Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison failed to handle his complaints appropriately. In particular, Mr C said his complaints had not been responded to or appeared to have gone missing.

We examined several complaints that Mr C had submitted and asked the prison about their handling of them. As well as explaining what had happened with those complaints, the prison said that they were now operating a pilot whereby all prisoners in that hall of the prison would be issued a receipt after they submitted a complaint. The prison said they planned to roll this out to the whole prison, apart from for confidential complaints submitted directly to the governor (PCF2 complaints).

The evidence we saw showed that Mr C's complaints were not responded to by the prison within the relevant timescales; a confidential complaint was incorrectly placed in the external mail; another complaint was misfiled along with Mr C's legal correspondence; and Mr C had to submit a new complaint to chase up an existing one. In addition, we found the prison's ability to log prisoners' complaints was restricted to certain members of staff. In light of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified with the handling of his complaints;
• communicate the findings of the pilot to the Ombudsman; and
• consider implementing a similar process for PCF2 complaints in light of the failings identified with the handling of Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably prevented him from accessing prison activities, because they had imposed special security measures on him.

We found that, under The Prisons and Young Offenders (Scotland) Rules 2011, the SPS have the right to impose such measures. The records showed that they had explained the need for these to Mr C, and they had been reviewed with him periodically. The records also showed that Mr C had been offered access to prison activities, some of which he declined or had not yet taken up. Where activities were restricted, the reason for this had been explained.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to follow the appropriate procedure at his disciplinary hearing. During our investigation, we obtained a copy of the record taken by the adjudicator at Mr C's hearing and we asked the prison for their comments. We also reviewed the Scottish Prison Service's disciplinary hearings guide which provides guidance on how hearings should be conducted.

After reviewing all of the information, we found no evidence to show that the prison had not followed the appropriate disciplinary procedure and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his supervision level in prison was raised from low to medium supervision without good reason. We explained to Mr C that decisions to change someone's supervision level are a matter for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not for us, and our only role in considering such a complaint is to see whether they followed their procedures in reaching the decision. During our investigation the SPS could not provide us with a particular form, which meant they could not evidence that the process was followed in Mr C's case. For that reason, we upheld his complaint.

Mr C also made various complaints about the way SPS handled his complaint. We considered that a number of his points did show that it had not been handled appropriately. For example, he was not given part of a complaint form which related to escalating his complaint to the next level in SPS; they did not address a significant part of his complaint; and there was some delay.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• remind staff to retain completed PSS3 forms securely and in accordance with normal process;
• remind the officers who held the internal complaints committee of the need to address issues raised when considering complaints; and
• apologise to Mr C for the delay in the prison governor's reply.

Summary

Mr C, a prisoner, complained that staff at his prison carried out a personal search in a manner that was unreasonable in his particular circumstances. In looking at Mr C's complaint, our role was to examine whether the prison followed the correct procedure in carrying out the search.

When we looked at the search procedures we found that they said that, after a search, the final stage was to complete relevant paperwork. There was no paperwork, and we concluded that the prison had not completed this as they should have done. This meant we could not determine whether the prison followed the correct procedure when Mr C was searched and, consequently, whether it was reasonable. Because of this, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• amend the body search procedures to make clear in which cases relevant paperwork should be completed.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to handle his complaint appropriately. He said the manager did not offer to discuss the complaint with him, even though prison rules said she was required to, and did not provide him with a full response. In addition, Mr C said he progressed his complaint to the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) but he was not called to the hearing or provided with a response.

During our investigation, we obtained more information from the prison, who provided a copy of the manager's full response. However, they were unable to confirm whether the manager had offered to discuss the complaint. The prison also said they had no record of Mr C progressing his complaint to the ICC. Having considered the available evidence, we took the view that although it was unfortunate that the manager may not have offered Mr C the chance to discuss his complaint, we did not feel that this alone was serious enough for us to uphold his complaint.

Mr C also complained to us that the prison mishandled his complaint to the governor, in that it was either lost or the governor did not respond. As the prison provided confirmation that the governor received and responded to Mr C's complaint, we did not uphold this either.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, refused to attend prison work because he said he was unwell. The prison said that he was required to attend work because staff had not received notification from the prison health centre that Mr C needed to see a doctor, or that he had been assessed as being unfit for work. Mr C complained to us that the prison unreasonably placed him on report for his refusal.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, as the evidence confirmed the health centre had not told the prison that Mr C was unfit for work. Because of that, the prison were authorised to place Mr C on report for refusing to attend his work.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was found guilty at a disciplinary hearing of breaching prison rules. He appealed against the decision but as he believed the prison did not handle it appropriately, he complained to the governor about that. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C complained that his disciplinary appeal and complaint were not handled appropriately.

In relation to his appeal, Mr C said an officer failed to process his appeal in line with the normal process and the prison governor failed to respond within the relevant timescale. He also said that the internal complaints committee (ICC) did not adequately address the issues he raised. We did not uphold his complaints as, although we found that there was a delay in registering his appeal and a consequent slight delay in responding, there was no evidence that the prison had not otherwise followed procedures correctly.

We told Mr C that we could not consider whether the ICC had adequately addressed his appeal, as he had instructed his solicitor about this, and we cannot look at a matter that is going to be the subject of court proceedings.

Summary

Mr C was on a work placement from which he was expected to return directly to his open prison. However, he diverged from his designated route back there after finding out about particular family circumstances beyond his control. As this breached his temporary release licence conditions, a Risk Management Team (RMT) meeting was held to discuss this. As a result, Mr C was downgraded to closed prison conditions and his supervision level was increased.

Mr C complaint that the prison failed to adequately take into account his family situation when reaching their decision to downgrade him and the length of the downgrade. After reviewing his complaint, and all the relevant paperwork, including information from the prisons concerned, and the relevant RMT guidance, we concluded that the RMT paperwork failed to show which of four criteria listed in the guidance applied in Mr C's case, and so did not show why they took the view that he merited that punishment. We had further concerns that the paperwork did not indicate the reason(s) for the length of his downgrade and increase in supervision level, and it was unclear to us why the recommendations made at the final stage of the internal complaints procedure were not followed up. We upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address these failings.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• reconsider their decisions in light of the failings identified;
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• remind all open estate staff involved in RMT meetings and PSS3 form completion of the contents of section 8 of the RMT guidance, in relation to prisoners returned to closed conditions, and the importance of properly evidencing and recording decisions taken; and
• share this decision with complaints handling staff at the relevant prisons.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that a prison failed to deal appropriately with his property (a canvas belt and house keys). He said these went missing after he arrived at the prison. He also said that after he was transferred to a second prison, the belt was found but not the keys.

During our investigation we inspected the many cards on which Mr C's property was listed, and found no evidence to show that he ever had house keys. Mr C told us that after he complained, the prisons internal complaints committee allowed him to check his belongings. He said that he saw his belt at this time. However, we noted that the list he signed then did not record any belt. Mr C provided us with evidence to show that he had a belt after he moved to the second prison. On balance, we considered there was evidence showing that the belt was identified later, as staff had originally seen the canvas belt as part of Mr C's rucksack strap, which we considered a reasonable explanation.