Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably refused his request for protection. Mr C said he feared for his safety from other prisoners, and that arrangements previously put in place by the prison to manage his circumstances had been removed.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison had taken steps to investigate Mr C's concerns about his risk from others. They undertook a detailed review of Mr C's circumstances and concluded that there was no evidence to corroborate his belief that he was at risk from others. Because of that, the prison wanted to gradually introduce Mr C back into the prison regime. In light of this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

In addition, Mr C said his complaint about an officer was not appropriately followed up. However, our investigation concluded that the deputy governor discussed this complaint with him and provided a written response in which he confirmed that he would speak to the officer concerned and if appropriate, would ask the officer to apologise to Mr C. The prison confirmed that the deputy governor did speak with the officer concerned and concluded that he should apologise, so we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, declared to the prison that he was Jewish and asked to be provided with a kosher diet. The prison told Mr C that he would only be provided with this after he met with a rabbi. Mr C refused to do so and because of that, the prison did not agree to provide him with the kosher diet. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C said the prison were not allowed to insist that he meet with a rabbi and their refusal was inappropriate.

The prison rules confirm that a prisoner must be treated as having a particular religion, belief or non-belief if they declare so at any time. In addition, the prison rules say that the prisoner is not obliged to give any information about having a particular religion, belief or non-belief. The prison rules also confirm the governor should, as far as practicable, provide a prisoner with food which takes into account their age, health and religious, cultural, dietary or other requirements. We asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to confirm whether any rule or other policy existed that gave prison staff the authority or discretion to assess and test whether a prisoner had shown or was showing evidence of their declared religion. The SPS confirmed that no such rule or policy existed. In light of this information, we concluded that the prison had breached prison rules by insisting that Mr C had to meet with a rabbi before his dietary needs would be met. The prison were not entitled to do so and because of that, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• issue guidance to all prison staff reminding them of the requirements of prison rule 13 and its practical implementation; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that laundry workers in his prison had their production bonus removed and their basic wage reduced. He did not believe that this was the case in other prisons across the estate. In responding, the prison said that Mr C was being paid in line with the national prisoner wage earning policy and that his role in the laundry did not attract any bonus payments.

Mr C said that the wage earning policy allowed for task related bonuses for certain tasks, including those classed as unpleasant activity. He said he considered that handling dirty laundry daily for over 700 prisoners could be classed as unpleasant activity, and should attract a bonus. He also noted that he had submitted a Freedom of Information request and the response indicated that the wage earning policy was not being applied consistently across the prison estate.

We contacted Scottish Prison Service (SPS) headquarters who confirmed that Mr C was being paid the appropriate level of pay for a laundry worker, that laundry work was not classed as unpleasant activity and did not attract a bonus payment. He explained that prisons had discretion to pay an additional amount if prisoners were required to work extra hours and also that, on completing an accreditation scheme and receiving a qualification, some workers may be entitled to an increased level of pay. However, outwith these scenarios, all laundry workers should be paid at the same rate as Mr C.

As Mr C's earnings appeared to be in line with the national policy, we did not uphold his complaint. However, the SPS recognised that the response to Mr C's information request suggested some variance across the estate and they, therefore, agreed to contact all prisons to ensure that the wage earning policy was being applied consistently.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, said that he posted three items of mail in the mail box in his residential hall but they went missing. He complained to the prison about this and the deputy governor tasked a security manager to investigate. The security manager discussed this with Mr C and understood him to have been satisfied after the discussion. The deputy governor wrote to Mr C to outline the steps taken and said she considered the matter resolved. Mr C replied saying he was still dissatisfied, but she did not write back. He brought his complaint to us, as he was unhappy with the prison's investigation.

We asked the prison to confirm what they did to investigate the complaint. They confirmed that a security manager had discussed Mr C's concerns with him and explained the mail process. They said he appeared to have understood this. They also noted that the security manager made the residential manager aware of the complaint, and he had agreed to monitor the mail process in the hall. Having done this, the prison said they considered the mail process robust. They noted that, on any given day, around 300 letters leave the prison and that, from a population of 670 prisoners, Mr C's was the only complaint about missing mail in that time period.

We noted that Mr C was unhappy that the prison did not investigate further, but the complaints procedure contains no provision for this, and he correctly then brought the complaint to us. We also noted that the prison could not establish what happened to Mr C's mail. Mr C himself had acknowledged from the outset that this would be difficult. We considered the actions taken by the prison to investigate Mr C's concerns to have been reasonable in the circumstances and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a complaint to the prison prior to his transfer to another establishment. He had escalated the complaint to the internal complaints committee (ICC) but they did not convene until the day after Mr C's transfer, so he was not given the opportunity to attend. He felt that the prison had adequate opportunity to convene the ICC before he left and, failing that, he complained that they did not explore the use of video link facilities to allow him to take part remotely. He said that his requested witnesses were not called to the ICC, but that the chairperson had not recorded that he had considered these requests and deemed the witnesses to be of no relevance or value, as he was required to do under the prison rules. Mr C also noted that the ICC appeared to have had only two members rather than the required three and that the governor did not countersign the complaint form within the 20 day target timeframe.

In responding to our investigation, the prison explained that, although they had been aware of Mr C's transfer several days before the ICC, the chairperson had not been personally aware and the need to prioritise the hearing had been overlooked. They confirmed that the video link facilities at the prison were not operational at that time. They also confirmed that the ICC had three members but the third member left before signing the form. The prison acknowledged that they had not adhered to the rules in considering Mr C's witness requests and accepted that the governor did not sign the complaint form in the required timeframe. They told us that they had emailed managers reminding them to ensure that ICCs have three members. They also confirmed that, since Mr C complained, they had begun logging when complaints are passed back for the governor to sign. They said they would apologise to Mr C for these failings.

We considered it reasonable that a member of staff not directly involved in a prisoner's transfer ie the ICC chairperson, might not have been aware of the impending transfer. We, therefore, understood why this might have been overlooked in the context of the complaints process. We also accepted that video link facilities were not available at that time. However, we were critical of the handling of Mr C's request to call witnesses, of the failure to have the complaint signed off by three ICC members and of the delay in the governor signing off the complaint. We upheld his complaint and asked the prison to provide evidence of the actions that had been taken to address these failings.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the identified failings in the handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) refused to progress him to open conditions (less secure prison conditions). He felt that, in arriving at their decision, the SPS had not clarified his situation and taken account of relevant information.

He explained that he was on strong prescription medication and that prison staff had misinterpreted the side effects of this and placed him on report for illegal substance abuse. The charge was dismissed at a disciplinary hearing, when Mr C admitted having taken old prescription medication prescribed to him two months earlier. He complained that the charge was taken into account when deciding to refuse his progression, although it was dismissed.

We asked the SPS to confirm what steps they took to clarify Mr C's situation. They told us that they liaised with healthcare staff and it was acknowledged that Mr C had admitted taking medication from an old prescription. They advised that prisoners are not permitted to hold on to old medication and that it should have been disposed of. In light of this, and taking into account other issues from Mr C's history, they had decided he should not be progressed to open conditions at that time.

We were satisfied that the SPS took appropriate steps to clarify the position with the health centre. We also considered it reasonable for them to have taken into account relevant information flowing from the disciplinary hearing, even though the charge was dismissed. The decision to refuse progression was a decision the SPS were entitled to take and we saw nothing wrong in the process they followed in arriving at that decision.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were failing to provide him with adequate clean towels. He said that they have a duty to provide prisoners with suitable towels and toiletries necessary for health and hygiene. He said that there was an insufficient supply of towels at weekends, when the prison laundry is closed. Having considered his complaint, the prison concluded that providing two towels for weekend use was reasonable.

In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C noted that prisoners were issued with two clean towels every weekday evening. He indicated that he used a towel in the morning when he showered and again in the afternoon following use of the gym. He said that there were no facilities for drying towels and that he had no family who could send him in extra towels.

The prison told us that they considered two towels for weekend use to be reasonable. They advised that prisoners are allowed to purchase four extra towels (or have these handed in). The prison rules require them to provide facilities for showering on a daily basis or at least every other day where adequate arrangements cannot be made for daily provision. They advised that the latter would apply over the weekend when the prison laundry does not operate. We considered the level of towel provision reasonable, and in line with prison rules, and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not allowed to purchase a music system with an inbuilt CD player and digital radio through the prison's mail ordering system, as he knew that other prisons allowed this type of item to be purchased.

Our investigation found that Rule 47(3) of the Prison Rules 2011 allows every prison governor the discretion to decide what items to permit in use in their prison. We also found that the prison had acted in accordance with national guidance and that they had followed their local procedure in refusing Mr C the music system. We were satisfied that the Scottish Prison Service recognise there is inconsistency about which electrical items prisoners are allowed to purchase across the prison sector, and that they are working to find a solution.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was being unfairly denied the opportunity to participate in his identified behaviour programmes. He was concerned that he would not be able to complete these and progress to open conditions in time before his parole qualifying date. (This is the date when a prisoner becomes eligible to be considered for release by the parole board.)

The prison explained that prisoners are placed onto the programme waiting lists in progression date order. (The progression date is when a prisoner can become eligible for consideration for progressing to less secure conditions.) They said that Mr C had been placed on the relevant waiting lists in line with that process, and he would access the programmes when he reached the top of the lists. We did not uphold his complaint, as we were satisfied that the prison had placed Mr C on the waiting lists in line with their procedure.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about aspects of a review of his supervision level, after he was involved in a fight at the prison. He previously had a low level of supervision but, following the fight, this was reviewed and increased to a high level. He complained that, as part of the review, a prison officer had inappropriately accessed his medical records and used information from them without his consent in the review of his supervision level. The prison had told him that medical records are the property of the NHS, not the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), and are kept by NHS staff in the prison healthcare centre, to which the prison officer would not have had access.

Our investigation noted this, and that there were various other ways in which the prison might have obtained the information used in the review, including the possibility that Mr C himself might have told the officer. As it was not possible for us to establish the facts about this, we found no grounds to uphold that part of his complaint.

In terms of this information being used, we noted that the review form specifically asked, amongst other things, for comments about the issue in question. That meant that such information was not regarded as confidential, and it followed from this that a prisoner's consent was not required before such information could be used on the form. Therefore, the SPS had not acted wrongly, and we did not uphold that part of Mr C's complaint either.