Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to remove his access to enhanced personal training (PT). This is a privilege that prisoners are able to access if they behave appropriately, attend work regularly and remain free from drugs. Mr C said the criteria for access to enhanced PT was to remain free from a positive drug test and not to incur any breaches of discipline. Mr C said he had not received either. In addition, prisoners were only allowed to miss one session of enhanced PT in a two week period and only genuine reasons for this were accepted (such as illness, attendance at court or a bereavement).

The prison said that Mr C had been removed from association with other prisoners for a month due to suspected bullying. He had been placed in the segregation unit and was unable to attend enhanced PT. In addition, the prison explained that the behaviour that led to his removal from association was considered to be unacceptable, and because of that, Mr C's access to enhanced PT was removed. The prison also amended the criteria to confirm that prisoners removed from normal circulation would have their access to enhanced PT removed for a period of two months.

It was clear the prison found Mr C's behaviour unacceptable and because of that his access to enhanced PT was removed. Based on the evidence available, we were satisfied that the prison appropriately exercised their discretion in deciding to remove Mr C's access to enhanced PT and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that his partner had been banned from visiting him in prison. We were already investigating a complaint about a similar matter. When we receive complaints about the same matter from more than one person, we normally take one case that is generally representative of the complaint and investigate that. This is called the lead case. On this occasion, we decided that the complaint we were already investigating would be the lead case and that it would not be appropriate to investigate a further complaint about this from Mr C.

Mr C also complained about the way in which the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled matters when he tried to complain about this. The legislation that we operate under (the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman Act 2002) says we cannot normally investigate complaints until they have been through the whole complaints process of the organisation complained about, unless it is not reasonable to expect this to have happened. Mr C had raised some serious allegations and we considered that the SPS needed to be given the opportunity to respond to these. We told him that he should make a formal complaint to them and that if he remained dissatisfied after receiving their response, he could bring the complaint to us.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison's decision to remove his hi-fi was unreasonable. He said he had used the same hi-fi for many years. In response to Mr C's complaint, the prison said he could not have his hi-fi in use because it had a recording facility in it. They said Mr C would have to get this facility removed before he could have his hi-fi back.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we reviewed several prisoner notices and the Scottish Prison Service's (SPS) electronic equipment protocol. The notices clearly stated that prisoners would need to pay to have recording facilities removed from any electrical equipment. In addition, the SPS protocol confirmed that prisoners would not be allowed to use hi-fis that had recording facilities. The prison confirmed that Mr C could have his hi-fi back in use if he paid to have the recording facility removed, but that, so far, Mr C had refused to do that.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there was unreasonable delay in the prison generically assessing him. A generic assessment is carried out on individual prisoners to identify whether or not they are required to complete offence-focused programmes. In investigating Mr C's complaint, we were satisfied that he had been generically assessed in line with the prison's process and there was no evidence of an unreasonable delay.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were failing to credit money, handed in for him, to his account within a reasonable timescale. We asked the prison to tell us what the process was. They confirmed that money handed in for a prisoner would be credited to their account the following day with the exception of Friday and Saturday. Money handed in on those days would be credited to a prisoner's account on the following Monday. Having considered the information available, we did not agree with Mr C that the prison were failing to credit money to a prisoner's account within a reasonable timescale and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about a delay in getting onto a behaviour-related course which he had been identified as needing. He was concerned that the delay could hold up his progression to more open prison conditions.

From previous complaints, we were aware that since a new type of assessment for courses had been introduced throughout the Scottish Prison Service, there was a backlog of people waiting for courses. This assessment was intended to benefit prisoners longer term but, in the meantime, the sudden high demand for courses had created a backlog. We were satisfied that the prison were doing what they could to prioritise places fairly and improve the situation. Therefore, although there was a delay in Mr C's case, we did not consider that the prison had acted unreasonably in relation to him.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison delayed in assessing him for offending behaviour coursework. The prison explained that they prioritise prisoners in line with their key progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions) dates. They assured him that he was on the waiting list and would be assessed in due course.

Our investigation found that Mr C had since been interviewed by the psychology team, so had now started the assessment process. We noted that he was not eligible for parole for over two years and that there was, therefore, sufficient time for him to access any required coursework. As we could see no evidence of unreasonable delay, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to make appropriate arrangements for him to attend his brother’s funeral. In replying to his complaint, the SPS said that they had been told that the funeral was on a particular day, and that they had booked an escort to take him to the funeral on that day. They said that Mr C had later told them that the funeral was the day before, but as he only told them this on the morning of the funeral they were unable to arrange an escort for him to attend.

The prison rules are clear - they say that the governor of a prison may grant escorted day absence for a prisoner to attend the funeral of a near relative on the written application of the prisoner, providing the governor is satisfied that the purpose of the application is genuine and appropriate. During our investigation, the SPS sent us evidence that indicated that they might have received the wrong information about the day of the funeral from Mr C’s family. However, there was no evidence that Mr C was asked to make a written application for escorted day absence in line with the prison rules. We found that the problem might have been prevented and that he might have been able to attend his brother’s funeral had he been asked to submit a written application.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• take steps to ensure that the procedure for granting escorted day absence is in line with the prison rules and the relevant Direction by Scottish Ministers; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failure to adhere to the prison rules on escorted day absence in relation to his brother’s funeral.

Summary

Mr C was spoken to by prison officers when he visited his friend in prison. He was told that a member of staff had said that his behaviour made them uncomfortable. He later phoned the prison governor to complain and then wrote to him about the matter. He considered that the governor’s response did not adequately address his complaints.

We upheld two of Mr C's three complaints. We found that the governor had issued a response after speaking to Mr C, but before he received his written complaint. Although the governor did not consider that the written complaint raised any new concerns, we found that the initial response did not adequately address some of the issues Mr C raised. At the very least, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) should have contacted Mr C to check if he wanted a further response in addition to the initial response. The governor also failed to address these issues in further responses to Mr C.

Mr C also said that the governor failed to provide him with accurate information in his responses. We did not find any evidence of this. However, Mr C said that the SPS held a file which incorrectly said that he was a registered sex offender. We did not find any evidence of a file, but in their response to our enquiries, the SPS told us that Mr C was a registered sex offender. However, they subsequently confirmed that this was incorrect.

Mr C was warned about comments that he made in correspondence about a member of staff. He continued to make comments about the member of staff and the governor told him that he would no longer be able to visit any prisoner in the prison. The decision to ban Mr C from visiting the prison was one that the SPS were entitled to take (ie a discretionary decision). The SPSO Act says that we cannot question discretionary decisions when there is no evidence of administrative error. We found no evidence of administrative error by the SPS in reaching that decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• issue a written apology for the failure to adequately address Mr C's complaint;
• make the relevant staff aware of our finding on this matter;
• review the case to identify how they can prevent inaccurate information from being recorded about ex-prisoners in similar circumstances; and
• issue a written apology for incorrectly stating that Mr C was a registered sex offender.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to comply with their statutory and procedural duties to him as a disabled prisoner. However, Mr C was freed from prison whilst we were investigating his complaint and did not provide us with a contact address. The SPS were also unable to provide a contact address and we had no option but to close our file on his case.