Prisons

Summary
Mr C complained that his partner was falsely accused of exposing her breasts to him, in the presence of her teenage daughter, during a closed visit. The matter came to Mr C's attention when his partner received a visit from social work. He also complained that the SPS failed to properly investigate his complaint in this regard as they had not viewed CCTV to substantiate the allegation.

We asked the SPS about this incident. They confirmed that there was no direct camera coverage in the closed visit area at the time in question so no CCTV footage existed. As such, there was no evidence to establish what happened on the day so we did not uphold that complaint, nor his complaint about CCTV footage not being viewed.

However, as a result of the complaint, it came to our attention that the SPS had not told Mr C or his partner that the matter was being referred to social work. In addition, the completed child welfare report was not countersigned by a line manager. As SPS policy dictates that both of these should have occurred, we recommended that SPS highlight the relevant policy (GMA 25A/04) to staff.

Recommendations
We recommend that Scottish Prison Service:
• highlight the relevant policy to staff and remind them of their duty to inform the carer/prisoner when referring matters to social work; and
• remind line managers that they must countersign any completed child welfare reports.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to manage his sentence properly and this resulted in him being refused parole. Mr C is serving a life sentence. The punishment part of the sentence expired in January 2010. This means that Mr C can be freed once he receives approval from a Life Prisoner Tribunal. However, in January 2010, a Life Prisoner Tribunal decided that he should not be released. They recommended that he be progressed through the prison first, providing certain conditions were met.

Mr C considers that the delay in his progression is having an impact on his release. During our investigation, we found that the SPS had adhered to the proper processes and procedures in managing Mr C’s progression. The fact that he had been returned to closed conditions for breaking the prison rules in February 2010 was having a considerable impact on his progression and release. However, the SPS were entitled to make that decision.

Mr C is also unhappy that he has been told to do further prison programmes. The SPS have decided that he needed these programmes to improve his decision-making. We considered that they were entitled to make these decisions when they felt that he had outstanding needs.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) provided him with inconsistent information about what he needed to do to progress to a ‘top end’ prison facility (a designated part of a prison for low supervision prisoners entitled to special escorted leave). He considered that they were ‘moving the goal posts’.

Mr C had previously been in a top end facility, but had been returned to closed conditions, after being caught with alcohol in his possession. During our investigation, we found that the SPS had told Mr C that he would be referred to a Multi Disciplinary Progression Management Group (MDPMG) meeting. The SPS said that the MDPMG would review his risk factors and, if appropriate, approve his return to a top end facility. It is not for us to decide when someone should be progressed to a top end facility. Decisions on these matters are discretionary and are for the SPS to take. However, they should ensure that prisoners are given consistent and accurate information in relation to progression.

We considered the information Mr C and the SPS provided to us. There was no clear objective evidence that the SPS provided Mr C with inconsistent information regarding his progression requirements.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that due to failure by SPS to manage his sentence he was being prevented from progressing through it. He felt that plans for him had not been completed and he was unable to access relevant programmes as a result. Our investigation confirmed that all relevant plans had been completed for Mr C and that his sentence was being managed properly.
 

Summary
Mr C raised a number of issues surrounding his request for a sports top. We did not uphold the complaint as there was no evidence that the SPS had not dealt with the request in line with current practice. Staff had viewed the top he wanted and had decided that it was not allowed. The decision not to issue the top was a discretionary decision for the SPS to take.

Mr C also complained about the handling of his complaint. We found that they had responded to the issues raised by Mr C and did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS failed to carry out an Integrated Case Management (ICM) Recall case conference when he was returned to prison custody in 2008. ICM is a process used by the SPS for prisoner sentence management and case conferences are held to talk about issues and aims individual prisoners might have. A recall case conference happens when a prisoner returns to custody after having been released on licence.

Mr C said that prisoners recalled to custody should receive an ICM recall case conference within six weeks of the return to custody. In Mr C's case, the SPS acknowledged there had been an error and confirmed he did not receive the appropriate case conference when he was returned to custody. Instead Mr C was scheduled for an initial case conference - used for prisoners who are beginning a new sentence. In light of the error highlighted in Mr C's case, the SPS confirmed that they had taken steps to improve the ICM process.

Our enquiries confirmed that guidance on the ICM process says that a recall case conference should be held as soon as possible, but at the latest within 6 weeks after the offender's return to custody. In light of this, and because the SPS did not carry out the appropriate case conference for Mr C, we upheld his complaint. However, we were satisfied that the SPS had already taken proper steps to strengthen the process, and did not make any recommendations.

Mr C also complained that the SPS did not respond to his complaint on the matter. We found that Mr C received a response at each stage of his complaint. We did not uphold this because, although he was unhappy with those responses, the evidence showed the prison took reasonable steps to respond to Mr C's complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because those in his residential hall at the prison were not receiving their mail until after 18:30 each day. Mr C said other residential halls were receiving mail before this time and it was unfair because mail was important to prisoners. Our investigation found that there is no obligation for prisoners to receive their mail before a certain time in the day. Instead, the prison must ensure prisoners receive their mail on the day it is received into the establishment. In addition to this, following an audit, the prison had taken steps to reinforce the security of the mail process, and this impacted on when prisoners would receive mail. The purpose of this change was to assist in the good order and security of the prison. Although we recognise how important receiving mail is for prisoners, we agreed that this was reasonable in the circumstances.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the price of goods available to buy in his prison kept increasing, although wages for prisoners stayed the same. When we investigated, we were satisfied that the prison were trying to keep prices down as far as reasonably possible. We accepted that there had been price increases because VAT had increased in January 2011 and because the suppliers of the goods were increasing their prices to the prison. Mr C said prices were cheaper in some other prisons, and we explained to him that each prison used their own suppliers, which meant that some were able to negotiate better deals than others (for example, if they were located close to the supplier). That meant that the prices would differ from prison to prison. We also told Mr C that wage levels for prisoners were a matter for the SPS headquarters, not this office.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that his previous prison had required him to attend work in prison although there was nothing for him to do. We did not uphold the complaint because prison rules require prisoners to attend work except in cases such as illness or where the prison do not have work available.
 

Summary
Mr C is a former prisoner. He complained that a prison had inappropriately considered incorrect information before reaching their decision to refuse his application for early release under the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme. This information said that Mr C was previously recalled to custody in 2008 whilst on release under HDC licence. Mr C said this was incorrect because he had agreed to return to custody, rather than having been recalled. The SPS were unable to uncover evidence that supported Mr C's claim that he was not recalled to custody. The evidence that was available showed that Mr C had breached his HDC licence and was, therefore, recalled to custody. Because of this, by law, the SPS were unable to approve Mr C's most recent HDC application.