Prisons

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison about the availability of carbon paper. After this, he raised a separate complaint with the prison about their handling of his complaint about the carbon paper. Mr C came to us because he was dissatisfied with the prison's response to his complaint about their handling of his original concern. We considered several issues including unreasonable delay, inappropriate responses and failure to communicate.

After reviewing all of the information available in Mr C's case, we decided to partly uphold his complaint. In particular, we upheld his complaints about delays because we agreed that they were unreasonable. However, we did not uphold the rest of Mr C's complaints because we were satisfied with the way the prison handled them.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because items of property were confiscated from him as they were not listed on his property card and, therefore, could not be confirmed as belonging to him. Mr C said he was told that the confiscated items would be returned to him after six months if they were not claimed by a rightful owner, but this did not happen.

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. It is prison policy for unclaimed confiscated items to be recycled after six months. Having considered the evidence, we were satisfied that the prison followed the proper process when confiscating the items of property.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he believed a member of staff lied when preparing his programme assessment report. The report was prepared to identify whether Mr C had any outstanding offence-focussed work that he needed to complete.

Our investigation confirmed that the prison investigated Mr C's complaint appropriately and provided him with a detailed response. We also reviewed the programme assessment report. The evidence did not support Mr C's complaint that the member of staff lied.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, wanted to submit a request to change work parties whilst he was off work in prison for health reasons. He complained that it was unfair to prevent his request while he was off work.

Our investigation confirmed that it is not normal practice to allow a prisoner who is off work on health grounds to continue submitting certain requests to work or to change work parties. This is because there are not enough jobs for all prisoners, and to allow this practice would be unfair to prisoners who are waiting to be allocated a work party.

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS had failed to properly and fairly investigate a confidential complaint, which he had submitted to the governor. Our investigation found that the matter had been fully investigated and appropriate action taken as a result.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that a decision to refuse him progression to enhanced conditions was unreasonably manipulated by a particular member of staff. Mr C questioned the professional opinion of the staff member. He felt that the SPS should not take into account subjective accounts given by staff. We explained that we cannot question the professional opinion of staff in the absence of evidence of administrative error or service failure in the way in which they reached their view. Also, following an enquiry to the SPS, they explained that the decision, and the reasons for the decision, were supported by a group of relevant staff.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he felt the prison were failing to issue privileged mail to prisoners with a reasonable time in accordance with published standards. Privileged mail is mail sent to a prisoner from their legal representative, the courts and other organisations, such as SPSO.

Our investigation highlighted that best practice suggested that prisoner mail should be issued on the day it was received by the establishment. However, the mail policy confirmed there was no legal obligation to ensure mail was given to prisoners on the same day it was received. Instead, the policy confirmed that the nature of the correspondence required a certain level of promptness. The examples of delays that Mr C provided in his complaint told us that, in most cases, his privileged mail was given to him the day after the prison received it. We did not find this unreasonable. He also raised other issues with us about how SPS handled his complaint to them about the matter, but we were satisfied that the prison had handled it appropriately.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS failed to provide him with appropriate products with which to clean his in-cell toilet. He said that the products provided are intended for cleaning showers and drains but are not specifically for toilets. The SPS told him that, in their view, the products were also appropriate for cleaning toilets. We considered this a reasonable view and one that they were entitled to reach. Given this, and the fact that there was no specific injustice for Mr C in relation to this, we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, failed to attend his work party. He was placed on a misconduct report and subsequently issued with a caution. Mr C complained that prisoners in another hall within the same prison who fail to attend work are dealt with under a different process (referred to as Status 6) and not through the disciplinary procedure. He questioned why the prison operated different administrative practices for dealing with the same issue.

In responding to us, the SPS said that it is normal for practices to vary from hall to hall, particularly in light of the differing categories of prisoner in each hall. They confirmed that prisoners can be placed on misconduct reports at officers’ discretion and, similarly, certain members of staff can decide when to apply the Status 6 process. These processes are not necessarily mutually exclusive and it is possible that prisoners can be subject to either or both if they fail to attend their work.

Mr C also complained that he was not given the opportunity to call witnesses to his disciplinary hearing. However, we noted from the associated paperwork that he pled guilty to the charge and was happy to accept the written evidence. There was no evidence that he requested witnesses.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because an officer opened an envelope containing documents that Mr C had asked to be faxed to the court. Mr C said that, because the decision had been taken not to fax the documents, it was inappropriate for the officer to open the envelope. Mr C also complained about the prison's handling of his complaint.

Our investigation confirmed that the envelope was addressed to the officer but she did not know what it contained. The officer only became aware of Mr C's request to fax the documents once she opened the envelope and was able to read his note asking for the documents to be faxed to the court. We were satisfied that the officer's actions in opening the envelope were appropriate and did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the delay in the governor responding to his complaint. In reviewing those concerns, it was clear the governor did delay in responding. We felt the delay was unreasonable and we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.