SPSO Individual Decisions

Miss C complained about escorting services provided on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service on two occasions. Miss C said that on the first occasion, escort staff physically and verbally abused her and on the second occasion, staff undertook a lengthy diversion when taking her to a medical facility for assessment. Miss C also complained that her complaints about the escort service were not fully investigated. The escort service did not agree with Miss C's account of the first journey and they provided escort logs and incident reports made at the time. We also obtained a statement from court staff whom Miss C said witnessed the events, which supported the escort service's account. We did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint. In relation to the second journey, the escort service explained that staff took a different route to pay for a petrol bill but that the diversion would not have added much time to the journey. They also said there was not enough time to catch the ferry (for the preferred route), due to the time that court finished. However, when we asked for further details about this, they said the reason for the diversion was to pay for the petrol bill. During our investigation, the escort service acknowledged that staff should have made other arrangements to pay for the petrol and they apologised to Miss C. We agreed with their assessment of this and we upheld Miss C's complaint. We also upheld Miss C's complaint about complaints handling. There was no record of staff being interviewed, although the escort service said they have now addressed this. We were also concerned that the escort service gave us conflicting information about whether ferries were available, and that their apology was prompted by our investigation. We considered this reflected a lack of rigour in their investigation as they should have established the key facts and made any apologies when Miss C first complained. We therefore upheld this complaint.

Mr C complained about the handling by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) of his brother (Mr A)'s sentence management. Mr C was concerned that there had been a lack of clarity between two prisons regarding Mr A's eligibility for offending-related coursework which hampered his progression and release from prison. Mr C said that there had been a change in policy in 2013 which meant that prisoners who denied their offence were now eligible for coursework. We identified that there had been no change in policy and that guidance on coursework had been issued across the prison sector in 2013 to ensure consistency. We found that the SPS had followed their written guidance when deciding whether Mr A met the selection criteria for participating in coursework to address his violent behaviour. We concluded that Mr A's sentence management in terms of his coursework was reasonable and in line with guidance. Mr C was also dissatisfied with the SPS's handling of his complaint. We found that while the SPS attempted to provide Mr C with responses to his ongoing correspondence over a year, clearer information could have been provided in relation to Mr A's eligibility for coursework in respect of his offence and the criteria for coursework to address his offending behaviour. We also noted that the SPS had not responded to one of Mr C's letters. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint and made two recommendations.

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

An arrangement was in place whereby Mr C received his meals in his prison cell. This was as a result of the anxiety Mr C experienced in attending the prison dining hall due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, the board advised the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that Mr C could return to the dining hall to have his meals. Mr C complained about the board's decision that he was fit to do so. We took independent medical advice from a consultant forensic psychiatrist who noted that the in-cell dining arrangement did not appear to have been a significant feature of Mr C's historic clinical assessments. They also noted that there was no indication that PTSD was felt to have been a major ongoing issue for Mr C. They considered that Mr C was appropriately reviewed by clinicians before deciding that he was fit to attend the dining hall and that this decision was reasonable. We did not uphold the complaint. However, the adviser considered that the psychiatrist who reviewed Mr C's fitness to attend the dining hall should have provided clearer and more definitive advice to the SPS. As they were still in training, they should have discussed the situation with their supervising consultant if they were unclear on what to advise. There was no evidence that this happened. We noted that the psychiatrist had indicated they would leave it for the SPS to make the final decision, rather than focusing on providing clear and specific advice upon which they could base their decision. We considered that the board's role in such decision-making could benefit from being clarified through the provision of guidance to mental health staff and we made recommendations accordingly.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to manage his property in line with relevant policy and procedure. Mr C said that over a few months, he had condemned (voluntarily given up) items of his property, handed it out to visitors, or donated it to the prison library. Mr C said he had followed all the correct processes but that the items had not been removed from his property card and therefore he was not allowed to receive any more items. Following our enquiry to SPS, we found that the procedure for items being condemned or handed out to visitors is that the prisoner must fill out a mandate detailing the items they wish to have removed from their property and what they want to happen to these items, before handing both the mandate and property to a member of staff, who will take it to reception to be actioned. SPS explained that given the large volume of property transactions it was not possible to take every prisoner to reception to sign their property cards when items were removed, and so the mandate acted as a signature. In addition, SPS said that whilst Mr C said he had donated items to the prison library, there was no evidence that he gave these items to a member of staff to be removed from his property card. We could not see any evidence that Mr C had condemned, handed out, or donated the property he claimed to have and we considered the policies in terms of property to have been reasonably followed. We did, however, recognise that there was opportunity for property or mandates to be lost after being handed to staff members to be actioned. Therefore, we made a recommendation that SPS consider whether the prison's policy was detailed enough.

Ms C complained to us that the prison internal complaints committee (ICC) failed to follow the proper process in handling her complaint. In particular, she said the ICC chair failed to follow prison rule 123(7) when handling her complaint, and that the ICC also failed to arrange for an independent prison monitor (IPM) to be present at the hearing to assist her. Prison rule 123 says that a prisoner may be assisted at the ICC hearing and can call witnesses to give evidence in support of a complaint. Rule 123(7) says the ICC chair may refuse to allow a prisoner to call a witness if, having discussed the matter with the prisoner, the chair is reasonably satisfied the evidence the witness is likely to give will be of no relevance or value in considering the complaint. The SPS told us that in Ms C's case, in relation to her request to be assisted by an IPM, she had not followed the agreed process to secure their attendance. We felt that was reasonable. The SPS also told us the chair did not call Ms C's witness because they did not see what more could be added to the hearing by having the witness present. However, the ICC's written response did not reflect that. Instead, it said that Ms C's witness was not present because she had not discussed the issue with them nor had she secured their agreement to attend. We did not consider that this was in line with the prison rules and we upheld Ms C's complaint to us.

Mr C complained that he was not receiving the time off from his prison work party that the prison rules state prisoners should receive. The prison advised that there was a historic arrangement in place whereby prisoners agreed to work extra hours. However, they acknowledged that this was not in line with the relevant prison rules and confirmed that steps had been taken to provide sufficient cover so prisoners would receive the required time off work in future. We upheld the complaint but as appropriate steps had already been taken to remedy the identified failing, we did not make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201508604 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that he was not spoken to as part of the investigation when he submitted two complaints to the prison governor about an officer. Mr C said he felt that the governor had disregarded his version of events and had not investigated his complaints properly. We looked at whether the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to investigate Mr C's complaints appropriately. The SPS told us they spoke to the officer about Mr C's complaints and he contradicted what had been said. The SPS also told us they did not interview Mr C about his complaints because they did not think it was appropriate. In considering whether it was reasonable to not speak to Mr C about his complaints, we looked at the level of detail he provided in each of his complaints. We were satisfied that he clearly conveyed the nature of his concerns about the officer. It was clear the officer contradicted what Mr C said and we did not consider that speaking to Mr C would have assisted the SPS in reconciling the conflicting account of events. We also did not accept that by not speaking to Mr C, the SPS had disregarded his complaints or failed to investigate them properly. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201602990 as a PDF (11.11 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C submitted a complaint to the prison governor about his personal officer. Mr C said that the governor failed to respond appropriately to his complaint. We reviewed what Mr C said to the governor in his complaint and we considered whether the governor's response addressed the matter. We took the view that the governor had only addressed one aspect of Mr C's complaint and that they failed to appropriately address other concerns raised. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the management by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) of his progression to less secure conditions. In particular, he stated that the Parole Board for Scotland had decided a plan for his progression to the less secure conditions but that this had been disregarded by the SPS. The Parole Board for Scotland make decisions on whether to release a prisoner, not on sentence management, which is reserved for the SPS. In Mr C's case, we found no evidence of fault in the SPS's handling of his progression to less secure conditions. Related reading View Decision Report 201508242 as a PDF (10.81 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a prisoner, complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not paying him appropriately. He said he usually worked three-and-a-half shifts per week and received £8. However, Mr C said the SPS had advised him that he would be required to work additional shifts but he would not receive any extra wages. Mr C said other prisoners worked fewer shifts than him but received the same wage payment. The SPS explained that a new working pattern had been introduced in an effort to address similar complaints. It was decided that all prisoners would be required to work nine shifts each week and the shifts would be carried out in two work parties. The SPS acknowledged there were still some prisoners working only three-and-a-half shifts per week but as they were gradually being allocated positions, the number was reducing. We were satisfied that the explanation provided by the SPS was reasonable and in line with the prisoner wage earning policy. We accepted that Mr C was being paid appropriately and that it was also reasonable for some prisoners to be receiving a full wage for work that had not yet been allocated to them. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201603255 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about issues with his mail coming into the prison. He said that he was having to wait at least a week to receive mail, that he was being made to sign for letters, and that the prison was unreasonably opening some of his mail and sealing it again with tape. In our investigations we asked the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to provide copies of their policies regarding mail coming into the prison. We found that according to policy, mail should always be received by the addressee by the end of the day it comes into the prison. The SPS accepted that Mr C was having to wait unreasonably for his mail. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. The SPS told us that the reason Mr C had to sign for mail was because it was classified as a parcel and prisoners must sign for parcels when they pick them up at reception. We found that the classification of mail as a letter or parcel is a discretionary decision for the SPS and therefore decided that it was reasonable that Mr C had to sign for his mail. However, we found that the SPS had given contradictory responses in the two internal complaints handling stages regarding this issue, the Internal Complaints Committee and the Residential Front Line Manager stages. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. Finally, we found that according to policy, the SPS is entitled to open a prisoner's mail in the prisoner's presence unless it is privileged mail. The SPS told us that Mr C had been present when his mail was opened and as there was no evidence to suggest otherwise, we did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that staff did not ensure he was properly placed in protected conditions. During our investigation, Mr C withdrew his complaint and we did not reach a finding on the case. Related reading View Decision Report 201508471 as a PDF (10.66 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were failing to provide appropriate dietary requirements for Jewish festivals, specifically the Seder, a ceremonial meal eaten as part of Passover. SPS rules say that the governor must ensure that every prisoner is provided with a diet that takes into account, as far as practicable, the prisoner's age, health, religion, and cultural, dietary or other requirements. In addition, according to the SPS food manual, prisons should cater for a minimum of three separate religious festivals each year. In this case, the prison had already catered for Ramadan, Passover and Eid Al Adha. They also planned to cater for Christmas. We considered the evidence available and took the view that the SPS were meeting the requirements of the prison rules and the food manual. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601500 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to take reasonable action after she reported feeling unwell. She was also dissatisfied with the way in which the SPS dealt with her complaint. We did not reach a decision on Ms C's complaint as she was released from prison and did not provide a forwarding address or confirm that she wished us to continue investigating her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508349 as a PDF (10.78 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his position on the waiting list for an offending behaviour programme had been unreasonable. He was temporarily transferred to prison in England and because of this, Mr C said that he was removed from the waiting list in error. Mr C also said that when he returned to Scotland, his name was put back on to the waiting list but it was put back in the wrong position. The SPS explained that when a prisoner is no longer in their custody, the electronic system updates and automatically removes the individual from any programme waiting lists. They also confirmed that when Mr C returned to custody, the system was notified and he was automatically returned to the waiting list. The SPS also confirmed that Mr C's position on the waiting list was in line with the relevant policy. We were satisfied that what happened in Mr C's case was normal practice and in line with relevant policy. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201603321 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained to the prison governor after a prison officer refused to let her visitors attend a pre-booked children's visit. She was unhappy with the governor's response. In particular, Ms C said the governor failed to acknowledge or respond to points that she raised in her PCF2 complaint. PCF2 is the name of the form used to make a confidential complaint about a sensitive or serious issue. We reviewed the information available and this confirmed that the governor appropriately obtained a statement from the officer who took the decision to refuse Ms C's visitors. The governor also communicated his findings to Ms C. However, he did not respond to the specific outcomes Ms C noted that she was looking for. We considered that doing so would have been reasonable and would have demonstrated good complaints handling. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to follow the proper procedure prior to taking the decision to return him to closed conditions from the open estate (less secure prison conditions). In particular, Mr C said the SPS had not issued certain paperwork to him or given him the opportunity to put forward representations before the final decision was made. We reviewed the information Mr C provided in support of his complaint and we also obtained information from the SPS. In addition, we reviewed the risk management and progression guidance which sets out the policy and procedure that prisons should follow when they are considering returning a prisoner to closed conditions. Having done that, it was clear that the SPS had followed the correct process prior to taking the decision to return Mr C to closed conditions. He was issued with the relevant paperwork and he was given an opportunity to make written representations. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201603209 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about how his prison dealt with a PCF2 confidential complaint. PCF2 is the name of the form used to make a confidential complaint about a sensitive or serious issue. We found the prison failed to give Mr C reasons for not regarding his complaint as being about a confidential matter of an exceptionally sensitive or serious nature. The prison also incorrectly said that Mr C made no proposal about how his complaint could be resolved, when in fact he did. Given that the prison did not follow the instructions on the PCF2 complaint form or in the prison service complaints guidance, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that his prison failed to enforce Prison Rule 36 on smoking. We found the prison took a pragmatic and proportionate approach to enforcing the prison rules regarding prisoners who are found to be smoking, while at the same time acknowledging prisoners' addiction to smoking and trying to help manage it. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507744 as a PDF (10.74 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about how a prison investigated and responded to his complaint and the time taken to do so. Mr C had submitted a Complaint about Confidential Matters using a PCF2 form. Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidance states that on receiving a PCF2 form a response should be given within seven days. We found that the prison failed to investigate Mr C's complaint within the required timescale and did so without giving Mr C a reason for the delay and a revised timescale. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. We were satisfied that apart from the unreasonable delay, the prison's investigation and their response to Mr C's complaint were adequate. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about unreasonable delay by the prison in transferring him to a prison where he would have the chance to do work placements in the community. Our investigation revealed that there had been delay but that this had been unavoidably caused by a backlog of prisoners who were also waiting for such a transfer. We noted that Mr C did obtain his transfer and that the new prison brought forward their consideration of him for work placements by two months to help avoid further delay. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201601164 as a PDF (10.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that when the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were assessing evidence at a disciplinary hearing for fighting, they had not considered all relevant CCTV of the incident before reaching their decision. Ms C believed that there was further CCTV camera footage which had not been shown. Ms C was also unhappy that, when she complained about this, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) did not say whether all the CCTV footage had been reviewed and there was no attempt to allow her to attend the ICC as she had been transferred to another prison. We found that the additional cameras that Ms C wished to be shown as evidence did not exist. Therefore, we were satisfied that all relevant CCTV evidence was considered prior to reaching a decision on her disciplinary hearing and we did not uphold this aspect of her complaint. In relation to Ms C's complaint about the ICC, we found that, while we were satisfied that the ICC had considered the available evidence, the ICC decision to Ms C merely stated that they had reviewed 'all evidence presented' without responding to her specific request that other footage be considered. Our view was that they should have noted the lack of additional footage and expressed this to Ms C in a way that allowed her to be satisfied that the points she had raised had been taken on board. The prison had already acknowledged, in response to our enquiries, that they did not consider options to allow Ms C to take part in the ICC. They have now put in place a process to ensure that if a prisoner transfers to another establishment prior to an ICC, video conferencing will be available to enable them to take part in the ICC. We upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably, and without proper explanation, removed an '08' number from the list of numbers he could call. The 08 number in question redirected to his home number and allowed him to make daily contact with his child at a discounted rate. He had had this number on his list for over a year, however this number was removed from his list without consultation or prior warning. We found that the Scottish Prison Rules (Telephones) Direction 2011 stated that prisoners are prohibited from using a prisoner telephone to make a phone call, without the prior approval of the governor, to a phone number beginning with 08. The prison explained that numbers like this, which divert to numbers unknown, could present a threat to security and organised crime as well as potentially causing operational difficulties by allowing unlimited time on the prisoner phone. We were satisfied that this explanation was reasonable and that the prison was acting in accordance with the rules in removing the 08 number from Mr C's list of numbers. The prison acknowledged that the 08 number was added to Mr C's list of numbers in error and without the prior approval of the governor, as required by the rules, and that Mr C should have been properly informed when the 08 number was removed. We upheld Mr C's complaint. The prison have now taken action to try to prevent a similar situation occurring in the future by reminding staff of the correct process. We also had concerns about the way in which Mr C's complaint was handled. Our view was that, had the complaint been properly investigated and a detailed response given to Mr C, this may have prevented escalation of the complaint. Also, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) response to Mr C had indicated that prison staff should meet with him to discuss alternative options for family contact; however, this had not taken place.

Mr C complained that the conditions he was being housed under were affecting his parole opportunities. He also complained about the handling of a property claim. During our investigation, Mr C accepted a full and final settlement for the property claim and was moved to a different prison. When we contacted Mr C to advise that we would not be considering his property claim further, we asked him to confirm that he wished to proceed with the investigation of his other concerns, given that he had now moved to a different prison. Mr C did not confirm that he wanted the investigation to continue and consequently his case was closed. Related reading View Decision Report 201507507 as a PDF (10.9 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018