Scottish Government and Devolved Administration

Summary

Mr C complained about the actions of an officer who works for the prison's escorting agency. Mr C was visiting his daughter in hospital and did not have photographic identification with him. Following their policy, the officer asked him to leave. Mr C complained that the officer threatened and swore at him.

Mr C's complaint was investigated by the escorting agency, who took witness statements and concluded that there had been no wrongdoing on the part of the officer. Mr C had filmed the incident on his mobile phone but had not provided the footage to the escorting agency at the time of their investigation. We viewed the footage and forwarded it to them for comment.

The escorting agency noted that a section of the footage showed the officer behaving in a standard below what they expect of their staff. They explained that the officer no longer worked for them so there was no action they could take, and they apologised to Mr C for what had happened. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the investigation, in particular that one of the officers present at the time of the incident had not been interviewed. We concluded that the investigation had been sufficiently thorough and proportionate, highlighting that if Mr C had provided the footage sooner the complaint could have been resolved at an early stage. We did not uphold the complaint about the standard of the investigation.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prisoner officer made inappropriate comments about him in an email sent to another officer. The officer did not accept that their comments were inappropriate, and noted that they were informed by a psychological risk assessment given to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in relation to managing Mr C. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. He believed the comments were unnecessary in the context of his query, and that they did not adhere to the terms of a Staff Notice previously issued to staff advising the use of appropriate and non-biased language in communications.

While we noted that it was appropriate for the SPS to give regard to the psychological risk assessment in managing Mr C, we did not consider that the comments were appropriate in the individual circumstances of the particular query. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the handling of his subsequent complaint. Mr C felt it was inappropriate that his complaint was handled at the first stage of the process by the officer it was about and then was not properly addressed at the second stage. We found that having the officer complained about respond to his complaint was not a direct breach of prison rules. However, we considered that it would be best practice to avoid this situation. We also found that the second stage of the complaints process failed to give due regard to all relevant factors and evidence. On balance, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

Sector: Scottish Government and devolved administration

Subject: communication

Decision: upheld, recommendations

• Summary
• Mr C complained that a prisoner officer made inappropriate comments about him in an email sent to another officer. The officer did not accept that their comments were inappropriate, and noted that they were informed by a psychological risk assessment given to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in relation to managing Mr C. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. He believed the comments were unnecessary in the context of his query, and that they did not adhere to the terms of a Staff Notice previously issued to staff advising the use of appropriate and non-biased language in communications.
• While we noted that it was appropriate for the SPS to give regard to the psychological risk assessment in managing Mr C, we did not consider that the comments were appropriate in the individual circumstances of the particular query. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.
• Mr C also complained about the handling of his subsequent complaint. Mr C felt it was inappropriate that his complaint was handled at the first stage of the process by the officer it was about and then was not properly addressed at the second stage. We found that having the officer complained about respond to his complaint was not a direct breach of prison rules. However, we considered that it would be best practice to avoid this situation. We also found that the second stage of the complaints process failed to give due regard to all relevant factors and evidence. On balance, we upheld this complaint.
• Recommendations [3]

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C that due regard was not given to all relevant factors and evidence in responding to his query, and for comments having been made about him that were not justified by the individual circumstances of the situation. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Staff should ensure they use appropriate and non-biased language in communications, avoiding any unnecessary statements that are not justified by the circumstances of the situation. The SPS should reiterate to staff the terms of the Staff Notice.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Each complaint or query should be considered on its own merits, and due regard should be given to all relevant factors and evidence, avoiding narrow focus that could lead to perceived or actual bias. The SPS should feed this requirement back to staff in a supportive manner.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not progress work on his management plan during his temporary transfer to another establishment. He was being held out of association with other prisoners (under Rule 95 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011) due to difficulties managing him and finding a suitable location for him. He was temporarily transferred to another establishment for operational reasons, and to give the SPS time to formulate a plan for his future management and location.

In responding to the complaint, the SPS said attempts had been made during Mr  C's temporary transfer to relocate him to another establishment. They said that options for his future management had consistently been pursued. However, they could not find evidence to support this and they acknowledged that the Rule  95 paperwork had not been fully completed to record all action taken. We acknowledged that there appeared to be difficulties for the SPS in managing Mr  C. However, as they were unable to demonstrate that steps had been taken to implement or explore agreed actions during his temporary transfer, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not being able to clearly demonstrate that steps were taken to plan for his future management and location during his temporary transfer. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The SPS should tell us what they will do to ensure future adherence to the Rule 95 process, particularly in relation to being able to demonstrate that steps have been taken to implement or explore agreed actions.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C complained about the service provided by the Crown Office and Procurator Service (COPFS) when they were dealing with the investigation into the circumstances around her relative's death and the Victims Right of Review of that investigation. Ms C considered there was a lack of compassion when dealing with her family and that they were always having to chase for information and updates. Ms C also complained about the response she received to her complaint. Ms C considered it was not clear which part of the organisation was dealing with it. She also felt that no specific improvements were addressed as a result of her feedback about her experience.

We upheld all aspects of Ms C's complaint. We found that there was a failure to instigate communication with the family and provide updates, even if the details of those investigations could not be disclosed. There was also a failure to take reasonable care when deciding the route to a meeting room where discussions were held with the family. We considered that the organisation failed to confirm which part of the organisation was dealing with the Victims Right to Review or which part of the organisation was dealing with Ms C's complaint . We also found that when responding to Ms C's complaint there was a failure to clarify what specific steps would be taken to ensure communication with other families would be improved in the future.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for failing to instigate communication with her and her family providing updates on the investigation and review; failing to take reasonable care when deciding on the route to the meeting room where discussions were held with Ms C's family; failing to confirm what branch of the organisation was dealing with her request for a Victims Right to Review or complaint; and failing to clarify what specific steps could be taken to improve communication with other victim's families in the future. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leafelts-and-guidance.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Members of staff should agree a contact point with victims' families at different stages of investigation and/or review and set prompts to provide regular updates. COPFS should consider what can improve the experience for victims' families.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• There should be better coordination and communication within the organisation regarding who is dealing with a complaint where different streams of communication are being used.
• COPFS should demonstrate that improvements have been made as a result of Ms C's experience.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.