Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained about the management by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) of his progression to less secure conditions. In particular, he stated that the Parole Board for Scotland had decided a plan for his progression to the less secure conditions but that this had been disregarded by the SPS.

The Parole Board for Scotland make decisions on whether to release a prisoner, not on sentence management, which is reserved for the SPS. In Mr C's case, we found no evidence of fault in the SPS's handling of his progression to less secure conditions.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to follow the proper procedure prior to taking the decision to return him to closed conditions from the open estate (less secure prison conditions). In particular, Mr C said the SPS had not issued certain paperwork to him or given him the opportunity to put forward representations before the final decision was made.

We reviewed the information Mr C provided in support of his complaint and we also obtained information from the SPS. In addition, we reviewed the risk management and progression guidance which sets out the policy and procedure that prisons should follow when they are considering returning a prisoner to closed conditions. Having done that, it was clear that the SPS had followed the correct process prior to taking the decision to return Mr C to closed conditions. He was issued with the relevant paperwork and he was given an opportunity to make written representations. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the prison governor after a prison officer refused to let her visitors attend a pre-booked children's visit. She was unhappy with the governor's response. In particular, Ms C said the governor failed to acknowledge or respond to points that she raised in her PCF2 complaint. PCF2 is the name of the form used to make a confidential complaint about a sensitive or serious issue.

We reviewed the information available and this confirmed that the governor appropriately obtained a statement from the officer who took the decision to refuse Ms C's visitors. The governor also communicated his findings to Ms C. However, he did not respond to the specific outcomes Ms C noted that she was looking for. We considered that doing so would have been reasonable and would have demonstrated good complaints handling. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• take steps to remind governors that they should respond appropriately and in full to issues raised in PCF2 complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about how his prison dealt with a PCF2 confidential complaint. PCF2 is the name of the form used to make a confidential complaint about a sensitive or serious issue. We found the prison failed to give Mr C reasons for not regarding his complaint as being about a confidential matter of an exceptionally sensitive or serious nature. The prison also incorrectly said that Mr C made no proposal about how his complaint could be resolved, when in fact he did. Given that the prison did not follow the instructions on the PCF2 complaint form or in the prison service complaints guidance, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• remind relevant staff of the need to follow the instructions on the form and the prison service complaints guidance when dealing with PCF2 complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison failed to enforce Prison Rule 36 on smoking.

We found the prison took a pragmatic and proportionate approach to enforcing the prison rules regarding prisoners who are found to be smoking, while at the same time acknowledging prisoners' addiction to smoking and trying to help manage it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about unreasonable delay by the prison in transferring him to a prison where he would have the chance to do work placements in the community. Our investigation revealed that there had been delay but that this had been unavoidably caused by a backlog of prisoners who were also waiting for such a transfer. We noted that Mr C did obtain his transfer and that the new prison brought forward their consideration of him for work placements by two months to help avoid further delay. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about how a prison investigated and responded to his complaint and the time taken to do so.

Mr C had submitted a Complaint about Confidential Matters using a PCF2 form. Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidance states that on receiving a PCF2 form a response should be given within seven days. We found that the prison failed to investigate Mr C's complaint within the required timescale and did so without giving Mr C a reason for the delay and a revised timescale. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We were satisfied that apart from the unreasonable delay, the prison's investigation and their response to Mr C's complaint were adequate. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• ensure staff involved in the investigation of PCF2 complaints at the prison are aware of the relevant sections of the SPS guidance; and
• apologise to Mr C for a failure to adhere to the relevant timescales set out in the SPS guidance.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably, and without proper explanation, removed an '08' number from the list of numbers he could call. The 08 number in question redirected to his home number and allowed him to make daily contact with his child at a discounted rate. He had had this number on his list for over a year, however this number was removed from his list without consultation or prior warning.

We found that the Scottish Prison Rules (Telephones) Direction 2011 stated that prisoners are prohibited from using a prisoner telephone to make a phone call, without the prior approval of the governor, to a phone number beginning with 08. The prison explained that numbers like this, which divert to numbers unknown, could present a threat to security and organised crime as well as potentially causing operational difficulties by allowing unlimited time on the prisoner phone. We were satisfied that this explanation was reasonable and that the prison was acting in accordance with the rules in removing the 08 number from Mr C's list of numbers. The prison acknowledged that the 08 number was added to Mr C's list of numbers in error and without the prior approval of the governor, as required by the rules, and that Mr C should have been properly informed when the 08 number was removed. We upheld Mr C's complaint. The prison have now taken action to try to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future by reminding staff of the correct process.

We also had concerns about the way in which Mr C's complaint was handled. Our view was that, had the complaint been properly investigated and a detailed response given to Mr C, this may have prevented escalation of the complaint. Also, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) response to Mr C had indicated that prison staff should meet with him to discuss alternative options for family contact; however, this had not taken place.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by this investigation;
• comply with the ICC response and ensure that prison staff meet with Mr C to discuss alternative options for family contact; and
• undertake a root cause analysis of the way Mr C's complaint was handled to identify why errors were made and to learn from this.

Summary

Ms C complained that when the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were assessing evidence at a disciplinary hearing for fighting, they had not considered all relevant CCTV of the incident before reaching their decision. Ms C believed that there was further CCTV camera footage which had not been shown. Ms C was also unhappy that, when she complained about this, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) did not say whether all the CCTV footage had been reviewed and there was no attempt to allow her to attend the ICC as she had been transferred to another prison.

We found that the additional cameras that Ms C wished to be shown as evidence did not exist. Therefore, we were satisfied that all relevant CCTV evidence was considered prior to reaching a decision on her disciplinary hearing and we did not uphold this aspect of her complaint.

In relation to Ms C's complaint about the ICC, we found that, while we were satisfied that the ICC had considered the available evidence, the ICC decision to Ms C merely stated that they had reviewed 'all evidence presented' without responding to her specific request that other footage be considered. Our view was that they should have noted the lack of additional footage and expressed this to Ms C in a way that allowed her to be satisfied that the points she had raised had been taken on board. The prison had already acknowledged, in response to our enquiries, that they did not consider options to allow Ms C to take part in the ICC. They have now put in place a process to ensure that if a prisoner transfers to another establishment prior to an ICC, video conferencing will be available to enable them to take part in the ICC. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• remind staff involved in ICC decision-making of the need to adequately record all evidence considered and communicate decisions and the reason(s) for those decisions clearly to the complainant; and
• apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in the handling of her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the conditions he was being housed under were affecting his parole opportunities. He also complained about the handling of a property claim.

During our investigation, Mr C accepted a full and final settlement for the property claim and was moved to a different prison. When we contacted Mr C to advise that we would not be considering his property claim further, we asked him to confirm that he wished to proceed with the investigation of his other concerns, given that he had now moved to a different prison.

Mr C did not confirm that he wanted the investigation to continue and consequently his case was closed.