Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, had previously complained to the prison about the conduct of a member of staff and, due to the nature of the allegation, they reported the matter to the police for investigation. The police concluded that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. Mr C complained that the prison then failed to carry out their own internal investigation, in terms of their staff code of conduct, and tell him their findings. The prison advised us that they had reviewed CCTV footage and assured themselves that there was no cause for concern. After the conclusion of the police investigation, they considered the matter closed. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

Mr C also complained that the prison unreasonably delayed in responding to his complaint. We found that they did not respond with the target timeframe, as set out in the prison rules, and did not offer an interim explanation or indication of when a response would be issued. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of the complaint but made no recommendations as the Scottish Prison Service had already issued revised instructions to prison governors about such matters.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison had unreasonably refused to allow him to have his bracelet within the establishment.

The prison explained that Mr C's bracelet was large and could potentially be used as a weapon. From our investigation, we were satisfied that this was a decision that the prison were entitled to take and that they had done so appropriately.

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 another two years 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.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison refused to locate him next to his friend and also that they inappropriately located him next to individuals with whom he had had issues in the past. When the prison explained to us the reasons for their decisions, we were satisfied that they had taken all relevant factors into account and that the decision had been fully explained to Mr C. We did not uphold the complaint.

In addition, Mr C complained that the prison falsely accused him of being in a relationship with another prisoner, and that they treated his mother unfairly. We found no evidence to support Mr C's position on these matters and we did not uphold the complaints.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately issued his mail to another prisoner. The prison investigated Mr C's complaint and confirmed that his mail had been given to another prisoner in error.

Our enquiries with the prison confirmed that steps had been taken to carry out a thorough investigation after Mr C complained. The prison identified that this had happened because of human error rather than a systemic failure. Unfortunately, they were unable to locate Mr C's missing mail but they had apologised and carried out retraining for staff on the process of issuing prisoners' mail.

We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, because of the appropriate steps taken by the prison to investigate the matter, their apology to Mr C and the efforts taken to retrain staff, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to purchase 3D puzzles.

When Mr C complained to the prison, he said he was unhappy that he could not get puzzles handed in for him by family at visits. The prison said that was not allowed for security reasons. We asked the prison whether Mr C was allowed to purchase puzzles himself. The prison confirmed prisoners could ask to purchase puzzles from the local supplier. We found that Mr C had not made such a request and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unreasonably denied the opportunity to apply for early release under the home detention curfew (HDC) scheme because the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) held incorrect information about him. Mr C said that he was incorrectly recalled to custody, but was assured that this would not affect his eligibility for HDC in any future sentence he might serve. However, in serving his current sentence, Mr C said he was told he was not eligible for HDC.

When we investigated Mr C's complaint, the SPS provided information which showed that he was recalled to custody because he was charged with committing an offence whilst on HDC licence. Those charges were dismissed. However, in considering his appeal against the decision to recall him to custody, the Parole Board for Scotland - who were responsible for considering the appeal - dismissed it because Mr C had failed to fully comply with the terms of his release. They noted that, without prejudging the outcome of any court proceedings, Mr C failed to fully comply with his licence conditions as he had failed to answer the phone several times during his curfew. The Parole Board, therefore, decided that Mr C's recall to custody was appropriate. This meant Mr C was no longer eligible for HDC when serving any future sentence.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. The evidence available confirmed that whilst the charges against Mr C were dismissed, the Parole Board decided that his recall to custody was appropriate. This meant the information held by the SPS was appropriate.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably refused to permit him to have certain pagan worship materials in use. Our investigation found that the prison had consulted with their chaplaincy advisers and also the Scottish Pagan Federation. It was concluded that some of the content of the materials was not appropriate for a prison setting. As the governor of the prison has discretion over permitted items in the establishment, and as we considered that the request was appropriately considered, we did not uphold this part of the complaint.

Mr C also complained that he was not given the opportunity to discuss his complaint with a manager, as required under prison rules, and that the prison did not fully respond to all his concerns. We agreed that Mr C should have been offered the opportunity to discuss his complaint and also that the response to it might have been fuller. We, therefore, upheld this part of the complaint. We had no recommendations to make as we were satisfied that the Scottish Prison Service were taking steps to improve complaints handling.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison unreasonably failed to provide him with meaningful work. In particular, he felt he had not been given a job because of his race. Mr C also complained that the prison failed to investigate and respond to his complaint appropriately.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, the prison told us Mr C had not applied for any jobs. Because of that, and in the absence of any supporting evidence from Mr C to show that he did apply for jobs, we did not uphold this part of his complaint. The prison also confirmed that when they received Mr C’s complaint, the race relations manager was asked to investigate his complaint because Mr C's complaint contained an allegation of racial discrimination. We were satisfied the prison took proper and appropriate steps to investigate. However, in replying to Mr C, the prison did not specifically respond to everything he complained about. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of his complaint. We had no recommendations to make as we were satisfied that the Scottish Prison Service were taking steps to improve complaints handling.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was refused progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions) to open conditions because he was involved in outstanding civil court proceedings. He complained that it was unreasonable for the prison to delay his progression on this basis.

We obtained further information from the prison and were satisfied that this was a relevant risk factor that they were entitled to take into account. We noted that they explained their reasons to Mr C and undertook to review him again when the court proceedings were over. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.