Prisons

Summary
Mr C was deselected from an offending behaviour programme. His solicitor contacted the prison about the deselection. When the prison responded, Mr C felt that the information that they provided to his solicitor about the reasons for his deselection was incorrect. As part of our investigation, we saw notes of meetings between Mr C and staff, risk management group discussions, the deselection report and officer recollection of what was discussed with Mr C. When we reviewed this, we were satisfied that the information held by the SPS supported the information provided to Mr C's solicitor about the reasons for his deselection from the programme.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that information given by the prison in response to his complaint was incorrect. He said that he pled 'not guilty' to a charge in an orderly room hearing and a witness request was refused. The prison's response to his complaint indicated that he did not request a witness and he had pled 'guilty' to the charge. The prison acknowledged that there had been an error in saying that he had pled 'guilty', therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. However, the orderly room paperwork indicated that no witnesses were requested and no plea in mitigation was made after the guilty finding. In the absence of other evidence to support Mr C's view, we had to have regard to the paperwork and so we did not uphold that aspect of his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C was working through a management plan that had been agreed by his prison and was hoping to be paroled at his next Parole Board hearing. However, he was concerned that the plan seemed to have been stopped. Our investigation revealed that concerns had been raised at a multi-disciplinary meeting about Mr C's suitability for parole at present and that it had been decided to assess Mr C further before considering a suitable way forward. The current position was that a case conference was being arranged. It is for the SPS, not this office, to decide if someone presents a particular risk or needs further assessment. Our role in this complaint was to see whether the SPS had handled it in line with procedures, and we were satisfied that this was the case.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that he had bought an electrical extension lead in prison but, when he moved to another prison, he was told that the local policy there did not allow the use of such leads. It is not our role to decide what prison policies should be: that is a matter for them. Our role in this complaint was to consider whether there had been any unfairness or unreasonableness. We found there were strong safety grounds for the policy (possible overloading of the electriciy supply,causing power cuts and fires). This meant there were no grounds for us to question the policy further. As the prison had not acted wrongly, we did not uphold the complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about delay in being assessed for offending behaviour related programmes for which he had been identified as suitable. Mr C felt his progression to less secure conditions would be affected by the delay. He said he was identified for programmes at his Integrated Case Management (ICM) case conference in October 2010 and nothing had happened since. (ICM is a process designed to give prisoners help and support to deal with their social or personal difficulties so they are less likely to reoffend when released from prison.) The prison told us that Mr C was serving a consecutive sentence and only received his second sentence in March 2010 at which point he became a long term prisoner. The prison also told us that Mr C was assessed using the new programmes assessment process in April 2011 and began his identified programme in May 2011. Because Mr C only waited six months to be assessed, we did not agree that there had been an unreasonable delay and we did not uphold his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that mandatory drug testing (MDT) arrangements were not in place and that this was holding up his progression. In responding to his complaint, the SPS advised that they were in the process of refitting a suitable area within the prison and arrangements would be in place shortly. As his initial confidential complaint to the Governor had gone astray, Mr C also complained about a lack of logging process for such complaints. In investigating the complaint, the SPS told us that the refit was now complete and drug-testing arrangements were in place. They confirmed that there were still other requirements to be fulfilled before Mr C could be considered for progression and the process had not been delayed by the temporary non-availability of MDT. Therefore, as Mr C had not been disadvantaged, we did not uphold his complaint. The SPS also told us of steps they had taken to introduce a voluntary logging process for confidential complaints. This will mean that prisoners have the opportunity to obtain a receipt for their complaint from hall staff, whilst maintaining the confidentiality of the content of the complaint. We considered that the SPS had taken reasonable action to resolve Mr C's concerns.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained about a delay in being assessed for the Controlling Anger and Regulating Emotions (CARE) programme. The prison told Mr C that he was assessed as suitable for the programme in 2010 but that he had to wait for space on the programme to become available. Mr C said he had not been assessed and had only been identified as needing to be assessed. There was some confusion and conflicting information which meant it was unclear whether Mr C had been assessed as suitable for the programme in 2010. The prison recognised this and reassessed Mr C. The reassessment confirmed that he was suitable for the programme and he was placed onto the waiting list. We told Mr C that these were the kind of reasonable and proper steps that we would expect the prison to take in the circumstances. However, as we also found from our enquiries that Mr C had in fact already been assessed as being suitable for the programme in 2010 we did not uphold his complaint.
 

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was wrongly put in double handcuffs on a particular occasion and that the reasons for this had not been explained to him. Double handcuffs are a more secure version of normal single handcuffs. Despite extensive enquiries, we could not find any evidence of the type of cuffs used. We are an independent body and, therefore, cannot simply take one person's account in preference to that of another without firm, objective evidence. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint although we made recommendations to try to avoid similar issues arising in future.

Recommendations
We recommend that Scottish Prison Service consider adding a box to the Personal Escort Record about what type of cuffs should be used.

We recommend that Reliance Custodial Services review certain aspects of their complaint handling and take action to prevent a recurrence.

Summary
Mr C was involved in an altercation with another prisoner and placed on a misconduct report. He was subsequently found guilty of fighting but, as the disciplinary process was not correctly followed, this charge was later overturned.

Mr C was placed on the SPS's anti-bullying strategy as a result of the altercation. He complained that this should not have been the case in light of the fact that the related charge had been overturned. He also complained that, in responding to him, the SPS had referred to the charge as assault when the disciplinary paperwork recorded the charge as fighting. In responding to our enquiries, the SPS said that they felt the evidence suggested Mr C had assaulted the other prisoner. They indicated that they had taken steps to change the charge from fighting to assault but they failed to follow the correct process in doing so. They noted that this was part of the procedural failure which led to the charge being overturned. However, they advised that the anti-bullying strategy is separate from the disciplinary process. They maintained that, in light of the evidence, their decision to place Mr C on the anti-bullying strategy was appropriate. As this was a discretionary decision that the SPS were entitled to take, we did not uphold the complaint. However, we noted that the anti-bullying paperwork indicated that Mr C had been placed on the strategy as a direct result of the disciplinary process. The SPS acknowledged that this was inaccurate and took appropriate steps to bring this to the attention of the relevant staff.
 

Summary
Mr C complained because he did not believe the SPS held a valid warrant to hold him in custody. In response to Mr C's complaint, the Governor had told him the SPS held a valid warrant. In reviewing this complaint, the SPS provided our office with copies of the warrants held for Mr C. These confirmed that the SPS held valid warrants to hold Mr C in custody.