Prisons

Summary
Mr C complained that an orderly room report that was dismissed had remained on his record. We could not look at this complaint as it had come to us without going through the prison complaints system first. However, Mr C also complained that this information was given to the adjudicator in an orderly room hearing. He said that because of this, the information on which the adjudicator based their decision was inaccurate. When we looked into this, we found that the information provided to the adjudicator did contain these details. Although we did not take the view that this meant they received inaccurate information, the SPS were unable to provide us with evidence that in the circumstances the adjudicator was fully advised about Mr C’s previous report record. We therefore upheld this complaint.

We did not, however, make any recommendations, because as a result of our enquiries the prison reviewed the level of detail provided about previous behaviour, and changed the information that they will in future provide to the adjudicator. We were pleased that they undertook this review and made changes. This should help to ensure that, in future, when an adjudicator makes a decision on punishment, it will be based on full information about the prisoner's disciplinary record. We suggested to the SPS that they share the outcome of the prison's review across the prison estate as an example of good practice in presenting such information.

Summary
Mr C was in prison and had been assessed as requiring one-to-one psychological treatment. He complained that there was an unacceptable delay in getting this. We asked the SPS to comment. They explained that they have had difficulties arranging one-to-one work because of major staff shortages, although they are taking steps to resolve this. They also considered whether Mr C’s needs could be met through group work instead of one-to-one work. A psychologist met him and arranged for an assessment to take place that would let the SPS decide whether he was suitable to take part in a programme, on which he would receive first priority if considered suitable.  We know from other complaints that shortage of psychology staff is a long-standing problem in some prisons and that to some extent resolving the issue is outwith the control of the individual prison concerned. What we had to examine here was whether the prison concerned had done anything to sort out the problem. The information we saw as a result of our investigation satisfied us that the prison had done what they reasonably could and so the delay was not their fault. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS unreasonably refused his request to access and review the Integrated Case Management Guidance Manual. This manual is aimed at staff, to help them help identify needs and programmes that may assist prisoners throughout their sentence, and to guide the management of prisoners’ case conferences. Mr C received notice that a case conference was due. The notice mentioned the manual, and he asked to see it. He was told that he could not, as it was for staff use only.

When we investigated, the SPS confirmed that they designed the manual to provide staff with support and guidance. They were therefore not obliged to give Mr C direct access to it. We also, however, identified that a copy is held in the prison library and prisoners are allowed to see it. No one told Mr C this. It appears that when he complained he in fact received mixed messages from staff at different stages of the complaint process about whether he could have access to the manual. Had staff simply told him it was available in the library, his complaints to the SPS and to us could have been avoided. We therefore upheld his complaint.

Recommendations
We recommended that the prison:
• apologise to Mr C for failing to explain how he could access the manual; and
• take steps to remind staff what documents are available for prisoners to access
from the prisoner library.

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS unfairly disposed of liquid found in his cell which was thought to contain alcohol. Upon discovery, the liquid was taken to the prison’s drugs testing unit where the SPS said it tested positive for alcohol. As this is against prison rules, they held a prison disciplinary hearing and placed Mr C on report. Mr C said that the SPS told him they had disposed of the liquid. He was unhappy, claiming that this prevented him from having his lawyer arrange independent testing of it. He complained to the SPS and the hearing decision was overturned. However, he was still unhappy and complained to us. When we investigated we found that the liquid had not been disposed of and was still in the prison’s drugs testing unit. Whilst we were satisfied that it had not been disposed of, we concluded that it would have been helpful if the SPS had addressed Mr C’s complaint fully and explained that they still had the liquid. This would have prevented the complaint escalating to SPSO. As the liquid had
not been disposed of, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that the SPS decided not to let him progress to an open prison. He said that this decision was based on intelligence (information) from the police that he believed to be untrue. He asked for clarification and was told that he presented an unacceptable risk to the public and so did not meet the criteria for progression. He was unhappy with this response and wanted to know more about the intelligence held on him.

We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint. It was not for us to say if the intelligence was
accurate, or whether or not Mr C should have been progressed to an open prison. We cannot comment on whether properly taken decisions of an organisation are correct. They have discretion to decide on such matters. We can look at whether they followed proper processes and procedures and considered relevant information in making their decision. In this case, we did not see any evidence that the SPS failed to follow their procedures in reaching their decision. As well as this, we noted that where a case involves intelligence about a prisoner, it may not always be appropriate to make that intelligence available to him or her. This is particularly true where the decision relates to security and risk to the public and there are reasonable concerns about this information being disclosed. In this instance, we considered that it was also reasonable for the SPS to decide that it would not be appropriate to disclose further information related to the  intelligence.

Summary
Mr C complained that he was refused access to the prison exercise yard. He also said that when exercising he and certain other prisoners were treated differently from the majority of prisoners in terms of when they were allowed to return to the residential hall.  He complained that there was delay and a failure to implement remedial action in respect of his complaint. We obtained all the relevant policies and procedures and obtained information from the SPS about the complaints. We found that accounts of the event relating to access to the yard differed and there was not enough evidence to be able to say what had happened. We found that the SPS had provided a reasonable explanation of the differences in treatment, and that there had been no unreasonable delay in dealing with issues arising from the complaint. We also noted that the SPS had taken action as a result of the complaints.

Summary
Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably delayed in assessing him for offending behaviour programmes. He said that he was concerned this would hold him back from progressing to the Open Estate when he becomes eligible.

Mr C raised his concerns about delays with SPS officials. He was told that, due to
current demand and his critical dates, they could not assess him at that time, but that he would be considered for assessment as soon as possible during the next phase.  When this did not happen Mr C complained using the prison complaints process. 

When we investigated the reasons for  delay, the SPS told us that although Mr C had been told that he could attend a particular phase of courses, there had been an influx of new prisoners. This created a backlog of assessments, which meant that he would not receive an assessment or its outcome for five months. The SPS also told us that many prisoners had expressed frustrations about such delays. They said they were reviewing the current system and taking steps to try to improve it. There are no legal requirements or targets about prisoners gaining access to programmes.  However, when investigating a previous complaint, the Ombudsman had recommended that the prison communicate timescales to individual prisoners on when they could expect to access similar programmes.

The SPS have a duty to assess prisoners within a reasonable timeframe and have acknowledged that there are problems with the systems in place for dealing with this.  However, they were taking steps to address this, explained the reasons for the delays to Mr C and provided an assurance about the time by when he will be assessed. We took the view that this was reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary
Mr C complained that items of clothing were not returned to him after being laundered by the SPS. When we investigated the complaint, we found that Mr C did not provide laundry lists when he first raised the matter with the SPS. Without supporting evidence to show what items had been submitted for laundry, we could not uphold his complaint.  Our investigation, however, prompted the SPS to make changes to the administration of laundry lists to try to help reduce the likelihood of items going missing in the future.