Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, purchased footwear over a year ago through the prison's local process for purchasing mail order goods. Mr C was not allowed the footwear when it was delivered to the prison as staff identified it as a pair of boots, and not training shoes as described by Mr C on the order form. Mr C complained that the order form had been approved by the prison. In addition, he said that there were difficulties returning the footwear as the prison had destroyed the packaging.

In response to the complaint, the prison advised Mr C that the footwear was not on the approved list of items that prisoners were allowed to have in use and whilst the order form specified training shoes, they were more like a boot and came over the ankle. The prison explained that reception staff did not always have the time to check every order number against the description in the catalogue before the article arrives at the prison and is examined by staff before issue. The prison also highlighted that the footwear was a security risk as there was potential for weapons to be easily concealed within it.

Our investigation found that the governor of the prison has responsibility for the security and good order of the prison. Under section 47(2)(a) of the Prison and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011, for security purposes the governor has the discretion to refuse a prisoner any items of property. We also considered that the prison acted in line with their policy on articles that were allowed in use. Although we acknowledged Mr C's dissatisfaction about the packaging being destroyed by the prison when the footwear arrived, the mail order company have a flexible returns policy and there was no evidence that Mr C had attempted to return the footwear. The Scottish Prison Service have limited resources and we considered it would be disproportionate for staff to be able to give complete approval for items ordered until such time that they can be fully checked on arrival at the prison. We concluded that the prison acted reasonably but asked that they consider including additional information on their articles in use list to on the types of footwear that are not permitted with the prison.

Recommendations

We recommended that the prison:

• review their articles in use list with a view to including information on the types of footwear that are not allowed in use within the prison.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the delay in allocating him to a rehabilitation course. Mr C was unhappy that the course he was scheduled to attend did not go ahead and that the proposed rescheduled date would impact on his chances of early release on parole licence. When the parole board met to discuss Mr C’s case, they acknowledged that he needed to undertake the course and be tested in open conditions before being considered for release. A further parole hearing was, therefore, arranged several months later to allow for this.

Our investigation found that the prison were unable to run the course when they said they would because there were not enough participants for it to go ahead. The prison explained that on average, there is a 20 percent drop-out rate and that all courses are terminated when reduced to four participants. The option of completing the course in another prison or in the community was considered but this was not possible. The prison, therefore, took steps to interview individuals for the course over a six week period. This resulted in more participants being identified and allowed the course to start about eight weeks later.

Mr C completed the course three months later and his review by the parole board was brought forward by a couple of months where his release on parole licence was approved. Being mindful that the prison have limited resources, in Mr C's case we did not consider it was unreasonable for the prison to reschedule the course because it needed more participants. We also found that the eight week delay was not in itself unreasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison that the lunchtime meal had been adulterated (made impure or inferior by adding foreign substances) and was excessively salty. In taking his complaint to the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC), Mr C requested to call the catering manager as a witness. This request was refused, but the ICC chair then proceeded to speak to the requested witness about the complaint. The ICC concluded that food provision was of a good standard and that there were robust procedures in place to minimise the risk of adulteration.

Mr C complained to us that his witness request was improperly refused as he had relevant and potentially important evidence. He also complained that the prison had failed to explain the measures that were in place to minimise the risk of food adulteration.

We observed that the prison rules allow the ICC chair to refuse witness requests only where they are satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give would be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. In this instance, as the ICC had later discussed the complaint with the requested witness, we could not agree that they were of no relevance or value. We, therefore, concluded that the refusal of the request was inappropriate. We also considered that it would have been appropriate for the prison to have explained the precautionary procedures referred to in their response. In the circumstances, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• remind staff acting as ICC chairpersons of their duties under Rule 123(7) to refuse witness requests only where they are satisfied that the witness will be of no relevance or value to the consideration of the complaint;
• advise staff acting as ICC chairpersons that, where relevant, it would be good practice for them to record their reasons for refusing requests to call witnesses;
• issue a fuller response to Mr C's complaint, ensuring that they explain the procedures in place to minimise the risk of food adulteration; and
• apologise to Mr C for the inappropriate handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison after his study application was refused. In taking his complaint to the internal complaints committee (ICC), he asked to call the chair of the Higher Education Access Board (HEAB) as a witness. The ICC chair refused this request but later appeared to have discussed the complaint with the requested witness.

Mr C complained to us that there was no proper basis for refusing his witness request. He also complained that the reason for doing so was not explained to him. We noted that the prison rules allow the ICC chair to refuse witness requests only where they are satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give would be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. In this instance, as the ICC had later discussed the complaint with the requested witness, we could not agree that they were of no relevance or value. We, therefore, concluded that the refusal of the request was inappropriate. We also considered that it would have been good practice for the ICC chair to have recorded the reason for refusal on the complaint form. In the circumstances, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• remind staff acting as ICC chairpersons of their duties under Rule 123(7) to refuse witness requests only where they are satisfied that the witness will be of no relevance or value to the consideration of the complaint;
• advise staff acting as ICC chairpersons that, where relevant, it would be good practice for them to record their reasons for refusing requests to call witnesses; and
• apologise to Mr C for the inappropriate handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about a delay in getting on to a particular behaviour course in prison. He thought the delay might hold up his release from prison. From previous complaints, we were aware that the Scottish Prison Service were dealing with a temporary backlog of people waiting for courses since a new type of assessment of suitability for courses had been introduced. The new assessment was intended to benefit prisoners by combining various assessments into one.

From our investigation, we were satisfied that the prison were doing what they could to prioritise places fairly and improve the situation. For example, they had tried to arrange for some prisoners to attend a course at another prison. Therefore, although there were delays, we did not consider that the prison had acted unreasonably in relation to Mr C and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy that he was not allowed to use puzzle books that were handed into the prison for him by a friend.

Our investigation found that prisoners are not allowed to have reading materials handed in for them by family or friends. This is because it is possible for prohibited items to be hidden in the pages of reading materials. Instead, prisoners must purchase reading materials themselves through the prison's approved supplier scheme. By only allowing reading materials purchased through that scheme, the prison are able to increase the security and good order of the establishment. In addition, the prison rules confirm that the governor could refuse to allow a prisoner to have in their possession or keep in their cell any items that the governor considered to be damaging to the security and good order of the prison.

We were satisfied the prison had appropriately exercised its discretion in taking the decision not to allow Mr C to have access to the puzzle books handed in for him by his friend and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that an officer delivered an item of his mail to another prisoner's cell. In taking his complaint to the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC), Mr C requested to call the prison's data controller as a witness. This request was refused, but the ICC chair then proceeded to speak to the requested witness about the complaint.

Mr C complained to us that his witness request was improperly refused as the data controller had an input into the resolution of the underlying problem. He also complained that, despite the prison having acknowledged the misdelivery of his mail, he had not received an apology.

We found that the prison rules allow the ICC chair to refuse witness requests only where they are satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give would be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. In this instance, as the ICC had later discussed the complaint with the requested witness, we could not agree that they were of no relevance or value. We, therefore, concluded that the refusal of the request was inappropriate. We also considered that the prison should have apologised to Mr C for misdelivering his mail. In the circumstances, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• remind staff acting as ICC chairpersons of their duties under Rule 123(7) to refuse witness requests only where they are satisfied that the witness will be of no relevance or value to the consideration of the complaint;
• advise staff acting as ICC chairpersons that, where relevant, it would be good practice for them to record their reasons for refusing requests to call witnesses;
• apologise to Mr C for the inappropriate handling of his complaint; and
• apologise to Mr C for delivering his mail to the wrong cell.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison that they unnecessarily delayed in processing his request for additional phone credits. He took his complaint to the prison's internal complaints committee (ICC), and requested to call as a witness the manager who had been responsible for handling his request. The ICC chair refused this witness request but then proceeded to speak to the manager about the complaint.

Mr C complained to us that his witness request was improperly refused as the manager was relevant to his complaint. In addition, as the ICC's response merely noted that the manager had by then responded to the complaint, Mr C complained that they failed to address his complaint of delay.

We upheld Mr C's complaint. Our investigation found that the prison rules allow the ICC chair to refuse witness requests only where they are satisfied that the evidence the witness is likely to give would be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. In this instance, as the ICC had subsequently discussed the complaint with the requested witness, we could not agree that they were of no relevance or value. We, therefore, concluded that the refusal of the request was inappropriate. We also noted that the complaint concerned an alleged delay but the ICC response made no reference to timescales. As such, we considered that the complaint response was inadequate.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• remind staff acting as ICC chairpersons of their duties under Rule 123(7) to refuse witness requests only where they are satisfied that the witness will be of no relevance or value to the consideration of the complaint;
• advise staff acting as ICC chairpersons that, where relevant, it would be good practice for them to record their reasons for refusing requests to call witnesses;
• issue a fuller response to Mr C's complaint, ensuring that they address his complaint of delay; and
• apologise to Mr C for the inappropriate handling of his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to reduce his wage banding (prisoners' work output is assessed against three performance standards). Mr C said he produced good quality work and he felt he should be on the higher banding. In their response to his complaint, the prison told Mr C that his wage had been reduced because of the quality of his work, and said that staff were entitled to move prisoners within the performance bandings. In response to our investigation, the prison explained that prisoners could be promoted or demoted depending on their work standards, behaviour, attendance etc. The prison confirmed that this also acted as a motivational tool for prisoners. They said that Mr C had been demoted because they felt the quality of his work could be improved. We did not uphold the complaint, as we were satisfied the prison had made their decision appropriately, after considering the relevant information.

Mr C also complained that the internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to consider his complaint appropriately. He said the ICC did not meet with him to discuss his complaint. We found, however, that the ICC tried twice to meet with Mr C to discuss his complaint, but Mr C chose not to meet them because he was at work. Because of this, they discussed Mr C's complaint in his absence. In the circumstances, we were satisfied that the ICC considered Mr C's complaint appropriately.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a request to be transferred to another European country to serve the remainder of his sentence. He complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing his application.

Our investigation found that the evidence showed that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) sent Mr C's application and the required documentation to the relevant European authority in April 2011. When they heard nothing after four months, they contacted the authority again and there was correspondence between them about what was needed to effect the transfer. More recently, however, the SPS had tried several times to contact the authority to try to progress Mr C's application, but had received no response. Mr C is not a national of the country involved, and because of that the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (international guidance on transferring prisoners to their home countries) does not apply in his case. This meant that there was little more the SPS could do to progress this.

We recognised that Mr C's application had been ongoing for some time but found that the SPS had been taking steps to try and progress matters, despite there being no obligation on them to do so. In light of this information, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.