Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained about how the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) responded to his complaint.

Mr C had submitted a complaint using a PCF2 form (a form for complaints about confidential matters). SPS guidance states that on receiving a PCF2 form a response should be given within seven days, stating whether the complaint is considered to be about a confidential matter and, where it is not considered as such, providing the reasons for the decision on that matter.

We found that although the prison responded to Mr C's complaint within seven days, they failed to provide reasons for the decision that the complaint had not met the requirements of a complaint about confidential matters. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• reconsider Mr C's complaint following the failings identified and respond to him in writing; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was a delay in the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) submitting his first grant of temporary release application (FGTR) to Scottish Ministers to approve his temporary release from prison.

The SPS accepted that there had been a considerable delay by prison staff in submitting the FGTR, including exceeding a 14-day set period. Once submitted, it was rejected due to the set timescale having been significantly exceeded and there was an issue with the quality of information supplied. This meant that Mr C was required to have a further risk assessment, which identified some recent issues that had to be examined further.

We acknowledged that SPS have a duty of care to Mr C, the community and the parole board, where the quality of an FGTR must take precedence over timescales. However, due to an unreasonable delay by prison staff in submitting the FGTR and a lack of communication with Mr C in this respect, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise for the failings identified;
• ensure the prison reviews the process for the submission of FGTR applications to ensure it is adequate and that timescales set out under the guidance can be reasonably met; and
• ensure there are measures in place for prisoners to be updated on the status of their FGTR application when delays over the 14-day period occur.

Summary

Mr C complained about the content of a psychological risk assessment, which he said contained out-of-date information which had been obtained during discussions when he was unwell.

We found the psychologist was entitled to take historic discussions into account, even if Mr C was now saying different things. We were satisfied that Mr C's own views were adequately reflected in the assessment report. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C said his complaints about swearing and the use of insulting language by prison staff had not been properly investigated.

We found that the steps taken to investigate and respond to the complaints Mr C made were reasonable in the circumstances.

There was a lack of evidence to corroborate Mr C's complaint about a particular incident because the CCTV footage did not record sound.

In respect of swearing, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) found there was conflicting evidence, with staff denying any use of profanity. SPS found there was evidence of antipathy between Mr C and some staff members in a particular work group which Mr C did not want to be part of. SPS agreed that Mr C could move to another work group, which we found was a reasonable solution in the circumstances. SPS issued a generic reminder to staff about expectations in terms of their behaviour. When Mr C told SPS he had been assaulted the matter was, appropriately, referred to Police Scotland for further investigation.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C submitted a complaint to the prison governor about his personal officer. Mr C said that the governor failed to respond appropriately to his complaint.

We reviewed what Mr C said to the governor in his complaint and we considered whether the governor's response addressed the matter. We took the view that the governor had only addressed one aspect of Mr C's complaint and that they failed to appropriately address other concerns raised. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

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

Summary

Ms C complained to us that the prison internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to follow the proper process in handling her complaint. In particular, she said the ICC chair failed to follow prison rule 123(7) when handling her complaint, and that the ICC also failed to arrange for an independent prison monitor (IPM) to be present at the hearing to assist her.

Prison rule 123 says that a prisoner may be assisted at the ICC hearing and can call witnesses to give evidence in support of a complaint. Rule 123(7) says the ICC chair may refuse to allow a prisoner to call a witness if, having discussed the matter with the prisoner, the chair is reasonably satisfied the evidence the witness is likely to give will be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint.

The SPS told us that in Ms C's case, in relation to her request to be assisted by an IPM, she had not followed the agreed process to secure their attendance. We felt that was reasonable. The SPS also told us the chair did not call Ms C's witness because they did not see what more could be added to the hearing by having the witness present. However, the ICC's written response did not reflect that. Instead, it said that Ms C's witness was not present because she had not discussed the issue with them nor had she secured their agreement to attend. We did not consider that this was in line with the prison rules and we upheld Ms C's complaint to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• share the findings of this investigation with relevant staff at the prison to ensure witness requests are appropriately considered in line with prison rule 123(7); and
• remind relevant staff that written responses issued by the ICC should accurately reflect the discussion held in relation to requests for assistance and witnesses.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not spoken to as part of the investigation when he submitted two complaints to the prison governor about an officer. Mr C said he felt that the governor had disregarded his version of events and had not investigated his complaints properly.

We looked at whether the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to investigate Mr C's complaints appropriately. The SPS told us they spoke to the officer about Mr C's complaints and he contradicted what had been said. The SPS also told us they did not interview Mr C about his complaints because they did not think it was appropriate.

In considering whether it was reasonable to not speak to Mr C about his complaints, we looked at the level of detail he provided in each of his complaints. We were satisfied that he clearly conveyed the nature of his concerns about the officer. It was clear the officer contradicted what Mr C said and we did not consider that speaking to Mr C would have assisted the SPS in reconciling the conflicting account of events. We also did not accept that by not speaking to Mr C, the SPS had disregarded his complaints or failed to investigate them properly. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to manage his property in line with relevant policy and procedure. Mr C said that over a few months, he had condemned (voluntarily given up) items of his property, handed it out to visitors, or donated it to the prison library. Mr C said he had followed all the correct processes but that the items had not been removed from his property card and therefore he was not allowed to receive any more items.

Following our enquiry to SPS, we found that the procedure for items being condemned or handed out to visitors is that the prisoner must fill out a mandate detailing the items they wish to have removed from their property and what they want to happen to these items, before handing both the mandate and property to a member of staff, who will take it to reception to be actioned. SPS explained that given the large volume of property transactions it was not possible to take every prisoner to reception to sign their property cards when items were removed, and so the mandate acted as a signature. In addition, SPS said that whilst Mr C said he had donated items to the prison library, there was no evidence that he gave these items to a member of staff to be removed from his property card.

We could not see any evidence that Mr C had condemned, handed out, or donated the property he claimed to have and we considered the policies in terms of property to have been reasonably followed. We did, however, recognise that there was opportunity for property or mandates to be lost after being handed to staff members to be actioned. Therefore, we made a recommendation that SPS consider whether the prison's policy was detailed enough.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• consider whether the prison's existing policy is detailed enough when covering the period between the mandate being signed by the prisoner and the mandate and property being taken to reception.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that prison staff repeatedly ordered Mr A to return to mainstream accommodation despite being a protection prisoner, and then punished Mr A for refusing.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said that Mr A had to be removed from the protection hall as he had threatened other prisoners. They said he was not ordered to return to mainstream accommodation, rather he was offered a protection place within a mainstream hall as a short-term option while they arranged a transfer to another prison. However, there was no evidence to show that the offer of a protection place was explained to Mr A until about three months after he was removed from the protection hall. Instead, the charge sheets, orderly room records and internal complaints committee (ICC) records within this period repeatedly referred to Mr A being ordered to return to mainstream. We upheld Mr C's complaint about this. During our investigation we also found that prison staff did not appear to be familiar with the guidance on protection prisoners, specifically GMA 22A/12, and there was no record of the appropriate forms being completed for Mr A.

We also upheld Mr C's complaint about the way the SPS handled Mr A's complaint during two ICC hearings. We found Mr A was not given the chance to attend one of the ICC hearings, and we were critical that both ICC hearings gave inadequate reasons for their decisions. It was not clear from the records whether either ICC understood the basis for Mr A's concerns (that he was a protection prisoner being ordered back to mainstream) or the SPS's position (that the space allocated was in fact a protection space rather than mainstream) and both decisions appeared to be based on assurances or assumptions without detailing any supporting evidence.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• feed back the findings of this investigation to relevant staff;
• take steps to ensure GMA 22A/12 is being followed at the prison;
• apologise to Mr A for the failings our investigation found; and
• identify and address ICC training needs at the prison to ensure staff give clear reasons for their decisions, including the evidence on which the decision is based.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not receiving the time off from his prison work party that the prison rules state prisoners should receive. The prison advised that there was a historic arrangement in place whereby prisoners agreed to work extra hours. However, they acknowledged that this was not in line with the relevant prison rules and confirmed that steps had been taken to provide sufficient cover so prisoners would receive the required time off work in future. We upheld the complaint but as appropriate steps had already been taken to remedy the identified failing, we did not make any recommendations.