Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was placed on report for refusing to work. He was found guilty of this charge at a disciplinary hearing but complained that the adjudicator would not listen to him and denied him the right to present evidence in his defence. He also said the adjudicator spoke to him inappropriately. The governor discussed this with the adjudicator and noted that Mr C had tried to provide information that was not felt relevant to the case. The adjudicator could not recall using the specific language alleged by Mr C.

In our investigation, we reviewed the disciplinary hearing paperwork and noted that Mr C had presented some information towards his defence. We also obtained further comment from the adjudicator. The adjudicator disputed the validity of the evidence presented by Mr C, which he considered to be merely Mr C's opinion, with no evidence to back this up. He said that Mr C did not request an adjournment in order to obtain supporting evidence and did not request the attendance of any witnesses. He noted that Mr C had not disputed the fact he refused to work and, on this basis, he was found guilty.

We found that Mr C was given the opportunity to present some evidence in his defence. Although he would clearly have liked a fuller opportunity to defend his position, we found no evidence to suggest that the prison acted unreasonably or failed to follow due process. In addition, we found no evidence to suggest that the adjudicator used inappropriate language and we were unable to reconcile the conflicting accounts of events.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had not paid him correctly when he attended education classes. Under the prison rules, prisoners are entitled to be paid earnings for attending an education class.

During our investigation, we considered the SPS's prisoner wage earning policy. This says that where prisoners attend education, a programme or training instead of work for a limited number of sessions each week, they should not be disadvantaged and should be paid according to their normal wage. The policy also said that there was a minimum rate of payment for education classes. Mr C had continued to receive his normal wage when he attended education classes. This was above the minimum payment rate. We were satisfied that this was in line with the policy.

However, Mr C had attended two education classes before he started his job in the prison, and we found that he should have received an extra payment for attending these. In view of this, we upheld his complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• pay him in line with the prisoner wage earning policy for the education lessons he attended whilst he was unemployed; and
• consider if other prisoners in the prison have been underpaid for education classes they have attended whilst they were unemployed.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had inappropriately implemented the prisoner wage earning policy. The SPS had introduced a new prisoner wage policy in August 2011. The policy recognised that the process of moving to this new wage earning system might present some particular challenges at certain locations and said that it would be a matter for individual prison governors to determine how best to achieve the desired outcome. It said that it was expected that all public sector prisons would have moved to the new policy by the end of December 2011, unless there were specific and compelling reasons why this might not be possible. The new policy was not rolled out in Mr C's prison until May 2012, as the SPS considered that full implementation of the policy there was a high security risk. Mr C considered that his earnings had been lower as a result of the delay in implementing the policy.

We found that governors had been allowed some discretion in how they implemented the new prisoner wage earning policy. We found that the governor of Mr C's prison had been entitled to adopt a phased approach in order to maintain security in the prison. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint as we did not identify any maladministration in relation to the governor's decision on the matter.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) inappropriately took account of false information when considering his application for release under the home detention curfew (HDC) scheme. The SPS said they refused Mr C's application because he had outstanding charges against him but Mr C said that was not true.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we obtained evidence from the SPS that confirmed that there were outstanding charges against Mr C, which were being investigated by the procurator fiscal. Because of these charges, the SPS felt that Mr C was too high risk to release under the HDC scheme. We were satisfied that the SPS appropriately considered relevant information when considering Mr C's application and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was subjected to discriminatory abuse by a fellow prisoner. Our investigation considered the steps that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) took to deal with the abuse, and we were satisfied they were reasonable in the circumstances. There was no evidence that the SPS had failed to administer the matter appropriately, and we did not uphold the complaint. We noted that the SPS also made sure that Mr C could report any further abuse to prison staff.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said that two of his requests to have items of mail sent by recorded delivery were unreasonably delayed because of the process that was in place at the prison.

The prison explained that if a prisoner wants to have an item of mail sent by recorded deliver, the cash office must receive their request by 16.00 on a Wednesday. This allows the cashier enough time to process the request and have the item of mail ready for posting on the Friday. Another member of staff then takes such items of mail to the post office on the Friday.

During our investigation, we asked the prison why requests could not be dealt with more than once a week. The prison explained that because the process involved a member of staff leaving the prison to go to the post office, it was time consuming and impacted on staff resourcing. They were satisfied that doing this once a week was enough. In light of this information, we were satisfied that Mr C's requests to have items of mail sent by recorded delivery were dealt with appropriately by the prison in line with the procedure in place.

Summary
Mr C complained about the way he was treated by a prison officer in the reception area of a prison he was visiting.

He was unhappy with the prison's complaints handling, and in particular, felt the prison failed to investigate his complaint appropriately. He was also unhappy because the prison had not interviewed independent witnesses that he had identified.

The prison told us that, on receiving Mr C's complaint, a manager had been instructed to carry out enquiries. This involved interviewing the member of staff complained about and viewing closed circuit television footage. The prison said other members of staff were also interviewed. However, the prison could not provide us with evidence to support this. Following our enquiries, the investigating manager provided a statement instead.

We upheld Mr C's complaint, as we were concerned that the prison had not taken steps to interview the independent witnesses that Mr C identified in his complaint. Although the prison has discretion to decide whether or not to interview such witnesses, they should have explained to Mr C why they did not do so.

In addition, the prison told us that it was not normal practice to interview members of the public in relation to incidents. However, in our view, we considered that the prison should consider whether interviewing independent witnesses may or may not bring something new to the investigation, just as they would when deciding whether to interview members of staff who have witnessed an event. Doing so would ensure that investigations are seen to be fair and balanced, and that decisions are based on as much relevant evidence as possible.

Recommendation
We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• issue a proper apology to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation.

   

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, uses a mobility aid and has a heart condition. He complained that, despite having a disability, he was double cuffed (a more secure method of handcuffing) when being escorted from a holding cell to court. In response to the complaint, the escort service acknowledged that a risk assessment should have been carried out, but said that they could not be certain whether or not Mr C had been double handcuffed. In addition, they told Mr C that they would take further action to develop guidance for staff on how to deal with prisoners who have disabilities in such circumstances. 

We were unable to clearly establish what happened in relation to Mr C being handcuffed, but we upheld his complaint, as there was a failure to document that a risk assessment had been carried out to show that he had been safely and securely escorted.

Recommendations
We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• consider recording on a prisoner's record, after a prisoner has been escorted, the type of handcuffing style that has been used; and
• provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the new protocol on how staff should deal with prisoners who have disabilities.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably removed and disposed of his football boot laces. This happened after staff searched his cell. Mr C said he was allowed to have his laces in use and there were no grounds for staff to dispose of them.

The prison advised us that staff removed Mr C's laces and disposed of them because it was suspected that he was using them as a 'line'. This is an article constructed from pieces of material, which prisoners can then use to pass items between cell windows on the outside of the building. The prison explained that using an authorised item of property in an unauthorised way could mean that such items are removed and disposed of. This is what happened in Mr C's case.

We were 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. It was clear there were reasonable grounds for the prison to remove and dispose of Mr C's laces and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unreasonably denied access to offending behaviour programmes that he had been identified for. Mr C is serving a life sentence and the punishment part of his sentence expires in late 2017. Mr C said that the earliest that he could hope to progress to less secure prison conditions was late 2013, but that he would be unable to progress because he had not been given access to the relevant offending behaviour programmes.

The prison told us that life sentence prisoners' entry onto the programme Mr C was waiting to access is prioritised by the expiry date of the punishment part of their sentence. In Mr C's case, this was more than four years away. In addition, Scottish Prison Service guidance on the management of life sentence prisoners describes a four year 'preparation for release' phase, and this can start no more than four years before the expiry of the punishment element of the sentence. The guidance, however, confirms that the four year release phase describes the best case scenario and that other factors can affect the timing of this. One of those factors is a prisoner's participation in offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the guidance says that, following the expiry of the punishment element of the sentence, Scottish Ministers would not necessarily insist that a life sentence prisoner complete the full four year release phase.

We were satisfied the prison were prioritising Mr C's access to his identified programmes in line with the relevant policy and it was clear there was still enough time remaining for him to access the programmes. Because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.