Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on report because a mobile phone was found in his cell. Prisoners can be placed on report when an officer suspects that they have broken prison rules. Mr C complained because he said that the adjudicator (the person who decides whether he did break prison rules) did not follow the correct process at the disciplinary hearing. In particular, he said the adjudicator spoke to the witness when Mr C himself was not present. Because of that, Mr C said he was unable to ask the witness questions.

We upheld Mr C's complaint, as it was clear that the adjudicator did not follow the correct procedure. Our investigation found that prison rules and related guidance confirm that a prisoner must be given the opportunity to question witnesses. In addition, the SPS' legal services team told us that an adjudicator did not have the authority to question a witness called to a disciplinary hearing when the prisoner being charged was not present.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• revisit the circumstances of Mr C's disciplinary hearing with a view to determining whether appropriate corrective action is required; and
• remind prison staff that they cannot question a witness at a disciplinary hearing without the charged prisoner being present.

Summary

Mr C, a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to allow him certain DVDs due to their explicit content. Mr C argued he had not done anything wrong in terms of The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 (the prison rules). Mr C felt the SPS were going against the certification of DVDs made by the British Board of Film Classification.

Our investigation found that the SPS were not trying to, and did not, effectively re-classify the DVDs. What they did was to apply Rule 45 of the prison rules, which says that prisoners' privileges can be different, as long as the reason for such differences is reasonable and explained. We concluded that the SPS reasonably considered the merits of the DVDs and decided that, in the specific circumstances, they should not be allowed. We also concluded that the SPS gave Mr C a reasonable and proportionate explanation.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to us about the prison's handling of his requests to call witnesses to complaint hearings for four separate complaints. On each occasion, the chair of the hearing refused his requests. Seven of the eight requested witnesses were said to be unavailable to attend, and the eighth witness was recorded as not having wished to attend. Mr C complained that these reasons were not in line with the prison rule that allows the chair to refuse requests where they consider that the witness will be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. He also said that the chair did not discuss his witness requests with him and inform him of the decision in advance of the hearings, as required under the prison rules, and that the prison delayed in responding to his complaints.

In responding to our enquiries, the prison said that the requests were considered in accordance with the prison rules. They said that, had the chair considered that the requested witnesses would have provided evidence of relevance or value, the hearings would have been rescheduled to appropriate dates when they could attend. We noted that the prison said that Mr C's requests had been assessed for relevance and value. However, we did not consider that the reasons they gave for refusing the requests reflected this, as relevance and value should have provided the sole basis for refusal, rather than reasons that are not catered for under the prison rules.

With regards to advance discussions of the requests with Mr C, and prior notification of the decision, the prison said that they had altered their process in response to Mr C's concerns. They acknowledged that there were no discussions with him on three complaints but said they have since introduced a process to ensure that a manager discusses witness requests with prisoners and issues a decision in advance of complaint hearings. We noted that an advance discussion did take place on the fourth complaint.

The prison also said that they responded within the timescales in the prison rules. We noted that there was a slight discrepancy between the date of submission on Mr C's complaint forms and the date the prison said they received the complaints. This seemed to account for the difference in opinion as to whether the complaints were responded to in time. However, even if timed from the date of submission recorded on the forms, we noted that we were only talking of delays of one or two days. We did not consider this unreasonably excessive and were not critical of the prison in this regard. However, we considered their handling of Mr C's witness requests to have been unreasonable and, on that basis, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• brief staff members who act as complaints commitee chair on the terms of the relevant prison rule, ensuring that any decision to refuse a prisoner's request to call witnesses is taken and communicated to the prisoner in accordance with this rule; and
• apologise to Mr C for the identified failings.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had not amended an intelligence report (adverse information obtained by the Scottish Prison Service that affects an individual prisoner) on him to accurately reflect the outcome of suspected drug use, and that the prison had not passed an accurate version of the report to the Parole Board for Scotland (PBS). He also complained that he was ignored for six weeks after he made a verbal request to speak to the early release liaison officer. Mr C said he had no idea who he should approach if he needed to discuss a parole matter. In addition, Mr C complained about how his complaint had been handled by the prison.

Our investigation found that the prison did send amended information to the PBS, but the wording of the information was confusing in relation to whether Mr C was suspected of using drugs. This was not in line with what the prison said would be done in their response to Mr C's complaint, or with relevant guidance on dealing with the PBS. We also found that the prison did not have an early release liaison officer for prisoners such as Mr C, and there was no evidence to confirm how and when he was told this, and no records of discussions with him about related matters. We were of the view that, in the specific circumstances, there should be records of this. Finally, we found that the prison failed to deal with Mr C's complaint reasonably, as they did not address one of the main points in it.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for unreasonably failing to adequately update an intelligence report about him;
• take immediate steps to update and clarify the position with the PBS;
• confirm the name of the staff member Mr C should discuss the PBS letter with, and with whom he should discuss sentence management concerns;
• apologise to Mr C for the inadequate handling of his complaint; and
• ensure the relevant prison staff receive training on handling complaints, in light of this decision.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's handling of his complaint. He had made a request for additional phone credits and his complaint to the prison was about a delay in this request being processed. In responding, the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) had mentioned the detail of Mr C's request and said that, as it was still being considered by a unit manager, it would not be appropriate for them to duplicate this effort. Mr C complained to us that the ICC had failed to address the issue of delay (the reason for his complaint) and did not feel it was appropriate for them to expect the unit manager to address this when it was his actions that had given cause for complaint. In any event, Mr C noted that the eventual response from the unit manager had not addressed delay.

We noted that the line between Mr C's ongoing request and his complaint about the delay in processing it appeared to have become blurred, and that this had resulted in the ICC overlooking the complaint of delay that was put to them and focussing on the detail of Mr C's request. While we did not agree with Mr C that it would necessarily have been inappropriate for the unit manager to have been asked to respond to the complaint alongside the request, we noted that this did not appear to have happened.

Although the complaint of delay was overlooked, we had to assess the impact this had on Mr C before we could determine whether the prison's actions merited criticism. We also gave consideration to the appropriateness of Mr C's use of the complaints process to complain about a live matter, when he would not have been aware of the extent of the delay he was complaining of. As Mr C did not ask us to consider the substance of his complaint, we were unable to assess the merit of it, or what impact, if any, the identified omission had on him. In the absence of any assessable evidence to demonstrate that the omission had a significant impact on Mr C, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the handling of an intelligence entry (adverse information obtained by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that affects an individual prisoner) from some years ago. He was concerned that he was not told about the entry at the time. Our investigation found that the SPS had handled this in line with their own processes and the Data Protection Act. They had recorded that Mr C considered the intelligence entry to be inaccurate and had explained why he was not advised of the entry at the time.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) refused to accept responsibility for items that went missing when he sent them to the prison laundry. Prisoners are given bags, in which their items are sealed and sent to the laundry to be washed and dried. Mr C said that there were items missing when a bag was returned to him, and submitted a claim for lost property to the SPS. The SPS investigated, but recorded that the laundry had no knowledge of the missing items. They said that they could not accept responsibility for missing items, as there was no evidence to show that the bag had been returned open.

It is not for us to decide if the SPS should have awarded Mr C money for the lost items. However, we can check that the SPS have considered all of the relevant information and followed the correct process before reaching their decision. We checked the sheet that was completed when Mr C sent the bag to the laundry. It showed that a number of bags were sent and that the same number of bags were returned. There was nothing on the sheet to indicate that any of the bags were open when they were returned. There was, therefore, nothing to support Mr C's claim and no evidence that the SPS were responsible for the missing items.

Although we considered that the SPS should have clarified with Mr C the specific date that his laundry went missing, we were satisfied that they had considered this sheet along with others when they investigated the matter. We were also satisfied that the prison had taken a discretionary decision that they were entitled to take and that in the circumstances we could not question it. That said, during our investigation we identified that, for security reasons and to try to cut costs, the prison were not acting in line with their laundry exchange process. Decisions in relation to security and managing resources are for the SPS to take, but the process should have been line with the actual practice in the prison. We, therefore, made a recommendation to the SPS about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• review the laundry exchange process in the prison to ensure that it reflects current practice.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately failed to pay him for participating in an offending behaviour programme while he was unemployed. He said staff had told him that he would be paid for attending. In responding to his complaint, the prison informed Mr C that he was not entitled to receive an additional payment for attending a programme.

The prison explained to us that, where prisoners are in employment, they receive a full wage even if they have missed work to attend a programme. Where prisoners are unemployed, they receive a fixed amount regardless of attendance at programmes. Mr C received that amount and was not due any additional payments.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison were unfairly operating the prisoner wage earning policy in relation to passmen positions (which generally involve cleaning duties). The policy applies to all public prisons and sets out the wage levels prisoners should be paid, depending on their role and the skills required. In Mr C's case, he said that he had relevant qualifications and training but despite that, prisoners with no qualifications or training were paid the same amount as him, which was unfair.

In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. When we investigated, the prison told us that staff assessed Mr C's work role and placed him at the wage band they felt was appropriate. His role involved general cleaning, including sweeping, mopping and emptying bins. In addition, they advised that there were a number of prisoners with passmen roles and their wage levels varied depending on the quality of their work, the application of their skills, the demand placed upon them and their levels of trust, their personal motivation and their ability to adhere to instructions.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he had been categorised as a medium security risk. He felt that he should have been given a 'low' rating.

Our investigation found that the reason for this classification was that drug paraphernalia was found during a routine search of the cell Mr C shared with another prisoner. Although Mr C said that this belonged to his cell mate, the prison service provided reasonable evidence of their suspicion that Mr C had been a participant, and we did not uphold his complaint. We also noted, however, that the decision on Mr C's security category was kept under review and that he had since been re-categorised with a low rating.