Not upheld, no recommendations

Summary

Mr C, who was a prisoner, complained because he did not think the prison followed the correct process when reviewing his supervision level.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison reviewed it after he assaulted another prisoner and because of that incident, his supervision level was increased to high. The prison rules confirm that the prison were entitled to do that. However, the prison were unable to locate the relevant paperwork to evidence the process they followed. However, in response to both Mr C's written complaint and to our enquiries, they were able to clearly demonstrate why his supervision level had been increased. In light of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately held him in a special cell for over 90 hours. Mr C said prison rules said that a prisoner should not be held in a special cell for longer than 24 hours.

The prison told Mr C that he was relocated to a cell within the segregation unit after the doctor advised it was necessary. Prison rules allow the governor to hold a prisoner in special conditions when a healthcare professional advises that it is appropriate to do so in order to protect the health and welfare of the prisoner. The information provided by the prison confirmed that Mr C had swallowed certain items and because of that, the doctor had advised them to relocate him for his own safety. In addition, the prison confirmed Mr C was held for less than 72 hours. In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

The Tribunal of the Parole Board for Scotland considered Mr C's case in July 2012 and decided that before they did so again in July 2013, he should have some experience outside prison, to demonstrate that he could sustain the improvements in his behaviour. Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not give him that opportunity.

Before Mr C could spend time outside prison, his case had to be considered by the prison's risk management team (RMT). They met in April 2013 and decided that progression to more-open conditions would not be appropriate at that time.

Our investigation found that the time taken between the July 2012 hearing and the RMT meeting was reasonable, given a number of factors, including the fact that Mr C did not meet the relevant criteria until October 2012. It is not for us to review RMT decisions, but we were able to consider whether the decision making had been appropriate - for example, whether the RMT had obtained and considered appropriate information. Investigation revealed that this had been the case. We were satisfied that there were no avoidable delays by the SPS either in the timing of the RMT or in the way in which the RMT reached their decision.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that prison staff inappropriately provided medical assistance against his will after he had self-harmed. They had restrained him and applied a towel to his wound. He also complained that prison staff ignored instructions provided by a hospital doctor.

In responding to our investigation, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) confirmed that whilst a prisoner was entitled to refuse medical treatment, they were not able to refuse emergency lifesaving interventions that prison staff might undertake in trying to prevent a prisoner from harming himself. The SPS confirmed that staff have a duty of care towards prisoners, including taking such steps to prevent harm, and that staff interventions in Mr C's case did not constitute medical assistance or treatment. In relation to Mr C's complaint that instructions from the hospital doctor were ignored, the SPS advised that Mr C discharged himself from hospital and because of that, no instructions were received.

Mr C had also complained that the prison failed to provide him with a copy of the SPS duty of care policy. The SPS confirmed that no such document existed and, therefore, it could not be provided.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably refused his request for protection. Mr C said he feared for his safety from other prisoners, and that arrangements previously put in place by the prison to manage his circumstances had been removed.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison had taken steps to investigate Mr C's concerns about his risk from others. They undertook a detailed review of Mr C's circumstances and concluded that there was no evidence to corroborate his belief that he was at risk from others. Because of that, the prison wanted to gradually introduce Mr C back into the prison regime. In light of this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

In addition, Mr C said his complaint about an officer was not appropriately followed up. However, our investigation concluded that the deputy governor discussed this complaint with him and provided a written response in which he confirmed that he would speak to the officer concerned and if appropriate, would ask the officer to apologise to Mr C. The prison confirmed that the deputy governor did speak with the officer concerned and concluded that he should apologise, so we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that laundry workers in his prison had their production bonus removed and their basic wage reduced. He did not believe that this was the case in other prisons across the estate. In responding, the prison said that Mr C was being paid in line with the national prisoner wage earning policy and that his role in the laundry did not attract any bonus payments.

Mr C said that the wage earning policy allowed for task related bonuses for certain tasks, including those classed as unpleasant activity. He said he considered that handling dirty laundry daily for over 700 prisoners could be classed as unpleasant activity, and should attract a bonus. He also noted that he had submitted a Freedom of Information request and the response indicated that the wage earning policy was not being applied consistently across the prison estate.

We contacted Scottish Prison Service (SPS) headquarters who confirmed that Mr C was being paid the appropriate level of pay for a laundry worker, that laundry work was not classed as unpleasant activity and did not attract a bonus payment. He explained that prisons had discretion to pay an additional amount if prisoners were required to work extra hours and also that, on completing an accreditation scheme and receiving a qualification, some workers may be entitled to an increased level of pay. However, outwith these scenarios, all laundry workers should be paid at the same rate as Mr C.

As Mr C's earnings appeared to be in line with the national policy, we did not uphold his complaint. However, the SPS recognised that the response to Mr C's information request suggested some variance across the estate and they, therefore, agreed to contact all prisons to ensure that the wage earning policy was being applied consistently.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, said that he posted three items of mail in the mail box in his residential hall but they went missing. He complained to the prison about this and the deputy governor tasked a security manager to investigate. The security manager discussed this with Mr C and understood him to have been satisfied after the discussion. The deputy governor wrote to Mr C to outline the steps taken and said she considered the matter resolved. Mr C replied saying he was still dissatisfied, but she did not write back. He brought his complaint to us, as he was unhappy with the prison's investigation.

We asked the prison to confirm what they did to investigate the complaint. They confirmed that a security manager had discussed Mr C's concerns with him and explained the mail process. They said he appeared to have understood this. They also noted that the security manager made the residential manager aware of the complaint, and he had agreed to monitor the mail process in the hall. Having done this, the prison said they considered the mail process robust. They noted that, on any given day, around 300 letters leave the prison and that, from a population of 670 prisoners, Mr C's was the only complaint about missing mail in that time period.

We noted that Mr C was unhappy that the prison did not investigate further, but the complaints procedure contains no provision for this, and he correctly then brought the complaint to us. We also noted that the prison could not establish what happened to Mr C's mail. Mr C himself had acknowledged from the outset that this would be difficult. We considered the actions taken by the prison to investigate Mr C's concerns to have been reasonable in the circumstances and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) refused to progress him to open conditions (less secure prison conditions). He felt that, in arriving at their decision, the SPS had not clarified his situation and taken account of relevant information.

He explained that he was on strong prescription medication and that prison staff had misinterpreted the side effects of this and placed him on report for illegal substance abuse. The charge was dismissed at a disciplinary hearing, when Mr C admitted having taken old prescription medication prescribed to him two months earlier. He complained that the charge was taken into account when deciding to refuse his progression, although it was dismissed.

We asked the SPS to confirm what steps they took to clarify Mr C's situation. They told us that they liaised with healthcare staff and it was acknowledged that Mr C had admitted taking medication from an old prescription. They advised that prisoners are not permitted to hold on to old medication and that it should have been disposed of. In light of this, and taking into account other issues from Mr C's history, they had decided he should not be progressed to open conditions at that time.

We were satisfied that the SPS took appropriate steps to clarify the position with the health centre. We also considered it reasonable for them to have taken into account relevant information flowing from the disciplinary hearing, even though the charge was dismissed. The decision to refuse progression was a decision the SPS were entitled to take and we saw nothing wrong in the process they followed in arriving at that decision.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were failing to provide him with adequate clean towels. He said that they have a duty to provide prisoners with suitable towels and toiletries necessary for health and hygiene. He said that there was an insufficient supply of towels at weekends, when the prison laundry is closed. Having considered his complaint, the prison concluded that providing two towels for weekend use was reasonable.

In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C noted that prisoners were issued with two clean towels every weekday evening. He indicated that he used a towel in the morning when he showered and again in the afternoon following use of the gym. He said that there were no facilities for drying towels and that he had no family who could send him in extra towels.

The prison told us that they considered two towels for weekend use to be reasonable. They advised that prisoners are allowed to purchase four extra towels (or have these handed in). The prison rules require them to provide facilities for showering on a daily basis or at least every other day where adequate arrangements cannot be made for daily provision. They advised that the latter would apply over the weekend when the prison laundry does not operate. We considered the level of towel provision reasonable, and in line with prison rules, and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not allowed to purchase a music system with an inbuilt CD player and digital radio through the prison's mail ordering system, as he knew that other prisons allowed this type of item to be purchased.

Our investigation found that Rule 47(3) of the Prison Rules 2011 allows every prison governor the discretion to decide what items to permit in use in their prison. We also found that the prison had acted in accordance with national guidance and that they had followed their local procedure in refusing Mr C the music system. We were satisfied that the Scottish Prison Service recognise there is inconsistency about which electrical items prisoners are allowed to purchase across the prison sector, and that they are working to find a solution.