Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Belmarsh
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
January
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that some of their property had been lost by HMP Belmarsh after he had been moved to the segregation wing, and that this may have been mistakenly delivered to another prisoner. As part of the IPCI investigation, the prisoner’s property was checked, and it was established that some items had not been returned to him. We also noted that an original copy of his cell clearance certificate was not retained within his core file.
Recommendations/outcome:
IPCI recommended that the prisoner was offered £25 compensation for his missing property. IPCI also asked the prison to review their internal compliance procedures to ensure original copies of cell clearance paperwork are retained within core files, and that local copies of the certificate are not used.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Wayland
Complaint category:
Categorisation, progression & release preparation
Month investigation completed:
January
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that he was being prevented from progressing to category D open conditions as he was assessed as eligible for an intensive programme. He said that the relevant reviews were not completed at the relevant time, meaning that his suitability for this programme was no longer accurate. The IPCI investigation found that the prisoner’s review was not updated at the relevant time.
Recommendations/outcome:
The prison acknowledged that an updated review should have been completed and committed to undertaking it as soon as reasonably practicable. We found no evidence to suggest the prisoner was discriminated against or purposely held back from progressing.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Bristol
Complaint category:
Accommodation, food, education & other facilities
Month investigation completed:
January
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that following an incident, they had been unlawfully kept in the segregation unit. The IPCI investigation identified that HMP Bristol had appropriate rationale for keeping the prisoner within the segregation unit, and this was in line with policy. However, there were procedural errors in their management of this, specifically in their record keeping, lack of paperwork, errors in the paperwork, segregation review board attendance, and the explanations provided to the prisoner.
Recommendations/outcome:
In response to the findings HMP Bristol briefed staff responsible for the errors and provided advice and guidance relevant staff to avoid future occurrences. Monthly quality assurance panels were held with the senior leadership team and the Governor and Deputy Governor increased their visits to the segregation unit to provide an additional layer of scrutiny.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Bure
Complaint category:
Security
Month investigation completed:
January
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that they were subjected to an ‘illegal stop and search’, and that the officer involved was aggressive during the interaction.
The IPCI investigation found the prison provided a satisfactory explanation as to why prisoners were being searched that day, and this was due to an increase in illicit substances being distributed on the yard.
However, we were concerned that BWVC which had captured the interaction had not been retained, despite the prisoner making a complaint. National policy states that all video footage must be retained until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.
Recommendations/outcome:
A copy of the outcome letter was sent to the Governor of HMP Bure as a reminder of the policy requirements for retaining BWVC footage.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP The Verne
Complaint category:
Adjudication & IEP
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that they were not given sufficient time to consider a move to another wing and there was no opportunity to discuss or process the upcoming change, which would have been important given their neurodiverse needs. In addition, they were put on report for refusing a direct order and found guilty at adjudication. The prisoner asked for legal representation during the hearing, but this was declined.
Recommendations/outcome:
The IPCI investigation considered that the prisoner’s additional needs were not adequately considered during the adjudication process, and the adjudication did not meet the requirements of national policy. The adjudication was quashed.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Littlehey
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
January
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that certification for a course that he completed while detained at HMP Littlehey had not been forwarded despite several applications and complaints. Littlehey said that it was posted to his current prison HMP Maidstone on 24 July 2024, but staff at Maidstone were unable to locate it.
Recommendations/outcome:
Following the IPCI investigation, HMP Littlehey agreed to reorder a printed copy and post it to the complainant. This has since been completed. We feel this complaint could have been resolved without referral to IPCI.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Buckley Hall
Complaint category:
Adjudication & IEP
Month investigation completed:
January
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that he was found guilty of ‘disobeys any lawful order’ at an adjudication hearing, after failing to give a sample at a mandatory drug test. The prisoner said he was on medication which meant he was unable to provide a urine sample. The prisoner also complained that the prison did not allow his witness, a doctor at the prison healthcare unit, who corroborated this, to attend his adjudication hearing.
Recommendations/outcome:
The IPCI investigation found that key principles regarding witnesses set out throughout Prisoner Discipline Procedures (Adjudications) Policy Framework were not followed. The finding of guilt was quashed.
Partially Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Whitemoor
Complaint category:
Accommodation, food, education & other facilities
A prisoner complained about a lack of gym access as a close supervision centre (CSC) prisoner in a designated cell in the segregation unit. The IPCI investigation found that access to the gym had been delayed but eventually provided in line with policy, however the local segregation policy did not cover the management of CSC prisoners in designated cells as required by the CSC operating manual.
Recommendations/outcome:
IPCI recommended that the Governor of HMP Whitemoor review the local segregation unit policy to ensure it contained a section about the management of CSC prisoners held in designated cells. We asked the prison to consider in the future if whether a CSC prisoner located in a designated cell should be relocated if Whitemoor could not offer a full regime.
Upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Elmley
Complaint category:
Property
Month investigation completed:
January
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained about property lost when he moved from HMP Elmley to HMP Swaleside. The investigation found that HMP Elmley had failed to check the prisoner’s property and record any discrepancies on his property card when he left the prison.
Recommendations/outcome:
IPCI recommended that the prisoner be compensated for the lost property. We also recommended that staff should be reminded of the requirements of national policy when dealing with complaints about missing property and of the requirement to check a prisoner’s property against their property cards when they leave the prison for any reason.
Partially upheld complaint against the Governor of HMP Wakefield
Complaint category:
Visits, calls & letters
Month investigation completed:
January
Year investigation completed:
2025
A prisoner complained that his outgoing Rule 39 mail – addressed to MOJ Legal Department - had been opened and responded to by prison staff. The IPCI investigation found that this letter was not covered by Rule 39 or confidential access handling arrangements, but staff should not have responded to the letter.
Recommendations/outcome:
We recommended the prison apologise to the prisoner for responding to the letter instead of posting it out as intended.
