SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C complained about bullying by a prison officer in his prison. We found that the documentary evidence showed that the officer in question had not been responsible for various actions that Mr C had considered him to have been, such as making a medical decision about whether Mr C should have to share a cell. We also found that the officer had not acted inappropriately in respect of other issues, such as arranging for medical observation of Mr C in line with a prison drugs protocol. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507674 as a PDF (10.83 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was being escorted by an agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) between prison and court on several occasions during his trial. He complained that an officer from the agency shared information and comment about him and his case with another officer and that that officer then passed that on to prisoners. He said the prisoners then taunted him with the information and comment, which they said they had got from the agency. The agency said that, in speaking to staff about the complaint, staff had been very clear that they had not divulged information as alleged. Their account differed from Mr C's, and in the circumstances it was not possible to establish the facts about who said what, if anything. For security reasons involving the nature of Mr C's offences, the agency had not considered it appropriate to interview other prisoners about the events in question, and we accepted their reasons. Related reading View Decision Report 201600130 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about the time it took prison staff to escort him to the health centre located within the prison. Mr C, who has diabetes, was unhappy it took two hours to receive assistance with his insulin pen. He also felt the SPS's response to his complaint was inappropriate. We were unable to clearly determine why it took two hours for Mr C to be escorted to the health centre. We took independent advice from a nursing adviser who found that the delay of two hours was an unreasonable length of time for a person having treatment for insulin dependent diabetes to wait. We considered that appropriate action was subsequently taken when Mr C transferred to another prison where he was reviewed by a diabetic nurse specialist and a clear system to manage his insulin pen was put in place. We also found that there was a failure by the prison to properly investigate and respond to Mr C's concerns. They had acknowledged that there should have been a more thorough investigation into his complaint and that their responses should have been more detailed.

Mr C complained that his prospects of parole from prison were being hampered by delays in accessing relevant courses that he required to progress. However, our investigation showed that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were acting in line with their national policy in relation to the timetable for allocating him to any appropriate courses. In other words, there was no evidence the SPS were acting wrongly, so we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201508395 as a PDF (10.78 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lost an item of property. Although the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had admitted responsibility for losing the item, Mr C was unhappy with the amount that had been offered in compensation. We asked the SPS about this and they confirmed that the valuation of Mr C's lost property had been made using an inappropriate method. They agreed to re-visit the claim. They also agreed to ensure that more appropriate methods were used in future. As such, we upheld the complaint but made no further recommendations. Mr C then complained again following this reassessment, as he remained unhappy with the way it had been carried out. On further investigation, we found that the relevant staff were unaware of the procedure they were supposed to follow and there had been a number of procedural errors as a result, affecting the investigation of Mr C's claim. As such, we upheld the complaint, this time making recommendations.

Mr C complained that an agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that he could attend his brother's funeral. Mr C missed the funeral service and he complained to us about the agency's failure, and about the failure to fully explain what had gone wrong. During our investigation, the agency explained there was a delay in collecting an additional member of staff required for the special escort. The agency accepted that they could have done a number of things differently on the day in question. They said that they recognised the understandable upset caused to Mr C in missing his brother's funeral and had taken immediate steps to learn from the incident. The agency apologised to Mr C for their error. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we considered that there was nothing further we could recommend that would undo what happened to Mr C. Given that the agency had provided a more comprehensive explanation of what had gone wrong, had taken steps to learn from the complaint and had apologised to Mr C, we made no further recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201503978 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that there was inadequate choice to meet his food preferences in prison. For example, he liked plain food, rather than curried or spicy food. We considered the relevant prison rule about the provision of food in prison and looked at sample menus. The prison also explained how they reach their decisions on food menus. Our conclusion was that the prison had tried to accommodate Mr C's preferences, had not acted outside any relevant policies, and that it would be impractical and financially unviable for them to meet the likes and dislikes of every prisoner. We did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201504160 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's typewriter stopped working, so he asked his prison for a form to order a replacement. Mr C did not receive a response to his request, and when he complained (known as a PCF1 complaint) about this he was not happy with the responses to the complaints and brought his complaint to us. We looked at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s file on Mr C's complaints, and correspondence about the typewriter request. We also took account of The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 (the prison rules) and the SPS' complaints guidance. A prison governor has discretion under the prison rules to decide whether a prisoner can have specific property, and it is not for us to challenge this. However, we can look at how a specific case has been handled, in terms of the administrative processing and communication with a prisoner. We found the prison's handling of Mr C's request was unreasonable, as they set aside the fact that Mr C had had a typewriter for over ten years. The prison had to make a defensible decision on Mr C's request (where the prison have to be able to defend their decision should another prisoner make a similar request at another time), but they put the onus for this on him rather than on themselves. There was no record of the consideration of Mr C's request, which took the prison three months to deal with. The prison's letters to Mr C included too much official-sounding jargon. Communication with Mr C in plain language would have been more helpful in the circumstances. We concluded that the prison needed a simple process to deal with non-standard requests. We also found that the prison's responses to Mr C's complaints did not consistently let him know what was being done and when; and when this was not possible, the prison did not provide a full explanation. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained about a delay in accessing the Self Change Programme (a programme aimed at addressing offending behaviour). The prison said that prisoners had to have a General Programme Assessment before being eligible to access this programme. They said that Mr C had initially refused to engage with the General Programme Assessment and this had caused the delay in him being identified as eligible. We found evidence to confirm this. We also found that the prison had a waiting list for the Self Change Programme and Mr C was on this waiting list. We found that the prison were appropriately managing the waiting list, in line with the relevant policies. For these reasons we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201505033 as a PDF (10.92 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the prison did not have an adequate process in place to allow for the fair selection of prisoners and their families to attend prison events/parties. Mr C was unhappy that, when a party/event was held at the prison, his child was not allowed to attend and, specifically, that he had not been given a place at a recent event. The prison had acknowledged as part of the complaints process that Mr C had likely been told that he had not been allowed to attend the party because he had a misconduct report. However, the Internal Complaints Committee told Mr C categorically that this was not the case and that there was no set criteria for attendance. Following our enquiry to the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), we could not see any evidence that the prison were required to have in place a specific process to allow for the fair selection of prisoners and their families to attend prison events/parties. We were satisfied with the prison's explanation of the simple selection process and, while we acknowledged that Mr C had been provided with conflicting information about the selection of prisoners, we were satisfied that the prison had followed this process when selecting prisoners for the party. We considered that it would be disproportionate and overly bureaucratic to require the prison to have a written or formal process/procedure in place for such a simple process. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. However, as part of our enquiries, we were told by the prison that, in fact, initially, priority was given to prisoners who had been report free for a certain period. The paperwork provided by the prison, although not clear, appeared to support this explanation. This was in direct contradiction to the information Mr C was provided during the complaints process that there was no set criteria for attendance. Therefore, we recommended that the prison apologise to Mr C for failing to give him a clear and accurate explanation of what happened in r

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were unreasonably holding him back from progressing to less secure conditions, and that they had not dealt with his complaints about progression properly. After investigation, we concluded that although Mr C was understandably keen to progress as quickly as possible, his case was being managed appropriately in line with the relevant guidance and taking account of all relevant evidence and information. We also concluded that the SPS had dealt with Mr Cs complaints appropriately. We did not uphold the complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201403993 as a PDF (10.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the adequacy of the overnight snack provision in prison for insulin dependent diabetics. He did not consider that the contents of the pack were sufficient for his needs. We took independent medical advice and made some enquiries of the Scottish Prison Service. We were advised that the contents of Mr C's snack pack had since been amended in line with an instruction from a prison doctor. We tried contacting Mr C to discuss the latest position but he did not respond to us. We, therefore, closed his complaint without reaching a finding. Related reading View Decision Report 201500033 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to pay him at the correct rate for his attendance at work and education sessions in prison. The amount a prisoner is paid for work in prison depends on the activity level their job falls into. Although this is a discretionary decision for the SPS to take, we found that the SPS had provided Mr C with conflicting information about the activity level of his job. We also found that they had given Mr C inaccurate information about the level of payment for attending education sessions. In view of these failings, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that his prison unreasonably put him on closed visits, and that there was an unreasonable delay in the prison responding to his complaints about confidential matters (known as PCF2 complaints). In dealing with Mr C's complaint, we explained to him that the decision to put him on closed visits was a discretionary matter for the prison under The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 (the prison rules). Our role was to see whether the prison followed the correct procedure. We looked at the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s file on Mr C's complaint, their records about the closed visits and relevant SPS procedures. We found that the prison rules gave the prison governor the authority to put a prisoner on closed visits, and that the prison had reviewed Mr C's status for closed visits regularly, which was in line with the prison rules and the prison's own process. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of Mr C's complaint. We also found that there was a delay in the prison responding to two of Mr C's PCF2 complaints, which was not in line with the SPS complaints procedure. In addition, there was an excessive delay in the prison responding to a letter from Mr C's solicitor, which was related to his complaints. Therefore, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing her brother (Mr A) to less secure conditions. We obtained information from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) about Mr A's case and we reviewed the relevant policies in place. We found that Mr A had been asked to participate in an assessment process on more than one occasion but he had refused. He finally took part in the process, and the information gathered was discussed. Following that, it was decided that Mr A needed to participate in a programme to address his offending needs. However, Mr A maintained his innocence and denied the offences he had been convicted of. Therefore, the SPS placed him on the programme's waiting list because he was not ready to engage with it. The SPS recognised that Mr A denied the offences for which he had been convicted. However, Mr A had been convicted of his offences and had to be managed on that basis. The SPS has a role to reduce the risk an individual is assessed as presenting, which they do by giving prisoners the opportunity to participate in relevant programmes. The SPS are also authorised to refuse to progress individual prisoners to less secure conditions if they do not consider that the individual has addressed their offending needs as much as possible. In Mr A's case, the evidence showed that the SPS took account of various assessments which showed that he posed a risk. Because of that, they concluded that he needed to reconsider participating on the identified programme if he wanted to progress. We found no evidence to suggest that there had been an unreasonable delay in progressing Mr A to less secure conditions. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407466 as a PDF (11.38 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) included inaccurate information in his risk management team (RMT) paperwork, and he was concerned that this might have a detrimental effect on the consideration of his parole. In dealing with Mr C's complaint, we explained that our role was to check where the SPS sourced the information that was included, and if that information was up-to-date. We looked at the SPS' file on Mr C's complaint, the prison records provided to us by the SPS, and the SPS' RMT guidance. The guidance said staff at an RMT meeting should thoroughly research all relevant information and take account of it. We found that prison staff were aware before the RMT meeting that there was more recent information about Mr C which could be provided by his new probation officer. However, the RMT paperwork made no reference to this and, at least in part, referred to information from Mr C's previous probation officer. In responding to our enquiry, the SPS referred us to other SPS documents, which they said would have informed Mr C's RMT paperwork. However, Mr C was transferred to the SPS from outside Scotland, and they were aware there were problems with the records that arrived with Mr C. The SPS documents about Mr C's time outside Scotland must have been informed by records from that other jurisdiction; however, the SPS did not provide us with the original evidence which first told them of Mr C's history there. This meant the SPS were not able to demonstrate to us that the information included in Mr C's RMT paperwork was accurate and up-to-date. We upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the risk management team failed to appropriately demonstrate that they had taken a defensible decision in relation to his progression to less secure conditions. We found that the prison did not initially provide enough written detail to show how they had reached their decision on Mr C's progression. While the issue of Mr C's progression was entirely a matter for the prison to determine, we upheld Mr C's complaint about the level of written detail they provided to explain their decision.

Mr C complained that the adjudicator unreasonably failed to follow the correct process at his disciplinary hearing. In particular, he said that the adjudicator did not give him the chance to cross-examine the witness. In their response to his complaint, the Scottish Prison Service told Mr C that the adjudicator had concerns about intimidation and that was why he was not allowed to cross-examine the witness. The prison rules say that prisoners must be given the opportunity to call witnesses and to cross-examine them. In addition, the relevant guidance says that a prisoner must be allowed to ask questions of witnesses but if they abuse that right, the adjudicator should require the questions to be put through them. That did not happen in Mr C's case. We upheld Mr C's complaint because we concluded that he should have been given the opportunity to question the witness by putting his questions through the adjudicator.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) inappropriately failed to follow the correct process when placing him on disciplinary report. In particular, Mr C said the prison had given him a document that prisoners were not supposed to receive. He also said he had not received appropriate notification that he was being placed on disciplinary report. In addition, Mr C said the prison failed to respond appropriately to his complaint. The SPS accepted that Mr C should not have been issued with the document and it should only have been made available to the adjudicator of his hearing. However, they did not consider that issuing the document to Mr C had impacted on the disciplinary process or resulted in him receiving an unfair hearing. We agreed with this position. In addition, the SPS were able to provide evidence that Mr C had received appropriate notification that he had been placed on disciplinary report. Therefore, we did not uphold this part of his complaint. In looking at whether the SPS failed to respond appropriately to Mr C's complaint, we agreed that the response was dated incorrectly. However, we did not consider this error had affected the quality of the response. We accepted that the written response issued from the internal complaints committee (ICC) was confusing because it referred to a negative drug test result instead of a positive result. However, the chairperson of the ICC wrote to Mr C and agreed that they had incorrectly referred to a negative drug test result and apologised for any confusion caused. Given the administrative errors identified, we upheld this part of Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201502487 as a PDF (11.29 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably refused his request to transfer cash from his prison account to his bank account. He said the SPS also refused to allow him to hand cash over to a visitor. In their response to his complaint, the prison told Mr C that prisoners were not allowed to transfer cash from their prison accounts to their bank accounts. They also told him that handing money out at visits was prevented for security reasons. We reviewed the SPS finance manual which stated that cash could be handed out at a visit, or sent out. It said that when cash was being handed out at a visit, a receipt needed to be obtained from the recipient. We asked the SPS why they told Mr C this process was not allowed. They recognised that the response provided to Mr C was unclear. The response had not explained that a prisoner could only hand cash out at a visit when they had made a formal request. The SPS said that although Mr C said he had made a request to hand money out at a visit, there was no evidence of him having done that. We accepted that the SPS had discretion when it came to deciding whether to allow prisoners to transfer funds to their bank accounts. However, in relation to handing money out at visits, we found that the prison had a local policy in place which supported the requirements of the national finance manual. We considered this to be reasonable. However, in Mr C's case, we considered that the prison unreasonably failed to explain to him that he had not followed the process properly. Additionally, they gave a misleading response which created the impression that requests to hand money out at visits were not allowed for security reasons. In light of this, we agreed that the SPS unreasonably refused Mr C's request. Mr C also complained that the prison failed to handle his complaint appropriately. We agreed because the information he received was inconsistent. In light of our findings, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained to us that there had been unreasonable delays by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in facilitating his movement through the prison system in time for his parole hearing. Mr C had been transferred from a prison in England so that he could receive family visits. However, he needed a cell of his own and there was a waiting list for single cells in the prison he had been transferred to. Therefore, Mr C was transferred to another prison so that he could be given a single cell. Although Mr C considered that this had delayed his progression through the prison system, we found that this was a decision that the SPS were entitled to take. Mr C was also unhappy that his former parole officer in England had not attended a meeting to discuss his progression. We found that the SPS had taken steps to try to arrange for the parole officer to participate in the meeting. As Mr C was unhappy that he had not attended, the SPS agreed to postpone this meeting to a later date so that the parole officer could participate and provide further information. We considered that this had been reasonable. We did not find evidence that there have been unreasonable delays by the SPS in facilitating Mr C's movement through the prison system and we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404427 as a PDF (11.12 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

During a search of his cell, Mr C said an officer transferred ink from an ink pad onto some items of his clothing. He complained about the matter and he was unhappy with the prison's response. Mr C complained to us that the prison failed to handle his complaint reasonably. The prison told Mr C that he should not have had the ink pad in his cell in the first place. They were also unable to establish where the ink pad had come from. The prison told Mr C that they did not uphold his complaint. However, they agreed to remind staff of the standards that should be followed when conducting cell searches and dealing with prisoners' property. The prison also confirmed to us that Mr C had accepted an offer of £30 for the damage caused to his clothing. In making his complaint to the prison, Mr C raised concerns about the manner in which an officer conducted the search. He said he wanted officers to take more care when doing cell searches. Whilst the prison did not uphold Mr C's complaint, they did take steps to remind staff of the professional standards required when conducting cell searches. It is not entirely clear why the prison sought to establish where the ink pad came from; doing so appears to have over-complicated the matter. However, overall, we were satisfied the prison's handling of the matter was reasonable and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201503474 as a PDF (11.24 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C asked to have pens in use (in his possession or his room, rather than with his other belongings in prison storage) that he made at his work party. The prison refused Mr C's request which he said was unfair because other prisoners were allowed to have such pens in use. The prison told us that they had decided not to allow Mr C to have the pens in use because they were decorative and could be used for sale or barter. The prison rules confirm that the governor is authorised to refuse to allow a prisoner to have in their possession any items considered to be prejudicial to the security or good order of the prison. In addition, they said any prisoners who may have such pens in use were unauthorised to do so. We were satisfied that the prison were authorised to refuse Mr C's request and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201504122 as a PDF (10.98 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

An escorting agency that provides custody escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) transferred Mr C to a hearing. Mr C complained that he was not escorted appropriately. In particular, Mr C said the escorting crew parked the vehicle some distance away from the location and because of that, he had to walk handcuffed in view of the public. Mr C also said his complaint about the matter was not responded to appropriately. In response to Mr C's complaint, the escorting agency said that they were satisfied the crew carried out their duties to an acceptable level when escorting Mr C. They said there was no need for further action. However, we obtained a copy of the relevant procedure which outlined the instructions that the crew should have followed when they arrived at the location of the hearing. In particular, the instructions said the crew should have reported to the on-site manager for further instruction. That did not happen in Mr C's case. In response to our enquiries, the escorting agency said that in some situations it was not always possible to keep prisoners out of sight of the public. However, they said that in Mr C's case, this could have been avoided. In light of the evidence available, we upheld both of Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had appointed a person to carry out an assessment who did not meet the stated criteria specified in the tender document. We took independent advice from one of our medical advisers, who is a consultant psychiatrist. We found that, in making their decision to appoint someone to carry out the assessment, the SPS did so appropriately and in line with the service specification detailed in the tender document. As such, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404480 as a PDF (10.82 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018