Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was not allowed to have a particular item in prison. It is not for us to tell prisons what items they should allow, so our role was to consider whether the prison correctly followed their policy about items that are allowed there. We checked that the item in question was not on the prison's list of allowed items, and advised Mr C that, as it was not on that list, the prison had followed their policy and acted correctly.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that, when he failed to return to prison after being out on a period of home leave, he was placed in closed prison conditions rather than his usual open conditions.

It is for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not us, to take decisions on the management and risk assessment of prisoners. Our role in this case was to consider whether the SPS had acted in line with their procedures and practices. In this case, we were satisfied that they had done so. For example, it was clear that consideration was given to Mr C's behaviour history on previous home leave periods and his behaviour at the time in question, before deciding that he should not be returned to open prison conditions. They also kept him reasonably informed about what was happening. The SPS did make one error, in not giving Mr C the chance to comment on the report of the incident after interviewing him. However, on realising the error, they apologised to him, gave him the chance to comment, and took action to help avoid a recurrence. On balance, we were satisfied that the SPS acted appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prison officers opened an item of his incoming post when he was not present. Our investigation found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) are permitted to open personal post in certain circumstances, such as when they have reason to believe that an item might contain something illicit, such as drugs. In this case, Mr C's envelope had an unknown shape inside it, which meant that staff did a risk assessment and decided to open the envelope under controlled conditions. The envelope turned out to contain a card.

Security and risk assessments are a matter for the SPS, not for us. Our role was to consider whether they acted reasonably in dealing with the situation, and we were satisfied that they had done so. In this case, they had reason to believe that the envelope might have contained something inappropriate. Although the prison rules do not specify that post can be opened without the prisoner being there, neither do they say that the prisoner should always be present. We were also satisfied with the information that the SPS supplied about the need to open suspect packages under controlled conditions. In conclusion, we were satisfied that the SPS had acted appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was not allowed to use his electric typewriter in prison. He said that he had previously been in another prison, where he had been allowed to use it. He also felt that the prison had not responded properly to his complaint about this.

Our investigation found that it is national Scottish Prison Service policy not to allow in use electrical items with the potential to connect with the internet or each other. Mr C's typewriter had a similar function, and so fell within the policy, which we found had been correctly applied in the prison. We were also satisfied that the prison had responded appropriately to his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) legal laptop policy inappropriately restricted his access to a laptop computer. The policy sets out the circumstances and conditions under which access to a laptop may be granted to prisoners. In particular, Mr C was unhappy because the policy restricted the use of the laptop to those prisoners preparing their defence against charges.

In responding to Mr C's complaint, the governor had confirmed that the laptop was reserved for those prisoners preparing their defence or preparing their appeal against conviction or sentence. Our investigation found that this position was clearly in line with SPS policy. We were satisfied that the SPS are entitled to decide under what circumstances and conditions prisoners may be granted access to the laptop, and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, told us that he loaned his digital radio to another prisoner, and the prison removed it from them. When Mr C asked for his radio back, the prison refused because they told Mr C it was not on his property card. Mr C complained that their decision not to return the radio was unreasonable.

When we investigated, the prison explained that Mr C did not have a digital radio shown on his property card. There was a radio listed on it, but it was a clock radio. The prison said the radio they removed did not match the description of the one on Mr C's property card and because of that, it would not be given to him. We were satisfied that the prison's decision not to give Mr C the radio removed from the other prisoner was reasonable and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, said the prison had unreasonably refused to allow him to have his music system in use. Mr C said he had been given permission to have the music system sent to him, so he was unhappy that he could not have it in use.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, the prison told us that Mr C had not been given permission to purchase the music system, and had arranged to have it purchased and sent to the prison without approval. They confirmed that they had looked at Mr C's music system after he received it, but that it exceeded the size of system that prisoners were permitted to purchase and have in use, and he was not allowed to have it. We were satisfied that the prison had appropriately taken a decision they were entitled to take and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately changed his management plan. This is a plan that is put in place by the prison which outlines the agreed steps a prisoner will be required to take to demonstrate that he can manage his risk appropriately prior to him being released. In Mr C's case, the prison decided that he should spend nine months on a work placement in the community before he would be considered for progression to less secure prison conditions. It was previously proposed that he should only spend six months on a work placement and Mr C said this was agreed by the parole board.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison had taken account of the length of time Mr C had spent in closed prison conditions, and it was felt that he should be required to undertake his work placement over a longer period to allow him to demonstrate that he could manage his risk appropriately. We were satisfied that the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We also noted that the fact that the parole board had agreed a management plan did not mean that the plan could not be changed.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately changed his management plan. This is a plan that is put in place by the prison, and outlines the agreed steps a prisoner will be required to take to demonstrate that he can manage his risk appropriately, prior to being released. In Mr C's case, the prison decided that he should spend nine months on a work placement in the community before he would be considered for less secure prison conditions. However, while in a previous prison, it had been agreed that Mr C should only spend six months on a placement. Mr C said his original management plan had been agreed by the parole board.

Our investigation found that the prison had taken account of Mr C's behaviour while he was in custody, and in the light of this felt that he should be required to undertake his work placement over a longer period to allow him to demonstrate that he could manage his risk appropriately. We were satisfied that the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately failed to include his comments about his progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions) in his integrated case management (ICM) record. In particular, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not progress him to less secure conditions and Mr C wanted his unhappiness about that to be noted so that the parole board could take it into account at his review.

When we investigated the complaint, the prison advised us that both Mr C's position and the SPS' position in relation to his progression had been noted in his ICM record. In addition, the prison confirmed that they had responded to Mr C's complaints about this and the position had been explained to him. In addition, we noted that Mr C would have an opportunity to speak to a member of the parole board before his review. Having taken account of all of the information available, we were satisfied that the prison appropriately noted the position in relation to Mr C's progression in his ICM record and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.