SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) did their assessment of the programmes he was to complete in prison without considering all of the relevant information. He was also unhappy that they had cancelled some of his parent and child visits, which he felt had been unreasonable. We considered the administrative handling of SPS's programmes assessment. That is because we are not a route for prisoners to appeal SPS's decisions about the programmes they are to complete. We looked at the evidence and it indicated that SPS had handled the matter in line with the relevant guidance. They had recorded the matters they had considered, the evidence reflected the information detailed in the guidance, and there was nothing to indicate that they had failed to consider relevant information. On that basis, we did not uphold Mr C's first complaint. In terms of Mr C's visits, SPS confirmed that parent and child visits supplemented the visits he was entitled to receive under the prison rules. The paperwork indicated that several steps had to be taken before a prisoner was registered for the parent and child scheme. Mr C had wrongly been put on the scheme before those steps were complete, which was why his visit had been cancelled. SPS had acknowledged and apologised to Mr C for that error. By the time another visit was cancelled several months later, it was because all parent and child visits in a specific session were cancelled for operational reasons and it had not been Mr C's visit that was cancelled specifically on this occasion. We noted that Mr C remained registered for the scheme and could book future visits. Viewed as a whole, the evidence indicated that SPS had made decisions they were entitled to have made, that they explained their reasons to Mr C and that they had apologised for their initial error. We did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201608503 as a PDF (11.43 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the way that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled a form on which he had submitted his comments on the record of discussions held during his integrated case management (ICM) case conference. He had submitted the form through his personal officer, in line with the ICM Practice Guidance Manual. According to the guidance, the form should then have been forwarded to relevant parties who had attended the case conference for their comments. Mr C did not hear anything further for several weeks and, after he followed matters up with the ICM co-ordinator, he was advised that the form had not been submitted within the required timescales and so there would be no action from the prison based social worker. Mr C submitted a complaint to the SPS, and after escalation the complaint was heard by an ICC (Internal Complaints Committee). The ICC found that the form had been submitted within the timescale and as such it should be considered. They did not set a timescale within which this should happen, and when nothing further appeared to happen Mr C brought his complaint to us. We found that there were several stages at which the process had broken down. First, there was a delay in the receipt of the form being acknowledged, then there was a failure of the ICM co-ordinator to oversee the process by which the form was sent out to relevant parties for comment. Despite Mr C having raised concerns with the SPS, and failings being identified by the ICC, the SPS missed the opportunity to resolve matters at an early stage. As well as not having imposed a timescale for action to be taken, the ICC failed to confirm what they would recommend as a result of the failings identified in Mr C's case to ensure that the matter was resolved appropriately. We upheld the complaint. An apology had already been made to Mr C, but we made a number of other recommendations.

Mr C complained about the way that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) managed his prison sentence. Specifically, he complained about a delay in referring him back to the risk management team (RMT) to consider his suitability for progression to less secure conditions. Mr C was not referred back to the RMT until around two months after the planned date. The reason for this was that the RMT required his home leave report but this was not complete, as there had been a delay in the SPS sending it to social work for comment. The SPS explained that this was because Mr C's personal officer chose to wait on the outcome of Mr C's parole hearing, when in fact the home leave report should have been sent six weeks prior to completion of his management plan, which was completed ahead of his parole hearing. The SPS had already acknowledged and apologised for the inappropriate delay in referring Mr C back to the RMT. We agreed that this delay had potentially delayed Mr C's progression to less secure conditions by around two months. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Mr C also complained that the SPS failed to respond to his complaint within the timescales laid down in the prison rules. These allow 20 working days for a written response to be issued but, in Mr C's case, the response was delayed by over two weeks beyond this timeframe. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Mr C subsequently made an additional complaint directly to the prison governor, via the confidential complaints process. The governor did not investigate the matter as they did not consider the subject of the complaint to be confidential in nature. Mr C complained to us that the governor unreasonably refused to accept his confidential complaint. We noted that this was a matter for the governor's discretion. In any event, we considered that the governor had already arranged to have the subject of the complaint appropriately considered when it was brought to their attention via Mr C's previous (non

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to appropriately handle his request to have his legal agent's phone number added to his prison phone account. He also complained that the SPS failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about this. Mr C said that he submitted the appropriate form with details of his request but that the SPS did not have any record of having received it. The SPS said that they only became aware of Mr C's request after an officer, who received a complaint from Mr C, called the business support team to notify them. Mr C said the officer who responded to his complaint indicated that he could call his lawyer, and Mr C said he felt this response indicated that any calls made would be confidential. However, the business support team added Mr C's legal agent's phone number to his account, but because the details could not be verified in the normal way, the number was added as allowed but not private. This meant that any calls made by Mr C to his legal agent could be recorded. The SPS said that they told Mr C that the number would only be added as private when sufficient evidence was provided by him to confirm that the phone number was in fact for his legal agent. We found that the SPS had handled Mr C's request appropriately and in line with the normal process. We were also satisfied that the SPS had responded appropriately to Mr C's complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201607796 as a PDF (11.22 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to take reasonable action in relation to his access to home leave. He was also dissatisfied with the way in which the SPS dealt with his complaint. We did not reach a decision on Mr C's complaint as he was released from prison and did not provide a forwarding address or confirm that he wished us to continue investigating his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201607001 as a PDF (10.77 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about how his generic assessment had been carried out. A generic assessment is carried out to determine what work programmes prisoners should carry out in order to progress through the prison system. Mr C complained that he had been recommended to take part in a programme without input from psychologists and which he had already completed. We found that the Scottish Prison Service had followed the correct process in assessing Mr C. We found that the decision reached about what programmes Mr C was suitable for included the Head of Psychology and that reasonable suggestions were put forward to support him during the programme. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201606203 as a PDF (10.9 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the care he received at a prison healthcare centre after he was diagnosed with diabetes. Mr C was concerned that he did not receive appropriate medical care and treatment or support in relation to his diabetes. He also complained that there had been a delay in providing treatment for thrush, and complained that when he was admitted to hospital, staff at the prison health centre had not informed his next of kin. Finally, Mr C felt that his complaint had not been dealt with appropriately. After taking independent GP advice, we upheld Mr C's complaint about medical care and treatment. While we found that most aspects of his diabetes care and treatment were reasonable, the adviser highlighted two separate days following hospital discharges where Mr C had not received his prescribed medications. We made recommendations to the board to address this. We found that the board had taken reasonable steps to provide help and support to Mr C for his diabetes and identified no delays in the provision of thrush treatment. Consequently, we did not uphold these elements of Mr C's complaint. We also did not uphold his complaint about the health centre staff failing to inform his next of kin when he was admitted to hospital as we found that this was a matter for the Scottish Prison Service. Finally, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the board's handling of his complaints as we found that they had not addressed all the issues raised. We made a recommendation to address this failing.

Mr C complained that the way the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled his sentence management was unreasonable. Mr C was particularly concerned that the final outcome of a disciplinary hearing was being reflected incorrectly in some of his paperwork. He was concerned that this was recorded as a guilty finding when it was overturned to not guilty after Mr C appealed. Mr C complained that this was impacting on his progression and that the SPS were wrongly saying in some of their communication that he had been downgraded when he had not been. Mr C was worried that inaccurate paperwork might eventually go to the parole board. We had no authority to decide how Mr C's sentence was managed. Nor could we decide whether or how he should progress. However, we found that some of the SPS's communication with Mr C about how he was progressing, and whether or not he had been downgraded, had been confusing and inconsistent. We also found that some of SPS's record-keeping was incomplete or inconsistent. As such, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that he had regularly asked staff at his prison for a transfer to another prison, but this had not taken place. Mr C said that prison officers took other prisoners from their cells at night and gave them weapons with a view to letting them into his cell to assault him. Mr C said the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to appropriately investigate his allegations. Mr C also said that the SPS unreasonably failed to consider his complaints confidentially. Whilst we appreciated that Mr C said that he requested a transfer on several occasions, there was no documentary evidence of his request until he made his complaint to the SPS. The SPS then appeared to have dealt with his transfer request in line with their normal procedure. On balance, we were unable to determine that there were unreasonable delays in the SPS's handling of Mr C's request to be transferred and we did not uphold his complaint. In terms of Mr C's complaint that prison officers took other prisoners from their cells at night and gave them weapons with a view to letting them into his cell to assault him, whilst we appreciated Mr C's strong concerns about this issue, the CCTV and documentary evidence available suggested that the SPS did not unreasonably fail to appropriately investigate Mr C's serious allegations and there was no evidence to support his assertion. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of his complaint. However, we were very concerned that the SPS failed to make evidence in this case (CCTV footage of one of the dates in question) available to us and as a result we made two recommendations for action by the SPS regarding this matter. We also found that the SPS did not unreasonably fail to consider Mr C's complaint confidentially and we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) acted unreasonably by refusing his request for phone credit to allow him to call his partner, who was seriously ill. SPS said that Mr C's requests were declined because he refused to return to mainstream accommodation and that as a result he had been denied access to his personal cash account (an account containing money handed in by family and friends) and so could only make phone calls using the existing money in his wages account. The evidence showed that Mr C was not entitled to access his personal cash account due to sanctions put in place because he had refused to comply with a lawful order from prison staff. However, given the exceptional circumstances detailed by Mr C, the SPS granted him access to a sum from his personal cash account to allow him to make phone calls regarding his family members' health. Mr C made 24 phone calls to family members (other than his partner) over a five-week period. Given the flexibility shown by the SPS in Mr C's case, on balance we did not consider it entirely unreasonable for them to decide that Mr C's requests for additional phone credit could no longer be accommodated. Therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, we found a lack of documentary evidence relating to Mr C's case and made a recommendation to address this.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to follow relevant procedures to ensure his safety in a shared cell. In particular, he said that he should not have had to share a cell with a prisoner whom he alleged had attacked him. Mr C said that he had raised concerns about this prisoner but that no action was taken. We were satisfied that, based on the available evidence, the SPS had followed the correct procedures prior to reaching their decision that Mr C was required to share a cell with another prisoner and that the situation was regularly assessed. We found no evidence that Mr C had raised concerns about the prisoner and did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201603221 as a PDF (10.92 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the SPS had inappropriately failed to pay him the correct wage. He said his wage had been cut from £13 to £7. The information available confirmed that Mr C had been receiving a weekly wage of £13 for working full time in the kitchen. However, he then transferred to another prison. He was returned from that prison a few weeks later because of poor behaviour and he was assigned a part-time role in the kitchen and he received a payment of £7 per week. Mr C was also able to supplement his wage through attending education. We were satisfied the Mr C was being paid appropriately by the SPS in line with their wage earning policy and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201607062 as a PDF (10.94 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that, as a protection prisoner, he was not being given reasonable opportunities to apply for a work party with enhanced wages. He specifically noted that a new enhanced work party had been created and two protection prisoners had joined this, without the opportunity being opened up to all protection prisoners. The prison explained that the new work party was previously being run as an education class and a decision was taken to convert it to a work party on account of the work that was being produced. As such, it was considered appropriate to offer the roles to existing members of the education class who were already carrying out the work. We were satisfied that this was a discretionary decision that the prison were entitled to take. The prison assured us that any future vacancies on the work party would be advertised. We concluded that the prison acted reasonably in the circumstances and did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201600776 as a PDF (11.03 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that upon transferring from one prison to another, an item of his property went missing. He reported this to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) but felt that they failed to appropriately investigate the matter. SPS noted that the item was not on Mr C's property card. Mr C did not see how this was possible, noting that he had been using the item in his cell for over three years. SPS informed us that Mr C could have been using the item without it forming part of his formal property. They explained that prisoners often share or exchange items, or donate items to other prisoners prior to being liberated, and that these practices went on outwith the recognised property process. They acknowledged that the matter was investigated under their complaints process when it should have been considered in line with their claim process. Nonetheless, they were satisfied that the matter had been appropriately investigated. We considered that the evidence demonstrated that the SPS thoroughly investigated the whereabouts of the missing item. While we noted that the recognised lost property claim process was not utilised, we were satisfied that the issues raised were thoroughly explored. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508396 as a PDF (11.16 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that she had been unfairly and wrongfully found guilty of breaching prison rules at a disciplinary hearing. She said a number of errors were made. In their response to Ms C's appeal, the SPS agreed that the correct procedures were not followed in her case. However, they said that the finding was based on evidence that proved Ms C was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Ms C's appeal was not upheld. When we received Ms C's complaint we asked the SPS to review the matter and to confirm to us whether they were satisfied that the finding of guilt in Ms C's case should stand, despite the failings that had been acknowledged in her appeal. We also pointed out that the appeal paperwork did not show that the internal complaints committee, who considered Ms C's appeal, consisted of the appropriate members as per the prison rules. The SPS confirmed to us that they reviewed the matter and that they found a host of procedural errors. The SPS said that the finding of guilt against Ms C would be overturned and that the charge would be removed from her record. We were satisfied that this outcome meant that Ms C's complaint had been resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201607620 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he was not given the opportunity to apply for a position within a new work party that was created in his prison because the post was not advertised. He said that this was contrary to the labour allocation policy procedures. Mr C also raised concerns that the wage earning policy did not cover the amount that was being paid to the work party. We found that, while it is local practice at this prison to advertise vacancies, it is not mandatory. In addition, the Scottish Prison Service has confirmed that because of the success of a former education class, a decision was taken by the prison's management team to ensure consistency and offer the full time positions to those already carrying out these duties. We concluded that this was a discretionary decision the prison staff were entitled to make and we considered their actions reasonable. We also found that there was no evidence that the prison failed to follow the guidance in place for the work party's rate of earnings and bonuses. Related reading View Decision Report 201600593 as a PDF (11.1 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the handling by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) of his complaints about confidential matters. During our investigation we found no evidence of fault in the SPS's handling of Mr C's complaints and we therefore did not uphold this complaint. Mr C also complained that the SPS had failed to facilitate his contact with the police. In particular, that they had incorrectly advised him that he could contact the police directly. While we were satisfied that Mr C was advised that his legal team could contact the police on his behalf, we were concerned that he had been given inaccurate information about contacting the police directly. We were also concerned that he had not been advised that managers could contact the police on his behalf. We therefore upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that prison staff had inappropriately opened an item of his mail. Prison staff may open mail sent to prisoners when they consider they have reasonable cause to do so. However, the prison told us that staff had not opened the item of mail. We did not consider that there was sufficient evidence that staff had opened the mail and therefore we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Mr C also complained that staff had searched him with unreasonable frequency. The searching of prisoners is a discretionary issue for prison staff. We are unable to question discretionary decisions made by prison staff unless there is evidence of maladministration. In the absence of this, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. Mr C complained that the prison had reduced his wages. We found that although there had been a considerable reduction in Mr C's wages, this had been due to a reduction in the hours he worked, to his original role having been made redundant and replaced with a new role, and to a prisoner wage review. We were satisfied that Mr C was being paid the appropriate rate for his job in the prison. We did not uphold the complaint. Finally, Mr C complained about the member of staff appointed to chair two of his internal complaints committees. We found that this had been a discretionary decision for the prison to make, and we therefore did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508791 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his lost property claim was not appropriately investigated. During our initial investigations we found some discrepancies in the claim correspondence and associated evidence. We therefore asked the Scottish Prison Service to reconsider the claim in the first instance. Related reading View Decision Report 201507927 as a PDF (10.71 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said his complaints about swearing and the use of insulting language by prison staff had not been properly investigated. We found that the steps taken to investigate and respond to the complaints Mr C made were reasonable in the circumstances. There was a lack of evidence to corroborate Mr C's complaint about a particular incident because the CCTV footage did not record sound. In respect of swearing, the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) found there was conflicting evidence, with staff denying any use of profanity. SPS found there was evidence of antipathy between Mr C and some staff members in a particular work group which Mr C did not want to be part of. SPS agreed that Mr C could move to another work group, which we found was a reasonable solution in the circumstances. SPS issued a generic reminder to staff about expectations in terms of their behaviour. When Mr C told SPS he had been assaulted the matter was, appropriately, referred to Police Scotland for further investigation. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507573 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about how the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) responded to his complaint. Mr C had submitted a complaint using a PCF2 form (a form for complaints about confidential matters). SPS guidance states that on receiving a PCF2 form a response should be given within seven days, stating whether the complaint is considered to be about a confidential matter and, where it is not considered as such, providing the reasons for the decision on that matter. We found that although the prison responded to Mr C's complaint within seven days, they failed to provide reasons for the decision that the complaint had not met the requirements of a complaint about confidential matters. We therefore upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that there was a delay in the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) submitting his first grant of temporary release application (FGTR) to Scottish Ministers to approve his temporary release from prison. The SPS accepted that there had been a considerable delay by prison staff in submitting the FGTR, including exceeding a 14-day set period. Once submitted, it was rejected due to the set timescale having been significantly exceeded and there was an issue with the quality of information supplied. This meant that Mr C was required to have a further risk assessment, which identified some recent issues that had to be examined further. We acknowledged that SPS have a duty of care to Mr C, the community and the parole board, where the quality of an FGTR must take precedence over timescales. However, due to an unreasonable delay by prison staff in submitting the FGTR and a lack of communication with Mr C in this respect, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the content of a psychological risk assessment, which he said contained out-of-date information which had been obtained during discussions when he was unwell. We found the psychologist was entitled to take historic discussions into account, even if Mr C was now saying different things. We were satisfied that Mr C's own views were adequately reflected in the assessment report. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507929 as a PDF (10.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that a prison manager unreasonably failed to take action to notify a family member that he had been assaulted in prison and taken to hospital. Scottish Prison Service (SPS) rules state that requests from prisoners for a relative or friend to be informed must be actioned if the prisoner becomes seriously ill, sustains serious injury or is admitted to hospital. Mr C initially had his injuries assessed in the prison by a nurse and the SPS told us that his injuries were not determined as serious at that stage. They said a hospital medical assessment was required before this could be established. Mr C's injuries were not found to be serious following assessment at A&E and he was discharged back to the prison from there without being admitted to hospital. On this basis, we were satisfied that the relevant prison rule had not been triggered and that the prison manager's failure to notify the family member was not unreasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. However, we considered that it would have been good practice for the prison manager to have documented their decision and the rationale behind it at the time. We also noted that the SPS referred on more than one occasion to Mr C's injuries having not been life-threatening when this is not a test applied by the relevant prison rule. We made recommendations about this. Mr C also complained that an officer who escorted him to hospital inappropriately advised hospital staff not to inform his family member, as he thought that the prison manager had already done so. However, the officer indicated that he had provided this advice as it was not looking likely that Mr C would be admitted to hospital. We found no evidence that the officer provided inaccurate or misleading information to hospital staff and we did not uphold this complaint. Finally, Mr C complained about the appropriateness of the prison governor's response to his complaint. In responding, the governor advised that the fam

Mr C complained about a decision taken by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to downgrade him (return him to closed conditions from less secure conditions). He said that they did not follow the proper process in taking the decision, and that the decision was based on inaccurate evidence. Mr C was unhappy that he was not placed on a disciplinary report for the incident which triggered the downgrading process. We found that the disciplinary process is a separate process and that it is at the discretion of staff whether to place prisoners on disciplinary reports. A disciplinary hearing does not have to take place before downgrade action can be taken. While Mr C was frustrated that he was not afforded a disciplinary hearing in order to protest his innocence, we noted that the downgrading process allows prisoners the opportunity to make representations against the decision. However, the SPS said that they had lost the relevant form and were unable to evidence that this happened in this case. We therefore concluded that the proper process was not followed and upheld this complaint. Whilst Mr C denied the allegations made against him that triggered the downgrade action, we found nothing to indicate that the decision was taken based on inaccurate evidence. We noted that the SPS are entitled to take action to evaluate a prisoner's risk if they have concerns and that the decision in this case appeared to have been taken based on an accumulation of concerns and not solely on the one incident. We did not uphold this complaint. However, while we did not conclude that the SPS decision was based on inaccurate evidence, we considered that it may have been based on incomplete evidence (given the absence of evidence of Mr C's representations having been taken into account).