Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was being taken to hospital and he asked a prison officer to phone his sister to let her know. The prison officer agreed but another officer then told Mr C it could not be done. Mr C complained that the prison inappropriately failed to action his request.

The prison rules say that if a prisoner becomes seriously ill or is admitted to a medical facility outwith the prison, the governor must, where possible, ask the prisoner if any relative or friend should be informed. The rules also say that if a prisoners wants a relative or friend to be informed then the governor must notify them.

In responding to Mr C's complaint, the prison confirmed that such a request should be actioned but they also said the officer could not recall Mr C making it. We were unable to determine whether or not Mr C did make the request. However, even if he did not make the request, prison rules confirm that steps must be taken to ask a prisoner whether they would like a relative or friend to be informed. That did not happen in Mr C's case and because of that, we upheld his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• remind prison staff of the requirements of the relevant Prison Rule (42).

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a complaint to the governor in which he made an allegation of assault against an officer. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C complained that the prison failed to appropriately communicate the outcome of the investigation to him.

We contacted the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about Mr C's complaint. They confirmed that they contacted the police about the allegation, who discussed it with Mr C, and advised the prison that he had withdrawn his complaint. In addition, CCTV footage was reviewed which showed no assault had taken place. Because of that, the police took no further action and the prison did not conduct an internal investigation because there was no evidence that an assault had taken place. The SPS confirmed Mr C was aware of that through his discussions with the police and with relevant staff.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison lost some of his property. A visitor had handed in clothing and some coat hangers, which the prison logged as received. However, they did not reach Mr C, so he put in a missing property claim. He was unhappy with the outcome and complained to the prison. He was unhappy with their reply, and complained to us. He said that the prison had offered him compensation but that the offer had been withdrawn. He also complained about the time the prison took to consider this.

We found that the claim paperwork showed that the investigating officer had accepted that the items were logged as received by the prison, but not by Mr C. She had, therefore, recommended that compensation was offered. However, the officer who had logged them provided a written statement saying that the items were of a kind not allowed in prison, and were handed back to the visitor. In light of this, Mr C's claim was rejected. Although this decision was then reviewed and reversed, and compensation offered, the prison director opposed the reversal and the offer was then withdrawn again.

After we began our investigation, the prison reviewed their handling of the matter and acknowledged that this took too long. They noted that the main delays were caused by internal disagreements on whether or not to uphold Mr C's claim. They said that this was normal, but conceded that they should have been clearer with Mr C and told him what was happening. In recognition of the time delays, lack of clear evidence, and the complications surrounding the case, they reinstated their compensation offer.

We found that Mr C's property had been logged as received by the prison but not recorded as having been handed back to his visitor. However, the officer responsible had provided a statement saying that the items had been returned. We accepted that some internal disagreement might be reasonably expected where contradictory evidence exists but noted the prison's acknowledgement of their failings during the claim process. We, therefore, upheld Mr C's complaint. However, in light of the steps already taken by the prison to review the matter and reinstate their offer of compensation, we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was removed from his job and allocated another role. He complained about this and was told that the decision had been taken after intelligence was received that indicated he had been involved in subversive activities. Mr C was not happy about this and brought his complaint to us.

The Scottish Prison Service provided us with a copy of the intelligence held on Mr C. We recognised their entitlement to act upon this, and were satisfied that they took their decision to remove Mr C from his job after considering relevant information. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that his family were having trouble booking visits to see him. Visits are arranged by phone, and Mr C felt the system was inadequate. In responding to the complaint, the prison told Mr C that they had recently installed a second phone line to try to improve the system.

As part of our investigation, we asked the prison what action they had taken to monitor the effectiveness of the booking system after installing the new phone line. They said that after receiving a number of complaints about difficulties booking visits, they had installed the second line. Since doing this, they said the number of complaints had reduced. The prison acknowledged that both lines can still be busy at times, especially on Mondays as the lines are closed over the weekend. They explained, however, that when someone gets through they are able to book visits for the week ahead, ie more than one visit can be booked at a time.

From the evidence observed, we were satisfied that the prison had identified a problem with the system and had taken reasonable steps to try to improve it. In the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we told Mr C that he could come back to us if his family continued to experience problems after they had had sufficient opportunity to trial the improved system.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison governor about the monitoring and recording of phone calls to the mobile numbers of two of his legal representatives. Mr C asked us to consider whether the prison had appropriately handled his complaint about this.

In responding to the complaint, the governor specifically referred to one of Mr C’s representatives but not the other. Mr C was not happy with this and felt that his complaint had not been fully addressed. Although the prison acknowledged that this was an oversight on their part, they explained that the position was the same for both individuals. They noted that there had been longstanding correspondence on the matter and that Mr C was aware of the position. Whilst unfortunate, we did not consider that the omission of specific reference to both individuals had a negative impact on Mr C and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there was an unreasonable delay in the risk management team (RMT) identifying that he should participate in further group work. Mr C said he had advised previous RMTs that he had an outstanding need, and that his progression to less secure conditions had been approved by an RMT at a different prison despite this.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we obtained a copy of his most recent RMT referral form. The RMT noted in their decision that new information was discussed and it was agreed that it was not appropriate to progress Mr C at that time. We asked the prison what new information was discussed. The prison confirmed that when Mr C transferred from another prison, his risk assessment was out of date. Because of that, an up-to-date risk assessment was carried out before the RMT considered Mr C for progression. The risk assessment identified him as being a moderate risk of re-offending. In addition, Mr C had previously participated in programme work but the post-programme report noted that he had not had the opportunity to address an element of this, which should be addressed in further treatment. Because of that, the RMT decided they could not support Mr C's progression to less secure conditions until he had addressed his outstanding need.

We noted that an up-to-date risk assessment was completed, and referral to the RMT happened, within eight months of Mr C arriving at the prison. Because of that, we did not agree that there had been an unreasonable delay.

Summary

Mr C complained that a prison officer had written comments about inappropriate behaviour in Mr C's record. Mr C thought that the comments would have an adverse effect on his prospects, for example, with the Parole Board.

We were satisfied, from relevant Scottish Prison Service guidance, that it was appropriate and, in fact, expected that prison officers would record their observations about prisoners. The guidance made it clear that such comments were part of a wide range of information, collected from a range of sources and considered as part of a whole, rather than in isolation. The form on which the comments were written also had text printed across the top to the effect that any information on the form would be seen as a contribution and not assessed in isolation. We took the view that the officer had not acted inappropriately in recording the comments and that they should not, in isolation, affect Mr C's prospects.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was attending a course in prison. He considered that the course facilitator was not supportive when he had particular difficulties at one session. He also complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s reply to his complaint had inappropriately criticised him.

Our investigation concluded that the facilitator's actions had been reasonable. For example, Mr C had said the facilitator did not visit him afterwards to see how he was, but the SPS guidance does not require or expect this. We also noted that, as he had expressed a lack of trust in the psychology department during the session, it was arranged for the head of psychology and another psychologist to visit him a couple of days later. The SPS had had difficulties in managing Mr C's behaviour over a period of time, and against that background we considered that it was reasonable for their reply to suggest that he had a poor attitude to custody.

Summary

The programmes case management board (PCMB) is a group of prison staff who decide in which offending behaviour programmes a prisoner should participate. Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that communication of the PCMB's decision that he should take part in the Controlling Anger and Regulating Emotions (CARE) programme was unreasonable. In particular, he said that in responding to his complaint, the internal complaints committee (ICC)'s written response contained inaccurate information; the head of psychology had provided inconsistent information; and he had not been provided with a copy of a minute from the PCMB's discussion.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we found that the inaccurate information from the ICC had been the result of a typing error. We were satisfied that their investigation of Mr C's complaint was correct and based on information from him. On the information provided by the head of psychology, Mr C said he felt this was contradictory. However, our investigation found that there was sufficient evidence available to the PCMB to support their decision. We noted that the final decision on whether or not a prisoner is required to participate in a programme lies with the PCMB and we cannot question that decision.

Finally, we also looked at Mr C's concern that he had not been provided with a copy of a minute from the PCMB's discussion. The prison advised us that when the PCMB initially considered Mr C's case in December 2011, they decided that he should participate in three programmes. The discussion was minuted, and Mr C received a copy. He completed the first programme and went on to complete the second. Following that, the PCMB met again in December 2012. They discussed Mr C's participation in the second programme, and decided that he would still be required to participate in CARE. The prison said this meeting did not need to be minuted as the PCMB's decision that Mr C would be required to participate in CARE was originally communicated to him in December 2011. Instead, the outcome was recorded on Mr C's electronic prison record and the outcome communicated to him. In light of that, and the information obtained from our investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.