SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to follow the appropriate procedure after they removed C from association (temporarily separated from the normal prison population. A Governor can order a prisoner be segregated from others for up to 72 hours if they believe it is in the interests of good order in the prison or for the prisoner’s or others’ safety. In response to C’s complaints, the SPS said that C's removal from association had been authorised in line with relevant procedure. We found that the decision to remove C from association was carried out in line with the relevant procedure authorised by Prison Rules. However, the SPS did not properly record the actions taken. These omissions could make it appear that C was held out of association without proper authorisation. Accurate record-keeping is important, especially for decisions to remove a prisoner from association, because it ensures that any time spent under specific rules is clearly recorded and monitored. We upheld C's complaint.

C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that they had prompt access to medical attention. C stopped taking prescribed medication after experiencing side effects and submitted a request to be seen by a nurse. C was not seen by a nurse during the following two-week period despite their symptoms worsening. C was then informed that they would be seen by a nurse that day but this did not happen. C raised this with prison staff who advised a call had been placed to NHS 24 instead, given healthcare staff were no longer available. C was later informed the call had been ended due to the expected wait time. In response to C's complaint, the SPS said that the correct procedure had been followed by staff in attempting to call NHS 24. However, it was recognised alternative arrangements could have been made to facilitate the call. We found that it was unclear whether C’s request for medical attention was communicated properly by SPS to healthcare staff. Whilst a reasonable attempt was made to contact NHS 24, and the SPS acknowledged the call could have been facilitated despite the wait time, the SPS did not explain what action had been taken to remedy matters. While there appeared to have been a protocol in place for such situations, it was not clear that prison staff were aware of this. C also complained that the SPS failed to handle their complaint reasonably. We found that the SPS’ handling of the complaint was poor because not all of the issues raised by C were responded to and they did not communicate what remedial action was taken. The SPS also failed to provide accurate information in response to our initial enquiries. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

C complained about the care and treatment provided to them in relation to their health in prison. C experienced difficulties in relation to their medical needs, including staff not attending when C requested, not receiving their medication, lack of communication and that the complaint response did not answer all of C’s concerns. We took independent advice from a qualified GP. We found that the board seemed to lack appreciation that without medication for stomach acid, C would be left very symptomatic and sore and that they failed to supply the alternative medication to C when it was due. Once the medication had been obtained, they failed to locate C within the prison to give them the medication and failed to follow protocol to store the medication for reissue. We found that the board failed to communicate the problem with their medication to C and failed to reach a solution about C’s missing medication. We also found that the board failed to attempt to reach a solution about the poor communication between them and the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). Therefore, we upheld this complaint. We acknowledged that the board had taken learning and improvement action in relation to a number of these failings. C also complained that the board unreasonably failed to respond to all of C’s concerns in their complaint response. We found that the board’s first complaint response was unreasonable, and while the second response was generally reasonable, the length of time it took for the board to issue this was unreasonable. On balance, we upheld this complaint. We also acknowledged that the board had taken some learning and improvement action in relation to these matters going forward.

C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to appropriately investigate their lost property claim. C submitted a claim for lost items which went missing during a transfer to another prison. C complained about the handling of the claim, including the timescale for receiving a decision. C maintained that three bags of property were missing, whereas the SPS concluded that only one bag was unaccounted for. This office does not provide a route of appeal, and it was not our role to assess what property was missing or what compensation should be offered. Our focus was on the administrative handling of the claim, including whether the SPS assessed all relevant information and provided a clear explanation as to how they reached the conclusion that they did. The evidence we received from the SPS of their assessment of the claim was difficult to follow. It was unclear to us how they concluded that one bag of property was unaccounted for. We found that this was based on a bag seal check eight months after C’s prison transfer. C noted in the claim that much of the missing property had been kept in storage at their previous prison and was not in their possession (‘in use’). The SPS said that C packed their own property prior to the transfer. It was not clear from the records what items C had ‘in use’ at their previous prison, and there did not appear to be a method in place for itemising ‘in use’ items packed from a prisoners cell prior to being placed within a sealed bag for transfer. C also alleged that some items were damaged during the transfer and we found no evidence that the SPS assessed this part of C's claim. The SPS communicated their final position more than three years after C initially raised matters following their prison transfer. It was not clear why this took so long. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

C complained about the handing of their Internal Case Management (ICM) case conference. C was unhappy that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) refused to postpone this meeting in light of ongoing appeals/complaints and COVID-19 restrictions, and also that the SPS subsequently failed to review and amend the minutes. The SPS confirmed that they acted in line with the relevant guidelines in terms of the timescale for holding the case conference. However, they reflected that it may have been prudent to postpone to a later date given the complexities surrounding it. Notwithstanding this, we concluded that the SPS acted reasonably, in what were unprecedented circumstances. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 202006807 as a PDF (24.06 KB) Updated: September 21, 2022

Ms C provided her express consent for her pronouns to be used for this publication. Ms C complained about matters relating to the SPS failing to give Ms C advice and failing to put in place an appropriate procedure for Ms C to obtain certain items. Ms C also complained about the SPS refusing to allow Ms C to wear her own clothing and having the use of certain electrical items. We took independent advice from an adviser who specialises in equal opportunities and diversity. We found that there were delays in the SPS giving Ms C advice and in putting in place a process to order certain items. We upheld these aspects of Ms C's complaint. We found it was reasonable that the SPS refused Ms C's request to wear her own clothes and have access to the electrical items. Therefore, we did not uphold these aspects of Ms C's complaint.

C complained about matters relating to their mail. A letter sent to C was retained by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) for the purpose of testing because the item of mail was thought to be suspicious. The mail was tested using the rapiscan itemiser (a machine used by the SPS to trace and detect a broad range of illicit substances). C’s mail indicated a positive result for an illicit substance. C considered the testing procedure was not carried out properly. In particular, they believed that the mail item was cross-contaminated due to inappropriate handling. C also considered the SPS failed to provide an appropriate explanation as to why their item had been identified as being suspicious. The SPS explained that testing of suspicious incoming mail was in place across the prison estate and was an important process ensuring the safety of both prisoners and staff. The equipment used was the same in all establishments and was calibrated to detect significant amounts of illicit substances. The scan of C’s letter had indicated for a specific illicit substance. It was also noted unlikely the letter would have been cross-contaminated. We looked at the SPS’s standard operating procedure and we considered the prison rules. We were satisfied that the SPS handled C’s mail appropriately, in line with the relevant standard operating procedure. Whilst recognising C’s concerns about cross-contamination, we considered the SPS’s response on this point reasonable. In relation to C’s complaint that the SPS failed to properly explain why their mail had been retained for testing, they were particularly concerned that the SPS had not given detail as to why the mail was deemed as suspicious. We were satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for the SPS to deem C’s mail as suspicious. Whilst it would have been good practice for the SPS to have explained to C at the time that specific details of their suspicions could not be shared, we accepted that providing C with a detailed explanation

Concerns were raised during C's time on community work placement. Investigations were carried out and having considered the information available, the risk management team (RMT) at Prison A took the decision to return C to closed conditions (Prison B). C considered that Prison A failed to seek relevant evidence as part of their investigation, and dismissed relevant evidence, prior to taking the decision to return C to closed conditions. We found that the RMT at Prison A appropriately considered the circumstances of C's case, taking relevant information into account, prior to reaching the decision to return C to closed conditions. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint. C also complained about the way the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) handled their complaint. They said that no Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) hearing was convened and the recommendation put forward by them was unachievable. We found that C escalated their complaint to the ICC around the time the Scottish Government requested everyone to stop non-essential contact and travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic. C's complaint was passed from Prison B to Prison A to respond at ICC stage because the matter related to actions taken by the RMT at Prison A. Whilst an ICC hearing was not convened because of restrictions in place, Prison A did appoint a representative to consider C's complaint. However, we found that Prison A failed to share their findings and recommendation in relation to C's complaint with Prison B to ensure the matter could be given further consideration. We considered that the ICC failed to handle C's complaint reasonably and upheld this aspect of C's complaint. In relation to the recommendation put forward by the ICC, we found this to be reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C complained to the prison about the treatment of their parent (A) who was involved in an incident which resulted in them being restrained by prison staff. C said that the use of force was excessive, causing A to sustain injuries. C also complained that A was denied medical assistance after being relocated to the prison's separation and reintegration unit (SRU) and denied the opportunity to make any telephone calls. The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) issued a response to C who remained dissatisfied and complained to us. We found that the SPS's response was extremely brief, failing to address the issues raised. We returned the complaint to the SPS, advising that they submit a further reply to C. After receiving a further reply, C returned to us again, noting that the second response was inadequate and still failed to address the issues raised. Our investigation found that the SPS failed to properly investigate C's complaint, as we did not see adequate evidence that they sought to establish relevant facts. SPS also failed to provide a full, objective and proportionate response to the issues raised. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

C submitted an application for an escorted day absence (EDA) to visit their parent who is unable to leave home or travel because of poor mental health. The prison refused C's application on the basis that there were no exceptional circumstances in which to support the visit. C was offered the option of being transferred to another prison for the purpose of receiving a visit from their parent. In complaining to this office, C said that the prison had not given clear reasons why their request had been refused, or why they considered there were no exceptional circumstances to support the application. According to the relevant legislation prison governors and directors have the discretion to grant an EDA application if satisfied that the purpose of the application is genuine and appropriate; this office cannot challenge this discretion. However, even where there is discretion, such decisions must be based on the available evidence, and decisions should be clear and well explained. We found that the prison failed to properly consider the facts presented in C's application. We also found that there was a failure to properly and fully explain the reasons for the decision taken to refuse C's application. As such, we upheld the complaint.

C made an application for escorted day absence (EDA) to visit their father at home on the grounds that he was dangerously ill and had been deemed medically unfit to travel to the prison. The prison refused C's application. They said that due to C's prison status they had been unable to risk assess the potential of a home visit and offered C a contact session with their father at another prison. C said that the prison had failed to give proper consideration to their father's circumstance and raised a formal complaint through the prison complaints process. In response to the complaint, the prison explained that due to reasons pertaining to C's prison status, and also that C's father was not considered dangerously ill, the application could not be approved at that time. C complained the prison had not given clear reasons why their request had been refused or why they did not consider their father to be dangerously ill when they had provided a letter from their father's GP in support of their application. We found that the prison had followed the correct EDA procedure, criteria and prison rules in exercising their discretion to refuse C's application (Rule 101 The Prisoner and Young Offender Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011). However, they had failed to clarify on what grounds C's application was being considered and had inaccurately considered C's prison status as an exceptional circumstance. We found the reasons that had been provided to C in both the EDA decision form and the complaint response were confusing and not relevant, and the prison had failed to properly explain or provide evidence in support of their decision. We also found there had been an unreasonable delay in the prison communicating the refusal of the EDA application to C. Our investigation concluded that the Scottish Prison Service failed to appropriately consider C's EDA application, therefore, we upheld the complaints.

C was removed from association (no contact with other prisoners) in prison on a specific occasion. C did not believe that their removal from association had been properly handled by the Scottish Prison Service (the SPS). C submitted several complaints about specific details of the handling of their removal from association in this period. C was dissatisfied with the responses they received and made their complaints to our office. We found that C’s removal from association was handled appropriately and did not uphold this complaint. In relation to the handling of C’s complaints, we found that the SPS did not respond to C’s complaint that an officer was inaccurately named as having been present at a case conference until this office became involved. We also found that they did not refer to the new evidence C provided in their complaint nor clarify that the SPS’s view remained as set out in their previous responses. Given this, we upheld C’s second complaint.

C complained in their own right and on behalf of their child (A) about the Scottish Prison Service (SPS)'s handling of two complaints they made. C also complained about A being transferred to another prison, that they did not receive a reasonable explanation of why they were transferred, and about the SPS's response to a complaint made by A. We found that the SPS's handling of C's complaints was not in line with good practice, and communication with C about their complaints were not clear. Therefore, we upheld these aspects of the complaint. We also found that, while the SPS had the authority to transfer A, they had not recorded the reasons for doing this, in line with their own procedures, and were therefore unable to confirm the reasons for their decision. Therefore, we also upheld these aspects of C's complaints.

Mr C attended his brother's integrated case management (ICM) case conference. This meeting is held each year when the prisoner and those involved in supporting them get together to discuss their sentence management. A document used to minute the discussions is then shared with all attendees. On receiving this document, Mr C wrote to the ICM coordinator raising concerns about inaccuracies and omissions in the record. The ICM coordinator responded to Mr C confirming that the content of his letter had been noted and placed on file. Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Services' (SPS) handling of his submission about the ICM case conference record was unreasonable. Mr C also complained that the SPS failed to properly address his complaint. In response to Mr C's complaint about the way his submission was handled, the SPS told him that his brother's own submission had been filed and was used as the record that both Mr C and his brother felt that the minutes captured were inaccurate. We found that the relevant guidance indicates that all attendees at the case conference have a responsibility to check that the minute is an accurate, factual representation of discussions held and that they are content that their contribution has been accurately reflected. It confirms that attendees should notify the chair within 14 days of receiving the document of any concerns or requests for changes. The guidance does not explain how requests for amendments from any of the attendees should be considered, recorded or filed. Therefore, the administrative handling of this part of the process is a matter of discretion for the SPS to decide on. By inviting all attendees to check that the minute is an accurate, factual representation of the discussions held, our view is that it is reasonable for all attendees to expect that any comments made by them, particularly regarding factual error or omission of irrelevant information or inclusion of relevant information are considered, and whe

C complained on behalf of their spouse (A) regarding the lack of support the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) provided in relation to assisting A to participate in an offending management course, specifically that they needed a translator to assist them. During our investigation, SPS apologised to A for the delay in matters related to their management. A was reassessed and a decision was taken that they did not require to complete the course. C then withdrew the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201808763 as a PDF (23.92 KB) Updated: June 17, 2020

Mr C said that mail sent to him by recorded delivery, which arrived at the prison, had not been received by him. Mr C said that he did not sign the mail log. This is a document used by the prison to record that a prisoner has received recorded mail items that have arrived for them. Mr C believed the signatures shown were forged. The prison concluded that all recorded delivery mail addressed to Mr C, and received at the prison on the dates in question, had been signed for by him. Mr C said that the prison failed to handle his mail appropriately. He also complained that their handling of his complaints was unreasonable. Mr C was unhappy with the time taken to investigate the matter and felt no information was shared with him during the investigation. Mr C also said that no relevant investigation was carried out. He felt an expert should have been asked to analyse the signatures shown on the mail log. We could not determine one way or the other whether the signatures shown on the mail log sheets in question were Mr C's and considered a proportionate investigation had been carried out. There was no evidence to cast doubt on the findings of the Scottish Prison Service's (SPS) investigation. On balance, and with the absence of any further reliable corroborating evidence, we concluded that Mr C's mail appeared to have been handled appropriately by the SPS. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint. In relation to the handling of Mr C's complaints, we felt that the investigation carried out by the SPS was reasonable and proportionate. However, we concluded that steps should have been taken at an early stage to notify Mr C that the investigation of his complaint would not be completed within the timescale set out in the Prison Rules. He should also have been advised of a new timescale and of any further delays in finalising the investigation of his complaint. In addition to this, we concluded that although several discussions were said to have taken plac

Mr C works as part of a team of peer tutors within the prison. This includes him working with individual prisoners, or small groups of prisoners, within residential halls. Mr C understood a timetable for when peer tutoring could take place was agreed between the learning centre manager and prison senior management. However, there were occasions when prison staff refused to facilitate Mr C's requests to leave his cell to carry out peer tutoring sessions. Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to ensure adherence to the previously agreed peer tutoring arrangements. He also complained about a subsequent review of peer tutoring arrangements. In particular, Mr C said the handling of the review was unreasonable. The SPS' position was that the timetable referred to by Mr C was just a suggested protocol with proposed times of when peer tutoring may take place. We accepted that there would be occasions when access to certain activities, including peer tutoring, may be curtailed due to operational requirements arising within the prison. On the occasions when Mr C had not been unlocked from his cell for peer tutoring, this was because of operational requirements. We concluded that there was no official agreement in place with regards to peer tutoring times but a suggested protocol had been drawn up instead in an effort to support the function as much as possible. We also looked at the prison's handling of the review. Mr C was concerned that the findings of the review were not communicated to him before the new process was implemented and that further layers of uncertainty were introduced. Mr C also felt the review failed to address issues which arose in relation to participation in the scheme or the times during which peer tutoring could take place. The SPS explained the review sought to examine how the role of peer tutoring was carried out and to address some concerns that had been raised. We agreed that the SPS had discretion

Ms C complained to us that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) had unreasonably stopped her visits with a family member who was also in prison. The Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 state that a prisoner is only entitled to receive a visit from another prisoner in exceptional circumstances. We found that the decision to stop the visits was a decision that the SPS were entitled to take and there was no evidence that they did not follow the correct process. Under our legislation, we cannot change or question a decision that has been made properly. We did not identify any failings by the SPS and we did not uphold Ms C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201806337 as a PDF (24.01 KB) Updated: March 18, 2020

Mr C raised a complaint with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) because he was concerned that intelligence disclosed to him linked him to what he described as innocuous activity and groundless concerns. He also considered that a series of emails sent between SPS staff indicated a degree of misrepresentation of the factual situation and misrepresented the views of a member of staff from the psychology department. Mr C was unhappy with the way that the prison had handled his complaint. In particular, he had concerns about the time taken to respond to him and the steps taken to keep him informed of when he could expect to receive a full response. Mr C also had concerns about the quality of the response issued to him. We found that the prison did not deal with Mr C's complaint in line with the timescale set out in prison rules. However, it is reasonable that not all investigations will be able to meet that timescale; some investigations are complex and require careful consideration and detailed investigation beyond the seven-day timescale. Where there are clear and justifiable reasons for extending the timescale, the SPS guidance on complaints confirms that a governor can inform the prisoner that there will be a delay and confirm when the response will likely be given. In Mr C's case, the prison explained that the reason for the delay in issuing a response to his complaint was because a relevant member of staff was on leave, but they did not communicate a new timescale to him. We also found that the prison failed to address the fact that a staff member had in fact miscommunicated the views of another member of staff. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Mr C complained about the delay by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) to provide him with a Psychological Risk Assessment (PRA). Mr C had been assessed by the prison Risk Management Team (RMT) to require a PRA but had not yet received this years later. He complained that there was an undue delay in him receiving his PRA and he noted that this impacted on his progression and chance of parole. We found that as a result of several factors, there was a significant delay in providing Mr C with his PRA. The SPS advised that the psychologist involved in the RMT meeting would normally set and communicate the timescale to start and complete the PRA but this was not done in Mr C's case and there was no explanation for this. The SPS also noted that as part of his PRA, Mr C needed a particular assessment which only certain members of the psychology department were trained to undertake and, as a result of staffing issues, there was not an available psychologist to complete this assessment. The SPS further noted that due to having to prioritise work on statutory obligations relating to management of other prisoners, outstanding work such as Mr C's PRA, were put on a waiting list. While staff issues as the result of vacancies and sick leave would be hard to predict, there was also a shortage in staff trained in the tool needed to complete part of Mr C's PRA and we were also critical of the failure to set and communicate the timescale for the PRA to be completed in line with normal practice. Therefore, we found that there was an unreasonable delay by SPS to provide Mr C with a PRA and upheld his complaint.

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service's (SPS) handling of his sentence management was unreasonable and that this had impacted upon the timing of his progression to open prison (a prison with the minimum of restrictions on prisoners' movements and activities). He said that the SPS had failed to adhere to their management plan, referred to by the Parole Board, and that statements puts forward by them explaining why his progression had been delayed, were untrue. We looked at the fact that SPS did not adhere to the timing of the agreed management plan and whether doing so was unreasonable. We also reflected on the SPS' communication with Mr C in relation to his concerns that his progression was being unreasonably delayed and that he was left feeling confused about what was happening. In setting out their sentence management plan for Mr C with proposed timings, we acknowledged that this will have led to a reasonable expectation from Mr C for that plan to be followed and adhered to. However, the relevant policies and guidance in place make it clear that extenuating factors can affect the timing of agreed sentence management plans. In Mr C's case, the SPS had indicated his risk assessments, the need for an updated home background report and the suitability of his home leave address impacted upon the timing of his progression to open prison. We accepted that agreed management plans could change, however, we also considered the SPS had a responsibility communicate clearly and accurately with Mr C and to deal effectively and promptly with any concerns and queries he had about his progression and any perceived delays. In addition, we considered the SPS had a responsibility to ensure that proper, full records were kept of important decisions. In light of the evidence we saw in Mr C's case, we were concerned about aspects of the SPS's handling of his case, particularly in relation to their communication with him. We found that there was failure to provide clar

Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to appropriately investigate his complaint. Mr C said that a prison officer had displayed inappropriate behaviour towards him and asked the SPS that CCTV footage be retained. The SPS concluded that no inappropriate behaviour was displayed towards Mr C and did not uphold his complaint. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us. Mr C said that there were at least six officers present at the time when the officer he complained about was allegedly displaying inappropriate behaviour, but said none of those officers present were interviewed. Mr C also questioned whether the CCTV had been viewed. We asked the SPS for notes or statements taken from the staff members spoken to as part of the investigation of Mr C's complaint. We also asked whether CCTV footage had been retained. The SPS confirmed they accepted that the original investigation of Mr C's complaint failed to acknowledge and report on the staff present at the time in question. They advised no statements were taken when officers were interviewed about the alleged incidents. The SPS also confirmed the CCTV footage was not retained and explained that CCTV footage was only retained for matters of security and good order, prisoner disciplinary proceedings or police matters. They told us that CCTV footage was not ordinarily retained for matters of daily activities in the prison including the investigation of complaints. Following our enquiry to the SPS, they also re-investigated Mr C's original complaint and shared the findings with us. We had a number of concerns about the quality of the SPS' investigation of Mr C's complaint. In particular, the SPS' response inaccurately reflected that Mr C had asked that CCTV footage be reviewed when he had in fact asked several times that it be retained. The response also failed to confirm when the officer in question had been asked about the matter or given the opportunity to put f

Mr C submitted an application for escorted day absence from prison to allow him to visit his father who was ill and unable to travel. Mr C understood that the application had been refused on the basis of adverse intelligence so he complained. The prison's internal complaints committee (ICC) said that the application had been rejected because there were no exceptional circumstances. The ICC told Mr C that they did not uphold his complaint because his application for escorted day absence had been denied after fair consideration. Mr C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) failed to properly consider his application for escorted day absence. He said that there was no evidence to show that his application was ever properly considered by the prison according to published rules, criteria and procedure. SPS said that Mr C had disengaged from the application process because he was frustrated by the length of time that the paperwork was taking to be completed. The SPS said that they had spoken with Mr C on several occasions to encourage him to resubmit his application but he had repeatedly refused to do so. In light of the information received from the SPS, we sought further clarification on what happened with Mr C's application for escorted day absence given the ICC indicated in their response to the complaint that the application was rejected because there was no exceptional circumstances and that it was denied after fair consideration. There was no evidence to suggest that the application process was stopped because Mr C refused to engage. The SPS told us there had been some confusion when responding to Mr C's complaint because his application paperwork had been misplaced. SPS acknowledged the ICC's response to Mr C's complaint was inaccurate. In addition, they explained that when Mr C's application form was found, it was incomplete. It was also discovered to contain an internal email exchange between staff discussing intelligence about Mr C. SPS sa

Mr C complained about the actions of the prison health care service. Following a medication spot check, Mr C was found to be short of antidepressant tablets, and as a result his medications were stopped with immediate effect. Mr C explained that his medication count was short as his medication safe was broken into recently and everything was taken. In response to his complaint, the board explained they would not reinstate Mr C's medication. They also stated they had made enquiries with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) and were informed that Mr C had not reported his safe being broken into. Mr C complained to us about his medication being stopped and about the enquiries the board made into whether or not he had reported his safe being broken into. In respect of the complaint about Mr C's medication being stopped, we took independent advice from an GP adviser. We noted that, ideally, a GP would not withdraw anti-depressant medication suddenly. However, we found that this may not be the case if there is poor compliance with the requirements of the medication. We also highlighted guidance about prescribing medication in a prison setting and noted that Mr C had signed a medical agreement treatment form that acknowledged his medication may be stopped if not appropriately managed. After reviewing Mr C's medical records, we noted that an early entry had suggested potential drug misuse. Based on the review of the information available, we concluded that healthcare staff's decision to stop Mr C's medication was appropriate and their actions reasonable. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. In respect of the second complaint, the board acknowledged that they had not appropriately described their enquiries in their responses to Mr C. The board had spoken with SPS staff and stated that SPS had confirmed Mr C had not reported his safe being broken into. However, Mr C had, in fact, reported his safe as being broken into to SPS staff. The board accepted this er

C complained that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unreasonably failed to follow their risk management guidance, unreasonably failed to complete C's supervision level paperwork and failed to provide relevant information to appropriate parties in time for C's parole review hearing. Despite recognising the potential seriousness of these allegations, we were unable to complete our investigation because C left prison and did not provide us with updated contact details. Related reading View Decision Report 201804356 as a PDF (23.55 KB) Updated: August 21, 2019