Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to pay him at the correct rate for his attendance at work and education sessions in prison. The amount a prisoner is paid for work in prison depends on the activity level their job falls into. Although this is a discretionary decision for the SPS to take, we found that the SPS had provided Mr C with conflicting information about the activity level of his job. We also found that they had given Mr C inaccurate information about the level of payment for attending education sessions. In view of these failings, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• issue a written apology to Mr C for the inaccurate information they provided to him;
• ensure that relevant staff in the prison are aware of the correct rate of payment that prisoners are paid for attending education sessions; and
• review the payments made to Mr C in the prison to ensure that he received all the payments he was entitled to.

Summary

Mr C complained about the adequacy of the overnight snack provision in prison for insulin dependent diabetics. He did not consider that the contents of the pack were sufficient for his needs. We took independent medical advice and made some enquiries of the Scottish Prison Service. We were advised that the contents of Mr C's snack pack had since been amended in line with an instruction from a prison doctor. We tried contacting Mr C to discuss the latest position but he did not respond to us. We, therefore, closed his complaint without reaching a finding.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were unreasonably holding him back from progressing to less secure conditions, and that they had not dealt with his complaints about progression properly. After investigation, we concluded that although Mr C was understandably keen to progress as quickly as possible, his case was being managed appropriately in line with the relevant guidance and taking account of all relevant evidence and information. We also concluded that the SPS had dealt with Mr Cs complaints appropriately. We did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the adjudicator unreasonably failed to follow the correct process at his disciplinary hearing. In particular, he said that the adjudicator did not give him the chance to cross-examine the witness.

In their response to his complaint, the Scottish Prison Service told Mr C that the adjudicator had concerns about intimidation and that was why he was not allowed to cross-examine the witness. The prison rules say that prisoners must be given the opportunity to call witnesses and to cross-examine them. In addition, the relevant guidance says that a prisoner must be allowed to ask questions of witnesses but if they abuse that right, the adjudicator should require the questions to be put through them. That did not happen in Mr C's case.

We upheld Mr C's complaint because we concluded that he should have been given the opportunity to question the witness by putting his questions through the adjudicator.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation; and
• feed back the findings of our investigation to the adjudicator.

Summary

Mr C complained that the risk management team failed to appropriately demonstrate that they had taken a defensible decision in relation to his progression to less secure conditions. We found that the prison did not initially provide enough written detail to show how they had reached their decision on Mr C's progression. While the issue of Mr C's progression was entirely a matter for the prison to determine, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the level of written detail they provided to explain their decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• take steps to ensure that written decisions taken by the risk management team contain a sufficient level of detail so as to demonstrate that a defensible decision has been reached when considering a prisoner's progression to less secure conditions.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) included inaccurate information in his risk management team (RMT) paperwork, and he was concerned that this might have a detrimental effect on the consideration of his parole. In dealing with Mr C's complaint, we explained that our role was to check where the SPS sourced the information that was included, and if that information was up-to-date. We looked at the SPS' file on Mr C's complaint, the prison records provided to us by the SPS, and the SPS' RMT guidance. The guidance said staff at an RMT meeting should thoroughly research all relevant information and take account of it.

We found that prison staff were aware before the RMT meeting that there was more recent information about Mr C which could be provided by his new probation officer. However, the RMT paperwork made no reference to this and, at least in part, referred to information from Mr C's previous probation officer. In responding to our enquiry, the SPS referred us to other SPS documents, which they said would have informed Mr C's RMT paperwork. However, Mr C was transferred to the SPS from outside Scotland, and they were aware there were problems with the records that arrived with Mr C. The SPS documents about Mr C's time outside Scotland must have been informed by records from that other jurisdiction; however, the SPS did not provide us with the original evidence which first told them of Mr C's history there. This meant the SPS were not able to demonstrate to us that the information included in Mr C's RMT paperwork was accurate and up-to-date. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• ensure that they obtain all relevant information about Mr C's history outside Scotland, including the most up-to-date information from his new probation officer;
• ensure that the next RMT takes account of the most up-to-date information about Mr C's history; and
• ensure that any information provided to the relevant parole authority is up-to-date.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison unreasonably put him on closed visits, and that there was an unreasonable delay in the prison responding to his complaints about confidential matters (known as PCF2 complaints). In dealing with Mr C's complaint, we explained to him that the decision to put him on closed visits was a discretionary matter for the prison under The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 (the prison rules). Our role was to see whether the prison followed the correct procedure.

We looked at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s file on Mr C's complaint, their records about the closed visits and relevant SPS procedures. We found that the prison rules gave the prison governor the authority to put a prisoner on closed visits, and that the prison had reviewed Mr C's status for closed visits regularly, which was in line with the prison rules and the prison's own process. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

We also found that there was a delay in the prison responding to two of Mr C's PCF2 complaints, which was not in line with the SPS complaints procedure. In addition, there was an excessive delay in the prison responding to a letter from Mr C's solicitor, which was related to his complaints. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• remind relevant prison staff of the SPS complaints guidance relating to PCF2 complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing her brother (Mr A) to less secure conditions.

We obtained information from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about Mr A's case and we reviewed the relevant policies in place. We found that Mr A had been asked to participate in an assessment process on more than one occasion but he had refused. He finally took part in the process, and the information gathered was discussed. Following that, it was decided that Mr A needed to participate in a programme to address his offending needs. However, Mr A maintained his innocence and denied the offences he had been convicted of. Therefore, the SPS placed him on the programme's waiting list because he was not ready to engage with it.

The SPS recognised that Mr A denied the offences for which he had been convicted. However, Mr A had been convicted of his offences and had to be managed on that basis. The SPS has a role to reduce the risk an individual is assessed as presenting, which they do by giving prisoners the opportunity to participate in relevant programmes. The SPS are also authorised to refuse to progress individual prisoners to less secure conditions if they do not consider that the individual has addressed their offending needs as much as possible. In Mr A's case, the evidence showed that the SPS took account of various assessments which showed that he posed a risk. Because of that, they concluded that he needed to reconsider participating on the identified programme if he wanted to progress.

We found no evidence to suggest that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing Mr A to less secure conditions. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C asked to have pens in use (in his possession or his room, rather than with his other belongings in prison storage) that he made at his work party. The prison refused Mr C's request which he said was unfair because other prisoners were allowed to have such pens in use.

The prison told us that they had decided not to allow Mr C to have the pens in use because they were decorative and could be used for sale or barter. The prison rules confirm that the governor is authorised to refuse to allow a prisoner to have in their possession any items considered to be prejudicial to the security or good order of the prison. In addition, they said any prisoners who may have such pens in use were unauthorised to do so.

We were satisfied that the prison were authorised to refuse Mr C's request and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

An escorting agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) transferred Mr C to a hearing. Mr C complained that he was not escorted appropriately. In particular, Mr C said the escorting crew parked the vehicle some distance away from the location and because of that, he had to walk handcuffed in view of the public. Mr C also said his complaint about the matter was not responded to appropriately.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the escorting agency said that they were satisfied the crew carried out their duties to an acceptable level when escorting Mr C. They said there was no need for further action. However, we obtained a copy of the relevant procedure which outlined the instructions that the crew should have followed when they arrived at the location of the hearing. In particular, the instructions said the crew should have reported to the on-site manager for further instruction. That did not happen in Mr C's case. In response to our enquiries, the escorting agency said that in some situations it was not always possible to keep prisoners out of sight of the public. However, they said that in Mr C's case, this could have been avoided.

In light of the evidence available, we upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C and accept responsibility for the failings identified by our investigation; and
• make arrangements for relevant complaints handling staff to undertake appropriate complaints handling training.