Prisons

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS had refused his request to transfer to an open prison because he had previously absconded from prison custody. Mr C said he felt the decision was unfair and irrational because this had happened more than 20 years ago when he was in a young offenders institution. He said it did not reflect his behaviour now. Our investigation confirmed that the SPS had followed the proper process in reaching their decision to refuse Mr C's request and that this was a discretionary decision they were entitled to take. The decision was taken by the SPS Executive Committee for the Management of Difficult Prisoners. This committee is responsible for considering the cases of prisoners who want to progress to less secure conditions but have previously absconded or escaped.

Summary
Mr C complained about delay in progressing through his prison sentence. He had been told that he would be put forward for progression by a particular time but this had not happened. We considered whether there had been an unreasonable delay in him being put forward for progression. We did not uphold his complaint because, while there had been a delay, it was not unreasonable. The initial delay had been caused by further information being requested and a further delay had been caused by an operational decision to stop admissions to the prison he was to progress to because redevelopment work was ongoing. Mr C had been offered the opportunity to be put forward to progress to another prison but had refused.

Summary
Mr C, a prisoner, complained because he was cold going to work and exercise. He said there were no jackets available and that it was the Governor's duty to make sure there was proper clothing available for prisoners in line with Prison Rule 27. The prison confirmed that new jackets were available but were being stamped before use, and that meanwhile prisoners could ask for additional clothing or request to use their own jackets. In bringing his complaint to the SPSO, Mr C said the new jackets were unsuitable for all outdoor weather and also that the jackets were only to be used for exercise. Our enquiries found that the jackets were a kagoule type and were shower proof. We therefore considered that the prison had made adequate arrangements to provide Mr C with the relevant clothing.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the SPS did not properly deal with his request for a copy of orderly room paperwork (this is the internal prison disciplinary procedure). He was told that he would need to complete a 'Subject Access Request' form and pay £10 before he would receive the paperwork. When Mr C complained, the prison acknowledged that he had been wrongly advised to complete the form and apologised to him for this. In investigating Mr C's complaint, we noted that SPS guidance on these procedures confirms that if a prisoner who has been found guilty at the orderly room asks for a copy of the adjudication paperwork, then the Governor should provide it free of charge. Because Mr C's request was not dealt with properly before he complained, we upheld his complaint. However, as his complaint was resolved by the prison when he complained we did not make any recommendations.

Summary
Mr C complained that there was a delay in him being assessed for the Substance Related Offending Behaviour Programme, to which he had been referred in late 2008. He said that he was unable to progress through his prison sentence until he completed the programme. He also said that even when he completed the programme, he would need to wait for the psychology report to be finalised before he could progress. The prison acknowledged Mr C's frustration and agreed that waiting times were lengthy. They assured Mr C that they were not deliberately holding him back and pointed out that many prisoners were keen to participate in programmes. This made it difficult to prioritise places. In the light of similar complaints to the SPSO from other prisoners, the prison had already explained to us that a pilot programme ran for some prisoners from November 2007 until November 2008. After that plans were put in place to deliver the programme more widely. Our investigation confirmed that Mr C did have to wait for two years before he was assessed for the programme. However, the prison had a duty to deliver the programme to different groups of prisoners. Managing this meant that one group of prisoners was necessarily given priority over another group. Therefore the delay in Mr C accessing the programme was unavoidable.

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS delayed in progressing him to a 'top end' prison facility (part of a prison for low supervision prisoners entitled to special escorted leave). Firstly, it is not for our office to decide when or whether someone should progress to such a facility. Such decisions are discretionary matters and are for the SPS to take. What we have to determine is whether they followed the proper processes and procedures in doing so. During our investigation, we found that, due to adverse weather conditions, the SPS postponed a meeting to consider Mr C’s case. Although this delayed matters, we considered this to be reasonable. The top end prison facility then asked that he be reassessed for a prisoner programme. It was for them to decide whether or not to accept the prisoner, and they were entitled to ask that he be reassessed. However, as the capacity of the top end facility was then reduced for rebuilding work, an operational decision was taken not to accept any more admissions. All in all, the decisions surrounding Mr C's case were ones that were appropriate for the SPS to take and we found no evidence of administrative error or unnecessary delay.

Summary
Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that there had been an unreasonable delay by the SPS in assessing him for the Substance Related Offending Behaviour Programme. He felt that this meant he was being overlooked for progression as he worked through his sentence. As in other similar cases, the prison agreed that waiting times were lengthy. They said, however, that when placing people on the wating list they take several factors into account, and it is for the prison to assess who can access the programme at what time within the limited resources available. They said they could not guarantee when Mr C would be assessed, but said that in this he was in a similar position to many others. In the light of similar complaints to the SPSO from other prisoners, we know that a pilot programme ran for some prisoners from November 2007 until November 2008. After that, plans were put in place to deliver the programme more widely. Our investigation confirmed that Mr C waited more than two years before he was assessed for the programme. However, the prison had a duty to deliver the programme to different groups of prisoners, taking a number of personal factors into account in each case. The delay in Mr C accessing the programme was therefore unavoidable.

Summary
Mr C was transferred from one prison to another. He complained that, although he was allowed to buy certain items while in the first prison, he was not allowed to do so in the second prison. We could only look at the way in which prison staff considered his request, as it is not for the Ombudsman to tell a prison what they should allow people to buy. When we looked at the response from the prison authorities, we found that they had explained why they did not add these items to the list of acceptable purchases. We were satisfied that they had carefully considered the request and given Mr C reasons why it was not granted.

Summary
Mr C had requested a transfer to another prison where he could use his accumulated visits. He complained to us that the SPS did not provide him with updates on this. He said that delays to the visits were putting a strain on his relationship with his partner. Our investigation found that the SPS had explained to Mr C that they could not give him an exact date for visits. This was partly because of lack of available space in the other prison and partly because of other factors that they had to take into account when making their decision. Having looked at all of the available evidence as we were satisfied that the SPS had taken steps to explain what was happening, and why an exact date for visits was not available, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that he experienced unreasonable delays in accessing an art class. He had been on an education waiting list for some time without getting a place. In response to our enquiries, the SPS explained that Mr C’s name was not added to the class list when it should have been, because of human error. Instead his name had been removed from the list. Having identified this, the prison took immediate steps to resolve the problem by putting Mr C into the art class list the following day. We upheld the complaint, but did not make any recommendations as the SPS had already taken action to resolve it.