to buy a book from an approved supplier. The prison had changed their book purchasing policy. They said that in future postal orders could not be used to pay for books, which had to be purchased from one of their approved suppliers, with payment coming from a prisoner's wage account. Because of the new process, Mr C was no longer able to purchase postal orders. He said that his account with the supplier was in credit, and he wanted to be allowed to buy one last postal order to combine with the credit to buy a book.

We asked the prison if they would allow Mr C to do this. They said they had already given him that opportunity, and were not prepared to allow him to do so again. However, they said Mr C could have the supplier credit reimbursed to his prison account, or could use funds from his wage account to combine with the credit to purchase a book through the prison. We were satisfied the process in place for ordering and paying for books reflected the prison rules and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had his cell searched and items of property removed. He was told an investigation would take place but a few weeks later, Mr C was told the items had been destroyed. Mr C complained that the prison had inappropriately removed and destroyed property from his cell. He also complained that the prison failed to appropriately investigate the matter.

The prison told us they suspected Mr C was running an illegal 'shop' by obtaining items in an unauthorised way, which was why his cell was searched. They said the items removed were considered to be excessive for Mr C’s own use, and were thought to be from illegal lending, which backed up their suspicions. The prison rules confirm that the prison are entitled to search a prisoner’s cell and remove any items of unauthorised property. They are also allowed to destroy unauthorised or prohibited items. However, the prison gave us a copy of the process that should be followed by staff when removing items from a cell. This confirmed that staff should have kept a record of the items of property removed, which did not happen in Mr C’s case. Because they did not do this, Mr C was unable to prove that items may have belonged to him. In addition, the prison were unable to provide any evidence to show us that they had investigated whether the items removed actually belonged to him. It was clear the prison were allowed to remove the items from Mr C’s cell but they were only entitled to destroy unauthorised property. Mr C maintains the property was authorised but the prison disagreed. Because the prison failed to follow the correct process and retain a record of the items removed, there was no way to determine whether the items destroyed were authorised and we upheld Mr C’s complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure prison staff are aware of the procedure that should be followed when searching a prisoner's cell; and
• remind prison staff of the requirement to obtain a record of items removed from a prisoner's cell following a search.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to handle his complaints appropriately. He said that they were hampering his access to the complaints procedure.

When we investigated this, the prison acknowledged that there was a delay in responding to one complaint and that they had also misplaced another. Because of that, we upheld Mr C's complaint. We did not, however, make any recommendations as we did not find evidence to suggest the prison were suppressing his access to the complaints procedure. We also pointed out to Mr C that the way in which he was submitting his frequent complaints appeared to be impacting on the prison's ability to handle them appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to enable him to have outdoor exercise. Our investigation found, however, that the reason for this was that the outdoor exercise time for his residential area conflicted with another optional activity he took part in. We also found that the SPS had offered other arrangements for him since he made his complaint, so that he could do both. We did not uphold this complaint as we considered that the SPS had acted reasonably.

Mr C also complained about various aspects of the handling of his complaint. We upheld some of this, as we found that the SPS had not acted in accordance with prison rules. These say that, at the first stage of the complaint, a prisoner must be offered the chance to discuss it verbally, and that the final stage of the complaint should take no more than 20 days. Neither of these things happened. In terms of the opportunity for discussion, as the SPS have already introduced a revised form as a result of a previous complaint to us we did not need to make a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the two complaints handling issues identified; and
• remind staff of the requirement to meet the 20-day timescale of Prison Rule 123(9).