Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner in a closed prison, complained that the Scottish Prison Service were unreasonably holding him back from progressing to less secure conditions.

A prisoner must meet standard criteria before the risk management team (RMT) will consider his application for progression. The RMT at the closed prison are responsible for deciding whether or not a prisoner can progress to less secure conditions. In Mr C's case, we did not uphold his complaint as our investigation highlighted that he did not meet the standard criteria for progression and because of that, his application could not be referred to the RMT for consideration.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he had asked the prison to provide some items of clothing but they had not done so. Prisons have to satisfy certain clothing needs if a prisoner does not have such items him or herself, and they should provide enough such items for one to be worn while another is being, or is waiting to be, washed or cleaned.

In Mr C's case, we did not uphold his complaint, as our investigation established that nothing that the prison were required to provide was outstanding. For example, they were not required to provide sportswear (which he had requested), and he already had two pairs of footwear.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had special security measures imposed upon him by the prison. These were put in place to ensure that Mr C could be managed safely. Mr C complained to us because the paperwork completed by the prison in deciding to put those measures in place was missing. Mr C also complained because the measures were applied even when the relevant paperwork was missing.

The prison agreed that the paperwork was missing and because of that, we upheld the complaint. However, we did not make any recommendations because once the prison became aware that the paperwork was missing, they took steps to replace it by completing it again. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the measures were applied although the relevant paperwork was not available. The prison had the authority to impose the measures, and the evidence they provided confirmed they had concerns about Mr C's safety.

Mr C also complained because the governor told him that she would respond to his complaint once her investigation was complete. The prison could not provide any evidence to show us that the governor had responded, and because of that, we upheld that complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to respond appropriately to his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison would only allow him to purchase a Playstation 2 instead of a Xbox games console. The prison advised Mr C that Xboxes were not allowed as they can be modified for internet provision, which was a security risk. Mr C said that the prison were acting unreasonably because, to enable internet connectivity, a phone line, modem router and high speed broadband would all have to be installed in the cell.

Our investigation found that although prison governors have the discretion to refuse certain items in a prisoner's cell for the security and good order of the prison, Scottish Prison Service headquarters had issued advice to all prisons in March 2010 and May 2013 that certain Xboxes could be allowed but not the Xbox 360, which has wireless connectivity capabilities. In view of this, the prison reconsidered their original position and now allow prisoners to purchase Xbox consoles (with the exception of Xbox 360).

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the prison's revised 'articles in use' policy.

Summary

Mr C complained that the television set in his prison cell had not been working properly for several months, despite the fact that he had to pay a fee each week for its use. We established that the Scottish Prison Service had taken reasonable action in respect of this and we were satisfied with their decision not to refund the money. This was on the basis that such monies from prisoners were not only for access to television channels but also for set rental, television licence fees and repair and maintenance.

Summary

Mr C, who was a prisoner, complained because he did not think the prison followed the correct process when reviewing his supervision level.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison reviewed it after he assaulted another prisoner and because of that incident, his supervision level was increased to high. The prison rules confirm that the prison were entitled to do that. However, the prison were unable to locate the relevant paperwork to evidence the process they followed. However, in response to both Mr C's written complaint and to our enquiries, they were able to clearly demonstrate why his supervision level had been increased. In light of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately held him in a special cell for over 90 hours. Mr C said prison rules said that a prisoner should not be held in a special cell for longer than 24 hours.

The prison told Mr C that he was relocated to a cell within the segregation unit after the doctor advised it was necessary. Prison rules allow the governor to hold a prisoner in special conditions when a healthcare professional advises that it is appropriate to do so in order to protect the health and welfare of the prisoner. The information provided by the prison confirmed that Mr C had swallowed certain items and because of that, the doctor had advised them to relocate him for his own safety. In addition, the prison confirmed Mr C was held for less than 72 hours. In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

The Tribunal of the Parole Board for Scotland considered Mr C's case in July 2012 and decided that before they did so again in July 2013, he should have some experience outside prison, to demonstrate that he could sustain the improvements in his behaviour. Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not give him that opportunity.

Before Mr C could spend time outside prison, his case had to be considered by the prison's risk management team (RMT). They met in April 2013 and decided that progression to more-open conditions would not be appropriate at that time.

Our investigation found that the time taken between the July 2012 hearing and the RMT meeting was reasonable, given a number of factors, including the fact that Mr C did not meet the relevant criteria until October 2012. It is not for us to review RMT decisions, but we were able to consider whether the decision making had been appropriate - for example, whether the RMT had obtained and considered appropriate information. Investigation revealed that this had been the case. We were satisfied that there were no avoidable delays by the SPS either in the timing of the RMT or in the way in which the RMT reached their decision.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to follow the correct process when reviewing his supervision level. In particular, he said the prison updated their computer record before the relevant manager considered his written representations and signed off the paperwork.

In relation to the assignment of a supervision level, the prison rules confirm that the governor must consider any representations made by the prisoner before making a decision. In Mr C's case, that did not happen and the prison acknowledged this. In light of the failing identified in Mr C's case, we upheld his complaint. The prison advised that they had reviewed their procedure and confirmed that all potential increases in supervision level would not be amended on the computer record until prisoners' written representations had been considered and the relevant paper signed off by the appropriate manager.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prison staff inappropriately provided medical assistance against his will after he had self-harmed. They had restrained him and applied a towel to his wound. He also complained that prison staff ignored instructions provided by a hospital doctor.

In responding to our investigation, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) confirmed that whilst a prisoner was entitled to refuse medical treatment, they were not able to refuse emergency lifesaving interventions that prison staff might undertake in trying to prevent a prisoner from harming himself. The SPS confirmed that staff have a duty of care towards prisoners, including taking such steps to prevent harm, and that staff interventions in Mr C's case did not constitute medical assistance or treatment. In relation to Mr C's complaint that instructions from the hospital doctor were ignored, the SPS advised that Mr C discharged himself from hospital and because of that, no instructions were received.

Mr C had also complained that the prison failed to provide him with a copy of the SPS duty of care policy. The SPS confirmed that no such document existed and, therefore, it could not be provided.