Prisons

Summary

Mr C complained that he had regularly asked staff at his prison for a transfer to another prison, but this had not taken place. Mr C said that prison officers took other prisoners from their cells at night and gave them weapons with a view to letting them into his cell to assault him. Mr C said the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to appropriately investigate his allegations. Mr C also said that the SPS unreasonably failed to consider his complaints confidentially.

Whilst we appreciated that Mr C said that he requested a transfer on several occasions, there was no documentary evidence of his request until he made his complaint to the SPS. The SPS then appeared to have dealt with his transfer request in line with their normal procedure. On balance, we were unable to determine that there were unreasonable delays in the SPS's handling of Mr C's request to be transferred and we did not uphold his complaint.

In terms of Mr C's complaint that prison officers took other prisoners from their cells at night and gave them weapons with a view to letting them into his cell to assault him, whilst we appreciated Mr C's strong concerns about this issue, the CCTV and documentary evidence available suggested that the SPS did not unreasonably fail to appropriately investigate Mr C's serious allegations and there was no evidence to support his assertion. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. However, we were very concerned that the SPS failed to make evidence in this case (CCTV footage of one of the dates in question) available to us and as a result we made two recommendations for action by the SPS regarding this matter.

We also found that the SPS did not unreasonably fail to consider Mr C's complaint confidentially and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise in writing to Mr C for failing to provide us with CCTV footage relating to a particular date.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff must retain CCTV footage on complaints, in line with the SPS CCTV Code of Practice 2009.

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 SPS had inappropriately failed to pay him the correct wage. He said his wage had been cut from £13 to £7.

The information available confirmed that Mr C had been receiving a weekly wage of £13 for working full time in the kitchen. However, he then transferred to another prison. He was returned from that prison a few weeks later because of poor behaviour and he was assigned a part-time role in the kitchen and he received a payment of £7 per week. Mr C was also able to supplement his wage through attending education.

We were satisfied the Mr C was being paid appropriately by the SPS in line with their wage earning policy and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to follow relevant procedures to ensure his safety in a shared cell. In particular, he said that he should not have had to share a cell with a prisoner whom he alleged had attacked him. Mr C said that he had raised concerns about this prisoner but that no action was taken.

We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the SPS had followed the correct procedures prior to reaching their decision that Mr C was required to share a cell with another prisoner and that the situation was regularly assessed. We found no evidence that Mr C had raised concerns about the prisoner and did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to take reasonable action in relation to his access to home leave. He was also dissatisfied with the way in which the SPS dealt with his complaint. We did not reach a decision on Mr C's complaint as he was released from prison and did not provide a forwarding address or confirm that he wished us to continue investigating his complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about how his generic assessment had been carried out. A generic assessment is carried out to determine what work programmes prisoners should carry out in order to progress through the prison system. Mr C complained that he had been recommended to take part in a programme without input from psychologists and which he had already completed.

We found that the Scottish Prison Service had followed the correct process in assessing Mr C. We found that the decision reached about what programmes Mr C was suitable for included the Head of Psychology and that reasonable suggestions were put forward to support him during the programme. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that she had been unfairly and wrongfully found guilty of breaching prison rules at a disciplinary hearing. She said a number of errors were made. In their response to Ms C's appeal, the SPS agreed that the correct procedures were not followed in her case. However, they said that the finding was based on evidence that proved Ms C was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Ms C's appeal was not upheld.

When we received Ms C's complaint we asked the SPS to review the matter and to confirm to us whether they were satisfied that the finding of guilt in Ms C's case should stand, despite the failings that had been acknowledged in her appeal. We also pointed out that the appeal paperwork did not show that the internal complaints committee, who considered Ms C's appeal, consisted of the appropriate members as per the prison rules.

The SPS confirmed to us that they reviewed the matter and that they found a host of procedural errors. The SPS said that the finding of guilt against Ms C would be overturned and that the charge would be removed from her record.

We were satisfied that this outcome meant that Ms C's complaint had been resolved.

Summary

Mr C complained that, as a protection prisoner, he was not being given reasonable opportunities to apply for a work party with enhanced wages. He specifically noted that a new enhanced work party had been created and two protection prisoners had joined this, without the opportunity being opened up to all protection prisoners.

The prison explained that the new work party was previously being run as an education class and a decision was taken to convert it to a work party on account of the work that was being produced. As such, it was considered appropriate to offer the roles to existing members of the education class who were already carrying out the work.

We were satisfied that this was a discretionary decision that the prison were entitled to take. The prison assured us that any future vacancies on the work party would be advertised. We concluded that the prison acted reasonably in the circumstances and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he was not given the opportunity to apply for a position within a new work party that was created in his prison because the post was not advertised. He said that this was contrary to the labour allocation policy procedures. Mr C also raised concerns that the wage earning policy did not cover the amount that was being paid to the work party.

We found that, while it is local practice at this prison to advertise vacancies, it is not mandatory. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service has confirmed that because of the success of a former education class, a decision was taken by the prison's management team to ensure consistency and offer the full time positions to those already carrying out these duties. We concluded that this was a discretionary decision the prison staff were entitled to make and we considered their actions reasonable.

We also found that there was no evidence that the prison failed to follow the guidance in place for the work party's rate of earnings and bonuses.

Summary

Mr C complained that upon transferring from one prison to another, an item of his property went missing. He reported this to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) but felt that they failed to appropriately investigate the matter. SPS noted that the item was not on Mr C's property card. Mr C did not see how this was possible, noting that he had been using the item in his cell for over three years.

SPS informed us that Mr C could have been using the item without it forming part of his formal property. They explained that prisoners often share or exchange items, or donate items to other prisoners prior to being liberated, and that these practices went on outwith the recognised property process. They acknowledged that the matter was investigated under their complaints process when it should have been considered in line with their claim process. Nonetheless, they were satisfied that the matter had been appropriately investigated.

We considered that the evidence demonstrated that the SPS thoroughly investigated the whereabouts of the missing item. While we noted that the recognised lost property claim process was not utilised, we were satisfied that the issues raised were thoroughly explored. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that prison staff had inappropriately opened an item of his mail. Prison staff may open mail sent to prisoners when they consider they have reasonable cause to do so. However, the prison told us that staff had not opened the item of mail. We did not consider that there was sufficient evidence that staff had opened the mail and therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained that staff had searched him with unreasonable frequency. The searching of prisoners is a discretionary issue for prison staff. We are unable to question discretionary decisions made by prison staff unless there is evidence of maladministration. In the absence of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the prison had reduced his wages. We found that although there had been a considerable reduction in Mr C's wages, this had been due to a reduction in the hours he worked, to his original role having been made redundant and replaced with a new role, and to a prisoner wage review. We were satisfied that Mr C was being paid the appropriate rate for his job in the prison. We did not uphold the complaint.

Finally, Mr C complained about the member of staff appointed to chair two of his internal complaints committees. We found that this had been a discretionary decision for the prison to make, and we therefore did not uphold this complaint.