Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained about a decision taken by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to downgrade him (return him to closed conditions from less secure conditions). He said that they did not follow the proper process in taking the decision, and that the decision was based on inaccurate evidence.

Mr C was unhappy that he was not placed on a disciplinary report for the incident which triggered the downgrading process. We found that the disciplinary process is a separate process and that it is at the discretion of staff whether to place prisoners on disciplinary reports. A disciplinary hearing does not have to take place before downgrade action can be taken. While Mr C was frustrated that he was not afforded a disciplinary hearing in order to protest his innocence, we noted that the downgrading process allows prisoners the opportunity to make representations against the decision. However, the SPS said that they had lost the relevant form and were unable to evidence that this happened in this case. We therefore concluded that the proper process was not followed and upheld this complaint.

Whilst Mr C denied the allegations made against him that triggered the downgrade action, we found nothing to indicate that the decision was taken based on inaccurate evidence. We noted that the SPS are entitled to take action to evaluate a prisoner's risk if they have concerns and that the decision in this case appeared to have been taken based on an accumulation of concerns and not solely on the one incident. We did not uphold this complaint. However, while we did not conclude that the SPS decision was based on inaccurate evidence, we considered that it may have been based on incomplete evidence (given the absence of evidence of Mr C's representations having been taken into account).

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for their failure to follow the proper process when taking the decision to downgrade him;
• remind relevant staff of their responsibility to ensure all appropriate documentation is completed and transferred to the receiving establishment when a prisoner is returned to closed conditions; and
• invite Mr C to make representations against the decision to downgrade him and ensure that they are duly considered and responded to.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison manager unreasonably failed to take action to notify a family member that he had been assaulted in prison and taken to hospital. Scottish Prison Service (SPS) rules state that requests from prisoners for a relative or friend to be informed must be actioned if the prisoner becomes seriously ill, sustains serious injury or is admitted to hospital.

Mr C initially had his injuries assessed in the prison by a nurse and the SPS told us that his injuries were not determined as serious at that stage. They said a hospital medical assessment was required before this could be established. Mr C's injuries were not found to be serious following assessment at A&E and he was discharged back to the prison from there without being admitted to hospital. On this basis, we were satisfied that the relevant prison rule had not been triggered and that the prison manager's failure to notify the family member was not unreasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

However, we considered that it would have been good practice for the prison manager to have documented their decision and the rationale behind it at the time. We also noted that the SPS referred on more than one occasion to Mr C's injuries having not been life-threatening when this is not a test applied by the relevant prison rule. We made recommendations about this.

Mr C also complained that an officer who escorted him to hospital inappropriately advised hospital staff not to inform his family member, as he thought that the prison manager had already done so. However, the officer indicated that he had provided this advice as it was not looking likely that Mr C would be admitted to hospital. We found no evidence that the officer provided inaccurate or misleading information to hospital staff and we did not uphold this complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained about the appropriateness of the prison governor's response to his complaint. In responding, the governor advised that the family member was not informed as Mr C had not been admitted to hospital. The relevant prison rule was only partially quoted and no reference was made to the need to assess the seriousness of the injury/illness. The prison manager indicated that a decision was taken that hospital assessment was required before the seriousness of Mr C's injuries could be established, but the governor's response did not reflect this position. We upheld this complaint and made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• highlight to relevant staff that it would be good practice to document their rationale when reaching a decision on a request of this nature received from a prisoner;
• remind relevant staff of the specific criteria under which a prisoner may request that their relatives/friends be contacted; and
• apologise to Mr C for failing to fully and accurately respond to his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the handling by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) of his brother (Mr A)'s sentence management. Mr C was concerned that there had been a lack of clarity between two prisons regarding Mr A's eligibility for offending-related coursework which hampered his progression and release from prison. Mr C said that there had been a change in policy in 2013 which meant that prisoners who denied their offence were now eligible for coursework.

We identified that there had been no change in policy and that guidance on coursework had been issued across the prison sector in 2013 to ensure consistency. We found that the SPS had followed their written guidance when deciding whether Mr A met the selection criteria for participating in coursework to address his violent behaviour. We concluded that Mr A's sentence management in terms of his coursework was reasonable and in line with guidance.

Mr C was also dissatisfied with the SPS's handling of his complaint. We found that while the SPS attempted to provide Mr C with responses to his ongoing correspondence over a year, clearer information could have been provided in relation to Mr A's eligibility for coursework in respect of his offence and the criteria for coursework to address his offending behaviour. We also noted that the SPS had not responded to one of Mr C's letters. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• draw the findings regarding the handling of Mr C's complaint to the attention of the governor and life liaison officer; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified in the handling of his complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained about escorting services provided on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service on two occasions. Miss C said that on the first occasion, escort staff physically and verbally abused her and on the second occasion, staff undertook a lengthy diversion when taking her to a medical facility for assessment. Miss C also complained that her complaints about the escort service were not fully investigated.

The escort service did not agree with Miss C's account of the first journey and they provided escort logs and incident reports made at the time. We also obtained a statement from court staff whom Miss C said witnessed the events, which supported the escort service's account. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

In relation to the second journey, the escort service explained that staff took a different route to pay for a petrol bill but that the diversion would not have added much time to the journey. They also said there was not enough time to catch the ferry (for the preferred route), due to the time that court finished. However, when we asked for further details about this, they said the reason for the diversion was to pay for the petrol bill. During our investigation, the escort service acknowledged that staff should have made other arrangements to pay for the petrol and they apologised to Miss C. We agreed with their assessment of this and we upheld Miss C's complaint.

We also upheld Miss C's complaint about complaints handling. There was no record of staff being interviewed, although the escort service said they have now addressed this. We were also concerned that the escort service gave us conflicting information about whether ferries were available, and that their apology was prompted by our investigation. We considered this reflected a lack of rigour in their investigation as they should have established the key facts and made any apologies when Miss C first complained. We therefore upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure the escort service put in place an investigation planning tool so that officers investigating complaints are prompted to note and consider the evidence available on each complaint; and
• ensure the escort service share the findings of this investigation with relevant complaints handling staff for learning purposes.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his position on the waiting list for an offending behaviour programme had been unreasonable. He was temporarily transferred to prison in England and because of this, Mr C said that he was removed from the waiting list in error. Mr C also said that when he returned to Scotland, his name was put back on to the waiting list but it was put back in the wrong position.

The SPS explained that when a prisoner is no longer in their custody, the electronic system updates and automatically removes the individual from any programme waiting lists. They also confirmed that when Mr C returned to custody, the system was notified and he was automatically returned to the waiting list. The SPS also confirmed that Mr C's position on the waiting list was in line with the relevant policy.

We were satisfied that what happened in Mr C's case was normal practice and in line with relevant policy. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not paying him appropriately. He said he usually worked three-and-a-half shifts per week and received £8. However, Mr C said the SPS had advised him that he would be required to work additional shifts but he would not receive any extra wages. Mr C said other prisoners worked fewer shifts than him but received the same wage payment.

The SPS explained that a new working pattern had been introduced in an effort to address similar complaints. It was decided that all prisoners would be required to work nine shifts each week and the shifts would be carried out in two work parties. The SPS acknowledged there were still some prisoners working only three-and-a-half shifts per week but as they were gradually being allocated positions, the number was reducing.

We were satisfied that the explanation provided by the SPS was reasonable and in line with the prisoner wage earning policy. We accepted that Mr C was being paid appropriately and that it was also reasonable for some prisoners to be receiving a full wage for work that had not yet been allocated to them. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were failing to provide appropriate dietary requirements for Jewish festivals, specifically the Seder, a ceremonial meal eaten as part of Passover.

SPS rules say that the governor must ensure that every prisoner is provided with a diet that takes into account, as far as practicable, the prisoner's age, health, religion, and cultural, dietary or other requirements. In addition, according to the SPS food manual, prisons should cater for a minimum of three separate religious festivals each year. In this case, the prison had already catered for Ramadan, Passover and Eid Al Adha. They also planned to cater for Christmas.

We considered the evidence available and took the view that the SPS were meeting the requirements of the prison rules and the food manual. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about issues with his mail coming into the prison. He said that he was having to wait at least a week to receive mail, that he was being made to sign for letters, and that the prison was unreasonably opening some of his mail and sealing it again with tape.

In our investigations we asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to provide copies of their policies regarding mail coming into the prison. We found that according to policy, mail should always be received by the addressee by the end of the day it comes into the prison. The SPS accepted that Mr C was having to wait unreasonably for his mail. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

The SPS told us that the reason Mr C had to sign for mail was because it was classified as a parcel and prisoners must sign for parcels when they pick them up at reception. We found that the classification of mail as a letter or parcel is a discretionary decision for the SPS and therefore decided that it was reasonable that Mr C had to sign for his mail. However, we found that the SPS had given contradictory responses in the two internal complaints handling stages regarding this issue, the Internal Complaints Committee and the Residential Front Line Manager stages. We upheld this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, we found that according to policy, the SPS is entitled to open a prisoner's mail in the prisoner's presence unless it is privileged mail. The SPS told us that Mr C had been present when his mail was opened and as there was no evidence to suggest otherwise, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the delay in giving him his mail;
• apologise to Mr C for giving him contradictory information throughout the complaints process;
• ensure that complaints are dealt with in a consistent manner throughout the complaints process, and if the decision taken by the Internal Complaints Committee is different to the decision made by the Residential Front Line Manager then a full explanation is given; and
• provide this office with evidence of the reviewed Standard Operating Procedures which clarify how staff are to classify incoming mail.

Summary

Mr C complained that staff did not ensure he was properly placed in protected conditions. During our investigation, Mr C withdrew his complaint and we did not reach a finding on the case.

Summary

Ms C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to take reasonable action after she reported feeling unwell. She was also dissatisfied with the way in which the SPS dealt with her complaint. We did not reach a decision on Ms C's complaint as she was released from prison and did not provide a forwarding address or confirm that she wished us to continue investigating her complaint.