Prisons

Summary

Mr C was being escorted by an agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) between prison and court on several occasions during his trial. He complained that an officer from the agency shared information and comment about him and his case with another officer and that that officer then passed that on to prisoners. He said the prisoners then taunted him with the information and comment, which they said they had got from the agency.

The agency said that, in speaking to staff about the complaint, staff had been very clear that they had not divulged information as alleged. Their account differed from Mr C's, and in the circumstances it was not possible to establish the facts about who said what, if anything. For security reasons involving the nature of Mr C's offences, the agency had not considered it appropriate to interview other prisoners about the events in question, and we accepted their reasons.

Summary

Mr C complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about the time it took prison staff to escort him to the health centre located within the prison. Mr C, who has diabetes, was unhappy it took two hours to receive assistance with his insulin pen. He also felt the SPS's response to his complaint was inappropriate.

We were unable to clearly determine why it took two hours for Mr C to be escorted to the health centre. We took independent advice from a nursing adviser who found that the delay of two hours was an unreasonable length of time for a person having treatment for insulin dependent diabetes to wait. We considered that appropriate action was subsequently taken when Mr C transferred to another prison where he was reviewed by a diabetic nurse specialist and a clear system to manage his insulin pen was put in place.

We also found that there was a failure by the prison to properly investigate and respond to Mr C's concerns. They had acknowledged that there should have been a more thorough investigation into his complaint and that their responses should have been more detailed.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• draw the failings we identified to the attention of relevant staff at the prison; and
• apologise to Mr C for not responding adequately to his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about bullying by a prison officer in his prison. We found that the documentary evidence showed that the officer in question had not been responsible for various actions that Mr C had considered him to have been, such as making a medical decision about whether Mr C should have to share a cell. We also found that the officer had not acted inappropriately in respect of other issues, such as arranging for medical observation of Mr C in line with a prison drugs protocol. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prospects of parole from prison were being hampered by delays in accessing relevant courses that he required to progress. However, our investigation showed that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were acting in line with their national policy in relation to the timetable for allocating him to any appropriate courses. In other words, there was no evidence the SPS were acting wrongly, so we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C lost an item of property. Although the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had admitted responsibility for losing the item, Mr C was unhappy with the amount that had been offered in compensation. We asked the SPS about this and they confirmed that the valuation of Mr C's lost property had been made using an inappropriate method. They agreed to re-visit the claim. They also agreed to ensure that more appropriate methods were used in future. As such, we upheld the complaint but made no further recommendations.

Mr C then complained again following this reassessment, as he remained unhappy with the way it had been carried out. On further investigation, we found that the relevant staff were unaware of the procedure they were supposed to follow and there had been a number of procedural errors as a result, affecting the investigation of Mr C's claim. As such, we upheld the complaint, this time making recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• repeat their compensation offer to Mr C for his lost item of property; and
• provide us with details of the outcome of the stated reviews being carried out to the SPS' processes for the recording of prisoner property and assessing claims of lost property, taking account of the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained about a delay in accessing the Self Change Programme (a programme aimed at addressing offending behaviour). The prison said that prisoners had to have a General Programme Assessment before being eligible to access this programme. They said that Mr C had initially refused to engage with the General Programme Assessment and this had caused the delay in him being identified as eligible. We found evidence to confirm this. We also found that the prison had a waiting list for the Self Change Programme and Mr C was on this waiting list. We found that the prison were appropriately managing the waiting list, in line with the relevant policies. For these reasons we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison did not have an adequate process in place to allow for the fair selection of prisoners and their families to attend prison events/parties. Mr C was unhappy that, when a party/event was held at the prison, his child was not allowed to attend and, specifically, that he had not been given a place at a recent event. The prison had acknowledged as part of the complaints process that Mr C had likely been told that he had not been allowed to attend the party because he had a misconduct report. However, the Internal Complaints Committee told Mr C categorically that this was not the case and that there was no set criteria for attendance.

Following our enquiry to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), we could not see any evidence that the prison were required to have in place a specific process to allow for the fair selection of prisoners and their families to attend prison events/parties. We were satisfied with the prison's explanation of the simple selection process and, while we acknowledged that Mr C had been provided with conflicting information about the selection of prisoners, we were satisfied that the prison had followed this process when selecting prisoners for the party. We considered that it would be disproportionate and overly bureaucratic to require the prison to have a written or formal process/procedure in place for such a simple process. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

However, as part of our enquiries, we were told by the prison that, in fact, initially, priority was given to prisoners who had been report free for a certain period. The paperwork provided by the prison, although not clear, appeared to support this explanation. This was in direct contradiction to the information Mr C was provided during the complaints process that there was no set criteria for attendance. Therefore, we recommended that the prison apologise to Mr C for failing to give him a clear and accurate explanation of what happened in relation to the selection of prisoners for this party/event.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to give him a clear and accurate explanation of what happened in relation to the selection of prisoners for the party/event.

Summary

Mr C complained that there was inadequate choice to meet his food preferences in prison. For example, he liked plain food, rather than curried or spicy food. We considered the relevant prison rule about the provision of food in prison and looked at sample menus. The prison also explained how they reach their decisions on food menus. Our conclusion was that the prison had tried to accommodate Mr C's preferences, had not acted outside any relevant policies, and that it would be impractical and financially unviable for them to meet the likes and dislikes of every prisoner. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that an agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that he could attend his brother's funeral. Mr C missed the funeral service and he complained to us about the agency's failure, and about the failure to fully explain what had gone wrong. During our investigation, the agency explained there was a delay in collecting an additional member of staff required for the special escort. The agency accepted that they could have done a number of things differently on the day in question. They said that they recognised the understandable upset caused to Mr C in missing his brother's funeral and had taken immediate steps to learn from the incident. The agency apologised to Mr C for their error.

We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we considered that there was nothing further we could recommend that would undo what happened to Mr C. Given that the agency had provided a more comprehensive explanation of what had gone wrong, had taken steps to learn from the complaint and had apologised to Mr C, we made no further recommendations.

Summary

Mr C's typewriter stopped working, so he asked his prison for a form to order a replacement. Mr C did not receive a response to his request, and when he complained (known as a PCF1 complaint) about this he was not happy with the responses to the complaints and brought his complaint to us.

We looked at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s file on Mr C's complaints, and correspondence about the typewriter request. We also took account of The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 (the prison rules) and the SPS' complaints guidance. A prison governor has discretion under the prison rules to decide whether a prisoner can have specific property, and it is not for us to challenge this. However, we can look at how a specific case has been handled, in terms of the administrative processing and communication with a prisoner.

We found the prison's handling of Mr C's request was unreasonable, as they set aside the fact that Mr C had had a typewriter for over ten years. The prison had to make a defensible decision on Mr C's request (where the prison have to be able to defend their decision should another prisoner make a similar request at another time), but they put the onus for this on him rather than on themselves. There was no record of the consideration of Mr C's request, which took the prison three months to deal with. The prison's letters to Mr C included too much official-sounding jargon. Communication with Mr C in plain language would have been more helpful in the circumstances. We concluded that the prison needed a simple process to deal with non-standard requests. We also found that the prison's responses to Mr C's complaints did not consistently let him know what was being done and when; and when this was not possible, the prison did not provide a full explanation. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• remind relevant prison staff of the SPS complaints guidance on PCF1s;
• remind relevant prison staff of the importance of writing letters in plain language; and
• consider introducing a simple process to deal with requests for items not on the generic articles in use list.