4. Mr S complains about the investigation carried out by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) regarding missing property. Specifically, he says it failed to look at CCTV footage or speak to staff.
5. As a result, he says he has been caused a great deal of distress and upset.
6. As an outcome he is seeking an explanation into the PPO’s response, compensation and service improvements.
7. Mr S is in prison. He complained to the prison that, following a court appearance on 23 March 2023, property he had taken with him had not been returned to him.
8. The prison did not uphold his complaint and said its records showed the property had been returned.
9. Mr S complained to the PPO. In doing so, it asked the PPO to view CCTV footage of the day in question which, he believed, would show the property had not been returned. The PPO did not uphold the complaint. However, it did not review the footage and relied instead on records.
10. Mr S raised his concerns with an Independent Monitoring Board (IMB). These are boards set up to monitor the welfare of prisoners. He said the IMB did view the footage and concluded the property had not been returned to him.
11. Mr S complains about the PPO’s investigation and its failure to view the footage as asked.
PPO role
12. The PPO carries out independent investigations into deaths and complaints in custody. The detailed role and responsibilities of the PPO are set out in his office’s Terms of Reference (the TOR). The PPO has two main duties:
• to investigate complaints made by prisoners, young people in detention (prisons and secure training centres), offenders under probation supervision and immigration detainees.
• to investigate deaths of prisoners, young people in detention, approved premises’ residents, and immigration detainees due to any cause, including any apparent suicides and natural causes.
13. The purpose of these investigations is to understand what happened, to correct injustices and to identify learning for the organisations whose actions it oversees so that the PPO makes a significant contribution to safer, fairer custody and offender supervision.
14. Under the TOR, one of the aims of a PPO investigation is to establish the integrity of the process a prison has adopted when dealing with a specific issue.
PPO’s investigation
17. It is important to note the PPO takes a proportionate approach to investigations and determine what reasonably needs to be investigated to reach a sufficient conclusion and it is not our role to tell the PPO how to conduct its investigation.
18. When considering the case, we look at the relevant policies and guidance to determine if there are any indication the PPO has failed to adhere to these.
• Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework states the following at paragraph 4.25:
“Governors/Directors must ensure there are systems in place to download and retain digital footage in the form of CCTV/Body Worn Camera material where a serious incident has taken place. This footage can then be used, when needed, as evidence to consider subsequent complaints Body Worn Video Cameras Policy Framework refers”.
19. In addition to this, following further representations from the PPO, in a 2018 Letter to Governor’s, the Director General Operations of HMPS, provided additional clarity regarding a ‘serious incident’, stating:
“Governors and Directors of Contracted Prisons must ensure there are systems in place to download and retain footage where a serious incident has taken place.
Incidents which should be considered include, but are not limited to:
• Those involving use of force • Where a crime may have been committed (assault, damage to property etc.)
• Indiscipline (passive and concerted) • Hostage/barricade • Where a complaint or allegation of misconduct has been made”
20. In addition to this, the Body Worn Video Camera Policy Framework states the following at paragraph 4.17:
“Governors must ensure there is not a practice of routinely reviewing recorded footage, without a clear and justifiable need to do so. Such action is not within the stated purpose and outcomes of the policy, can create mistrust in the use of BWVC by staff and could lead to complaints under DPA (2018) and ICO regarding how data is processed within HMPPS. Such misuse of the equipment/software may render the reviewer liable to internal investigation/disciplinary action”.
21. It is the role of the PPO, as set out in the TOR, to investigate HMPPS’ response to complaints. As such, it is for the PPO investigator to determine how to conduct its investigations; in this case, considering the national policy guidance, the investigator concluded that requesting and reviewing the CCTV footage for Mr S complaint was disproportionate given the nature of the non-serious complaint.
22. There was also no reasonable expectation it would be available, as it was not required to be retained/reviewed by the prison.
23. Finally on the matter of relying on records. The relevant policy framework is clear; records provide a key audit trail to determine what staff have done to demonstrate they have appropriately handled property while it is in their control. Leading on from this, during the investigation, the investigator reviewed the Person Escort Record (PER); this stated that when he left the prison to attend court on 23 March 2023, that he was accompanied with two bags, the first contained clothing and the second contained documentation, and both bags returned with him. It is not disputed that the bags returned to prison, and it is upon this return the dispute arises.
24. The PPO’s role in respect to this as set out above is to determine whether the prison’s response is sufficient, and as the evidence suggests the bags returned with him and went into his possession, we cannot say their conclusions are unreasonable.
25. As such, although, we appreciate Mr S feels the PPO should have examined the CCTV footage, we are satisfied its investigation has been proportionate and in line with its own guidance and our own principles of good administration (acting fairly and proportionately).
26. We appreciate Mr S will likely be disappointed with our decision in this case and understand the distress and upset he says he has experienced because of the PPO not considering the CCTV footage.
1. We have carefully considered Mr S’s complaint about The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (the PPO). We have seen no indication that anything went wrong.
2. We appreciate Mr S feels the PPO should have examined CCTV footage during its investigation and we understand the distress not doing this caused him.
3. We also appreciate our decision may disappoint Mr S, but we have seen no indications the PPO acted outside its own guidance and polices, and we are satisfied the investigation was proportionate in the circumstances.