Prisons

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was on a placement outwith the prison. Staff conducted a search at his placement and Mr C was found with items that he was not authorised to have. Mr C was reported on suspicion of breaching prison rules. He was found guilty at an orderly room hearing (an internal hearing held to determine whether a prisoner has broken prison rules and to impose an appropriate punishment if proven).

Mr C complained to the prison about several administrative aspects of the hearing. The prison did not uphold his complaint. Mr C then complained to us that the orderly room hearing was held outwith the appropriate timescale.

When we investigated this, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) reviewed Mr C's complaint. They  found that he should not have been placed on report for a suspected breach of prison rules for an incident that occurred outwith the prison environment. The SPS told us that the orderly room process existed to investigate suspected breaches of discipline within the prison environment. Because of this, the SPS confirmed that the orderly room decision to find Mr C guilty could not stand. They quashed Mr C's orderly room finding and withdrew the punishment.

Because the SPS acknowledged that the orderly room process was not appropriate in Mr C's case, we upheld his complaint. However, as the SPS also took action to sort this out, we did not make any recommendation. The SPS alsoreminded the staff involved in Mr C's case that the orderly room process can only be used when a prisoner is suspected of breaching prison rules within the prison environment.

Clarification

Since we published this finding, the SPS have provided further clarification. Our decision letter said that the decision taken by the SPS to quash Mr C’s guilty finding was taken because he could not be placed on report for a suspected breach of prison rules when the incident that led to the suspected breach took place out with the prison environment. That was not the case. The correct position is that while a prisoner is on temporary release (in the community on a work placement), he is subject to his license conditions but this does not include the rule that Mr C was suspected of breaching – being found with items that he was not authorised to have in his possession. The SPS clarified that items can only be authorised or unauthorised within the prison and Mr C’s license conditions did not specify about the possession of such items. That is why the decision was taken by the SPS to quash Mr C’s orderly room finding. However, this clarification does not affect the outcome of this case, which we upheld because the SPS in this instance nevertheless incorrectly applied the orderly room process. The complainant has been informed of this clarification.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the way the prison were managing him. Mr C said he was a short-term prisoner but the prison were managing him as a long-term prisoner. Mr C also said he had been inappropriately subjected to a generic assessment which was normally only carried out on long-term prisoners. A generic assessment identifies whether or not a prisoner should participate in offending behaviour programmes.

Our enquiries with the prison confirmed that Mr C was sentenced to four years and four months in prison. In line with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)' normal policy, those sentenced to four years or more are classed as long-term prisoners and those sentenced to four years or less as short-term prisoners. Mr C was released from prison after serving half of his sentence but was then recalled to custody to serve the remainder of his sentence. Because Mr C's original sentence was more than four years, he was again managed by SPS as a long-term prisoner when he returned to prison. Mr C's situation was complicated by the fact that before his original sentence expired he was sentenced to a further six months and 32 months. That meant that when his original sentence expired, Mr C then became a short-term prisoner. In relation to the generic assessment, the relevant guidance confirmed that a prisoner can be the subject of a generic assessment if it appears that their level of risk of reoffending indicates that they would benefit from completing offending behaviour programmes. The prison also told us that Mr C consented to being generically assessed.

In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint and we were satisfied that he was being managed appropriately by the prison.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that when he reported that he was unable to attend his prison's learning centre due to illness, the actions of a residential prison officer were unreasonable. We did not uphold this complaint. As there were no truly independent witnesses to what was said between Mr C and the residential officer, the conversation could not be proven either way. That is not to say, however, that we believed either party's version of events over the other. We noted, however, that Mr C did not have authorisation from prison health centre staff to be absent that day. It was, therefore, reasonable for an officer to have counselled Mr C about the consequences of not attending the learning centre without authorisation.

Mr C also complained that the prison governor unreasonably delayed in responding to his confidential complaint. We upheld this complaint. We accepted that in this specific case there were mitigating circumstances, which meant that it took the governor longer than the statutory seven days to respond. However, the governor did not inform Mr C of all the reasons for the delay and advise him of the timescale within which a decision would be given.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• ensure that Governors, or staff responding on their behalf, adhere to Rule 124(5) of the 2011 Prison Rules, and retain evidence that they have done so.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about being allocated to work in a prison work unit which was unsuitable for his asthma. However, on contacting the prison, we learned that they had sorted the problem out by finding him a place in a suitable unit. We did not consider, therefore, that there was anything further we could do and we closed the complaint after writing to explain this to Mr C.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he had not received the appropriate wage payment after transferring from one prison to another. Mr C said that the first prison did not pay him for the final week that he worked prior to his transfer. He also said the first prison told him that the second prison would pay him a repeat wage as his first wage payment there.

We made enquiries with the Scottish Prison Service about Mr C's complaint. Having considered what they said, and having looked at Mr C's prisoner account, we were satisfied that Mr C had received the appropriate wage payments and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that a prison did not pay him the correct amount for attending education sessions.

Our investigation found that Mr C attended 64 lessons, but was only paid for eight of these. We, therefore, upheld his complaint but did not make recommendations as the prison had taken action to reimburse Mr C for the unpaid lessons.

Summary

Mr C complained that one of the three specific magazine titles he regularly received was removed from his possession. When he complained to the prison about this, he was advised that they were reviewing their policy on sexually explicit publications. In complaining to this office, Mr C stated that the publication he used to receive should not have been excluded.

When we investigated, the prison told us that following their review they decided to allow all publications that are freely available within reputable newsagents. They provided me with a list of titles which are available for prisoners to purchase direct from their regular supplier. This included two of the magazines Mr C received. The prison also confirmed that the list was not exhaustive and that Mr C could submit a request for the third title, which would be permitted as long as reputable newsagents were willing to stock it. As the prison rules give the governor discretion to decide what items to allow, we considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison refused to allow him to buy adult magazines. The prison confirmed to us that the requested material was not permitted and they explained the rationale behind this. They advised that this policy had recently undergone a thorough review. Although Mr C raised concerns about the policy not being applied consistently throughout the prison, we could find no evidence of this. As the governor has discretion as to which items to allow in their prison, and as the prison clearly advised Mr C of their position on the matter, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison were restricting his access to the complaints process. Mr C said complaint forms were not readily available and that some forms were withheld by staff. He also said there was no information displayed about the complaints process or the disciplinary appeals process. Mr C said he was also waiting to receive complaints back from the prison which had exceeded the timescale.

We explored the issues raised by Mr C with the prison. The prison advised that all residential areas were checked and details of the complaints process were prominently displayed and complaint forms were readily available. The prison was also unable to comment on Mr C's claims that some complaints were withheld by staff because he had not identified any individuals. However, the prison did advise that staff were spoken to and assured that complaint forms were dealt with appropriately. The prison also checked the record of Mr C's received complaints and advised that all of complaints had been responded to and returned to him. We did not uncover any evidence to suggest that Mr C's access to the complaints process was being restricted and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who was a prisoner, received a copy of his integrated case management (ICM) case conference minute and was unhappy with some of the content. In particular, he was concerned about comments made about him by a member of staff. Mr C raised his concerns with the prison but was unhappy with the steps that they took to address his complaint. Because of that, Mr C complained to us that the prison failed to investigate his complaint appropriately.

It was clear Mr C had concerns about the information recorded in his case conference minute, the steps taken by the prison to address his concerns and the involvement of the member of staff that Mr C felt made inappropriate comments about him. However, having explored Mr C's concerns further with the prison during our investigation, we were satisfied they took appropriate steps to record his representations about his case conference minute and investigate his concerns. We were also satisfied the prison had addressed Mr C's concerns about the comments made about him by the member of staff. Because of this, we did not uphold his complaint.