Prisons

  • Case ref:
    201103664
  • Date:
    September 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    progression

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably delayed in assessing him for offending behaviour programmes. He said that this would have a negative impact on his progression (movement through the prison system to less supervised conditions).

When we investigated the complaint, we found that there had been some confusion in the SPS’s responses to Mr C as to whether he would have to complete a behavioural programme for which he had previously been assessed. The SPS confirmed that Mr C would have to complete the programme and could do so the following year. They also said that he would be assessed for other programmes this year to allow him to complete any work before the earliest date on which he could progress. The SPS said, however, that they would first have to assess other prisoners who were due to progress before Mr C. We took the view that this was reasonable in the circumstances and we did not uphold the complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201103118
  • Date:
    September 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    personal property

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to properly consider his request for compensation for items of property that he said went missing when he was transferred between two prisons.

Mr C said that the first prison accepted that they had mislaid some of his property and offered him compensation. However, as he considered that the compensation offer was less than the value of the missing items he did not accept it. He also said that the first prison did not accept that they had lost other items of his property including jewellery and sunglasses. The second prison said they did not receive these items when Mr C was transferred there.

Our investigation found a discrepancy in the dates of transfer of Mr C’s property between prisons, and that there were two slightly different sets of records for the assessment panel's decision on Mr C’s compensation claim. There was also confusion about the items for which Mr C was being compensated. Although at first it appeared that certain items had been lost and compensation was offered, Mr C said that the lost property was later returned to him. He said that despite receiving the missing items, the SPS did not formally notify him of their return nor did they formally withdraw their offer of compensation.

We upheld Mr C's complaints, although we could not conclude anything about the sunglasses, as there was no record of these on Mr C's property card. We did, however, find that as the first prison had a record of receiving jewellery, but the second prison did not, it was reasonable to conclude that jewellery had gone missing. We also found that the SPS had not properly handled Mr C’s request for compensation in line with prison rules and regulations. We made recommendations to address these failings.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

  • review Mr C's claim for the loss of a chain, pendant and earring, in line with the relevant prison circular; and
  • after reviewing the claim, follow up the matter in line with the relevant circular, if appropriate.

When it was originally published on 19 September 2012, this case contained a typographical error. This was corrected on 16 October 2013.

  • Case ref:
    201200542
  • Date:
    August 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    home detention curfew

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to fully consider his application for home detention curfew (HDC) before reaching a decision. In considering Mr C's application, the prison explained that he had failed to complete six supervised orders imposed by the court from 2006 to 2008. The prison also acknowledged that although this happened four years ago, there were additional concerns about Mr C's alcohol problems that he had not tried to address during his time in prison. Alcohol was an indicator in Mr C's previous offending history.

HDC guidance is available to help staff consider HDC applications from prisoners. It confirms that, if an individual prisoner's assessment indicates a significant risk of re-offending or of failing to comply with curfew conditions while on HDC, then release should not be authorised. In Mr C's case, although he was eligible for HDC, it was clear that the prison had concerns about his risk level around early release. On this basis, the Scottish Prison Service were entitled to refuse Mr C's application. We were satisfied that Mr C's application was properly considered and we did not uphold his complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201200351
  • Date:
    August 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    personal property

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the prison's decision to refuse his request to watch a DVD of a family wedding. He said he had been allowed to do this in the past and that the decision was unreasonable.

The prison explained that they were unable to grant Mr C's request because his DVD had not come from the prison's approved supplier. In addition, as the prison were unable to review the content of the DVD for suitability, they said doing so would impact upon staff resources. They also said that it could set a precedent for similar requests from all prisoners.

We noted that the prison refused Mr C's request on the grounds of security and because of the impact upon staff resources. That was a decision the prison were entitled to take. We cannot question a decision the prison are entitled to take unless there is evidence of administrative error. An example of administrative error might be when the prison does not follow the proper process or fails to take account of relevant information prior to reaching a decision.

In Mr C's case, whilst we recognised that he was unhappy with the prison's decision, we were satisfied that it was made properly and that the prison had explained the reason for their decision.

  • Case ref:
    201200044
  • Date:
    August 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    behaviour related programmes (including access to)

Summary

Ms C, who is a prisoner, complained about a delay in accessing an offending behaviour programme. She was due to start a programme in December 2011 but was still waiting when she contacted us around three months later.

The Scottish Prison Service told us that Ms C started an offending behaviour programme at the end of April 2012. They explained that she was unable to access the earlier programme due to a conflict with another prisoner on that course. We decided that, in the circumstances, the delay was not unreasonable and we did not uphold the complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201105247
  • Date:
    August 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    disciplinary charges - reporting and inquiry

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, was reported for possessing a mobile telephone. He pled guilty at his disciplinary hearing and the adjudicator imposed a punishment. Following this, Mr C submitted a disciplinary appeal form. He said he was appealing on the grounds that he felt protocol was not fully adhered to. In particular, he said that his charge sheet did not have a charge number and evidence bag number, that contradictory timings were noted, and the internal complaints committee recorded the charge number on his report sheet before meeting with him.

Our investigation found that the prison had applied the proper process in Mr C's disciplinary hearing. It was clear the adjudicator found Mr C guilty based on his own plea and admission of guilt, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201105186
  • Date:
    August 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, action taken by body to remedy, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    recreation

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was not allowed to attend recreation as a punishment (through the internal prison disciplinary procedure). He complained that a prison officer unreasonably failed to unlock his cell for the last 30 minutes of the recreation period. Mr C said that as a result of the officer's actions, he was not able to access a toilet, water or telephone.

In response to our enquiries, the prison explained that prisoners located in the segregation unit were unlocked from their cell for the last 30 minutes of the recreation period to access the telephone. The prison confirmed that when Mr C complained, this rule did not apply to prisoners, like him, who were located within residential halls, and denied recreation as punishment. Instead, they could use a call button to get access to the toilet and water, before being immediately returned to their cell.

On the issue of access to a telephone, the prison told us that prisoners had sufficient opportunity to access a telephone outwith the recreation period. However, the prison explained that the process in place within the segregation unit was best practice and, because of that, they had issued a staff notice confirming that any prisoner who was off recreation as a punishment should be allowed to access the telephone in the last 30 minutes of the recreation period. We noted this, and were satisfied that, at the time about which Mr C complained, the officer did not need to unlock Mr C from his cell. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the prison failed to properly consider his complaint. He had raised two complaints about the same issue but found the prison's two responses to be contradictory. In one response, Mr C was told he would be unlocked for the last 30 minutes of recreation, another response was contradictory. When we asked the prison about this, they explained that Mr C had submitted a number of complaints on this issue while in the segregation unit, as well as when he was in the residential hall. They thought that this might have caused confusion among staff responding to Mr C's complaints. However, we noted that at the time of raising this complaint Mr C was located in a residential hall and had not been in the segregation unit for some months. We agreed that the responses provided to Mr C were confusing and upheld his complaint. We did not make any recommendations, because the prison had already issued a notice to staff reminding them that complaints must be dealt with appropriately in line with their complaints guidance.

  • Case ref:
    201105297
  • Date:
    July 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Disciplinary Charges - Orderly Room Proceedings

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the process applied by the adjudicator at his disciplinary hearing. A disciplinary hearing is held to determine whether a prisoner has broken prison rules and to impose an appropriate punishment if proven.

In particular, Mr C said the adjudicator told him he would be finding him 'guilty' before the witness was called to give evidence. As well as calling the witness, the adjudicator viewed CCTV footage. We were satisfied the adjudicator followed the appropriate process, and that he reached his verdict after considering the relevant evidence available.

Mr C also complained because he said the SPS failed to properly consider his complaint. In particular, Mr C said the response he received referred to him calling a prisoner as a witness, rather than an officer. We found that the use of word ‘prisoner’ was inaccurate, but we did not believe that this brought the SPS’s consideration of Mr C's complaint, or the decision they reached, into doubt.

  • Case ref:
    201105057
  • Date:
    July 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Disciplinary Charges - Orderly Room Proceedings

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said he was denied the opportunity to question the witness at his disciplinary hearing. A disciplinary hearing is held to determine whether a prisoner has broken prison rules and to impose an appropriate punishment if proven.

The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) acknowledged that Mr C's hearing was delayed for seven days to allow him to seek legal advice and to enable the reporting officer (who was the witness in Mr C's case) to attend. The SPS told us that the adjudicator who oversees the hearing confirmed that Mr C was given the opportunity to question the reporting officer. SPS guidance on disciplinary hearings states that prisoners must be allowed to ask questions of the reporting officer and witnesses.

In Mr C's case, the evidence confirmed that the hearing was adjourned to enable the reporting officer to attend. The adjudicator said Mr C was given the opportunity to question the reporting officer but there is no record of this in the adjudication paperwork. Mr C disputes that he was given this opportunity. We upheld Mr C's complaint as we considered it reasonable to expect the adjudicator to record whether Mr C was given the opportunity to question the reporting officer. In the face of this dispute, the absence of such evidence means that the SPS cannot demonstrate compliance with SPS guidance. Mr C had also raised other complaints with us, but we could not look at them as at the time he had not taken them through the SPS complaints procedure.

Recommendation
We recommended that the SPS:
• take steps to ensure adjudication paperwork reflects whether the prisoner was given the opportunity to ask questions of the reporting officer or witnesses in line with section 6.13 of the SPS Guidance on Orderly Room Procedures.

  • Case ref:
    201104967
  • Date:
    July 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Some upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    Visits

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, received a visit from his wife and son. Following the visit, Mr C complained to the prison that he was reprimanded for his son's behaviour, while an another prisoner was not spoken to about a similar matter. He also complained that he was asked to clean up the visit area during the visit and that his son was refused access to the toilet. He sought assurances that the conduct of staff was not discriminatory.

In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C said that the prison had not responded to his complaint about toilet access and had not addressed the allegation of discrimination. He also complained that the prison had not carried out an appropriate fact-finding exercise as they had not viewed any available CCTV footage.

In responding to our enquiries, the prison said that the behaviour of the other prisoner's child did not warrant staff intervention. They also said that in line with normal practice Mr C had been asked to clean up after, not during, the visit. They could not recall the request for access to the toilet but they explained the normal practice that should be followed when such a request is made.

We noted that the prison had not addressed this latter issue in their response to Mr C. We also noted the allegations of discrimination were not directly addressed. Given the nature of this allegation, and the fact that there were conflicting accounts of events, we considered that it would have been reasonable for the prison to have examined CCTV footage and drawn upon this in their response. In the circumstances, we upheld this complaint and made recommendations to address this.

Mr C also complained that the prison unreasonably delayed in taking three weeks to respond to his complaint. We noted that a holding response was issued within the seven day target timescale and, following this, we did not consider an additional two weeks to be excessive or unreasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold this complaint. However, we made a recommendation because the holding response did not offer an explanation for the delay and did not provide a specific timescale for responding.

Recommendations
We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:
• highlight to staff that any allegations of discrimination should be recorded and treated as such, and should be appropriately investigated and addressed in the complaint response;
• apologise to Mr C for failing to respond to all aspects of his complaint; and
• in line with rule 124, the governor should ensure that, where he is unable to respond to complaints within seven days, he takes steps to explain the reasons for the delay and provides a target timescale for responding.