SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C asked the prison to cover the cost of providing him with contact lenses instead of glasses. The prison advised Mr C that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) would not cover the cost of contact lenses, only glasses. Mr C complained that the prison failed to appropriately consider his request because they failed to seek any clinical advice about whether he needed contact lenses, and he said he had previously received them in a different prison. We asked the SPS to tell us if steps had been taken by the prison to confirm whether an optician had recommended that Mr C receive contact lenses instead of glasses. We also asked whether steps had been taken to check whether the other prison had provided Mr C with contact lenses. In their response, the SPS provided a statement from the other prison which confirmed that they had not purchased contact lenses for Mr C. The SPS also received confirmation from the health centre that the optician had not recommended that Mr C wear contact lenses instead of glasses, and there was no medical reason why Mr C could not wear glasses. This information was only sought by the prison following our enquiry to the SPS about Mr C's complaint. At the time of making his complaint, the prison did not take steps to check whether Mr C had previously been issued contact lenses. They also did not clarify whether Mr C did in fact require contact lenses. We considered that both of those steps should have been taken by the prison at the time of investigating Mr C's request and therefore we upheld the complaint. We also upheld Mr C's complaint that the prison failed to handle his complaint appropriately. In particular, the information provided by the SPS indicated that the chairperson of the internal complaints committee (ICC) invited the health care manager to attend the hearing but she chose not to. We concluded that the chairperson considered that the evidence the health centre manager would have brought was of relevance and value to the I

Ms C was given a life sentence in 2011 and throughout her time in custody she had not progressed to less secure conditions. Because of that, she complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had failed to appropriately support her progression which meant that she would not be in a position to satisfy the parole board's requirements for release. In line with the normal process, the SPS assessed Ms C's suitability for offending behaviour programmes. She met the criteria for the Female Offending Behaviour Programme. However, it was reported that Ms C had indicated that she would find group work intimidating and she wanted to be offered an alternative way to complete the work. Normally, a prisoner is required to address their offending behaviour through groupwork before they can be considered for progression to less secure conditions. In recognition of Ms C's concerns, the prison arranged for preparatory work to take place, and the outcome of that work was reported to the prison's risk management team. In that report, it was noted that the preparatory work undertaken with Ms C was very similar to the programme work she would be required to participate in and she had been able to engage ppropriately. Therefore, the prison concluded that Ms C should participate in the programme prior to her application for progression to less secure conditions being considered. It was clear Ms C felt unable to participate in group work. However, the evidence available indicated that the prison took appropriate action in an effort to support her participation in group work. In addition, the decision on how a prisoner should undertake offence-related work is a matter for the SPS to decide. Therefore, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305621 as a PDF (11.41 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us about the prison's handling of his complaint about staff entering his cell and removing all items except his mattress and pillow. When Mr C made his initial complaint, the prison took steps to investigate what had happened. Following that, staff were reminded of the appropriate steps that should be taken when a prisoner makes threats about self-harm. However, the prison failed to identify that Mr C was only left with a mattress and pillow. Because of that, the governor incorrectly stated that he was left with all of his bedding items. This could have been avoided if steps had been taken to clarify exactly what bedding Mr C was left with. In addition, we reviewed the written replies that were issued to Mr C's in response to his complaints and we did not consider that the points he raised were addressed appropriately. Therefore, we concluded that the prison failed to deal with Mr C's complaints appropriately and we upheld his complaint to us. Related reading View Decision Report 201407699 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was escorted to hospital. An officer packed some of Mr C's clothing into a bag to take to hospital. Mr C then submitted a claim to the prison because he said that the clothing that was packed by the officer had gone missing. The prison did not uphold Mr C's claim. He complained to us that the prison's handling of his claim for lost property was unreasonable because staff failed to investigate the matter properly. In addition, he said staff incorrectly marked the missing items as 'condemned' (destroyed at the request of the prisoner) on his property card. Mr C said he asked staff to remove the missing items from his property card as he said that the items had been lost by staff. Mr C's property card suggested that the items he claimed were missing were in his use before being condemned by staff. Mr C disputed asking staff to condemn the property but the evidence available showed that he submitted a condemn mandate form which clearly states that the items listed will be condemned, therefore, we concluded that staff appropriately condemned the items. In addition, Mr C's care plan from the time in question confirmed that he was permitted to have his own clothing in use, and the record completed on the day he was taken to hospital did not show that any property was taken with Mr C to or from hospital. In light of the evidence available, we concluded that the prison's handling of Mr C's claim was appropriate. The information we saw demonstrated that the prison's decision on Mr C's claim was based on the evidence available and, because of that, we did not uphold the complaint. Having reviewed Mr C's complaint forms, we also considered that the prison's handling of his complaints was reasonable. We recognised that Mr C considered that the prison failed to properly investigate the loss of his initial claim form. However, in their response, the prison confirmed that the form could not be located and they apologised for that. The prison also invited Mr C to s

Mr C complained that the board had contributed to the decision that he no longer needed to be managed under the Scottish Prison Service's process for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm (the ACT 2 Care process). Mr C had been managed under this process for a number of days, as he had carried out acts of self-harm. During that period, two medical reports had been obtained identifying that he was at risk of further self-harm, and successive case conferences had also reached the decision that he was at risk of this. However, a further case conference decided that Mr C was not at risk. A mental health nurse was a participant at this case conference and agreed with the decision reached. Mr C carried out a further act of self-harm and was put back on the process. We took independent medical advice from our mental health nurse adviser. Our adviser said that Mr C was removed from the process on the basis that he was not suicidal, however, as it is also a strategy for minimising the risk of self-harm this was not a reasonable decision. We found that the risk of life-threatening self-harm had not been sufficiently taken into account when the board contributed to the decision to remove Mr C from the process. The adviser also said that an entry that had been made in Mr C's healthcare record was unreasonable in both tone and clinical approach to self-harming behaviour. We also upheld a second complaint that Mr C made about the board's failure to provide him with a legible copy of his completed complaint form.

Mr C complained because he said an addictions caseworker inappropriately shared information about him at an integrated case management (ICM) meeting. The board told Mr C that he had consented to information about him to be shared because he had signed a consent form. Mr C disputed that he had given consent. We obtained a copy of the information sharing protocol (ISP) agreement drawn up between the Scottish Prison Service and the NHS. That document was prepared to support the regular sharing of personal information for patients who are in prison with a view to supporting their care and case management in prisons and their transition in and out of prison. The ISP confirms that the information being shared will be used to facilitate operational prison management, including ICM, and the ongoing management and review of a prisoner's health and social care. It confirms the information that can be shared includes clinical information and also states that, for the purposes of the protocol and the processes described in it, no consent will be required from service users. We also obtained a copy of the consent form Mr C signed which confirmed that he consented to participating in the ICM process and understood what the process involved and how the information gathered would be used and stored. In light of the information available, we concluded that the caseworker shared information about Mr C in line with the ISP. In addition, Mr C signed a consent form. Therefore, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406516 as a PDF (11.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C said the prison failed to reasonably investigate a complaint about the problems he had making an appeal against a disciplinary decision. Mr C's appeal was rejected because it was made too late. Mr C told the prison that an earlier appeal had been made within the two week deadline. We agreed with Mr C. We found that the prison should have done more to investigate Mr C's claim that an earlier appeal had gone missing, both when Mr C raised the matter in a further appeal and, later, when he complained. Some sections of the forms which should have been filled in by the prison were incomplete or not signed. It was difficult to see how the prison had arrived at their decision. As there was no system in place for issuing receipts, Mr C had no way of proving that he had made an earlier appeal. The prison had no way of proving that an earlier appeal had not been made. We recommended that a system of issuing receipts is implemented for prisoners who want one. We also found that the prison took too long to make a decision on the appeal Mr C made. They exceeded the 20 day timescale, without any explanation to Mr C.

Mr C was escorted to the sheriff court by an escorting agency which provides all custody and court escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). He said that when he arrived, the escorting officers were instructed to keep him double cuffed. This meant that Mr C had one set of cuffs linking his wrists and a second set linking one of his wrists to an officer's wrist. Mr C said he remained in double cuffs until he was returned to prison. Because of that, Mr C complained that the agency held him in double cuffs for an unreasonably long period of time. In addition, he said they failed to carry out any risk assessment. The agency told Mr C that every prisoner would be risk assessed throughout the day. They said the assessment would consider information supplied to them by partner agencies and could also include known behavioural factors from previous times when held in custody by the agency. We reviewed the relevant operational instructions which confirmed that prior to taking a decision to hold a prisoner in double cuffs, a risk assessment should be carried out to assess whether they are required. In addition, the instructions confirmed that if an assessment indicates that double cuffs are required, permission should be sought from the sheriff. In Mr C's case, no evidence was offered by the agency to suggest that the relevant risk assessment or the appropriate permission was sought prior to taking the decision to hold him in double cuffs. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) delayed sending all of his property when he was transferred from his previous prison to his current prison. Mr C also complained about how the prisons had dealt with his concerns and complaints about his property. We found that Mr C's property was not returned to him until eight months after his transfer, and Mr C said there were still missing items. The SPS' records showed that the items Mr C specified were at his previous prison, but they were not recorded as being received at his current prison. Based on the records, we concluded that all of Mr C's property had not been returned to him. Over a period of several months, Mr C tried to get his property returned by speaking to several different prison staff. Information we obtained from the SPS did not record any action being taken about Mr C's property until he complained, and although both Mr C and the SPS agreed that some action was taken, it had no effect until after Mr C complained. We could not find evidence of any coordinated effort between the two prisons in trying to locate and return all of Mr C's property. We upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained to his prison that officers appeared to know confidential information relating to his health. Mr C was not satisfied with the prison's response and so he complained to us. We looked at the prison's records on Mr C's complaint, and we found that it had been difficult for them to establish the facts of the incident that led to the complaint. A prison manager interviewed officers involved, and their recollections were unable to confirm where the information about Mr C had originated. Although it was not possible to determine exactly what happened, we were satisfied that the overall approach taken by the prison and their response to Mr C's complaint was adequate in the circumstances and, therefore, we did not uphold his complaint. Although we did not uphold the complaint, we felt it would be helpful if the prison shared with Mr C the investigation of his complaint and the conclusions reached, by giving him a copy of the prison manager's report. We also made a recommendation to address a concern raised by another prison manager during the prison's consideration of Mr C's complaint, given the importance of preserving the confidentiality of personal health-related information.

Mr C complained to us about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of his post programme report (the report) which was required eight weeks after the completion of his treatment programme. Mr C complained that, due to the delay in completing the report, his tribunal hearing had been adjourned and had the hearing not been adjourned authorisation for his release from prison may have been given. Also, as a result of the adjournment of the tribunal, his annual review which had been held in May would now be held in November. The evidence showed that there had been an unreasonable delay in the completion of Mr C's report, so we upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we found that the hearing had also been adjourned for other reasons, including that Mr C was required to undertake further elements of the treatment programme. We found that even had the report not been delayed it was very unlikely that Mr C would have been able to complete all outstanding work by the date of the tribunal held in May. We were aware that the SPS had taken action in response to a previous complaint to us in relation to avoiding unnecessary delays in the completion of reports. In addition, the SPS had taken action to address the specific factors faced by the prison at the time of this complaint which had impacted on the prison's ability to complete reports. As a result we recommended that the SPS apologise to Mr C for the delay in completing his report.

Mr C alerted staff in the prison that he was experiencing chest pain, and it was agreed that he should attend hospital. However, Mr C decided not to attend and staff agreed to carry out regular observation checks on him throughout the night. Mr C complained because he said staff unreasonably failed to carry out observation checks on him. The prison said the checks were carried out but Mr C disputed that. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us that observations were only documented when the prisoner being monitored was being managed in line with the suicide risk management strategy and that Mr C was not being monitored under that policy. Instead, the SPS provided a copy of the log completed by the nightshift manager which confirmed that, after taking advice from the doctor, it was agreed that Mr C could not be forced to attend hospital and, because of that, his condition should be monitored throughout the night. We also obtained a copy of the entry recorded in Mr C's medical record which confirmed that he did not seek any intervention or assessment the following morning. The information confirmed that there would normally only be a requirement for a prison to keep a record of any observation checks carried out if the prisoner being monitored is being managed under suicide risk management strategy. That did not apply in Mr C's case so the only record that existed was the log completed by the nightshift manager. The entry confirmed that the doctor had indicated that because Mr C refused to attend hospital, his condition should be monitored by staff throughout the night. The SPS confirmed to us that the nightshift manager advised that Mr C was monitored. Whilst we recognised Mr C's position that staff did not monitor him regularly, without further supporting evidence being available, we were unable to uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201407669 as a PDF (11.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison health centre revealed information about his health to Scottish Prison Service (SPS) staff. Mr C also complained about the board's response to his complaint. We looked at the board's investigation, and at an SPS investigation that was carried out in partnership with the board. The investigations concluded that no member of board staff was involved in revealing information about Mr C and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it was not possible to dispute this. We found that the board's investigation of, and response to, Mr C's complaint were reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201405741 as a PDF (10.88 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was taken into his trial at the sheriff court whilst wearing double cuffs. This meant Mr C was wearing one set of cuffs to link his wrists together and a second set linking one of his wrists to the escorting officer's wrist. Mr C complained that the escorting agency inappropriately failed to seek permission to double cuff him. He said the agency also failed to provide an appropriate response to his complaint. An agency provides all custody and court escorting services on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). That agency's operational instructions confirm that handcuffs in sheriff and jury trials will normally not be allowed. However, where a risk assessment dictates that handcuffs should be applied, the appropriate paperwork should be completed and forwarded to the clerk of court for approval by the sheriff. The instructions also confirm that the outcome of the request should be appropriately recorded. In Mr C's case, the SPS were unable to provide any evidence to show us that a risk assessment had been carried out prior to the decision taken to hold Mr C in double cuffs during his trial. Therefore, it was not clear why the decision was actually taken. In addition, there was no evidence available to confirm that the request was approved by the sheriff. We also concluded that the agency did not respond appropriately to Mr C's complaint because they failed to establish the facts in his case and because of that, it was unclear what had actually happened. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaints.

Mr C complained because he said the prison unreasonably refused to progress him to open (lowest security) conditions. Instead, the risk management team (RMT) - the group responsible for considering whether a prisoner is suitable to progress to less secure conditions - decided that Mr C should transfer to the national top end facility before going to open conditions. Mr C is serving an order for lifelong restriction (OLR) which is a sentence that provides for the lifelong supervision of high risk violent and sexual offenders and allows for a greater degree of intensive supervision to manage the risk that those individuals pose. The guidance which outlines how risk management is dealt with by the Scottish Prison Service confirms that OLR prisoners will normally transfer direct from closed conditions to the open conditions. However, it also confirms that they can go to a national top end facility if they have been placed there on the request of the RMT at the closed prison. In light of this, it was clear the RMT were entitled to take the decision to progress Mr C to national top end before open conditions and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint. Our investigation did highlight potential issues with the risk management process followed by the prison when dealing with Mr C's application for progression to less secure conditions. In particular, the guidance indicates that an OLR prisoner's progression to less secure conditions should only be approved once their risk management plan has been updated and agreed by the RMT before being approved by the Risk Management Authority (RMA). In Mr C's case, the RMT approved his progression to national top end before the RMA has approved his risk management plan. Therefore, although we did not uphold Mr C's complaint we did make recommendations.

Mr C complained to us about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of the programmes he needed to complete in prison before he could be considered for early release. However, Mr C was freed from prison whilst we were investigating his complaint and did not provide us with a contact address. Although the SPS provided a contact address, Mr C did not respond to our attempts to contact him there, and we had no option but to close our file on his case. Related reading View Decision Report 201400869 as a PDF (10.8 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably failed to make appropriate arrangements for him to attend court. In their response to his complaint, the prison told Mr C that he had not requested to go to court and, in any event, prisoners would not be ordered to attend civil hearings. In support of his complaint, Mr C provided a copy of the court order which confirmed that the sheriff had asked him to appear. He also provided a note that had been typed by an officer which said he was to attend court and confirmed that a manager had given Mr C permission to take paperwork with him. Based on what the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) told us, there is no clearly understood process in place that outlines what arrangements can, or should, be made to enable a prisoner to attend a civil hearing at court and whether a prisoner would pay for the transport. The decision on whether to allow a prisoner to attend that type of hearing appears to be a discretionary one for the governor and that is not unusual. Governors have a wide range of discretion. However, it is important that the process for seeking and obtaining approval in a situation like Mr C's is clear and understood. Having examined the information available in Mr C's case, and having asked the SPS for more information, it was not clear exactly what happened in Mr C's case or what should have happened. The SPS told us that Mr C did not ask to attend court or inform prison staff that he had been ordered to appear. However, the note typed by an officer indicated that Mr C was to attend court and had been given permission to take paperwork with him. In our view, the note suggested that Mr C did inform staff that he was to attend court but it was not clear whether he specified that it was for a civil hearing. Nevertheless, we considered the typed note indicated that an officer and a manager discussed Mr C's attendance at court with him and because of that, we believe proper steps should have been taken to explore whet

Mr C complained that the prison's handling of his complaint about an officer was poor. In particular, he said the prison agreed to arrange a meeting between him and the officer in an effort to resolve his concerns but that did not happen. Our investigation confirmed that the initial meeting did not take place and Mr C was not given any explanation for that. When he escalated his complaint, it was agreed that the meeting would be rescheduled. However, that meeting also did not go ahead because the officer was not available but the prison informed Mr C that it had been rearranged for a later date. In line with good complaints handling, we felt it would have been appropriate for the manager to follow up with Mr C to find out whether he was satisfied following the outcome of the meeting. If that had happened, the manager would have identified at an earlier stage that the meeting had not taken place and steps could have been taken to reschedule it without Mr C having to escalate his complaint. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained that the prison unreasonably refused to allow him to have a matchstick model kit in use. He said a manager approved his request to purchase the kit and other prisoners had the same kit in use. The prison is authorised in line with the prison rules to refuse to allow prisoners to have items of property in use that they consider to be a risk to the security or good order of the prison. In Mr C's case, the prison had concerns about the type of cutting tool supplied with the model kit. At the time of approving Mr C's request, the manager had been unaware of the type of cutting tool supplied with the kit. The prison also expressed concern about giving Mr C the kit without the cutting tool because they said there was a risk that an improvised cutting tool could be used. Therefore, the prison decided that Mr C could not have the kit in use. The prison also confirmed that other prisoners did not have the same kit in use. It was clear that the prison were authorised in line with prison rules to refuse to allow Mr C to have the model kit in use and because of that, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201406077 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service failed to appropriately explain why he was returned to closed conditions. The decision was taken to remove Mr C from the open estate (an area with less secure prison conditions) because reports were received which indicated that he was refusing to engage appropriately with support staff to help reduce his risk. In bringing his complaint to us, Mr C said even though he had been returned to closed conditions, his supervision level remained low and he understood that had not been downgraded. In looking at Mr C's complaint, we obtained a copy of the relevant documentation which was completed prior to returning him to closed conditions. It was clear the risk management team (RMT) at the open estate had concerns about Mr C's engagement with support staff and because of that, they felt he could not be managed in open conditions. In addition, Mr C was given the opportunity to put forward representations but he refused. The RMT’s decision was set out clearly and we were also satisfied that Mr C was given reasonable responses to his complaints. Therefore, we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201404285 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that the board unreasonably advised the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) that it was safe for him to be subject to metal detecting equipment, although he has an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) (a device that regulates irregular heart rhythms). Mr C also complained about the board’s handling of his medication. He said that staff altered his medication inappropriately, and made mistakes in administration. He also said that there was no reason for his medication to be supervised (taken in front of prison staff, rather than given into the patient’s keeping), as it was degrading to be required to open his mouth to show he had taken the medication, and this supervision resulted in him being harassed and bullied for his medication. After investigating Mr C’s complaints and taking independent medical advice from several specialists, we upheld Mr C’s complaint about the administration of his medication. We found that, although a doctor decided to stop Mr C’s naproxen (a drug used for pain relief and anti-inflammation, which can contribute to poor kidney function), Mr C’s prescription record (kardex) was not updated to reflect this. This was because the kardex had to be recalled from the prison halls, and a different doctor was on duty when the kardex was returned to the health centre. As a result, Mr C was inappropriately given a further dose of naproxen in the next weekly medications. We also found that it was unreasonable for a hospital doctor to decide to restart Mr C’s naproxen, although his clinical history showed that this had been stopped due to poor kidney function. Finally, we found that Mr C had been given incorrect dosages of medications on one occasion. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaint about security screening. Although health centre staff gave slightly different advice about this to prison staff at different times, we found that all of the advice given was reasonable. We also did not uphold Mr C’s complaint about supervision

Mr C complained that he had been placed on report for possessing two unauthorised DVDs, despite them not being specifically listed as unauthorised. Mr C also complained that he had then been punished a second time by having his community access withdrawn by the risk management team. We found that, under prison rules, the prison had the discretion to deem the DVDs as unauthorised. We also found that the disciplinary process and the risk management process are separate and the prison was entitled to use both of them. Therefore, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201406410 as a PDF (10.86 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained that his prison did not give him written notice explaining why he was being removed from his work placement. Mr C also complained that his prison did not use evidence in their decision to place him in secure conditions, did not follow the risk management process, and did not follow the process for reviewing his supervision level. We found that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were not required to give Mr C notice that he was being recalled from placement because, in fact, Mr C was not recalled; rather, his placement had finished. In addition, the prison rules did not require notice to be given; rather, it specified that a written explanation should be provided which, because Mr C was not recalled, did not apply in this case. In terms of the evidence used to put Mr C in secure conditions, we were satisfied that the SPS acted in line with their procedures. The SPS were allowed to evaluate changes in a prisoner’s circumstances or behaviour, using information gathered from relevant sources, to help them consider if a prisoner posed a threat to the security or good order of the prison. We also found that the SPS followed the risk management process and the process for reviewing his supervision level. We did not uphold Mr C’s complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201405772 as a PDF (11.18 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was suspected of assaulting another prisoner (Mr B). A disciplinary hearing was held and Mr C was found guilty. Mr C appealed this finding on the basis that the adjudicator had accepted verbal evidence from two prison officers, which Mr C said had been fabricated. Mr C was also dissatisfied that his request to have Mr B present as a witness at the appeal hearing was rejected, and that his complaint was not properly dealt with by prison staff. We did not uphold Mr C's complaints about evidence and the witness. We found that it was reasonable and in accordance with the prison rules for the adjudicator to accept the verbal evidence from the two prison officers, given that their recollection of events was provided within 24 hours of the assault allegations having been raised and investigated. We also considered that the adjudicator had taken into account additional evidence from CCTV footage and from Mr C's response at the disciplinary hearing. In relation to Mr C's request to have Mr B attend the appeal hearing, we considered it was reasonable for Mr B not to have attended for his personal safety. The chair took steps to find out from Mr C what he wanted to ask Mr B, and shared this information with Mr C at the disciplinary hearing. We concluded that the appeals form provided misleading information to Mr C that he could also complain about the finding of guilt through the Scottish Prison Service's complaints procedure. This is contrary to the prison rules and Scottish Ministers' Directions which set out that a prisoner must be signposted to us if they remain unhappy with the outcome of the appeal hearing. We upheld this complaint and made a recommendation.

Ms C complained that the handling of her progression to less secure prison conditions had been unreasonable. She considered that the steps identified by the prison as her route to less secure conditions were inappropriate and because of that, she was being unreasonably prevented from progressing. The prison wanted Ms C to participate in an offending behaviour programme before considering whether she was suitable to progress to less secure conditions. Ms C had been assessed as being suitable for the programme and the prison considered that her participation in it would help reduce any risk of reoffending. Prior to that happening, the prison wanted Ms C to undertake some preparatory work to ensure she could participate in the programme appropriately. The reason for that was because although Ms C admitted her offence, she did not accept that she had broken the law. We reviewed the relevant policies and were satisfied that they supported the prison's position in relation to Ms C's progression. Therefore, we did not uphold her complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201303547 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018