Prisons

Summary

During a search of his cell, Mr C said an officer transferred ink from an ink pad onto some items of his clothing. He complained about the matter and he was unhappy with the prison's response. Mr C complained to us that the prison failed to handle his complaint reasonably.

The prison told Mr C that he should not have had the ink pad in his cell in the first place. They were also unable to establish where the ink pad had come from. The prison told Mr C that they did not uphold his complaint. However, they agreed to remind staff of the standards that should be followed when conducting cell searches and dealing with prisoners' property. The prison also confirmed to us that Mr C had accepted an offer of £30 for the damage caused to his clothing.

In making his complaint to the prison, Mr C raised concerns about the manner in which an officer conducted the search. He said he wanted officers to take more care when doing cell searches. Whilst the prison did not uphold Mr C's complaint, they did take steps to remind staff of the professional standards required when conducting cell searches. It is not entirely clear why the prison sought to establish where the ink pad came from; doing so appears to have over-complicated the matter. However, overall, we were satisfied the prison's handling of the matter was reasonable and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused his request to transfer cash from his prison account to his bank account. He said the SPS also refused to allow him to hand cash over to a visitor.

In their response to his complaint, the prison told Mr C that prisoners were not allowed to transfer cash from their prison accounts to their bank accounts. They also told him that handing money out at visits was prevented for security reasons. We reviewed the SPS finance manual which stated that cash could be handed out at a visit, or sent out. It said that when cash was being handed out at a visit, a receipt needed to be obtained from the recipient. We asked the SPS why they told Mr C this process was not allowed. They recognised that the response provided to Mr C was unclear. The response had not explained that a prisoner could only hand cash out at a visit when they had made a formal request. The SPS said that although Mr C said he had made a request to hand money out at a visit, there was no evidence of him having done that.

We accepted that the SPS had discretion when it came to deciding whether to allow prisoners to transfer funds to their bank accounts. However, in relation to handing money out at visits, we found that the prison had a local policy in place which supported the requirements of the national finance manual. We considered this to be reasonable. However, in Mr C's case, we considered that the prison unreasonably failed to explain to him that he had not followed the process properly. Additionally, they gave a misleading response which created the impression that requests to hand money out at visits were not allowed for security reasons. In light of this, we agreed that the SPS unreasonably refused Mr C's request.

Mr C also complained that the prison failed to handle his complaint appropriately. We agreed because the information he received was inconsistent. In light of our findings, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified by our investigation; and
• ensure staff and prisoners are aware of the local arrangements to be followed when a prisoner wants to send money out of the prison, as outlined in the SPS finance manual.

Summary

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) inappropriately failed to follow the correct process when placing him on disciplinary report. In particular, Mr C said the prison had given him a document that prisoners were not supposed to receive. He also said he had not received appropriate notification that he was being placed on disciplinary report. In addition, Mr C said the prison failed to respond appropriately to his complaint.

The SPS accepted that Mr C should not have been issued with the document and it should only have been made available to the adjudicator of his hearing. However, they did not consider that issuing the document to Mr C had impacted on the disciplinary process or resulted in him receiving an unfair hearing. We agreed with this position. In addition, the SPS were able to provide evidence that Mr C had received appropriate notification that he had been placed on disciplinary report. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of his complaint.

In looking at whether the SPS failed to respond appropriately to Mr C's complaint, we agreed that the response was dated incorrectly. However, we did not consider this error had affected the quality of the response. We accepted that the written response issued from the internal complaints committee (ICC) was confusing because it referred to a negative drug test result instead of a positive result. However, the chairperson of the ICC wrote to Mr C and agreed that they had incorrectly referred to a negative drug test result and apologised for any confusion caused. Given the administrative errors identified, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that there had been unreasonable delays by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in facilitating his movement through the prison system in time for his parole hearing. Mr C had been transferred from a prison in England so that he could receive family visits. However, he needed a cell of his own and there was a waiting list for single cells in the prison he had been transferred to. Therefore, Mr C was transferred to another prison so that he could be given a single cell. Although Mr C considered that this had delayed his progression through the prison system, we found that this was a decision that the SPS were entitled to take.

Mr C was also unhappy that his former parole officer in England had not attended a meeting to discuss his progression. We found that the SPS had taken steps to try to arrange for the parole officer to participate in the meeting. As Mr C was unhappy that he had not attended, the SPS agreed to postpone this meeting to a later date so that the parole officer could participate and provide further information. We considered that this had been reasonable. We did not find evidence that there have been unreasonable delays by the SPS in facilitating Mr C's movement through the prison system and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the prison's handling of his progression to less secure conditions had been unreasonable. In particular, Mr C said the punishment part of his sentence had expired four years ago and that he was five years over his progression date. He said he had been told several times that he would progress to open (lowest security) conditions but it had not happened.

The decision on whether to progress a prisoner to less secure conditions is a discretionary one for the risk management team (RMT - the group responsible for considering whether a prisoner is suitable to progress to less secure conditions) to take. We cannot question their decision. In looking at Mr C's complaint, our role was to assess whether in dealing with his case, the prison had applied the relevant policies and procedures appropriately.

The evidence available showed that the prison acknowledged Mr C had made good progress. However, they wanted him to evidence the progress he had made. Therefore, they had not recommended his progression to less secure conditions. We did not see any evidence to suggest that the prison had not followed the relevant policies and procedures appropriately in Mr C's case. Therefore, we considered that the prison’s handling of Mr C's progression to less secure conditions had been reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C told us he applied for transfer to a prison elsewhere in the UK for family reasons. He said there was a delay in the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) dealing with his transfer application, and that the SPS lost his application.

The SPS investigated what happened to Mr C’s application. Although they were unable to identify exactly when and how it went missing, they accepted that they misplaced the application and that there was an unreasonable delay in identifying that it was missing. The SPS did not provide us with their policy, procedure or guidance relating to the administration of cross-border transfer applications. It was not clear to us what the SPS learned from their investigation into this incident to ensure it would not happen again. We concluded that there was no reliable system in place to log the receipt of transfer applications and to track their progress, both at the prison and possibly at SPS headquarters. We upheld Mr C’s complaints and made a recommendation to address our concerns.

Recommendations

We recommended that the SPS:

• provide us with reassurance that there is a reliable system in place for logging and tracking cross-border transfer applications.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had appointed a person to carry out an assessment who did not meet the stated criteria specified in the tender document. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is a consultant psychiatrist. We found that, in making their decision to appoint someone to carry out the assessment, the SPS did so appropriately and in line with the service specification detailed in the tender document. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that a member of prison staff had acted unreasonably by making a comment which he felt was discriminatory and constituted harassment. We carefully considered the information Mr C had provided and sought further information from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), which included a copy of their investigation into Mr C's equality and diversity complaint. The investigation found that there was a basis for unintentionally caused harassment in relation to a protected characteristic. Even though the member of staff did not mean to cause Mr C harm, Mr C found the comment to be offensive and humiliating, particularly as he was unaware of the context in which it had been written. We upheld his complaint that the member of staff had acted unreasonably in making the comment.

As a result of Mr C's complaint, the prison had apologised to Mr C. They had also taken steps to ensure that the member of staff was aware of how his actions had affected Mr C, and identified relevant training. The SPS had also used this case as a case study at a recent national meeting about equality and diversity, and it was to be raised at the next local meeting. Therefore, no recommendations were required.

We noted that the letter to Mr C communicating the outcome of the equality and diversity investigation could have been clearer and written in plain English. We highlighted this to the SPS.

Summary

Mr C complained because he said the adjudicator failed to follow the proper process at his disciplinary hearing. In particular, Mr C said he was not allowed to cross-examine the first witness who was called to give evidence against him. He also said he had wanted to call three witnesses but was only permitted one, and he was not allowed to put forward points in mitigation.

The prison rules confirm that the adjudicator must allow the prisoner the opportunity to call witnesses where permitted to do so, and must allow the prisoner to cross-examine any other witness. The prison rules also confirm that the adjudicator has discretion when deciding whether to allow the prisoner to call witnesses.

We reviewed the disciplinary paperwork and questioned the adjudicator. The paperwork confirmed that Mr C wanted to have the witnesses against him appear in person so the adjudicator called to the hearing the officer who reported Mr C. The paperwork also confirmed that the adjudicator permitted two of Mr C's witnesses. The paperwork also noted the response put forward by Mr C in mitigation.

In light of the evidence available, we were satisfied that the adjudicator followed the proper process and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that his prison kept him locked in his cell for 23 hours each day for several weeks, without completing the relevant paperwork such as that relating to rule 95 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011. Rule 95 provides for the confinement and custody of prisoners, and allows prisoners to be removed from association with other prisoners. Mr C also complained about how the prison dealt with his complaints.

We found that rule 95 had been applied at the start of the period Mr C complained about, when he was in the prison's segregation unit. There is a difference of opinion about what happened after Mr C left segregation and returned to his cell. Mr C said he was kept in his cell, but the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said Mr C chose to lock himself in his cell. When Mr C complained to the prison, it was clear that he did not want to remain locked in his cell each day. It appeared to us that prison staff were trying to act in Mr C's best interests. However, after Mr C complained, the prison should have applied rule 95 again, but they did not. The authority to keep Mr C in his cell in this way came from rule 95. Applying it would have meant that the prison had the authority either to move Mr C back to the segregation unit, or to keep him in his cell awaiting transfer to another prison.

The SPS acknowledged that responses to Mr C's complaints were not as good as they should have been, and that one response was late. We also found that the prison were using an old version of the complaints form. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that SPS:

• discuss this case with the prison's management, to learn from what happened and ensure that appropriate records are kept and that rule 95 is applied appropriately;
• reflect on the responses to Mr C's complaints, to ensure that relevant staff provide better responses in future; and
• ensure that the prison remove all old versions of complaint forms from use.