Prisons

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained following a decision taken by the prison to refuse certain items of property he requested to have in use. Mr C said the decision taken by the prison was unreasonable and he said his request had not been considered in line with the relevant policy. Mr C also raised concerns about delays in the prison responding to his complaint.

Our enquiries confirmed that the prison had considered Mr C's property request appropriately and that the decision to refuse Mr C's request was a discretionary decision the prison were entitled to take. We, therefore, did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint.
We did uphold Mr C's complaint about the unreasonable delay in responding to part of his complaint. Because the prison already acknowledged that the delay was unreasonable and apologised to Mr C we did not make any recommendations.

Summary
Mr C raised a complaint in relation to statements that an officer had allegedly made. The prison could not investigate these complaints as the officer was not at work, however, they agreed to write to Mr C following the officer's return to duty.

Mr C complained that the prison had not carried out a proper and transparent investigation of his complaint. However, as we considered the prison's actions reasonable in the circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about the unreasonable delay in him being assessed for the Constructs programme (which aims to help participants reduce the likelihood of being involved in further offending by helping them change the way they think and behave). Mr C was concerned that the delay in being assessed would affect his progression and chances of parole.

Prisoners are assessed for offending behaviour programmes using the Scottish Prison Service’s (SPS) Generic Assessment process. Prisoners are placed on to an assessment waiting list based on their critical dates - this includes their parole qualifying date - and are selected for assessment ahead of those dates.

In Mr C's case, the SPS told him that the process had been followed properly and that he was on the waiting list and would be assessed ahead of his critical dates.

We were satisfied the SPS had followed the process properly in Mr C's case and we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because the prison were asking him to engage in offending behaviour programmes and he said this was inappropriate because he maintained his innocence and, therefore, was unsuitable for the identified programmes.

The prison explained that because Mr C was a convicted prisoner, the prison had a duty to encourage him to address his offending behaviour. The prison confirmed that Mr C was currently unsuitable for the identified programmes because he was not willing to engage. However, this did not mean that the prison could not encourage him to engage and address his offending behaviour.

We were satisfied the prison were taking proper steps to encourage Mr C to engage in offending behaviour programmes and because of this, we did not uphold his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) ignored recommendations made by the parole board that he be progressed immediately to the Open Estate. He also complained that the SPS failed to adhere to his management plan by not submitting an application for his First Grant of Temporary Release.

The SPS advised us that, in cases where the parole board do not direct the release of a prisoner, the SPS invite them to make recommendations. However, the parole board's recommendations are not binding on the SPS. The evidence showed that the SPS duly considered the parole board's recommendations, but concluded that Mr C continued to present a high risk and decided not to support progression to the Open Estate. This was a discretionary decision for the SPS to take. As the evidence demonstrated that the parole board's recommendations were not ignored, we did not uphold this complaint.

With regards to the application for Mr C's First Grant of Temporary Release, the evidence demonstrated that this was also duly considered by the SPS. However, due to problems identifying a suitable address for Mr C's home leave, this was not submitted for Ministerial approval. Again, as the application was duly considered and not progressed for valid reasons, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison because he was unhappy that the Governor decided to respond to several separate confidential access complaints on the same sheet of paper. Mr C said he asked for his complaints to be responded to separately to ensure privacy and to allow him to progress his complaint if he felt it was necessary. Mr C also complained about the prison's handling of his complaint.

The prison told Mr C they were satisfied with the way the Governor chose to respond to his separate complaints because they were related to the same issue.

In reviewing Mr C's complaint, we decided that the Governor's decision to respond to several separate complaints on one sheet of paper was reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We also did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the prison's handling of his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, was downgraded from the Open Estate and returned to closed conditions. Mr C felt that he had been treated differently from other prisoners and he complained that his downgrade was unfair. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told Mr C that because he failed a drug test and was found with money that he was not entitled to have, he was unsuitable for open conditions and this is why he was downgraded.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, our office was satisfied that the SPS had taken the decision to downgrade Mr C after careful consideration of all relevent information and this was a discretionary decision for the SPS to take. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Mr C also complained about the SPS's handling of his complaint. In particular, he complained because his complaints form was not returned to him by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and because of this, he was unable to progress his complaint to the next stage.

Our enquiries confirmed that Mr C's complaint form was filed away with the ICC records in error. Mr C's form was only returned to him after he complained about the form not being returned to him from the ICC. However, the SPS acknowledged the error and apologised to Mr C for this. Because Mr C's complaint form was not returned to him, we upheld his complaint but we did not ask for any further action to be taken because of the apology already provided by the SPS to Mr C.
 

Summary
Mr C complained raised a number of issues about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). He complained that they allocated him to a joinery workparty based on an incorrect view that he had relevant experience. He also complained that they do not operate an open and transparent process for allocation of prisoner employment/training opportunities and that this prevented Mr C from applying for a barbering position. He complained that the SPS allocated barbering positions to prisoners who did not hold the relevant qualifications and experience. He also complained that the SPS delayed in dealing with his complaint.

Our investigation found no evidence of maladministration in the handling of the issues raised by Mr C. The SPS confirmed that previous experience was not required to work in workshops. In addition, it was not for this office to decide who should be selected, or not selected, for employment opportunities. These were discretionary decisions for the SPS and local management and we, therefore, did not uphold the complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had not told him why he was not allowed to progress to enhanced conditions when he believed he met the relevant criteria.

It is not for us to decide whether prisoners should progress to enhanced conditions. Such decisions are discretionary matters and are for the SPS and local management to take. It is for them to decide what information is important. What we have to determine is whether they have followed the proper processes and procedures and, where appropriate, explained the application of them to prisoners.

We found that Mr C was not in fact told that he was not being allowed to progress, or the reasons for this, until he made a complaint. Prisoners should not have to make a complaint to obtain this information. They should be informed promptly of the decision and the reasons for it. We, therefore, upheld this complaint.

Mr C also complained that his disability was not taken into account when the decision was made to transfer him to another prison. We did not uphold this complaint as we found that the SPS had carried out risk assessments before transferring him.

Recommendation
We recommended that the SPS:
• ensure that their new guidance on progression clearly states that prisoners should be informed promptly of the decision and reasons if their progression is not approved.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that a prison staff member sometimes attracted his attention by calling to him by his surname, when other prisoners were addressed by their first and second names. It turned out that the prison had already taken action on this by advising the staff member to use both names and by co-ordinating all their prisoner lists, to ensure that all lists contained both names. We upheld the complaint on the basis that the prison had acknowledged fault. As they had already taken appropriate action, however, we had no recommendations to make.