Prisons

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.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted a request for a same-day visit. The normal process requires that prisoners give 24 hours notice. The prison try to adopt a flexible approach to late requests and had accommodated such requests from Mr C in the past. However, on this occasion they were unable to do so. Mr C complained that hall staff had unreasonably failed to pass his request to visit staff. He also complained that the prison failed to fully investigate his complaint because they did not address this specific concern when responding to him.

When we investigated this, the prison explained that the officer did not pass Mr C's request to visit staff as he was distracted by other duties. We acknowledged that it would have been helpful if the prison had explained this to Mr C. However, the officer did not in fact breach any policy in not passing on the request as Mr C did not submit it within the relevant notification period. The prison highlighted the process to Mr C and apologised that they were unable to be flexible on this occasion. We considered this reasonable and we did not uphold his complaints.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained after he was found guilty of assaulting another prisoner. Mr C said he was originally reported for fighting, but the charge was changed to him assaulting the prisoner. Mr C said he was unaware of the change because he was only given notice of the charge moments before his disciplinary hearing was about to take place. (A disciplinary hearing is held to determine whether a prisoner has broken prison rules and to impose an appropriate punishment if proven.) He said he did not check the notice because he assumed it confirmed he was placed on report for fighting and because of that, Mr C said he plead guilty unknowingly to assault.

The evidence available confirmed that, on the day of the incident, Mr C was reported by an officer for assaulting another prisoner. The notice of the charge was served to Mr C the next morning but he refused to acknowledge receipt of this. The evidence also confirmed that the notice was served to Mr C just over two hours before his disciplinary hearing was to take place. The prison rules confirm that written notice of the charge should be received by the prisoner at least two hours before the hearing. Therefore, we were satisfied the Scottish Prison Service handled Mr C's case appropriately and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained of a delay in being assessed for, and accessing, offending behaviour programmes. The prison acknowledged that there had been a clerical error which resulted in Mr C not being placed on the waiting list, but we found that they had already rectified this.

We obtained an assurance that this error had not affected Mr C's progression as he was assessed at the appropriate time, in line with his parole qualification date. Further, we confirmed that Mr C will access the next available offering of his identified programme, which is due to commence shortly.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to properly investigate his complaint following an altercation he had with his cell-mate.

When we investigated, the prison explained that two officers and a line manager interviewed Mr C following the incident. They provided a copy of the written report that confirmed this. We were satisfied that Mr C's concerns had been properly considered and an explanation had been provided for the actions taken. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, submitted his request for a postal order in line with the instructions displayed by the prison in a notice to prisoners. Mr C's request was not actioned and he complained about it. In bringing his complaint to this office, he said hall staff failed to deal with his request for a postal order correctly.

The prisoner notice said that postal order requests ‘must be received by the cash office by Thursday morning to allow processing’. In response to our enquiries, the prison explained that Mr C submitted his request on the Thursday and his request was actioned by reception the same day before being passed to the cash office for processing. The prison said it appeared that when the cash office received Mr C's request, it had missed the morning cut off point and so was not processed until later.

In looking at Mr C's complaint, we considered the steps he took in submitting his request and the information available to him about submitting postal order request. We also considered whether the process in place was clear to prisoners. The available evidence told us that Mr C placed his request for a postal order in line with the instructions given by the prison displayed in the notice. The evidence also appeared to confirm that Mr C's request was processed properly by the prison. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we were of the view that the information available to prisoners, about by when requests should received, was unclear, and made a recommendation to address this.

Mr C also complained about the prison's handling of his complaint. He said he was not given the opportunity to discuss his complaint with a manager; the response provided by the manager was inappropriate; and the internal complaints committee (ICC) and the governor unreasonably failed to take any action on his complaint. In line with prison rules, prisoners must be given the opportunity to discuss their complaint within a manager within the first 48 hours of submitting their complaint. This did not happen in Mr C's case so we upheld this part of his complaint. However, we did not agree that the manager's response was inappropriate or that the ICC and governor unreasonably failed to take any action.

Recommendation
We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:
• revise the wording of prisoner notice to ensure the information provided reflects the advice given to Mr C in response to his complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was not allowed to have two specific electrical items despite having purchased them while in a previous prison establishment and being allowed to use them there.

We obtained a copy of the prison's 'items in use' policy which confirmed that the items were prohibited. Our enquiries also revealed that the policy of Mr C's previous establishment permitted the items and that prison governors have discretion as to which items they allow in their establishment. However, the prison had already acknowledged the discrepancy and offered to reimburse Mr C for the cost of the items. We considered this reasonable and did not uphold the complaint.

We accepted that lack of consistency across the prison estate could be a source of frustation for prisoners. However, as the Scottish Prison Service confirmed that they were currently taking steps towards sourcing a national supplier for electrical goods and developing a uniform policy across the estate, we made no recommendations about this.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, injured his hand and was advised by a prison doctor that he would need to attend hospital. He was unhappy that he was not taken to hospital until the next day and he complained about this to the prison. The prison told him that the doctor said that they could wait until the following day to take Mr C to hospital, and so their actions were appropriate. Mr C then complained to us that the prison had failed to properly and fairly investigate his complaint.

Mr C said that he called four witnesses to the complaint hearing: the doctor, an officer, and two senior members of staff. The chair of the complaints committee spoke to the doctor and one of the senior members of staff in advance of the hearing and decided that the presence of the witnesses would not be necessary. We found that the prison rules say that he was entitled to do this, but also that this decision should have been taken in discussion with Mr C and he should have been notified in advance. We were satisfied that the chair spoke with the two most relevant individuals when investigating the complaint. However, in responding, the chair stated that he had also spoken to the other senior member of staff which subsequently proved to be untrue. Finally, he did not address the request to call the officer as a witness. In the circumstances, we upheld Mr C's complaint and made recommendations to address the failings we found.

Recommendations
We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:
• carry out an investigation of the prison’s handling of Mr C's complaint and report back to the Ombudsman with their findings; and
• remind those staff acting as ICC chairpersons of their duties under Rule 123(7) to discuss with prisoners, and inform them in advance of, any decisions surrounding the refusal to allow them to call witnesses to hearings.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison delayed in assessing him for offending behaviour programmes. He also said he had been moved unfairly from tenth to 43rd on the waiting list and that prisoners with later parole qualifying dates (PQD) than him had been able to access these programmes.

The prison confirmed that they select prisoners for assessment based on their PQD. This is the date when a prisoner becomes eligible for consideration for early release. In Mr C's case, our investigation confirmed he had been listed for assessment based on his PQD and there had not been a delay in assessing him. In addition, we were also satisfied with the prison's explanation as to why Mr C had moved from tenth to 43rd on the waiting list. In particular, the prison explained that the waiting list was not 'fixed' and prisoners would be added to the waiting list in accordance with their PQD. In some circumstances, prisoners with a later PQD may be assessed before prisoners with earlier PQDs. The prison explained that, when that happens, a management decision has been taken to include the prisoner with the later PQD in the programme; for example where a prisoner is causing discipline problems and it is identified that a programme may help their stability or rehabilitation. We accepted these explanations as reasonable.

Mr C also complained about how the prison handled his complaint. He said there was an unreasonable delay in doing so, and that a member of staff failed to get back to him. The prison are allowed a maximum of 20 days to investigate and respond to a complaint, and we found that it took them 16 days to deal with Mr C's complaint. We explored the issue about the member of staff failing to get back to Mr C about his complaint, but were unable to determine whether or not this had happened.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was unhappy when he was downgraded from open prison conditions and returned to a closed prison. He complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to follow the correct process in relation to the downgrade.

We looked into the complaint but we did not agree with Mr C. It is for prisons to decide whether to downgrade prisoners. What we had to look at was whether the prison had followed the proper processes and procedures in making their decision. In this case, while we concluded that it would have been helpful if more specific information had been provided to the prisoner, we did not find evidence that the prison had unreasonably failed to follow the correct process.