Prisons

Summary

C complained about the handing of their Internal Case Management (ICM) case conference. C was unhappy that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) refused to postpone this meeting in light of ongoing appeals/complaints and COVID-19 restrictions, and also that the SPS subsequently failed to review and amend the minutes.

The SPS confirmed that they acted in line with the relevant guidelines in terms of the timescale for holding the case conference. However, they reflected that it may have been prudent to postpone to a later date given the complexities surrounding it. Notwithstanding this, we concluded that the SPS acted reasonably, in what were unprecedented circumstances. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C provided her express consent for her pronouns to be used for this publication.

Ms C complained about matters relating to the SPS failing to give Ms C advice and failing to put in place an appropriate procedure for Ms C to obtain certain items. Ms C also complained about the SPS refusing to allow Ms C to wear her own clothing and having the use of certain electrical items. We took independent advice from an adviser who specialises in equal opportunities and diversity.

We found that there were delays in the SPS giving Ms C advice and in putting in place a process to order certain items. We upheld these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

We found it was reasonable that the SPS refused Ms C's request to wear her own clothes and have access to the electrical items. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for the delays in providing her with advice and putting in place a process for her to order items to support her gender identity. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• All relevant SPS staff should be clear about their obligations to transgender prisoners and their policy on accessing, or facilitating access, to items to support their gender identity.

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

C complained about matters relating to their mail. A letter sent to C was retained by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for the purpose of testing because the item of mail was thought to be suspicious. The mail was tested using the rapiscan itemiser (a machine used by the SPS to trace and detect a broad range of illicit substances). C’s mail indicated a positive result for an illicit substance.

C considered the testing procedure was not carried out properly. In particular, they believed that the mail item was cross-contaminated due to inappropriate handling. C also considered the SPS failed to provide an appropriate explanation as to why their item had been identified as being suspicious.

The SPS explained that testing of suspicious incoming mail was in place across the prison estate and was an important process ensuring the safety of both prisoners and staff. The equipment used was the same in all establishments and was calibrated to detect significant amounts of illicit substances. The scan of C’s letter had indicated for a specific illicit substance. It was also noted unlikely the letter would have been cross-contaminated.

We looked at the SPS’s standard operating procedure and we considered the prison rules. We were satisfied that the SPS handled C’s mail appropriately, in line with the relevant standard operating procedure. Whilst recognising C’s concerns about cross-contamination, we considered the SPS’s response on this point reasonable. In relation to C’s complaint that the SPS failed to properly explain why their mail had been retained for testing, they were particularly concerned that the SPS had not given detail as to why the mail was deemed as suspicious. We were satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the SPS to deem C’s mail as suspicious. Whilst it would have been good practice for the SPS to have explained to C at the time that specific details of their suspicions could not be shared, we accepted that providing C with a detailed explanation could have potentially compromised the security of the process. Therefore, we felt it reasonable the SPS did not fully explain to C why their mail was deemed suspicious. As such, we did not uphold C’s complaints.

Summary

Concerns were raised during C's time on community work placement. Investigations were carried out and having considered the information available, the risk management team (RMT) at Prison A took the decision to return C to closed conditions (Prison B).

C considered that Prison A failed to seek relevant evidence as part of their investigation, and dismissed relevant evidence, prior to taking the decision to return C to closed conditions. We found that the RMT at Prison A appropriately considered the circumstances of C's case, taking relevant information into account, prior to reaching the decision to return C to closed conditions. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C also complained about the way the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled their complaint. They said that no Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) hearing was convened and the recommendation put forward by them was unachievable.

We found that C escalated their complaint to the ICC around the time the Scottish Government requested everyone to stop non-essential contact and travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic. C's complaint was passed from Prison B to Prison A to respond at ICC stage because the matter related to actions taken by the RMT at Prison A. Whilst an ICC hearing was not convened because of restrictions in place, Prison A did appoint a representative to consider C's complaint. However, we found that Prison A failed to share their findings and recommendation in relation to C's complaint with Prison B to ensure the matter could be given further consideration. We considered that the ICC failed to handle C's complaint reasonably and upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

In relation to the recommendation put forward by the ICC, we found this to be reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to handle their complaint appropriately. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Provide written confirmation to C in relation to the current status of the First Grant of Temporary Release application.

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

C complained to the prison about the treatment of their parent (A) who was involved in an incident which resulted in them being restrained by prison staff. C said that the use of force was excessive, causing A to sustain injuries. C also complained that A was denied medical assistance after being relocated to the prison's separation and reintegration unit (SRU) and denied the opportunity to make any telephone calls.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) issued a response to C who remained dissatisfied and complained to us. We found that the SPS's response was extremely brief, failing to address the issues raised. We returned the complaint to the SPS, advising that they submit a further reply to C. After receiving a further reply, C returned to us again, noting that the second response was inadequate and still failed to address the issues raised.

Our investigation found that the SPS failed to properly investigate C's complaint, as we did not see adequate evidence that they sought to establish relevant facts. SPS also failed to provide a full, objective and proportionate response to the issues raised. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to properly investigate and respond to their complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Properly investigate the matters raised by C in their complaint and provide a full and detailed response to the matters raised.

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

• The SPS should provide complaint responses that: clearly set out the matters that have been investigated; confirm the relevant evidence assessed as part of the investigation of the complaint; and fully explains the organisation's response to the complaint.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The SPS should confirm that staff are familiar with the model complaint handling procedure and should ensure that it is accessible to staff as a complaint handling tool.

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

C submitted an application for an escorted day absence (EDA) to visit their parent who is unable to leave home or travel because of poor mental health. The prison refused C's application on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances in which to support the visit. C was offered the option of being transferred to another prison for the purpose of receiving a visit from their parent.

In complaining to this office, C said that the prison had not given clear reasons why their request had been refused, or why they considered there were no exceptional circumstances to support the application.

According to the relevant legislation prison governors and directors have the discretion to grant an EDA application if satisfied that the purpose of the application is genuine and appropriate; this office cannot challenge this discretion. However, even where there is discretion, such decisions must be based on the available evidence, and decisions should be clear and well explained.

We found that the prison failed to properly consider the facts presented in C's application. We also found that there was a failure to properly and fully explain the reasons for the decision taken to refuse C's application. As such, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to appropriately consider their application for escorted day absence. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Review C's application again and communicate the outcome clearly and properly explaining the reasons for the decision reached.

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

C made an application for escorted day absence (EDA) to visit their father at home on the grounds that he was dangerously ill and had been deemed medically unfit to travel to the prison. The prison refused C's application. They said that due to C's prison status they had been unable to risk assess the potential of a home visit and offered C a contact session with their father at another prison. C said that the prison had failed to give proper consideration to their father's circumstance and raised a formal complaint through the prison complaints process. In response to the complaint, the prison explained that due to reasons pertaining to C's prison status, and also that C's father was not considered dangerously ill, the application could not be approved at that time. C complained the prison had not given clear reasons why their request had been refused or why they did not consider their father to be dangerously ill when they had provided a letter from their father's GP in support of their application.

We found that the prison had followed the correct EDA procedure, criteria and prison rules in exercising their discretion to refuse C's application (Rule 101 The Prisoner and Young Offender Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011). However, they had failed to clarify on what grounds C's application was being considered and had inaccurately considered C's prison status as an exceptional circumstance. We found the reasons that had been provided to C in both the EDA decision form and the complaint response were confusing and not relevant, and the prison had failed to properly explain or provide evidence in support of their decision. We also found there had been an unreasonable delay in the prison communicating the refusal of the EDA application to C.

Our investigation concluded that the Scottish Prison Service failed to appropriately consider C's EDA application, therefore, we upheld the complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for failing to provide a clear explanation as to the reasons C's application for escorted day absence was refused. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• In considering applications for escorted day absence, steps should be taken to clearly establish the legislative grounds/criteriaon which the request is being considered.
• In making decisions for escorted day absence, reasons should be clearly explained and well evidenced.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• In making decisions on prisoner complaints, reasons should be clearly explained and well evidenced.
• Exceptionally sensitive or complaints of a serious nature should be considered and responded to by the Governor. Where this is not possible, clear reasons/explanation should be provided.

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

C was removed from association (no contact with other prisoners) in prison on a specific occasion. C did not believe that their removal from association had been properly handled by the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS). C submitted several complaints about specific details of the handling of their removal from association in this period. C was dissatisfied with the responses they received and made their complaints to our office.

We found that C’s removal from association was handled appropriately and did not uphold this complaint.

In relation to the handling of C’s complaints, we found that the SPS did not respond to C’s complaint that an officer was inaccurately named as having been present at a case conference until this office became involved. We also found that they did not refer to the new evidence C provided in their complaint nor clarify that the SPS’s view remained as set out in their previous responses. Given this, we upheld C’s second complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C that they did not handle their complaints reasonably. The apology should make clear mention of each of the failings identified and meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The SPS should provide complaint responses that directly address the complaints raised, refer to any new evidence provided and, where directing complainants to previous responses, make clear whether their view remains as set out in those previous responses.

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

C complained in their own right and on behalf of their child (A) about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of two complaints they made. C also complained about A being transferred to another prison, that they did not receive a reasonable explanation of why they were transferred, and about the SPS's response to a complaint made by A.

We found that the SPS's handling of C's complaints was not in line with good practice, and communication with C about their complaints were not clear. Therefore, we upheld these aspects of the complaint.

We also found that, while the SPS had the authority to transfer A, they had not recorded the reasons for doing this, in line with their own procedures, and were therefore unable to confirm the reasons for their decision. Therefore, we also upheld these aspects of C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the unreasonable handling of their complaint and for failing to provide a reasonable response to their letter.
• Apologise to C and A for failing to record or explain the reason for A's transfer. The apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.ul/information-leaflets

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

• A clear record should be made of the reasons a prisoner is being transferred, explaining, where appropriate, what behaviour has led to the decision to transfer, what evidence is available of that behaviour and, importantly, why the prison consider transfer is an appropriate way to address that behaviour. This record should then be shared with prisoners, unless there is a clearly recorded security reason not to do so.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• All complaints should be reasonably investigated, with a record made of any discussions with staff. Full explanations should be provided to all complainants.
• Complaints should be handled and responded to in line with the relevant process and the Model Complaints Handling Procedure.
• Responses to complaints should address the points raised, or explain why information cannot be provided.

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 attended his brother's integrated case management (ICM) case conference. This meeting is held each year when the prisoner and those involved in supporting them get together to discuss their sentence management.

A document used to minute the discussions is then shared with all attendees. On receiving this document, Mr C wrote to the ICM coordinator raising concerns about inaccuracies and omissions in the record. The ICM coordinator responded to Mr C confirming that the content of his letter had been noted and placed on file. Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Services' (SPS) handling of his submission about the ICM case conference record was unreasonable. Mr C also complained that the SPS failed to properly address his complaint.

In response to Mr C's complaint about the way his submission was handled, the SPS told him that his brother's own submission had been filed and was used as the record that both Mr C and his brother felt that the minutes captured were inaccurate.

We found that the relevant guidance indicates that all attendees at the case conference have a responsibility to check that the minute is an accurate, factual representation of discussions held and that they are content that their contribution has been accurately reflected. It confirms that attendees should notify the chair within 14 days of receiving the document of any concerns or requests for changes. The guidance does not explain how requests for amendments from any of the attendees should be considered, recorded or filed. Therefore, the administrative handling of this part of the process is a matter of discretion for the SPS to decide on.

By inviting all attendees to check that the minute is an accurate, factual representation of the discussions held, our view is that it is reasonable for all attendees to expect that any comments made by them, particularly regarding factual error or omission of irrelevant information or inclusion of relevant information are considered, and where appropriate, changes are made. We also concluded that the SPS' response to Mr C's complaint did not properly address the issue raised by him. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to properly address his complaint and for not handling his submission reasonably. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• The SPS should review Mr C's submission in relation to the ICM case conference and consider what changes, if any, will be made to the record of the case conference. The SPS should share the findings of their review with Mr C, highlighting any changes agreed and, where appropriate, offer an explanation as to why requested amendments have not been included.

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

• The SPS should reflect on our findings and consider what process could be introduced to support section 10.7 of the ICM guidance to ensure submissions made by all attendees about the record of the ICM case conference are given fair and reasonable consideration and that this is communicated in an appropriate way.

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.