Complaint investigation summaries

There was no evidence to suggest that HMP Gartree had failed to follow the cell clearance process and therefore, were not responsible for any loss of property. However, Gartree did not appropriately respond to the prisoner’s complaint appeal or process his request for body worn video camera footage to be retained in line with national policy or as a FOI request. We recommended the Governor provide an apology and to provide evidence that every prison department is aware of their obligations to process requests made under the FOIA, whether explicitly or not.

IPCI concluded that the charge be dismissed because the prisoner said that he did not receive the DIS1 and the prison was unable to provide evidence that it was issued to him. We notified the prison of our findings and recommended that hat the finding of guilt be quashed, as there was no evidence that the DIS1 was issued.

There is no mandatory expectation for HMPPS to offer compensation for Rule 39/confidential access letters being opened in error. The process for authorising and issuing compensation was not followed when issuing the initial compensation offer and we did not consider the revised offer was unreasonable. However, HMP Frankland did not complete the actions required in national policy when confidential access correspondence is opened. We recommended that the Governor ensures all staff, including censors, are aware of the mandatory actions when confidential access correspondence is opened in error.

While HMP Lindholme had completed the cell clearance process, they were unable to locate the prisoner’s missing property that was documented to have been in the cell when it was cleared. They had also used a local cell clearance certificate. Lindholme rejected a mediation offer. We recommended Lindholme use the cell clearance certificate annexed to national policy to avoid any future confusion and to compensate the prisoner for the loss of their property.

The prison has apologised to the complainant. We made the Governor aware of the shortcomings of the complaint response. We hold the view that this complaint should have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI.

The comment made was factual, and therefore an apology for incorrect information was not required. On review of the complaint response, the prison did not provide an adequate and meaningful reply as required in the Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework. This aspect of the complaint was upheld. The Head of OMU apologised to the prisoner.

The appeal against the HDC was not upheld. However, IPCI agreed that there was a long delay in the PGD responding to the prisoner's letter. The PGD explained the reasons for this delay which did not amount to a systemic issue with confidential complaint responses. An apology had already been given and therefore IPCI made no further recommendations.

Reminder that COMP responses need to be responded to in line with the requirements of the Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework. We hold the view that this complaint should clearly have been resolved by the prison without reference to IPCI.

IPCI recommended quashing the adjudication because the prisoner denied the charge and there were no independent witnesses to the incident. IPCI expected the adjudicator would have viewed any and all available camera footage. The lack of witnesses meant it was one person’s word against another’s with no justification recorded for accepting the staff member’s version of events over that of the prisoner.

IPCI recommended that the adjudication be quashed on two grounds. Firstly, the adjudicator had refused the attendance of two independent defence witnesses who we considered to be relevant to the prisoner’s defence as they contradicted what the reporting officer had said. We were also concerned that the reporting officer, who had been called to be a witness, had then been asked by the adjudicator to then contact another officer to provide a statement. This was directly in contravention of policy which says a witness who has completed his evidence must not have any opportunity to discuss the case with anyone waiting to give evidence.