Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner requested a copy of security information used by the prison as part of his re-categorisation review. This information was not provided despite there being no personal or sensitive information contained within. Our investigation found that the prison did not follow policy, and if information is critical to the categorisation decision, the information should be shared with the prisoner.

The prisoner complained that his employment was being cancelled on a regular basis, resulting in him being locked in his cell all day. Our investigation found that this was the case, and the prison confirmed that they were not always able to fulfil their contractual obligations to regime, due to staffing numbers.

The prisoner complained about being removed from his job in the servery. Our investigation found that the prisoner had been given an unofficial trial period of work in the wing servery, which was not authorised by the Activities Unit. When the Activities Unit became aware of his unofficial trial appointment, he was removed from the position.

The prisoner complained that staff had told him he would remain on basic as long as he refused to locate. Our investigation found that while refusal to locate could be viewed as a factor in deciding to keep a prisoner at basic IEP level, it would still be necessary to conduct regular reviews, and to certainly review the decision within the first 7 days and every 14 days thereafter, for those subject to ACCT.

The prisoner complained that his category A review had initially been delayed because of COVID, however subsequent reviews were sequenced after that delayed review which had a cumulative delay on his progression.

The prisoner complained that his in-cell phone would not allow him to contact the Samaritans in the night state. Our investigation found there were conflicting responses to his complaints, and we were unable to establish if there was a fault on his cell phone, or if the on-wing phone was made available as alternative provision.

The prisoner complained that a named member of staff had behaved in a derogatory manner towards him. We investigated the matter and found that the prisoner had been given a negative entry for poor behaviour. We spoke to a CM involved in the matter, who confirmed the prisoner had been called an abusive name by the officer in question. We also found that this matter had not been investigated in the complaint response.

The prisoner complained because he was placed on closed visits for nine months after refusing to submit to a body scan. Our investigation found that whilst this was reviewed on a monthly basis, the records clearly referenced that he would remain on closed visit for at least nine months. We agreed with the decision to place him on closed visits after he was suspected of passing items, however reviews must be meaningful, and closed visits must not be used as a punishment.

The prisoner, who had hearing loss, complained that his visits with his solicitor, probation officer and psychologist were being held in closed visit conditions.

The prisoner complained about the loss of his property while he was in custody. He believed it had probably happened when he transferred from HMP Leeds to HMP Moorland. After IPCI’s involvement, the property was located and sent to the complainant as he was no longer in custody.