Complaint investigation summaries

The discontinuation of the police investigation should have prompted a recategorisation review. HMP Garth agreed to do a recategorisation review following our investigation.

There was insufficient evidence to support the justification for the scan and neither HMP Whatton’s Local Security Strategy and Local Searching Policy met the requirements of national policy in relation to use of the body scanner. HMP Whatton had already agreed to update their policies during another investigation, so no further recommendations were made.

IPCI recommended that HMP Whitemoor compensate the prisoner for the missing clothing and that they amend the compact and induction pack so that any reference to “prisoners use the wing laundry at their own risk and were liable for any clothes that may go missing” are removed, as this is contrary to national policy. We also said that HMP Whitemoor should consider implementing a laundry audit process, so that there is a record of laundry handed in and out.

Based on the information available, IPCI found that the prison acted within policy by postponing the decision to allow him release on HDC. However, IPCI found that his complaint response did not address all concerns raised by the prisoner within his complaint and therefore we upheld this part of the complaint. We made no recommendations because, as he was released, there were no meaningful actions to take.

IPCI found that most of the missing items had been recorded on the prisoner’s property card at HMP Ranby but were not then received at HMP Lincoln. The investigation found that HMP Ranby had destroyed the property following several dirty protests by the prisoner. However, this had not been recorded anywhere, contrary to policy, which says that any items disposed of must be photographed and an assessment made on whether they can be saved or should be disposed of. Given the lack of documentation to support the decision to dispose of the items and to record exactly what had been destroyed, IPCI upheld the complaint. HMP Ranby were unwilling to resolve the matter informally and expediently by compensating the prisoner. Therefore, IPCI recommended that HMP Ranby pay compensation to the prisoner and in future, ensure staff comply with the requirements of policy when disposing of a prisoner’s property following a dirty protest.

IPCI found there was insufficient information to conclude the lost property aspect of the complaint. HMP Hindley had accepted responsibility for the missing property cards and had already taken steps to mitigate the risk of it happening in the future. Therefore, IPCI partially upheld the complaint but made no further recommendations.

IPCI established that tea bags and coffee whiteners should be readily available to prisoners, that supplies are provided to the wings each week and the process for ordering more supplies if needed was clear and available for any officer to do. IPCI partially upheld the complaint on the basis that there was no evidence that HMP Stocken were purposefully preventing prisoners’ access to tea bags and coffee whiteners, and that there were procedures in place to ensure the wings have regular deliveries of these items. However, it did appear that prisoners did not have access to tea bags and coffee whiteners on the dates mentioned in the complaint. IPCI advised the prison that the response to the COMP 1A was unhelpful, and a problem-solving approach must be adopted when responding to complaints.

We concluded that HMP Nottingham was responsible for the missing property and recommended that they pay compensation of £139 and apologise for the poor handling of the complaint. We also recommended that HMP Nottingham take steps to ensure that all staff responding to complaints properly address the issues raised in the complaint, and in accordance with the time limits of the Prisoner Complaints Policy Framework.

IPCI partially upheld the complaint as we had concerns about the actions of an officer during the restraint. We recommended that the Governor, following an independent review of the restraint by the Operational Response & Resilience Unit (ORRU), provide evidence of what advice and guidance had been given to the officer involved. We also recommended that ORRU’s entire review of the incident be provided to IPCI and for the Governor to consider discussing the incident with the National Incident Management Unit as they had given a conflicting opinion on the officer’s actions.

IPCI proposed that the prison issue a written apology to the prisoner as a personal remedy. We also recommended that the Governor complete an internal investigation into the incident. Additional recommendations were made to ensure staff understand the correct procedures for completing and retaining F213 forms, and the correct processes to follow when assessing a prisoner’s ability to breathe during a restraint.