Prisons

  • Case ref:
    201103342
  • Date:
    April 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    downgrading

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, came to Scotland from another authority area. At that time, he had already served more than half of his sentence and was eligible to be considered for parole (early release). Parole was not granted so he was transferred to a maximum security prison. Mr C was not happy with that decision. He felt that he should be in less secure conditions and complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). He said the SPS were wrong to dismiss his behaviour record and courses completed whilst in custody within the other authority area.

In response to his complaint, the SPS explained that before he could progress to less secure conditions, he would need to take part in the generic assessment process and complete any suitable programme work. Mr C had, however, refused to do this.

We cannot question a decision taken by the SPS unless there is evidence of administrative error in the way the decision was taken. The evidence available confirmed that prisoners can only progress to less secure conditions once the SPS are satisfied with their level of risk. In Mr C's case, he was refusing to participate in the process that would allow the SPS to review his risk and needs. Therefore, there was no evidence that SPS had done anything wrong and we did not uphold his complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201103312
  • Date:
    April 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    complaints handling

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to us because the deputy governor did not meet him in person to discuss his complaint. He also said the deputy governor failed to provide a reasonable response to his complaint. Mr C had complained to the prison about a mix-up in him being seen by the progression board.

After making enquiries with the prison, we were satisfied the issues raised by Mr C in his complaint were investigated properly and that the deputy governor provided a reasonable response. We were also satisfied that, in choosing not to meet with Mr C to discuss his complaint, the deputy governor exercised her discretion and took the decision because the complaint appeared to be resolved.
 

  • Case ref:
    201103108
  • Date:
    April 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, action taken by body to remedy, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    staff treatment

Summary
Mr C complained that the prison governor failed to properly investigate his complaint about prison staff referring to him by his surname and not including his title. The governor had responded by asking one of the managers to raise this with staff.

We confirmed with the SPS that the manager had indeed raised the issue at a subsequent staff meeting. The SPS also advised us that there was no specific rule on how staff should address prisoners but that the SPS Standards of Conduct state that prisoners should be treated with respect at all times.

Given the lack of specific guidance on this matter, along with the fact that not all prisoners will share Mr C's preference on how they are addressed, we considered that the actions taken by the governor in highlighting the matter to staff were reasonable.

  • Case ref:
    201102853
  • Date:
    April 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    accommodation (including cell amenities and location)

Summary
Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were unreasonably requiring him to share a single occupancy cell with another prisoner. He did not believe that the cell was an adequate size to accommodate two prisoners.

The prison rules provide the SPS with discretion to require two or more prisoners to share accommodation where circumstances require. The SPS advised us that due to current prisoner numbers, they have had no option but to introduce cell sharing arrangements. The rules also require a risk assessment to be carried out in advance of two prisoners being asked to share, to ensure that they are suitable to do so. The SPS provided us with copies of the risk assessments relevant to Mr C and advised that they were satisfied there were no security or compatibility issues which would have made the sharing arrangements unsuitable. The SPS were satisfied that they were providing an appropriate regime, including reasonable out of cell time and activities.

We did not establish any legal basis to support Mr C's concerns that his cell was not of an adequate size. We took into account that the prison regime allows prisoners a reasonable amount of out of cell time and activities and, on balance, we did not uphold the complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201102068
  • Date:
    April 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    accuracy of Prisoner Record

Summary
Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to explain the outcome of a risk assessment he had undergone.

Mr C said that he had asked the psychologist who completed the risk assessment for further information, but that she failed to respond. We were, however, unable to find any evidence of this. Mr C told us that a prison officer had subsequently provided him with some limited information about the data used for the risk assessment.

SPS guidance in relation to risk assessments says that they should explain the process and the data that has been used to inform the risk assessment. However, we considered that it was reasonable for them to take the view that if they gave too much information in relation to the type of risk assessment that Mr C had undergone, this could be used to manipulate the answers in future assessments.

In such cases, there is a difficult balance to strike between providing too much and too little information about a risk assessment. In this case, we found no clear, objective evidence to indicate that the prison's actions were unreasonable.

Mr C also complained that a prison officer had acted unreasonably at a meeting with him. He said that the officer had searched his papers and had been intimidating and overly aggressive.

The SPS told us that prison officers were concerned that Mr C had information that prisoners were not allowed to have. The prison rules at that time stated that any item of property belonging to a prisoner may be searched by a prison officer, at any time. The prison officer, therefore, had the authority to search Mr C's belongings. Again there was no clear, objective evidence that the officer had been intimidating or overly aggressive.

  • Case ref:
    201101581
  • Date:
    April 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Upheld, recommendations
  • Subject:
    complaints handling

Summary
Mr C complained about statements that he alleges an officer made to another prisoner. The prison could not investigate these complaints as the officer was not at work, however, they agreed to write to Mr C after the officer returned to duty.

Mr C complained about the prison's complaints handling. He said that the prison failed to write to him following the officer's return to duty, and that he had to pursue the matter himself. He also complained that the response he received differed to the response issued on the same day to the other prisoner.

We upheld both complaints with recommendations. We considered that the prison should have progressed the handling of Mr C's complaint. We also considered that the information provided to the other prisoner was relevant to Mr C's complaint and should also have been shared with him.

Recommendations
We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:
• ensure they put systems in place to track the follow-up of commitments they have chosen to give;
• apologise to Mr C for failing to honour the commitment they gave to revert to him following an officer's return to duty;
• provide Mr C with a fuller response communicating all relevant available information; and
• apologise for failing to provide all relevant available information in the first instance.

  • Case ref:
    201103124
  • Date:
    March 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    policy/administration

Summary
Mr C complained because he said his parole information was not delivered to him in the normal way - it was hand delivered by a unit manager instead of being sent in an envelope. Mr C also said he was not given enough time to submit his representations to the Parole Board and that his complaint was not considered properly by the prison.

Normally, the prison receives three copies of a prisoner's parole dossier from the Parole Unit - one copy is for the early release liaison officer or the life liaison officer and the other copies are for the prisoner. The copies for the prisoner are stamped 'parole' and are hand delivered to the mail office to be sent to the prisoner using the same process used to deliver legal mail to prisoners.

In Mr C's case, he received a letter from the Parole Unit telling him that his case would be considered by an Extended Sentence Prisoner Tribunal and a copy of his parole dossier was provided. This information was delivered to Mr C in line with the normal process. However, the following month, the Parole Unit wrote to Mr C again to tell him the information provided in the original letter was incorrect because his case would be considered at a casework meeting, not a tribunal. The letter also told Mr C his dossier was the same as the one provided with the original letter. This is the information that was hand delivered to Mr C by a unit manager.

The prison told us they hand delivered Mr C's letter and parole dossier - provided by the Parole Unit in the later month - because the early release liaison officer who would normally deal with it was on leave and also because of the short timescale involved until Mr C's representations were to be received by the Parole Board. The prison advised this office that using the normal process would have delayed getting the information to Mr C by another 24 hours.

We were satisfied the prison used their discretion in taking the decision to hand deliver the letter and dossier to Mr C and their actions were reasonable. The information available also confirmed that Mr C was aware of the contents of his dossier from the original letter. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. We also decided that the prison provided a reasonable response to Mr C's complaint.
 

  • Case ref:
    201103084
  • Date:
    March 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    supplies of books, newspapers etc

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not have a supplier in place to enable him to buy ethnic DVDs and CDs.

Our enquiries confirmed the SPS did have a supplier that was able to provide ethnic DVDs and CDs. All prisoners were able to purchase DVDs and CDs from the supplier. In attempting to resolve Mr C's complaint, the prison also put in place a number of DVDs and CDs that would be available for him to access through the prisoner library.

The fact Mr C did not like the titles of the DVDs and CDs available from the supplier did not mean the SPS were failing to provide him with DVDs and CDs to meet his own requirements. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201103081
  • Date:
    March 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    earnings

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was suspected of smoking in the toilet area of his workshed and because of this, he was placed on report for breaking prison rules and removed from the work party. At the Orderly Room hearing (a disciplinary hearing to decide whether a prisoner is guilty of breaking prison rules) Mr C was found 'not guilty' because there was not enough evidence.

Mr C then complained about his removal from the work party. As a result, the prison reinstated him to the work party and paid him the wages he would have earned had he not been removed. In bringing his complaint to this office, Mr C complained that the prison failed to fully compensate him for loss of earnings by not awarding him the bonus payment after upholding his complaint that he was unfairly removed from his work party.

Our enquiries confirmed the prison did not put Mr C back to the work party because they agreed with him that he had been unfairly removed. Mr C incorrectly assumed this. Instead, the prison took the decision to return Mr C to the work party because of the outcome of the Orderly Room hearing. There was no requirement for the prison to do this. It was also clear there was no obligation for the prison to reimburse Mr C the wages. In doing both of these things the prison used its discretion. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

  • Case ref:
    201102960
  • Date:
    March 2012
  • Body:
    Scottish Prison Service
  • Sector:
    Prisons
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    personal property

Summary
Mr C complained that the prison failed to adequately record property handed in from his partner and, as a result, it was not clear what had happened to the property. However, the officer who Mr C said his partner had handed in the property to said that his partner had not had the required proforma and, therefore, the property could not be accepted.

Although we tried to contact them, we were unable to discuss the matter with Mr C’s partner. We made an enquiry to the Scottish Prison Service for further information. Following consideration of the complaint on the basis of the available information, there was no evidence to support Mr C's version of events over the prison's, therefore, we were unable to uphold his complaint.