Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had failed to record the circumstances of an assault upon him by another prisoner. In bringing his complaint to this office, Mr C said the governor of the prison failed to ensure his complaint was properly investigated and responded to.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we were satisfied that the governor had taken appropriate steps to investigate Mr C's concerns that the prison failed to record the circumstances of the alleged assault. We also satisfied that the governor's response was appropriate. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C, who is a prisoner, complained because she said the prison were unreasonably preventing her from progressing to less secure conditions. In reviewing Ms C's complaint, it was clear that her progression to less secure conditions had been affected because of the time spent appealing her conviction and her continued denial of the index offence (the offence which the prisoner is convicted of and is serving a custodial sentence for). We were satisfied the prison were managing Ms C's progression appropriately.

Ms C also complained because she said the prison did not respond to the questions she asked in her complaint. Our view was that the prison had taken reasonable steps to explain to Ms C why she was not ready for progression to less secure conditions at this time and outlined the steps she was expected to take in an effort to prepare herself for progression.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was unhappy with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s investigation of his claim for several books that had gone missing in prison. Mr C said that although he gave the prison information about the missing books, there was a delay in finalising the matter.

We found that when Mr C transferred to the prison he had 12 books in his possession. Some time later he asked reception staff to give his books to his family. However, he later discovered that his books had instead been lent out to other prisoners. Only one book had been recorded on Mr C's property card when he was transferred to the prison. Mr C advised the prison that this was incorrect. Checks with the previous prison then identified that his current prison had not properly recorded the number of books when he first arrived.

Mr C provided the prison with the names of most of the missing books, although he could not remember them all. He also raised concerns with the governor of the prison that the investigation had still not been concluded despite being assured it would be done before he was transferred elsewhere. Around six months later, the prison apologised to Mr C for the delay in the investigation and offered compensation for eight books that could not be recovered.

We upheld his complaint, as we considered that a delay of over six months in investigating Mr C's claim was unacceptable. We did not, however, have any significant concerns about the actual investigation, as we found that the prison toook reasonable steps to try to recover the missing books, even though only four were found. This included obtaining records from Mr C's previous prison and recalling all prisoner library books to search for titles similar to those that Mr C recalled having.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• remind staff at the prison of the importance of recording all prisoner property; and
• advise us of the outcome of the prison's review of the reception processes for hard back books.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) treated him unfairly compared to another prisoner who was allowed to use his own electric typewriter, which his family had brought into prison. He also complained that the SPS failed to explain clearly and fully why he could not have his electric typewriter brought in.

We looked at what Mr C told us about his complaint, the SPS records and policies about personal property in prison. Our investigation found that the dates of Mr C’s request for his electric typewriter and his complaint to the SPS were several weeks apart from the other prisoner’s request. The SPS had treated the other prisoner’s case as an exception, as at that time they had no recognised supplier for an electric typewriter. We concluded, therefore, that it was reasonable for the SPS to treat Mr C’s request in line with their policies and procedures, as they had by then sourced a new recognised supplier. We did not uphold this complaint.

The SPS were not able to provide us with any formal documentation about their final investigation of Mr C’s complaint. Having read the written responses to Mr C’s initial complaint, however, we concluded that he did not receive a clear and full explanation and, therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• ensure that investigations are carried out in reasonable time and that a record is kept.

Summary

A prison decided to restrict the exercise arrangements for protection prisoners (prisoners held separately from the main prison population for their own safety). The arrangements were that prisoners could only return to their residential area from the exercise area after thirty minutes or at the end of the exercise session (which lasts for one hour).

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about that decision. He said the decision was unfair because it restricted protection prisoners' access to facilities in the residential area throughout the exercise period. He said that this was discriminatory as the same restrictions did not apply to mainstream prisoners. In response to his complaint, the internal complaints committee (ICC) recommended that the prison allow protection prisoners to return to their residential area from the exercise area at twenty minute intervals. The prison governor endorsed the recommendation. However, the prison did not implement it and Mr C complained to us about this.

We explored with the prison why the ICC's recommendation was not implemented. We found that the prison considered two very important factors – the risk presented to the safety of prisoners and staff on the exercise route, and the risk presented to the good order of the prison. The prison also considered the physical location of the exercise yards for both protection and mainstream prisoners and took into account the impact that changing the current arrangements would have on available resources. The evidence available confirmed the prison appropriately explored whether the ICC's recommendation was possible but after careful consideration of relevant and important factors, decided not to implement it. In light of this information, we did not agree that the prison unreasonably failed to implement the recommendation and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that his clothing was being returned wet from the prison laundry. He then complained to us that the prison did not investigate this complaint appropriately.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the prison had outlined the laundry process. They explained that once clothing had been washed, the items would be put into the dryer for a minimum period of an hour. The prison said that they received few complaints about the laundry but acknowledged that issues like Mr C's complaint occasionally came to light. When we investigated they confirmed the laundry process had been reviewed, and as a result, there was now increased monitoring of the drying process. Although prison staff do not open the sealed individual laundry bags, they do check, as far as possible, that the items in them are dry. They also said that if a prisoner found that his washing was too wet, he could alert a member of staff and the items could be returned to be put through the drying process again. We were satisfied the prison investigated Mr C's complaint appropriately and took appropriate action.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably failed to respond to a complaint he submitted to them in February 2012. The prison assured us that they had no record of having received this complaint. We noted that Mr C had been transferred between prisons and that it was possible that the complaint might have gone missing because of this. However, in the absence of any evidence that the prison received the complaint, we could not conclude that the failure to respond was unreasonable.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison about the delay in carrying out his generic assessment. This is an assessment individual prisoners may receive to determine whether or not they need to participate in any offending behaviour programmes. In responding to Mr C's complaint, the prison told him they were aiming to assess him by April 2013. Mr C said that was an unreasonable timescale.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, the prison explained to us that they prioritise prisoners for assessment in line with their critical dates - these dates include when the prisoner might become eligible for progression to less secure conditions, or their parole qualifying date. Having reviewed the evidence available in Mr C's case, we were satisfied the prison were managing his case appropriately and in line with the normal process. Because of that, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in completing his end of programme report for Constructs (an offending behaviour programme in which some prisoners may participate). Mr C felt the delay in completing his report was preventing him from progressing through the prison system to less secure conditions.

The prison confirmed that the completion of Mr C's report had been affected because of staff absences, the delivery of another programme and development of the programmes environment. The prison also confirmed there was no timescale laid down for the completion of reports. In an effort to progress outstanding reports, the prison told us a list was created for prisoners who were awaiting end of programme reports for Constructs. This list ran in order of individual prisoners' parole qualifying dates and reports were dealt with in that order to ensure critical dates were not missed which would impact on progression. The Scottish Prison Service also told us that they estimated the timescale for the completion of an end of programme report for Constructs would be three months from the end of the programme, but this would depend on the complexity of the individual report. In addition, there was no evidence to support Mr C's claim that the completion of his report was preventing him from progressing to less secure conditions. For a prisoner to progress to less secure conditions, they must be approved by the prison's progression risk management team (PRMT). At the time of making his complaint, Mr C had not been approved.

Our investigation found that the available information confirmed that a number of factors had impacted on the completion of Mr C's report. However, it was in fact finalised just over three months after he completed the programme. After this, he was referred to the PRMT but his progression to less secure conditions was refused. In light of this information, whilst we recognised Mr C's report was not completed as quickly as he would have liked, we felt the time taken was reasonable and we did not uphold his complaint.

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 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 was not eligible for parole for over eighteen months and there was sufficient time for him to be assessed for, and access, any required coursework. As we could see no evidence of unreasonable delay, we did not uphold the complaint.