Prisons

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was restrained by staff and removed from the hall. Mr C was unhappy with the way staff restrained him and he complained to the Governor. The Governor responded but Mr C was unhappy with the response. He complained to us and said the Governor failed to respond reasonably to his complaint.

We looked at the Governor's response to Mr C. We also reviewed the relevant paperwork the Governor considered before responding to Mr C's complaint. In our view, the Governor's response was clear and reasonable and, therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C raised several complaints about the process followed by the adjudicator in an Orderly Room hearing (a disciplinary hearing to decide whether a prisoner is guilty of breaking prison rules) in which a charge against him was heard. During our investigation we found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had followed the orderly room guidance in relation to three of the complaints raised by Mr C. However, we found that the SPS had failed to follow the guidance in relation to the recording of witnesses requested during the hearing on the record of inquiry form.

We also found that the SPS had failed to record on the record of inquiry form if Mr C had been provided with a copy of his prison record and that they had not made it clear that he had been found not guilty on one of his two previous reports. We, therefore, identified failings in relation to the process followed by the adjudicator, but, given the action already taken by the SPS, we had no recommendations to make.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the prison's decision to confiscate his PS2 console. Mr C said the prison told him the item was confiscated because it did not match the serial number of the PS2 on his property card. Mr C said he bought his PS2 console and that his must have been swapped for a different one.

The prison rules clearly state that no prisoner shall have in his or her possession, or conceal or deposit anywhere within a prison, any property which he or she has not been authorised to possess or keep. In addition to this, we also asked the prison if steps had been taken to try and identify the whereabouts of Mr C's PS2. The prison said the only way to do this would be to conduct a search of every prisoner cell in the establishment. We considered whether this would be a reasonable step to take. In our view, it was not and we felt it would be a disproportionate use of staff time. In light of the information available, we were unable to uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the delay in him being able to access the smoking cessation programme.

Our enquiries with the prison confirmed that prisoners are selected onto the programme in line with their liberation date and because of that, we were satisfied there had not been an unreasonable delay in Mr C's case. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the prison's decision not to supply scissors to the prison barbers. He also complained because the prison were not providing cleaning fluids for the hairdressing tools.
Our enquiries confirmed that the prison had taken the decision not to provide scissors to the prison barbers in the interest of safety and security. We were satisfied the prison had taken a decision they were entitled to take and Mr C's unhappiness with that decision was not grounds for us to pursue the complaint further.

The prison also told us they had taken steps to reinforce local procedures for hairdressing tool hygiene and control. This included providing disinfectant cleaning wipes for the hairdressing tools and reviewing local instructions available to prison barbers and staff. In light of this, we were satisfied the prison had taken proper and reasonable steps and we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C submitted a confidential complaint to the Governor stating that he had been subjected to verbal abuse by a prison officer on a day in April 2011. He also raised concerns that an officer refused to accept an item of property from his brother following a visit in July. He suspected that both incidents involved the same officer.

The Governor investigated Mr C's concerns about the conduct of the officer but was unable to find evidence to support these allegations and took no further action. Mr C complained to us that his complaint had not been investigated properly and fairly.

In considering this complaint, we contacted the prison and received a copy of their investigation report. The report showed that the unit manager had interviewed Mr C and the officer as part of the investigation, as well as an other prisoner and officer who were in the area of the incident in April. We, therefore, considered that Mr C's complaint about the officer had been properly and fairly investigated and we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, received a copy of his Integrated Case Management (ICM) case conference record. This document records the discussion and outcome at a prisoner’s ICM case conference. This is a meeting where the prisoner and everyone who is involved in supporting them get together to talk about any issues, and about what the prisoner wants to achieve over the next year. Mr C complained to our office because he said that when he received a copy of his case conference record, he did not receive the form that prisoners should receive to sign to say they are happy with the record. This form is called the record of case conference outcomes.

The prison told us Mr C's personal officer gave him a copy of the case conference record and told Mr C to speak with him if he had any concerns. However, there was no written record of this conversation. The prison also said the form had been removed from the most recent version of the ICM case conference document. The ICM guidance manual clearly stated that the prisoner should be provided with the form. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) also advised us that the most up to date ICM case conference paperwork did include the form.

In light of the information gathered, we upheld Mr C's complaint and recommended that the SPS remind staff involved in the ICM process to provide all prisoners with a copy of the form.

Recommendation
We recommended that the SPS:
• remind staff involved in the ICM process to provide all prisoners with a copy of the appropriate form.
 

Summary
Mr C was unhappy that he was recalled to prison shortly after starting a period of home leave. He was told that he had breached a condition of the licence under which he was granted the leave. Mr C said that this condition had been added to the licence four days after he signed it. He said that he was not aware of the condition.

We found that the condition had been added to the licence after Mr C signed it. However, the licence the prison service gave him before he was released included the condition. We considered that there was an onus on Mr C to ensure that he was aware of the conditions on the licence. It was also clear from the evidence that he did in fact breach the condition. The prison service were correct to say that he had done so.

Mr C also complained that the prison service subsequently wrongly denied him home detention curfew. The prison service’s guidance on home detention curfew states that they should take the fact that a prisoner has failed to comply with a previous licence into account when they are completing the risk assessment for this. There was no evidence of any administrative error by the prison service in reaching their decision. We did not, therefore, uphold this complaint.

Recommendation
We recommended that the SPS:
• ensure that prisoners are asked to sign to confirm that they have been notified of any conditions that are added to a temporary release licence.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the process followed by the adjudicator at his orderly room hearing. He said evidence put forward by him was ignored and his witnesses were not called.

Following our enquiries with the SPS, we were satisfied the adjudicator applied and followed the proper process prior to reaching his decision at Mr C's hearing and we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the prison lost a ring that belonged to him, and were refusing to compensate him for it. When we investigated the complaint, we found that the SPS failed to act in line with the prison rules and SPS procedures. This meant that Mr C's property, including a ring, that was handed in to the prison was not recorded. There was also a failure to thoroughly investigate Mr C's claim for loss of property. Having said that, while we could conclude that the SPS failed to record receipt of items of Mr C's property, we could not prove that the SPS lost the specific ring to which Mr C referred. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we made a number of recommendations to address the failings we identified in Mr C's case and to help prevent a recurrence of such problems in future.

Recommendations
We recommended that the SPS:
• review Mr C's claim for loss of property, in line with SPS Circular 48/1992, and contact Mr C with the outcome;
• ensure that investigations into claims for loss of property record all evidence obtained; and
• ensure property cards include more accurate and detailed descriptions of items; a record of how items come into prison; and legible recording of property.