On the processing of warning cases in the Prison and Probation Service

The Parliamentary Ombudsman has conducted a series of inspections to take a closer look at the processing of warning cases in three security category 1 and 2 prisons. Before every visit, several such decisions were reviewed and, when on site, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s team took note of, inter alia, written procedures and held interviews with both prisoners and staff. In this decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman makes her statements on the basis of the findings of the inspections.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that it is common for only one prison officer to write a report on suspected misconduct, even if several staff members were present at the time of the incident. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is worrying that reporting in this way can lead to the combining of different observations without that being indicated. Ultimately, this may make it more difficult for the prisoner concerned to exercise their rights.

In some cases, the staff member who wrote the report was also present at the subsequent interview. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, this is likely to affect the prisoner’s confidence in the process and in the Prison and Probation Service. The decisions reviewed generally contained correct provisions and instructions on how to appeal the decision. However, the investigation gives the Parliamentary Ombudsman reason to recall the obligation to state reasons, meaning the decision to issue a warning must make clear which information resulted in the misconduct being considered to have been investigated and the inmate’s objections must be addressed.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the prisons essentially process the cases at issue in accordance with the requirement to act promptly laid down in the Imprisonment Act, which she emphasises in particular. In the decision, she also highlights good practice examples in the individual prisons.