Complaint investigation summaries

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A prisoner complained about a recategorisation where he disagreed with the decision not to downgrade him. He alleged that the prison had ignored his substantial representations. He also alleged that behaviours he exhibited as a result of his neurodiversity issues were wrongly recorded as aggressive, and that his progression was being hindered by outstanding sentence progression work he wasn’t allowed to complete. The IPCI investigation found that proper consideration was not paid to his representations which contained some salient points.

A prisoner complained that he wasn’t allowed to have family send in books for him. The IPCI investigation established that Wakefield required prisoners to complete an ‘approved parcel request form (APRF)’ before such items could be sent in, and this did not allow such parcels to be received from friends and family. This was in contravention to the national policy advice that we received on this matter, which confirmed books can be ordered by family and sent from approved suppliers or direct, where not available from approved suppliers.

A prisoner complained that they had been assaulted because of staff not properly managing the risk presented by another prisoner. The IPCI investigation established that risk had not been managed adequately and the original complaint response from the prison had wrongly assigned blame for assault to information disclosed by the complainant.

A prisoner complained that he had been prevented from purchasing vapes because of an Adjudication punishment. During the IPCI investigation we were informed that this matter had been subsequently discussed at an adjudication standardisation meeting. This resulted in a change to practice to allow the purchase of the vapes.