SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about the way the partnership had handled his request to be assessed for suitability for a single cell in prison. Mr C had approached the prison health centre about this matter, and was told that this was an issue for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). He complained to the partnership about the prison health centre's refusal to support his request for a single cell. Mr C wrote a letter to the health care team, saying that SPS staff had explained to him it was up to the mental health team to indicate whether he should be assigned a single cell. We made enquiries with both SPS and the partnership. SPS confirmed that they are responsible for carrying out cell sharing risk assessments. If a prisoner believes they should be allocated a single cell, then SPS would expect a recommendation from the health centre to support that requirement. The partnership said that decisions on single cell allocation were a matter for the SPS. They said it was not the role of healthcare staff to carry out an assessment for allocation of a single cell. They said there were limited situations in which NHS staff might be involved in requesting such an allocation, and these did not apply to Mr C. While we accepted that it was the overall responsibility of SPS to allocate single cells, on the basis of the evidence put forward by SPS and the information they shared in support of their position, we concluded that when a prisoner asks to be allocated a single cell on medical grounds, such a request should be appropriately considered by the prison healthcare team. It is for healthcare staff to assess whether a single cell is required on health grounds and to determine whether those grounds exist or not. Therefore, we found that the health centre's handling of Mr C's request was unreasonable and we upheld this complaint.

Miss C complained to us about the response she received from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in relation to a complaint she made about a prison officer. During our investigation, the SPS agreed to issue a revised response to Miss C's complaint. We considered that this response adequately addressed the issues she had raised and that it resolved the complaint. We closed the complaint for this reason. Related reading View Decision Report 201809490 as a PDF (23.49 KB) Updated: June 19, 2019

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not reasonably investigate and respond to his report of lost property. Mr C's property went missing and the SPS acknowledged that the door to his cell was left open accidentally by one of their officers. We found that the SPS had carried out investigations into what happened to Mr C's property and offered compensation. However, we noted that there were gaps in the investigation and the offers of compensation did not clearly state what they were for, or why some items were not being compensated. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained about her treatment by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). Due to her circumstances, Ms C's supervision level was raised to high. Ms C accepted the prison rules in relation to this, however, claimed that other prisoners under the same circumstances as her remained at a low supervision level. In addition to this, Ms C complained about being turned down for a job that required a low supervision level. She provided the names of a number of prisoners who she stated worked low supervision jobs despite being of a higher supervision level. Finally, Ms C complained about how her complaint was handled. Given concerns about data protection and privacy, we did not consider it appropriate to ask SPS for information about the individuals named in Ms C's complaint. In response to the first complaint, we were satisfied that the SPS were entitled to assign Ms C a high supervision level and had provided reasonable justification for this. We were also satisfied that SPS appear to have reviewed the supervision levels of current prisoners with the same circumstances as Ms C and confirmed they are being treated consistently. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. In response to the second complaint, SPS confirmed that the job Ms C had wanted requires a low supervision level and they were not aware of any prisoner undertaking this role with a higher supervision level. However, the unit manager of the prison advised they would be willing to look at individual cases should Ms C provide details of names and dates she believed this happened. We acknowledged that the evidence available to us was limited due to not being able to directly request information relating to specific individuals. However, we were satisfied that SPS appear to have taken steps to consider whether specific work roles were being given to people of an appropriate supervision level. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. In respect of the third complaint, Ms C and SPS provided contra

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused to allow him access to a laptop. Mr C said that he had a degenerative condition (a disease in which the function or structure of the affected tissues or organs worsens over time) and a laptop had specialist software that would allow him to communicate as his condition progressed. We found that the SPS responded reasonably to Mr C's request. We also noted that once Mr C had received a specialist assessment for his degenerative condition, the prison service had agreed to work with his medical team to resolve the issue. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C was also concerned about the way his complaint was handled. We found that the SPS handled Mr C's complaint reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201707720 as a PDF (23.71 KB) Updated: April 17, 2019

Mr C complained that a prison officer placed a complaint form he had completed into a shredder. Mr C told us this had been witnessed by staff and other prisoners. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) said that the officer's version of events was that the complaint had been dealt with and Mr C was content that the paperwork could be disposed of. SPS accepted that the officer had failed to follow the Prison Rules, which require a clear process to be followed for every complaint received. In terms of the Rules, complaint paperwork has a retention period of 5 years. There is also a requirement for a copy of all complaints, whether resolved or escalated, to be retained in the prisoner's core file. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the SPS had already apologised to Mr C for the failings in the handling of his complaint, both in person and in writing, and we therefore did not make any recommendations. We also looked at SPS' investigation of the complaint, given that Mr C had told us there were witnesses to the incident, but SPS had not interviewed any witnesses. SPS provided evidence that they had not been told of any witness until they received our formal enquiry. When they then interviewed Mr C about the witness to the incident, he told SPS that the individual did not wish to be involved. While it would have been good practice for the SPS to explore whether there were any witnesses, as part of their complaint investigation, we considered that it would have been reasonable for Mr C to clearly identify any witnesses, and whether they supported his complaint, at the time of submitting his complaint to the Governor. He did not do that, therefore we found the SPS' investigation of his complaint was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201805484 as a PDF (24.18 KB) Updated: March 20, 2019

Mr C was removed from his cell to a different part of his prison temporarily and when he was returned to his usual cell, he said that some of his property was missing. Mr C put in a lost property claim to the prison, but they did not pay it. Mr C complained to the prison about this, and the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) agreed with the decision not to pay his claim. Mr C claimed that the ICC's handling of his complaint was unreasonable. We found that the form for clearing Mr C's cell was not completed properly and was not dated, so it was not known how long it took to secure Mr C's property. The ICC did not take this into account. They also did not consider that the property claim panel stated that Mr C's cell was cleared on a specific date, while there was no record of when the cell was cleared. The ICC referred to a disclaimer that Mr C signed, stating that he was to be responsible for his own property when it was in his care; this was part of the reason for not paying Mr C's claim. We found that it was unreasonable to say that property was described as being in Mr C's care when he had been removed to another part of the prison, and his property was in his cell for an unknown period of time before it was secured. In addition, the ICC failed to ask the property claim panel what evidence, if any, they considered and how they had come to their view about Mr C's claim. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained about a number of aspects of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)' management of her. She complained that the SPS: held her in an unsuitable cell when she was on Act 2 Care (the suicide risk management policy) acted unreasonably in relation to an incident when she was attempting suicide unreasonably removed her from Act 2 Care failed to acknowledge and manage her risk when she raised concerns about her wellbeing on one occasion unreasonably left her unsupervised with a sharp object We found that, in relation to acknowledging and managing Ms C's risk when she raised concerns about her wellbeing on one occasion, the SPS had failed to assess Ms C's risk reasonably at this point and failed to follow their own 'Talk to Me' policy (which replaced Act 2 Care). Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Ms  C's complaint. However, in relation to Ms C's other four complaints, we found that the SPS had acted reasonably and we did not uphold these aspects.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) declined an Escorted Day Absence (EDA) application, having approved two applications previously. We found that the SPS followed the relevant legislation, carried out a detailed review of the circumstances of Mr C's EDA applications, and assessed each application on its merits. In declining the specific application Mr C complained about, the SPS noted that the application did not meet the criteria, taking account of all the information gathered in relation to that application, including security information. Under the legislation, the SPS has discretion to approve or refuse EDA applications. In Mr C's case, they were entitled to make this decision for his applications. We found no evidence that the SPS unreasonably declined Mr C's EDA application, and we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201801143 as a PDF (23.71 KB) Updated: January 23, 2019

Ms C said that she was subjected to hate crimes in prison. She complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to retain CCTV footage for the periods of time in question and that they failed to handle her complaints about the matter appropriately. Ms C also complained that the SPS unreasonably failed to respond to her equality and diversity complaint. We found that Ms C could have provided SPS with more detail on the allegations when she asked them to retain CCTV footage. However, we considered that there was sufficient information to allow SPS to realise that an unspecified crime was alleged and it would have been reasonable for them to take steps to clarify the nature of the complaint. This would have allowed the SPS to determine exactly what the complaint was about and whether CCTV needed to be retained. We found that subsequent investigation of the complaints by the SPS had not been sufficiently thorough as only one member of staff had provided a statement in connection with a single date. We did not consider this to be evidence of a full investigation as incidents were alleged to have taken place on two different days and there was no information recorded on why it was considered unnecessary to take statements from other members of staff on duty at the times in question. We also found that the SPS had not provided a response to the equality and diversity complaint that Ms C submitted. We upheld all of Ms C's complaints.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) stopped his Special Escorted Leave (SEL). He also complained about the handling of his complaint. We found that the prison did not stop Mr C's access to SELs but, within their authority under the relevant legislation, they questioned Mr C's need for visits to a specific place, given a change in circumstances. The SPS can limit access to SELs if they consider a proposed visit no longer serves the intended purpose. Mr  C still had access to SELs to visit other places. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. In dealing with Mr C's complaint, the SPS said that they would review the subject of Mr C's complaint. However, they did not share the outcome of the review with Mr C. Providing an explanation to him would have been appropriate and good practice. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the way the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled his claim for lost property compensation. Mr C said that several items sent from his cell to the laundry had not been returned. We were not satisfied that the SPS had undertaken a thorough investigation when Mr C first reported his laundry as missing. Given that prisoners have no control over their property in laundry bags between submitting them and receiving them again, we considered that the prison should have a robust tracking process to show that the laundry bags have been delivered back to the relevant prisoner. We also found that the subsequent review of Mr C's claim was unreasonable. The SPS claimed that the items in question were handed out. However, the only evidence identifying items handed out was the property card, which was not fully completed as Mr C had not signed out the items (although this is required on the card). We also noted that the SPS had provided inconsistent explanations about what happened to Mr C's property. We considered that they failed to handle Mr  C's claim reasonably and upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did not progress work on his management plan during his temporary transfer to another establishment. He was being held out of association with other prisoners (under Rule 95 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011) due to difficulties managing him and finding a suitable location for him. He was temporarily transferred to another establishment for operational reasons, and to give the SPS time to formulate a plan for his future management and location. In responding to the complaint, the SPS said attempts had been made during Mr  C's temporary transfer to relocate him to another establishment. They said that options for his future management had consistently been pursued. However, they could not find evidence to support this and they acknowledged that the Rule  95 paperwork had not been fully completed to record all action taken. We acknowledged that there appeared to be difficulties for the SPS in managing Mr  C. However, as they were unable to demonstrate that steps had been taken to implement or explore agreed actions during his temporary transfer, we upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained that a prisoner officer made inappropriate comments about him in an email sent to another officer. The officer did not accept that their comments were inappropriate, and noted that they were informed by a psychological risk assessment given to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in relation to managing Mr C. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. He believed the comments were unnecessary in the context of his query, and that they did not adhere to the terms of a Staff Notice previously issued to staff advising the use of appropriate and non-biased language in communications. While we noted that it was appropriate for the SPS to give regard to the psychological risk assessment in managing Mr C, we did not consider that the comments were appropriate in the individual circumstances of the particular query. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained about the handling of his subsequent complaint. Mr C felt it was inappropriate that his complaint was handled at the first stage of the process by the officer it was about and then was not properly addressed at the second stage. We found that having the officer complained about respond to his complaint was not a direct breach of prison rules. However, we considered that it would be best practice to avoid this situation. We also found that the second stage of the complaints process failed to give due regard to all relevant factors and evidence. On balance, we upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained that he was not provided with an opportunity to attend an internal complaints committee (ICC) in relation to his disciplinary appeal. He provided us with evidence that suggested he was in court on this day, which contradicted the prison's position that he was given an opportunity to attend. After we indicated to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that we intended to investigate the complaint, the Chair of the ICC reviewed their systems and confirmed that Mr C attended court on the day that the ICC took place. Therefore, he was not able to attend. SPS acknowledged that this should not have happened and stated that they would hold another ICC so that Mr C could attend and put his case across. Based on Mr C's desired outcomes in his complaint to us, we were satisfied that SPS's actions resolved the complaint. Therefore, we closed our investigation of his complaint as resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201802923 as a PDF (23.77 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Mr C complained about the actions of an officer who works for the prison's escorting agency. Mr C was visiting his daughter in hospital and did not have photographic identification with him. Following their policy, the officer asked him to leave. Mr C complained that the officer threatened and swore at him. Mr C's complaint was investigated by the escorting agency, who took witness statements and concluded that there had been no wrongdoing on the part of the officer. Mr C had filmed the incident on his mobile phone but had not provided the footage to the escorting agency at the time of their investigation. We viewed the footage and forwarded it to them for comment. The escorting agency noted that a section of the footage showed the officer behaving in a standard below what they expect of their staff. They explained that the officer no longer worked for them so there was no action they could take, and they apologised to Mr C for what had happened. We, therefore, upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained about the investigation, in particular that one of the officers present at the time of the incident had not been interviewed. We concluded that the investigation had been sufficiently thorough and proportionate, highlighting that if Mr C had provided the footage sooner the complaint could have been resolved at an early stage. We did not uphold the complaint about the standard of the investigation. Related reading View Decision Report 201800693 as a PDF (24.02 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Mr C complained that he did not receive his meals in prison when he was off his work placement for a week. He has a nut allergy and had requested to be placed on a special diet list. His work placement was within the kitchens so he was usually able to prepare his own meals. However, he complained that he was not placed on the special diet list, resulting in him not receiving meals when he was off work. In responding to his complaint, the prison indicated that Mr C had not been on the special diet list, but had since been added to it following receipt of confirmation of his allergy from the healthcare team. However, the prison then told us that no instruction had been received from the healthcare team indicating any special dietary needs that Mr C could not manage himself. They acknowledged there had been issues in the past with Mr C not receiving the correct meals, which led to him being offered a job in the kitchens. While we considered that the prison had demonstrated flexibility in allowing Mr C the freedom to control his food intake, we were unable to conclusively determine the arrangements in place to ensure his dietary needs are met when he is not working in the kitchens. On balance, we upheld this complaint.

Ms C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s booking system is unreasonable. She said that it prevented her from returning to her work and education activities after an arranged visit. Ms C said that when she is scheduled to attend a visit that lasts up to an hour, a three hour slot is assigned and she has to return to her cell after the visit and remain there for the remaining duration of the slot. She was concerned that it would affect her parole if she did not attend activities. We found that SPS provided a clear rationale (in terms of security and logistics) as to why three hour slots are assigned to individuals when they attend a scheduled visit. The SPS also advised that individuals can be taken to work or education activities after their visit if time permits. They confirmed that it would not affect Ms C's parole or progression if she could not attend activities due to a visit or appointment. We considered the booking system to be reasonable and, therefore, did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201704839 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) made inaccurate statements about him in a letter. Mr C disagreed with views expressed by prison staff that were repeated in the letter. We found that records provided by the SPS supported the content of the letter. While we noted Mr C’s disagreement with the opinions of SPS staff as repeated in the letter and Mr C’s reasons for disagreeing, his disagreement was not itself evidence of maladministration on the part of the SPS. We, therefore, did not uphold Mr C’s complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201709257 as a PDF (10.82 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C submitted a lost property claim to the prison service, alleging that some items of his property had gone missing after he handed his laundry bag in to the prison laundry. Mr C complained to us about the way the prison service handled his lost property claim, and about their handling of his complaint. We found that Mr C's lost property claim had been handled appropriately. The prison service accepted that Mr C's kitbag had not been returned from the laundry, and had initially offered compensation for a lost t-shirt and lost shorts. They refused to compensate him for the loss of branded boxer shorts, saying they considered these items disposable once in use and explaining that they do not itemise them on prisoner's property cards so cannot track them as they do with other property. After Mr C escalated his complaint and it was investigated further, it became apparent that the t-shirt and shorts had in fact been handed out two months after he submitted his claim. The offer of compensation was therefore retracted. Mr C said that the prison service had failed to record the number of pairs and brand of boxer shorts handed in, which he said was contrary to prison policy. We thought that the prison service could not reasonably be expected to itemise and note the brand of all items of underwear being handed into prisons, and we considered that their position was reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. In relation to the complaints handling, the prison service had accepted some shortcomings in the original complaints response. Other than this, we found that they had responded within prescribed timescales and had given clear reasons for their decisions. We, therefore, did not uphold this part of the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201708346 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C was found guilty of a breach of discipline for refusing an order to return to his cell. He submitted a disciplinary appeal, claiming that he had refused to return to his cell as he was being bullied and victimised by other prisoners in the residential hall. He also submitted a complaint that his bullying allegation had not been adequately investigated. His appeal was barred by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) as it was not submitted within 14 days of the decision, as per prison rule 118. The SPS responded to Mr C's complaint, noting that their investigation had found no evidence to substantiate his bullying allegation. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. Mr C complained that the SPS failed to appropriately investigate his complaint. The SPS were unable to provide us with evidence that an appropriate investigation had been carried out. They said that the investigating officer had not produced a written report and had since left the organisation. They told us that they had since improved their process and it is now compulsory for investigating officers to provide a written investigation report. We upheld Mr C's complaint and asked the SPS to provide evidence of their new process. Mr C also complained about the decision to time limit his disciplinary appeal. The SPS confirmed that they have no discretion to consider an appeal submitted later than 14 days from the date of the decision. They acknowledged that existing guidance and forms do not make this clear and confirmed plans were in place to revise these. As an interim measure, they proposed to issue a Governors  &  Managers Action Notice (GMA) and amend prisoner notices to highlight the 14 day time limit. While the SPS had made it clear to Mr C that they had time limited his appeal as it was outwith the 14 days, they subsequently entered into discussion with him regarding the circumstances he put forward for the late submission. This gave the impression that his l

Mr C complained that the pornographic magazines stocked by the prion's supplier were aimed at heterosexual men. Mr C asked for access to equivalent homosexual pornographic magazines. The prison said that magazines were subject to the stock held by the supplier and that the supplier could not accommodate one-off requests. Mr C then submitted an Equality and Diversity Form and complained that this was not acknowledged by the prison. We found that the prison had recently changed its policy to now allow prisoners to purchase pornographic magazines through the sundry purchases process. This decision was a matter of discretion for the Governor. Our office has no role in determining what policy the prison should have on this issue. However, we were concerned that the prison had not carried out an Equality Impact Assessment before changing their policy on access to pornographic magazines. The prison did not have an objection to Mr C receiving homosexual pornographic magazines, however, their suggested possible solutions would not give Mr C the same access privileges that prisoners purchasing heterosexual pornographic magazines had. We also found that the prison had failed to progress Mr C's Equality and Diversity Form. We noted that the purpose of these forms and who is responsible for processing them is not clear. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C wanted to progress from his current prison to the open estate (OE), with a view to getting parole and being released. His prison's risk management ream (RMT) decided that Mr C should first progress to the national top end (NTE - accommodation for low-supervision prisoners nearing the end of medium to long sentences). Mr C felt that the decision to not approve his application for the OE was unreasonable and he brought his complaint to us. Mr C felt that he was ready for progression to the OE and that he was not given a chance to prove he had changed. We found that the RMT did not doubt the sincerity of Mr C's belief that he was ready. However, in considering all the information available to them, the RMT decided that Mr C would be progressed to the NTE where he would be given a chance to prove he had changed. The reasoning for this was that the NTE was a structured and supportive environment in which Mr C could practice appropriate coping and problem solving strategies. If successful in the NTE, Mr C would improve his chance of getting parole. We did not find evidence that the prison's actions in progressing Mr C to the NTE rather than the OE were unreasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201609718 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that he had been unreasonably denied unescorted day release from prison. We found that Mr C's community access plan which was in place at the time of his request did not allow for unescorted community access. Therefore, we concluded that the decision to reject his request was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201704086 as a PDF (10.74 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C said that other prisoners had given him items of property when they were leaving the prison, but that prison staff had taken the items from him and disposed of them. Mr C complained about this and said that this was, in effect, prison staff stealing his belongings. We found that the prison rules gave prison staff the authority to search cells and seize unauthorised property. In the prison's view, the items found in Mr C's cell were unauthorised property, within the definition given in the prison rules, rather than authorised personal property. The prison rules also gave prison staff the authority to dispose of or destroy unauthorised property. We determined that prison staff were acting appropriately within the discretion given to them by the prison rules in searching Mr C's cell, seizing unauthorised property, and disposing of it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201700223 as a PDF (10.95 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018