Prisons

Summary
Mr C was to have parole from prison. However, when that was withdrawn at short notice, the various people involved in the arrangements did not know about it, even though he himself had been told. He wanted us to arrange a written reply about this from the prison. We arranged this and closed Mr C's case as we had found a practical settlement of the complaint, on the basis that we had arranged what he had asked for.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that after an orderly room hearing the adjudicator did not inform medical staff of his cellular confinement, contrary to rule 119(3) of the prison rules. We upheld the complaint, although we made no recommendations as the prison had already acknowledged that the process in place did not comply with rule 119(3) and taken action. We commended the SPS for recognising their error, apologising to Mr C and taking action to prevent a similar situation occurring again by making changes to the orderly room paperwork. There was nothing more that we could achieve by pursuing the complaint further.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS refused to allow him to use a particular jacket. They told him that it was an outdoor style jacket and that such items are not permitted in prison. Mr C complained that the items in use list (which says what items prisoners are allowed to use) did not make this rule clear. He also complained that this led to him missing exercise periods in order to avoid exposure to the cold.

In investigating this complaint, we identified that the prison's original items in use list did not clearly state that outdoor jackets were not permitted. However, it is predominantly a list of items that are allowed and it did not say either that outdoor jackets were permitted. In any case, the establishment had already taken steps to introduce a new items in use list and they provided us with a copy. This explicitly states that outdoor jackets are not permitted. The SPS also confirmed that the establishment holds a stock of outdoor jackets that prisoners can access for exercise periods during inclement weather.

The SPS have discretion to decide which items to permit and they are, therefore, entitled to refuse to allow outdoor jackets. As the guidance has been updated to clarify the situation, and as prisoners have appropriate access to outdoor wear when required, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that there had been unreasonable failings in respect of a case conference which a prison held to discuss his future. The investigation established that there had been some failings. The main one was that Mr C had not been given notice of the case conference, which meant he had not had time to prepare or to invite a family member to be present. We considered that, on balance, the failings were not unreasonable. In particular, the prison had provided good reasons why they did not give notice on this occasion. The prison were also taking action to improve the notice aspect of case conferences. We also considered that the other shortcomings did not add up to unreasonable failings. On balance, therefore, we did not consider there were enough grounds to uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that two weeks wages had been withheld from him. When he raised a complaint with the prison, he was initially told that he was due a repeat wage, however, he was then told that this was not the case and that the prison were following their policy. When we investigated this the SPS explained that the repeat wage only continued until a work party was allocated. Their earnings policy is that wages depend on performance, contribution and productivity. When a prisoner is first inducted, they are placed at the lower end of the pay scale, which is what happened to Mr C. Because of this we did not uphold his complaint although we noted that the prison's response to the complaint could have been clearer.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the way the prison carried out his supervision level review. In particular, Mr C complained because he felt the prison inappropriately considered information that was considered at his last review; the prison failed to provide him with information to allow him to make self representation; the prison failed to apply the flowchart properly and the prison's responses to his complaint were inadequate.

In response to Mr C's complaint, the prison confirmed that the proper process had been followed and that all relevant information had been considered before reaching the decision on what supervision level to assign him. Our investigation confirmed this and we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the Governor did not properly and fairly investigate his complaint that an officer falsified written evidence which was used at his orderly room hearing (this is the prison internal disciplinary procedure). When Mr C complained, the Governor told him that he had reviewed the evidence available including CCTV and the orderly room paperwork. He was satisfied the officer's actions were appropriate and that no disciplinary action was needed.

In investigating Mr C's complaint, we asked the Governor to confirm that he had in fact reviewed the officer's written evidence prior to reaching his decision on Mr C's complaint. The Governor confirmed he did and we, therefore, did not uphold Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the SPS calculated his liberation date (the date he would automatically be released) incorrectly. Mr C said he was sentenced in Scotland and then transferred to England to be sentenced on a separate charge. Whilst in England, Mr C said he was told he would be released in 2013. However, when Mr C returned to Scotland he was told he would not be released until 2014.

Our enquiries confirmed that Mr C's liberation date had been calculated properly, but differently, by both the SPS and the Prison Service in England. The reason for the difference is that both authorities operate different sentencing policies and, therefore, calculate prisoner sentences differently. In England, a prisoner serving a sentence of a year or more will serve half their sentence in prison and serve the rest of the sentence in the community on licence. This is called half remission. In Scotland, a prisoner serving a sentence of four years or more will automatically be released after serving two thirds of their sentence - this date is called the earliest date of liberation (EDL) and is the date Mr C complained about. However, prior to a prisoner's EDL, they would become eligible for parole after serving half of their sentence – this date is called the parole qualifying date.

We were satisfied the SPS had calculated Mr C's liberation date properly and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C was unhappy about the length of time it was taking for him to complete the first stage of his management plan. This said that he should participate in an assessment by the Head of Psychology and complete work to reinforce decision making and problem solving skills. Firstly, it is not for our office to decide when or whether someone should progress through his or her management plan. Such decisions are discretionary matters and are for the SPS to take. What we have to determine is whether the SPS have followed the proper processes and procedures in doing so and whether they have delayed unreasonably. In addition, it is not for us to question the professional opinion of psychologists where there is no evidence of administrative error.

During our investigation, we found that that the SPS had postponed some of Mr C’s meetings with a psychologist due to adverse weather conditions. Although this delayed matters, we considered this to be reasonable. There was an additional delay when the psychologists decided to review the work that was being carried out. All in all, the decisions surrounding Mr C's case were ones that were appropriate for the psychologists and SPS to take and we found no evidence of administrative error or unnecessary delay.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison failed to properly handle his property claim form and CP2 complaint form (the route a prisoner uses to complain confidentially to the Governor of the prison) and because of this, they went missing. The prison acknowledged that Mr C's claim form and CP2 complaint appeared to have gone missing and took steps to address the issues. This included fast tracking Mr C's claim form and putting an optional confidential complaint logging system in place for prisoners to use.

Because Mr C's claim form and CP2 complaint went missing we upheld his complaint. However, because of the remedial action already taken by the prison we did not make further recommendations.