Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained after the prison took the decision to place him under restraint, using a body belt. He said that the decision was unnecessary and that he was held under restraint for more than 12 hours without approval from Scottish Ministers. He also complained that prison staff failed to appropriately observe him whilst he was under restraint, and that he was unreasonably denied access to toilet and water breaks.

Our investigation found that the prison were authorised by prison rules to place Mr C under restraint. The prison explained that they decided to do that because he was continuously harming himself and refusing medical treatment. We cannot question a decision that the prison were entitled to take, unless there is evidence to show us they failed to do something properly in reaching that decision. Mr C did not agree with the decision, but that was not a reason for us to uphold this complaint.

In looking at the period of time Mr C was held under restraint, the prison rules say a prisoner cannot be placed under restraint for more than 12 hours without Scottish Ministers’ authority. The prison held Mr C under restraint for more than 12 hours without seeking that permission. They identified this error before Mr C complained, and took steps to review the process and ensure staff were aware of it. In addition, the prison rules confirm that an officer must monitor a prisoner continuously while they are held under restraint. The prison said that this happened in Mr C’s case, but he disputed this. There was no closed-circuit television evidence available for us to see, but documented evidence in the form of log sheets confirmed that staff generally recorded information about Mr C’s behaviour at least once every 15 minutes. However, the prison were unable to provide evidence that he was checked between 19:30 and 22:00. Without that, we could not reach a fully formed decision as to whether Mr C was continuously monitored, but it meant that the evidence did not show that he was. Mr C also said he was denied toilet and water breaks whilst wearing the restraint. The documented evidence indicated that he was provided with a drink and access to the toilet only once and in our view, that was unacceptable. In light of our findings, we upheld all of these complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• apologise to Mr C for inappropriately failing to seek the required permission to hold him in the restraint for more than 12 hours;
• ensure written records are maintained for the entire time period that a prisoner is kept in restraints; and
• ask the prison to advise staff that when a prisoner is being held in a restraint, they should be offered access to water and the toilet regularly, and this should be appropriately documented.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, progressed to the national top end (NTE) in January 2012. This is a less secure prison facility, to which prisoners can progress before moving to open prison conditions. The risk management team (RMT) there were concerned that Mr C had not been assessed for offence-related programme work prior to his progression. They decided he should be assessed before they made any decisions about his progression. The assessment identified that he should participate in outstanding programme work and because of this, he was returned to a secure prison to complete it. Mr C complained about being returned to a secure prison because he said the RMT there had approved his progression. He could not understand why he was now being asked to participate in further programme work when he had been told that he had completed everything he was required to. Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to manage his progression to the NTE appropriately. He also said the SPS’ handling of his complaints was unreasonable.

The SPS introduced their generic assessment process at the end of March 2011. Prisons across Scotland were told they should use that process to assess individual prisoners’ needs for suitable programmes. We asked the SPS whether Mr C was assessed by the secure prison before he progressed to the NTE. They said he was not, because the process was not in place there. The evidence we saw confirmed that Mr C should have been assessed and given the opportunity to complete identified programmes before he was progressed to less secure conditions. Because of that, we upheld his complaint.

We also upheld Mr C’s complaint about the SPS’ handling of his complaints. He submitted a number of complaints to the secure prison, raising the same concerns about his progression and asking for explanations about what had happened. The evidence we saw suggested that the prison only responded to a couple of Mr C’s complaints, and did not adequately address the issues he raised. They should have carefully investigated these issues and provided a full and detailed response. Had they done so, this might have prevented Mr C from having to refer his complaint to us.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified with the prison's handling of his sentence management; and
• apologise to Mr C for failing to adequately address the complaints he raised about his progression.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained there was an unreasonable delay in the prison finalising his report after he completed a treatment programme. Mr C said the delay in completing the report meant he was prevented from undertaking any further work required before the parole board review his case.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us that Mr C's report should have been finalised 16 weeks after he completed the programme. However, it had still not been completed four months after that. They explained that the facilitators were new to delivering the programme, and writing reports, and that this had impacted on timescales. In addition, before a decision could be reached on whether Mr C was required to undertake further programme work, his completed report needed to be considered by the prison's programmes case management board (PCMB).

As Mr C's case is due to be considered by the parole board in early 2014, we agreed the delay in completing his report was unreasonable. We upheld his complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• complete Mr C's report as a matter of urgency and ensure it is ready to be considered by the PCMB without further delay; and
• prioritise Mr C's access to any further programme work that may be identified by the PCMB.

Summary

Mr C is the solicitor of a prisoner with a disability (Mr A). Mr C complained that the prison would not arrange for members of staff to assist Mr A in moving round the prison. The prison said arrangements were in place for another prisoner to do so, but Mr A did not feel safe with this and believed that the prison were failing in their duty of care towards him.

The prison informed us that the arrangements in place involved Mr A being assisted by another prisoner who had undertaken appropriate training. They advised that this task would be carried out in the presence of a prison officer. They confirmed that the prison rules allow the governor to require a prisoner to work in the service of another prisoner. They, therefore, concluded that a prisoner could be tasked with this, provided that their suitability had been assessed and health and safety and training issues considered.

We did not uphold the complaint, as we were satisfied that the prison were entitled to have a suitable and appropriately trained prisoner carry out the task of assisting Mr A. We noted that, in terms of Mr A's concerns for his safety, a member of staff would always be present when this task was being carried out. We noted Mr A's dissatisfaction with the arrangements, but did not consider that this, in itself, provided evidence of maladministration or service failure.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he had been unable to attend a course which he needed to do before being considered for parole in a few months' time. We did not uphold his complaint, as we knew from other complaints that there was a long waiting list for the course in question. We were satisfied that the prison were acting in accordance with prison policy in calculating Mr C's position on the waiting list and in not having been able to guarantee a place in time for his parole hearing.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was deselected from the violence prevention programme at his prison following a dispute with the programme's facilitators at one specific session. Mr C also complained that prison staff failed to investigate his complaint adequately.

Our investigation found that Mr C was not deselected solely because of an incident at one specific session, but due to his failure to participate meaningfully in the programme over a period of time. We also found that prison staff looked at relevant evidence during the investigation of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service had delayed in transferring him back to the prison he had previously been in. Mr C told us that he was transferred out of the prison for what was intended to be a 12-week period, but his return there was then delayed. His family were unable to visit him because the other prison was too far away. During our investigation, however, Mr C was transferred back to his original prison. He told us that in view of this, he wanted to withdraw his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had sent the parole board a report containing incorrect information, specifically that he had not undertaken any educational work. He also felt that they had provided the board with irrelevant intelligence (adverse information obtained by the prison that affects an individual prisoner). He claimed that the report reduced his chances of a fair hearing and having parole granted.

In response to Mr C's concerns about the educational work, the prison sent a supplementary report to the parole board to correct the information they originally provided. However, they maintained that the intelligence and factual information they provided to the parole board had to be disclosed.

We concluded that the prison had taken appropriate and prompt action to provide the information that was not initially given about Mr C's educational work. This ensured that the parole board had the correct information at his hearing. We did not identify any other inconsistencies and considered that the prison had acted appropriately in disclosing the intelligence information to the board in line with relevant guidance.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison failed to take reasonable steps to improve television reception. He said his in-cell signal was poor and although repair work had been carried out, the problem was not fixed.

The prison told us that the repair work indicated that the system was operating appropriately. They said that their location and other factors, such as weather, impacted upon reception and because of that, there was only so much that could be done to try to improve this. We were satisfied the prison took reasonable and appropriate steps to address this, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the prison wrongly refused to issue his writing materials to him. In particular, he requested a packet of carbon paper and an eraser. The prison told Mr C that he would not be allowed the carbon paper because prisoners were not allowed to use it.

Our investigation found that the governor is authorised to refuse to allow a prisoner to have items of property in use if they feel any item of property affects the security of the prison. In Mr C's case, the prison had decided that carbon paper was an unauthorised item. They also told us that Mr C would be allowed to have the eraser when his current one needed replaced. In light of this, we did not agree that the prison had wrongly refused to issue Mr C's writing materials.

Mr C also said the prison did not respond appropriately to his complaint. We found that there was a short delay in his complaint form being returned but we were satisfied the prison had responded properly.