Complaint investigation summaries

The prisoner complained that he was not allowed to seek legal advice when requested. If a prisoner asks for legal during the initial hearing, the hearing must be adjourned to allow this. The adjudicator must consider if any subsequent requests are justified. We found that although, this was the second hearing, the prisoner had not been present at the initial hearing (through no fault of his own) and therefore his request should have been treated as if it were the initial hearing and should have been allowed.

The prisoner complained that the reporting officer was not present at the adjudication and therefore he was not allowed the opportunity to question him. Instead, the adjudicator relied on body worn camera footage of the incident. We found that policy says that the accused should be allowed to question the reporting officer and the hearing should be adjourned if they could not be present. This placed the prisoner at a disadvantage and was a fatal flaw in the proceedings.

The prisoner complained that some of their property had been lost by staff at Belmarsh. The prisoner had submitted their initial complaint about the loss of their property in September 2022 and since that time had been relocated to three further prisons. After IPCI’s involvement staff at Belmarsh completed an investigation into the prisoner’s property complaint.

The prisoner complained that some of their property had been lost by HMP Lindholme after they transferred to HMP Wymott. During IPCI’s investigation it was confirmed that some of the prisoner’s property had been sent to storage at Branston, and that seven months after the initial complaint HMP Wymott had subsequently sent for the stored property. We upheld this complaint because we did not think the prison had adopted the “problem solving approach” required by national policy.

The prisoner complained that a large amount of property went missing when he moved wings at Stoke Heath. Whilst the prison didn’t accept they had done anything wrong, they had already offered £100 compensation. The prisoner claimed the missing property was valued at much more.

The prisoner complained about the lack of ventilation at Garth, he said that this had been an ongoing problem at the prison for three years.

The prisoner complained about a finding of guilt following a positive result during a routine mandatory drug test (MDT). We found that staff had not followed the correct procedures when conducting the MDT and there were irregularities in the chain of custody. This rendered the finding of guilt unsafe.

The prisoner complained he had ordered and paid for canteen but did not receive it because he was transferred out of the prison.

The prisoner complained about four adjudication charges which were heard together. When he appealed one of these charges, one was quashed on the basis that the damage caused was in the context of an act of self-harm and he should not be punished for that. We found that a similar approach should have been taken in the appeal as the damage was again caused in the same act of self-harm.

The prisoner complained that his property went missing when he was transferred from HMP Wymott to HMP Haverigg. The prisoner’s property had not been checked before leaving the establishment.