Prisons

Summary
Mr C purchased a hi-fi through prison 1's local purchasing process but was no longer allowed to use it after he was transferred to prison 2, as it contained a iPod docking station. Mr C complained that it was unreasonable of prison 2 to withhold the hi-fi and he had not been given adeqate reasons as to why it was not allowed. Mr C said that he had purchased the hi-fi through the proper procedure at prison 1 and that a security seal had been placed over the docking station to disable its use.

Prison 2 told Mr C that, in line with national policy, electrical or electronic equipment that may operate a device that can access the internet is not allowed in a prisoner's cell. Prison 2 sought advice from their IT specialist who advised that the iPod docking station could not be effectively sealed off.

We concluded that prison 2 acted in accordance with the national policy in withholding Mr C's hi-fi. There was evidence that Mr C was given a detailed written explanation of the reasons why he was not allowed this equipment. We also identified that the purpose of the security seal is to prevent unauthorised items from being concealed in devices that are allowed in a prisoner's cell, and not for the purposes of disabling the likes of an iPod docking station.

Although we did not uphold the complaint, it was clear that prison 1 had not acted in accordance with the national policy in allowing Mr C to purchase the hi-fi. As a result, prison 1 decided to reimburse the cost of it to Mr C.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was delayed in being identified for inclusion in an intervention programme. He said this was unreasonable. Mr C was worried the delay would affect his progression to less secure conditions and his chance of early parole.

Our investigation found that as Mr C had appealed against his conviction, his participation in intervention work was delayed. This was because Mr C's custodial circumstances could have changed as a result of the appeal, which would have impacted upon his participation in intervention work. Also, the prison explained that they have limited resources available to deliver a range of intervention programmes to a number of prisoners. In addition to this, the prison must deliver programmes to different population groups of prisoners, impacting further on these limited resources. Taking all of this information into account, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the delay in the prison progressing his application for the Open Estate. Mr C said he felt his application was being treated differently from other prisoners because other prisoners had been progressed more quickly than him.

In responding to Mr C's complaint, the prison told Mr C that they had requested information from the Police to help inform their decision about whether he was suitable for a move to open conditions. The prison said the Police had not provided the information and they would continue to pursue the matter.

Our enquiries on Mr C's complaint confirmed that the prison had processed his application in line with the proper process and that the delay in receiving information from the Police was outwith the prison's control. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. At the same time as making our enquiries, the Police provided the requested information and the prison were able to progress Mr C's application in line with the normal process.

Summary
Mr C was identified in late 2009 as requiring an assessment for an offending behaviour programme. He complained to us that he had not yet been assessed and he was concerned that he will not have completed the necessary groupwork prior to his Parole Qualifying Date (PQD).

The Scottish Prison Service informed us that prisoners are prioritised for groupwork in line with their PQD and that they were currently assessing prisoners with PQDs in 2012. They confirmed that Mr C is on their list to be assessed but, as his PQD is not until 2013, he is not deemed a priority at this time. We considered this reasonable and noted that there is still sufficient time for Mr C to be assessed for, and placed on, the relevant programme. In light of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that a logging process had not been implemented for confidential complaints, despite the Governor having indicated that this would be done when responding to an earlier complaint from him. Mr C also complained about the lack of a system for logging other internal mail items. This resulted from a mail item he tried to send to Scottish Prison Service Headquarters via internal mail being submitted to the Royal Mail in error.

In responding to Mr C's complaint, the prison had undertaken to review their mail processes. Our enquiries revealed that this had taken place and that a new process had subsequently been introduced for logging internal mail items. In addition, the prison explained that a number of operational issues had delayed the implementation of the proposed process for logging confidential complaints. However, they advised us that the process was ready to go live and would be implemented shortly.

In the circumstances, we were satisfied that the prison had taken reasonable action to implement relevant logging processes and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the decision taken by one prison to transfer him to another. Mr C said he was ready to transfer to less secure conditions and he felt that transfering to the second prison would impact on his progression.

In response to his complaint, the first prison explained that they needed to make space for women prisoners transferring to that prison and because of this, the decision had been taken to select individual prisoners to transfer to the second prison.

Our enquiries to the first prison confirmed that they had taken a discretionary decision to transfer Mr C. Our enquiries also highlighted that Mr C's progression to less secure conditions would be handled in the same way at the second prison as it would at the first. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Governor's response to his complaint was unreasonable. Mr C complained about a member of staff opening his legal mail and also about a member of staff throwing away stamps that had been used on a parcel sent to him.

After making enquiries with the prison, we were satisfied the issues raised by Mr C in his complaint to the Governor were investigated properly. The Governor asked an appropriate manager to speak with Mr C and the members of staff involved. The manager also took steps to remind staff of the proper process when handling stamps that have been used on correspondence or parcels sent to prisoners. In light of this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the decision taken by the prison to delay his transfer to a National Top End (NTE). NTE is a less secure prison environment that life or long term prisoners will progress to after they meet certain criteria for a period of three months due to adverse intelligence. Mr C said that the evidence used by the prison to support the decision did not justify the decision and so the decision was unfair.

Our enquiries confirmed that the prison took the decision not to transfer Mr C to a NTE following consideration of relevant information (intelligence). We found no evidence of maladministration and did not uphold this complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service's (SPS) final decision on his complaint was unreasonable. Our investigation concluded that the SPS had appropriately looked into the matter raised and gave Mr C adequate detail and explanation about their findings and their decision.