Prison Documents

Scottish Prison Service: Use Of Control And Restraint Techniques

Report By The Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission

Report Of Violent Treatment Suffered By Angie Zelter

Discharge By Angela Zelter

Correspondence With Reports

Scotland Act 1998

(Transitory and Transitional Provisions)

(Complaints of Maladministration) Order 1999

Report by the Parliamentary Commissioner

Mr Dennis Canavan MP MSP

of the results of an investigation into a complaint

Ms Angela Zelter

Case No: H.5/00

SCOTTISH PRISON SERVICE: USE OF CONTROL AND RESTRAINT TECHNIQUES

Ms Zelter complained that she had been subjected to physical abuse by prison officers while on remand at Cornton Vale prison, Stirling; in particular, that the officers had used control and restraint techniques that caused her pain and distress and were inappropriate as she was not actively resisting orders. The Scottish Commissioner found no grounds on which to criticise the use of control and restraint techniques in moving Ms Zelter from her cell to attend a disciplinary inquiry when she refused to do so, and that placing her subsequently in a special cell had possibly been justifiable, but that stripping her, and failing to return her clothing immediately afterwards, had been wholly unjustifiable. The Scottish Commissioner strongly criticised the Scottish Prison Service for having allowed a practice to develop which had resulted in officers taking such unwarranted action. He attributed that maladministration to a collective failure to recognise that the proper application of the relevant prison Rules and Standing Orders involved the exercise of judgment, and to appreciate the need for officers to be able to justify their actions by reference to the circumstances of the individual case. The Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service apologised and agreed to make Ms Zelter an ex gratia payment of £750 in recognition of the unnecessary distress she had been caused, to conduct a review of the use of special cells and strip-searches following control and restraint action, and to ensure that the relevant guidance to officers fully covered the need to comply with the appropriate Rules and take account of individual circumstances.

H.5/00 Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions)

Mr Dennis Canavan MP MSP

of the results of an investigation into a complaint made by

Ms Angela Zelter

Valley Farmhouse

East Runton

Cromer

Norfolk

NR27 9PN

  Ms Zelter complained that she had been subjected to physical abuse by prison officers while on remand at Cornton Vale prison, Stirling; in particular, that he officers had used control and restraint techniques that caused her pain and distress and were inappropriate as she was not actively resisting orders.
  My investigation began in October 1999 once the Scottish Commissioner had received comments from the Scottish Prison Service after the referral of the complaint by the Member. I have not put into this report every detail investigated by the Scottish commissioner’s staff but I am satisfied that no matter of significance has been overlooked. Statutory and administrative background - The Prisoners and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 1994 describe how the inmates of Scottish prisons shall be treated. The following parts are relevant to Ms Zelter’s complaint:

  Schedule 3(n) states that a prisoner shall be guilty of a breach of discipline if he/she destroys or damages any part of a prison or any other property, other than his/her own.
  Rule 96(1) states that where a prisoner is to be charged with a breach of discipline, the charge shall be brought as soon as possible and in any event, save in exceptional circumstances, within 48 hours of the discovery of the act or omission giving rise to the charge.
  Rule 97(1) states that every charge of breach of discipline shall be inquired into by the Governor not later, save in exceptional circumstances, than the next day after it is brought.
  Rule 79(1)(b) states that in the control of prisoners, an officer shall seek to enlist the willing co-operation of prisoners.
  Rule 79(2) states that an officer in dealing with a prisoner shall not use force unnecessarily and, when the application of force to a prisoner is necessary, no more force than is necessary shall be used.
  Rule 85(1) states that the Governor may order the temporary confinement in a special cell of any prisoner who is refractory or acting in a violent manner. ("Special cell" is defined in Rule 3 as a room or cell which is adapted for the temporary accommodation of refractory or violent prisoners and whose features may include special sound-proofing, strengthened fixtures and fittings or the absence of any window.)
  Rule 85(2) states that no prisoner shall be confined in a special cell pursuant to paragraph (1) as a punishment or for any longer than necessary and, in any event, no longer than a continuous period of 24 hours.
  Rule 85(3) states that where the Governor makes an order under paragraph (1), he shall give notice of the order to a Medical Officer as soon as possible and record the particulars of the case.
  Rule 85(4) states that a prisoner who is temporarily confined pursuant to an order under paragraph (1) shall be visited by a Medical Officer if so confined for a continuous period in excess of 15 hours, and by an officer at least once in every 15 minutes during the period of confinement.
  Rule 88(1) states that every prisoner may be searched by an officer in accordance with the provisions of that Rule.
  Rule 88(2) states that a search of a prisoner may take the form of: an examination of the prisoner’s person and clothing but without removal of the clothing; the removal and examination of the prisoner’s clothing; the visual examination of the external parts of his/her body following removal of the prisoner’s clothing; or the visual examination of his/her open mouth without the use of force or any instrument.
  Rule 88(3)(b) states that a search shall be carried out as expeditiously and decently as possible.
  Rule 88(4) states that a prisoner may be searched at such times and in such circumstances as the Governor considers necessary.
  Rule 18 entitles a prisoner to wear his/her own clothing in prison except where:

  particular clothing may be required for the purposes of legal proceedings;
  a Medical Officer considers that the prisoner’s clothing is prejudicial to his/her health or special clothing is required on medical grounds;
  an officer considers that the prisoner’s clothing is in poor condition, may be prejudicial to security, good order or discipline within the prison, or is incompatible with the facilities at, or management of, the prison;
  special or protective clothing is required for particular work or activities being undertaken by the prisoner;
  the entitlement of a prisoner to wear his/her own clothing has been forfeited under Rule 100(1)(g) (that is, where a prisoner is guilty of escaping or attempting to escape).

  Rule 19 requires the prison to provide suitable clothing for every prisoner where the prisoner has insufficient clothing or does not wish, or is not permitted in terms of Rule 18, to wear his/her own clothing. Suitable clothing is defined as clothing which is of good condition, appearance and fit, and, having regard to the circumstances, is suitable for the health and safety of the prisoner.
  (Rule 3 defines "Governor" in the above instances as any of the following: the Governor-in-Charge; the Deputy Governor; any authorised Unit Manager; and, where none of those is present for the time being in the prison, the most senior officer present.)

  The Scottish Prison Service Standing Orders provide an administrative code of management instructions on the running of Scottish prisons. They are given by the Secretary of State (acting through the Chief Executive) to Governors and other prison staff, on whom they are binding. Paragraph 22(1) states that where force has been used against a prisoner he/she must be examined by a Medical Officer as soon as possible after the incident. The Medical Officer must report to the Governor whether he/she found the prisoner to be suffering from any wounds or bruises that appeared to have resulted from the application of force. Paragraph 22(3) states that every officer directly involved in using force must make a report to the Governor immediately after the incident. The Governor must compare the officers’ reports with each other and with that of the Medical Officer, and investigate any inconsistencies. Paragraph 22(4) states that a copy of each report must be sent to Headquarters with the Governor’s own report of the incident. Paragraph 26 states that Rule 85 enables the Governor to order the temporary confinement in a special cell of any prisoner who is acting in a violent manner. Paragraph 27 states that the prisoner must be taken out of the special cell for exercise as soon as that is reasonably practicable (for example, as soon as the first outburst of violence appears to have passed), and be kept in exercise for as long as that seems beneficial and where staff resources permit. Thereafter he/she should be returned to the special cell only if it is clearly necessary to do so and not merely as a matter of course. Paragraph 18 states that searches of prisoners in their cells must be conducted according to the requirements of Rule 88. Paragraph 19 states that where an officer has reason to suspect that a prisoner has prohibited articles concealed on his/her person, permission to search must be obtained from the Governor or a senior officer, and details of the search must be recorded in a book kept for that purpose, and initialled by the authorising officer. Paragraph 20 states that in searching unconvicted prisoners the Governor must exercise discretion as to the exact method of carrying out the search, having regard to the character of the prisoner and to any reason there may be for suspecting that prohibited articles might be concealed on his/her person. A close search, if deemed necessary, should be carried out according to Rule 88.
  Guidance for prison officers on the use of control and restraint techniques is provided in the Control and Restraint Manual. The Manual states that such techniques may be used only when interpersonal skills have been unsuccessful, or in self-defense. When force has to be used, the proper application of control and restraint techniques will be involved. The Manual goes on to say that it is difficult to provide precise guidance on the use of force which will cover every eventuality; it gives as examples of circumstances in which the use of force may be necessary, the protection of prison property and the facilitation of removal of a reluctant prisoner to another location. The general principle in such situations is that, if the objective can be achieved without the use of force, force must not be used. If the objective cannot be achieved without the use of force, minimum force may be used to achieve the objective. In each case where force has to be used, a written report will be submitted to the officer’s immediate superior. Nursing staff will examine at the earliest opportunity a prisoner who has been involved in an incident where force has been used, and make a written report to the Governor.
  Guidance for prison officers on searching prisoners is provided in the Security Manual. The Manual states that, where an officer has reason to suspect that a prisoner has prohibited articles on his/her person, the officer will obtain authority form a member of the Governor grade to carry out a search, including a body search. In the case of unconvicted prisoners, the Governor will exercise discretion on the method of search to be used. Due regard will be given to the nature of the prisoner and the reason for suspecting that prohibited articles may be secreted. Body searches will also be carried out generally as directed by senior management. If a body search is required, it will be conducted in a proper manner with due regard to the prisoner’s dignity. Female prisoners will be searched in a search cubicle. A clean sheet will be provided when undressing for use as a covering. Great care will be taken to avoid undue exposure of much the body at any time. At no time during the search will the prisoner be completely naked. The officer carrying out the search will not at any time touch the prisoner’s body. A record will be kept of the details of each body search. If a prisoner refuses such a search, the officer will try to establish the reason for the refusal and, if possible, persuade the prisoner to co-operate. If the prisoner continues to refuse, the Group Manager or Duty Governor should be informed of the need to carry out the search forcibly. The Group Manager or Duty Governor will ensure that the forcible search is carried out in the manner laid down in the control and restraint procedure. A nurse will examine the prisoner as soon as possible after the search.
  In January 1999 a local instruction was issued to staff in Cornton Vale prison regarding relocation and searching of prisoners in the prison’s segregation unlit (that is, the special cells provided pursuant to Rule 85, which were sound-proofed and unfurnished save for a mattress; those cells were generally referred to by staff at the prison as the "back cells"). The instruction stated that a form had to be completed for all prisoners moved to the segregation unit, giving the reason for the move and details of the officers involved. The form required a reason to be stated if the prisoner’s clothing was not returned to her following the search. Jurisdiction - The Scottish Commissioner is empowered to investigate administrative actions taken by or on behalf of the Scottish Executive, including the Scottish Prison Service, and other public bodies listed under Schedules 1 and 2 to the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Complaints of Maladministration) Order 1999. Article 9(2) of the Order precludes the Scottish Commissioner from questioning the merits of a department’s discretionary decision taken without maladministration. Investigation - In September 1998 Ms Zelter and four other members of a peace campaign group were being held on remand in Cornton Vale women’s prison. By Ms Zelter’s account, while in prison they planned a demonstration against the launch of a Trident submarine on 19 September. They made a banner from tow sheets, to be hung out of the windows of the two cells they were then sharing. They prepared seven notes saying that for 24 hours they intended to sit peacefully in their cells, refusing to come out, eat or speak; the notes explained that the demonstration was against nuclear weapons, not prison conditions. They intended to hand a note to each of the prison officers who attended their cells early on 19 September, keeping one note each to produce if questioned.
  According to an account given on 21 September by a Unit Manager who was acting as Duty Governor from Friday 18 to Monday 21 September, at 4.30pm on 18 September the Security Supervisor informed him that a telephone call from Ms Zelter had been monitored which indicated that a 24-hour demonstration was to begin at 7.30am on 19 September. The Security Supervisor interviewed Ms Zelter, who confirmed that a demonstration was planned for the following day, but refused to say what form it would take. (By Ms Zelter’s account, she told the Security Supervisor that the demonstration was against Trident, not the prison; that it would involve only peace activists; and that it would be peaceful. She refused to answer further questions, saying that she would explain it all the following day.) At 5.00pm the Unit Manager gave authorisation for Ms Zelter and the four other members of the group to be searched. At 6.15pm the search was carried out and the banner and notes were discovered. A body search was also conducted, in what Ms Zelter subsequently described as "a very respectful and orderly manner". Ms Zelter was then moved to a single cell in the prison’s Younger House block and told that she had breached prison discipline (paragraph 3).
  It was arranged that the Unit Manager would conduct the inquiry into the breach of discipline at 9.00am on 19 September, in the Orderly Room in Skye House block. By the Unit Manager’s account, when he went to the Orderly Room the Operations Supervisor informed him that the five women were refusing to attend the Orderly Room, stating that they would do so only after their day of protest. Having regard to the possibility of disruption throughout the prison, the Unit Manager decided that reasonable force should be used if necessary to take the women to the Orderly Room. He instructed the Operations Supervisor (who was a staff trainer in control and restraint techniques and therefore the most skilled person to handle the removal of prisoners) that the women should not be carried but if necessary should be supported by the arms and walked to the Orderly Room.
  By the Operational Supervisor’s account, given in a written report which he made to the Governor the same day, he consulted the Unit Manager about the handling of the inquiry in the light of what was said in the women’s notes about not speaking or leaving their cells. It was agreed that the Operational Supervisor would assemble staff and if necessary move the women to the Orderly Room under the terms of Rule 79 (paragraph 3). At approximately 9.00am he and three officers went to Younger House. He briefed staff about what was going to happen and began the exercise at approximately 9.15am. He entered each cell and explained that the prisoner was required to attend the Orderly Room and that if she did not go of her own volition she would be taken forcibly. Each was given numerous opportunities to comply. Ms Zelter refused to comply and was restrained by means of "speed cuffs" (a rigid handcuff which can be applied quickly for use in removal under restraint). However, her resistance to officers’ efforts to make her walk resulted in her full body weight being placed on her wrists. The Operational Supervisor considered that there was "a very real possibility of the wrists being broken", so instructed that the cuffs be removed and manual thumb and wrist locks be applied instead. Throughout the removal to Skye House, Ms Zelter resisted the officers at every opportunity. On arrival at Skye House she was placed in a cell and examined by a nurse. When the Operational Supervisor returned at approximately 9.45am to take her to the Orderly Room, she refused to move. The Unit Manager decided to hold the inquiry in the cell. (The Unit Manager later explained that he had made that decision as there was a possibility that Ms Zelter or the officers would be injured in the process of a further move.) On completion of the inquiry, at approximately 10.00am the Operational Supervisor asked Ms Zelter to walk back to Younger House, but despite efforts to persuade her to do so she continued to refuse to move or speak. She was moved under restraint, still resisting at every opportunity, to a cell in the segregation unit in Younger House (paragraph 7), where she was examined again.
  By Ms Zelter’s account, on the morning of 19 September she was sitting in a chair reading when the cell door opened. A group of prison officers came to the door and asked if she would come willingly to the Orderly Room. She shook her head and handed them a note confirming that she would not move from the cell, eat or speak for the remainder of that day. Three officers entered the cell and told her to walk, or they would make her walk. She shook her head. The officers forced her hands behind her and cuffed them. They pulled her to her knees and began to drag her by the handcuffs. She cried out in pain but did not struggle, trying instead to remain limp. She was taken into the corridor, where the handcuffs were removed and thumb and wrist locks applied. The officers then dragged her outside, shouting at her to walk and applying increasing pressure to her wrists, which caused her to scream with pain. Eventually she was thrown on to her knees in an empty cell and told that she had ten minutes to recover. The officers left and a nurse came, looked at her wrists and asked her how she was. After the nurse had left, the officers returned and asked if she would come willingly to the Orderly Room, otherwise they would hurt her again. She shook her head. The officers then told her that the Unit Manager would hold the inquiry in the cell. On completion of the inquiry, the officers returned and said that if she did not come with them willingly they would have to hurt her again, and that once they started the procedure they had to complete it, however much it hurt. They again applied thumb and wrist locks and pushed, pulled and carried her, screaming with pain, to another cell. They held her face down on the floor, removed her clothes, and left her. When she had recovered, she crawled to a mattress on the other side of the cell and covered herself with a sheet. She remained in the cell until the following morning. The nurse came again and examined her wrists, which were recovering. Some time later she was offered a newspaper. Later still she was asked if she wanted to go to another cell. She remained lying under the sheet and shook her head to every question.
  According to a subsequent account by one of the officers involved, after removing Ms Zelter’s clothing they took it out of the cell and covered her body with a "strong suit" (a garment designed to prevent self-harm). (Ms Zelter has subsequently denied that she was provided with such a suit.)
  The nurse who examined Ms Zelter on 19 September recorded having done so at 9.05am, 10.05am and 2.00pm. Regarding the first examination, the nurse recorded that Ms Zelter appeared upset and was crying. When asked if she was sore anywhere, Ms Zelter showed the nurse her left wrist. There was no redness or swelling, but Ms Zelter appeared reluctant to move that wrist. No other injuries were noted. Regarding the second examination, the nurse recorded that Ms Zelter again appeared upset and was crying. It appeared that her left wrist was painful. Some red areas were evident, but there was no swelling. When asked, Ms Zelter tried to move the wrist slightly. The nurse advised her to tell staff if the pain worsened. No other injuries were apparent. Regarding the third examination, the purpose of which was to check Ms Zelter’s left wrist again, the nurse recorded that Ms Zelter appeared to be able to move the wrist freely. No swelling or bruising was evident, although there remained a small red mark over the top of the wrist. (On 21 September, a Medical Officer saw Ms Zelter and recorded beneath the nurse’s observations: "Psychologically very distressed. No physical injury/problems.")
  By Ms Zelter’s account, on the morning of 20 September she was asked if she wanted to return to her previous cell, and consented. Her clothes were then returned to her and she returned to her single cell in Younger House block. She asked for a complaint form, on which she wrote an account of her treatment on 19 September, alleging that officers had deliberately hurt and humiliated her. She said that it had been made clear to her that the infliction of pain was standard procedure to enforce compliance. She had not been struggling and could easily have been moved without violence. She asked for a full apology and a promise that the harmful technique used on her would not be used on others in the future.
  On 22 September Ms Zelter appeared at court and was released. On 19 October she wrote to the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission (the Commission) enclosing her account of the events of 18-20 September and repeating her complaint of 20 September. The Commission made enquiries of the Scottish Prison Service. On 3 November the Governor of the prison wrote to the Service’s Custody Directorate commenting on Ms Zelter’s complaint. The Governor said that it would have been wrong to assume on 18 September that the planned demonstration would be peaceful; there was no guarantee about the effect it would have on other prisoners. Remedial action had therefore properly been taken to avert it. Each prisoner had been taken to the Orderly Room by prescribed methods, the purpose of which was to minimise injury to either party. The Governor said that she had raised separately her serious concerns about the use of speed cuffs for women prisoners. However, if a prisoner was refusing to comply, the reality was that removal using control and restraint techniques was not pain free - it hurt wrists. Ms Zelter had been warned at the time that pain would result if she refused to comply. Subsequent suggestions that another way might have been found to move the women presupposed that another safe system of removal existed.
  On 23 December the Commission issued their report. (The Commission’s report is reproduced in full in an annex to this report.) The Commission found that prison officers had been entitled to use force to ensure Ms Zelter’s compliance with lawful orders, but noted that Rule 79(2) required officers to use no more force than was necessary (paragraph 3). In Ms Zelter’s case, where she had exercised passive resistance, the Commission considered that more force had been used than was necessary in the circumstances. They observed that the control and restraint techniques utilised had been inappropriate, as they were intended primarily for prisoners actively resisting orders, and were designed to minimise the risk of damage to both prisoners and officers. However, the Commission did not criticise the officers involved, who had simply been doing what they had been trained to do, and had had no alternative means available to them of achieving compliance. The Commission noted that, because the incidence of passive resistance in prisons was thought to be very low, training in techniques for the removal of passively resisting prisoners had not been given a high priority. They recommended that the Scottish Prison Service should consider providing training in such techniques to all officers; the current control and restraint techniques should then be reserved for situations in which a prisoner was actively resisting removal.
  The Commission acknowledged that strip-searching was routinely carried out at the end of a removal under restraint, but noted that Rule 19 required the provision of suitable clothing for every prisoner, having regard to the health and safety of the prisoner (paragraph 3). The Commission accepted the officers’ account that, when they had removed Ms Zelter’s clothing, they had provided her with a strong suit. However, the Commission found retention of her clothing until the following day to have been unjustified; there had been no suggestion that she was suicidal, so the provision of clothing usually provided to prisoners at risk of suicide had been inappropriate. The Commission recommended that the practice of removing the normal clothing of all prisoners located in the segregation unit should be reviewed to ensure that such clothing was removed only when necessary for health and safety purposes, and that clothing designed for suicide prevention was issued only to prisoners identified as suicide risks.
  On 24 December the then Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service noted on his copy of the Commission’s report:

"I think these are not unreasonable recommendations, in the circumstances. In providing me with a draft reply would you explain to me why a strip search is routinely carried out after C & R (control and restraint) removals; and whether in this case the Governor or person in charge considered whether it was actually necessary in this case. From the point of view of the prisoner it smacks of unnecessary humiliation".

"There are two main reasons for a control and restraint removal to a segregation unit or special cell. The first is a practical one. Removal involves three members of staff and the prisoner and it could be difficult safely to negotiate a conclusion to a removal to a cell containing standard cell furniture, bearing in mind that the prisoner has been subject to such a removal because they do not wish to co-operate with the move in the first place. The segregation unit or special cells are therefore the most obvious cells to use to ensure the safe conclusion of a removal. Second, if a prisoner under control and restraint removal is returned to an ordinary cell it would disrupt the hall routine, which is important in maintaining good order and safety in the prison, and it might be necessary for the other prisoners in the area to be locked up while the prisoner was returned to their cell. This is because a prisoner being moved against their will using control and restraint techniques requires to be relocated in a manner which ensures the safety of themselves and others at a time when their behaviour is unpredictable. Only when a prisoner can return to their ordinary cell without using control and restraint procedures would she be permitted to do so. While Ms Zelter’s continued confinement in a special cell after the strip-search was not decided or arranged in accordance with the relevant Rule and Standing Order and we are justifiably criticised for that, it is by no means clear that had such procedures been followed it would have resulted in another outcome than that which occurred. In my view it is probably that the result would have been the same."

I find that argument persuasive. Accordingly, I have concluded that, while Ms Zelter’s confinement in a special cell was undoubtedly maladministrative, I cannot say that an injustice to Ms Zelter resulted, as the same outcome might well have occurred in the absence of any maladministration.
  I turn next to the question of what happened to Ms Zelter following her removal to the special cell. It is clear that the Unit Manager did not make a decision that Ms Zelter should be strip-searched on admission to the special cell, having regard to the provisions of Rule 88 and the circumstances of the case (paragraph 3). The Unit Manager has since told the Scottish Commissioner’s staff that he had not been aware at the time that Ms Zelter had been strip-searched, and there was no reason why he should have been; strip-searching was a regular occurrence in the prison, which was required under the Rules in a number of circumstances, and he would not expect to be consulted each time as to whether one should be carried out, or even informed. The Operational Supervisor told the Scottish Commissioners staff that strip-searching and the replacement of the prisoner’s own clothing with a strong suit had been standard procedure for prisoners under restraint. The absence of a record of the search initialled by the authorising officer, as required by the relevant Standing Order (paragraph 4), serves to confirm that. Some justification for that approach is found in Rule 88(4), which allows a prisoner to be searched at such times and in such circumstances as the Governor considers necessary. But Ms Zelter’s case called for the exercise of discretion on the part of the authorising officer, having regard to the fact that she was an unconvicted prisoner (paragraphs 4 and 6). The explanation subsequently given by the Scottish Prison Service (paragraph 21) admits that, even if there were grounds for making sure that Ms Zelter had not concealed on her person any object that might be used to harm herself or others, obtaining that assurance need not have involved the removal of clothing. Had the circumstances of Ms Zelter’s case been considered, I cannot see how that consideration could reasonably have led to a decision that she should be stripped. The then Chief Executive queried the routine use of strip-searches following control and restraint action, and observed that "from the point of view of the prisoner it smacks of unnecessary humiliation" (paragraph 20). That is precisely how it appears to me in this instance, and I regard that unnecessary humiliation as directly attributable to maladministration in the form of the substitution of a rigid and thoughtless procedure for the exercise of discretion required by the Rules and associated guidance.
  Even if the removal of Ms Zelter’s clothing had been justified, which it was not, Rule 18 suggests no reason why her clothing should not have been returned to her immediately (paragraph 3). Nor does the explanation subsequently given by the Scottish Prison Service of the circumstances in which retention of a prisoner’s clothing may be necessary (paragraph 21). The prison Governor has since issued an instruction that a prisoner’s clothing should be given back immediately following a strip search, unless there is a reason for not doing so, in which case the reason should be recorded (paragraphs 7 and 22). I conclude that the failure to return Ms Zelter’s clothing immediately was maladministration, which served to prolong the unnecessary humiliation and physical discomfort caused by the strip. Whether that was mitigated to some extent by the provision of a strong suit is a point on which there is a direct conflict of evidence (paragraph 14). The Commission were unable satisfactorily to resolve that conflict, although they were inclined, following their enquiries, to accept the officers’ account (paragraph 19). I see little prospect of resoloving that point now, but having found that Ms Zelter’s clothing should not have been removed, and that if removed it shold have been returned to her immediately, I find litle by way of mitigation in the provision of alternative clothing, which was in any case of aninappropriate kine, if such clothing was indeed provided.
  Rule 85(4) requires prisoners confined in special cells for more than 15 hours, as Ms Zelter was, to be visited by a Medical Officer (paragraph 3). Moreover, Standing Order paragraph 22(1) requires an examination by a Medical Officer as soon as possible after any incident involving the use of force against a prisoner (paragraph4). Ms Zeltr was not seen by a Medical Officer until 21 September (paragraph 15). In view of the findings of the Medical Officer on that occasion, and of the nurse who saw Ms Zelter on thre occasions on 19 September, I doubt that a visit by a Medical Officer while Ms Zelter was in the special cell would have made any material difference to the situation. Similarly, while there is no evidnece that the 15-minute visits to prisoners in special cells required by Rule 85(4) were carried out, it is not disputed that officers visited the cell on more than one occasion, and that at some stage Ms Zelter was given the option of moving from the special cell, but declined it (paragraph 13). I criticise the prison’s further failures to comply with the relevant Rules, but do not see any injustice to Ms Zelter as having resulted from that maladministration.
  Finally, the Standing Orders require reports to be made by officers involved in the use of force, and by the Medical Officer, culminating in a report by the Governor to the Scottish Prison Service Headquarter (paragraph 4). The contemporary reports by prison staff in Ms Zelter’s case fell signigicantly short of a full account of the events of 19 September. In particular, no mention was made of Ms Zelter having been stripped in the segregation unit. The Unit Manager has explained that that was because a strip-search was regarded as a routine matter. That may explain why a subsequent briefing by Headquarters asserted that "at no time was any prisoner left in a naked state", apparently referring to the searches that had been conducted on 18 September (paragraph 10). I criticise the prison for compounding their maladministration by failing to report matters as fully as the expectations of those to whom they reported evidently demanded.
  To sum up, I have found no grounds on which to criticise the use of control and restraint techniques in moving Ms Zelter, and that placing her in a special cell was possibly justifiable, but that stripping her, and failing to return her clothing immediately afterwards, were wholly unjustifiable. I strongly criticise the Scottish Prison Service for having allowed a practice to develop which resulted in officers taking such unwarranted action. I accept that they did so not out of vindictiveness, but out of a failure to recognise that the proper application of the Rules and Standing Orders involved the exercise of judgment, and to appreciate the need to justify their actions by reference to the circumstances of the individual case. That failure appears to have beena general one among staff at the prison, in view of which I attach no individual culpability to the officers involved in thepresent case. That does not excuse the fact that Ms Zelter was badly mistreated, a fact that I consider the Scottish Prison Service have been unkuly slow to acknowledge, and for which I consider that both staff and management at the prison, innocent of any bad intent though their actions were, must bear collective responsibility. I regard that maladministration, and its effect upon Ms Zelter, to have been sufficietnly serious to warrant not only an apology, but also a consolatory ex gratia payment, by way of reinforcement of that apology and in recognition of the unnecessary distress which was added to that already caused by the prison’s earlier, justified actions. When I put that to the Chief Executive, he replied:

"I am grateful to the Commissioner for his acknowledgement that there was no bad intent in the actions of management and officers in the treatment of Ms Zelter and accept the criticism that more formal consideration of Ms Zelter’s case should have preceded any decision to strip search. In the vast majority of cases where a prisoner requires to be removed applying control and restraint techniques it is necessary to conduct a full search at the conclusion of the removal. However I accept that the circumstances in Ms Zelter’s case were different and there was therefore perhaps no need for a strip-search to be conducted. Therefore I apologise on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service for any distress or embarrassment that the strip-search may have caused Ms Zelter. I also apologise for the delay in returning Ms Zelter’s own clothes following the strip-search. As highlighted at paragraph 22 of the report the Scottish Prison Service accepted the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission’s recommendation, made in December 1998, that a prisoner should have their own clothes returned to them following any strip-search. Therefore, since January 1999 it has been the policy and practice at Cornton Vale that a prisoner’s clothes are returned to them following a strip-search unless there are health and safety reasons not to do so. By way of reinforcement of our apology I accept your recommendation to offer Ms Zelter an ex gratia payment made without admission of liablity and consider that £750 is an appropriate sum."

I regard that as a satisfactory response.
  I also asked the Chief Executive if, in the light of the failings identified in this report, he would review on a national basis the use of special cells and strip-searches following control and restraint action, and take steps to make sure that Rules 85 and 88, and the associated paragraphs of the Standing Orders, were in future properly applied, with due consideration being given to individual circumstances. The Chief Executive replied that the events in Ms Zelter’s case needed to be viewed from the important perspective of the maintenance of good order and what it is reasonable to expect staff to do for the care of all the prisoners in the relevant area of the prison. While in the event Ms Zelter had been in no way violent, no-one could have known that that would be the case at the time. As far as those involved in dealing with the incident had been concerned, her behaviour could have placed staff at risk and, more seriously, could have caused a breakdown in the calm atmosphere they aimed to maintain at the prison, where many damaged and vulnerable women were cared for who could react unpredictably, sometimes involving serious self-harm, to disturbances like the one caused by Ms Zelter. Having said that, the Chief Executive was happy to accept my recommendation regarding a review of procedures. He had instructed the Deputy Director of Operations to conduct a review of the use of special cells and strip searches following constraint action, and to ensure that the relevant guidance fully covered the need to ensure compliance with the appropriate Rules, took account of individual circumstances, and made provision for adequate reporting. The Chief Executive concluded that Ms Zelter’s case had highlighted the diversity of circumstances that the Scottish Prison Service had to manage, and was an example of the need for them to look at individual circumstances and use discretion when dealing with matters that they often consider to be routine. Scottish Prison Service staff had to deal, on a daily basis, with very difficult and sometimes violent people, and situations which could pose risks to vulnerable prisoners in the area. They carried out their job with great professionalism; but there were lessons to be learned from Ms Zelter’s case, and the Chief Executive assured me that the Scotish Prison Service had learned them. I welcome and endorse those comments. Conclusion
  I have not upheld Ms Zelter’s objection to the use by the Scottish Prison Service of control and restraint techniques in this instance, but have nevertheless found serious shortcomings in the way they treated her. I regard the Chief Executive’s apologies and offer of an ex gratia payment of £750 to Ms Zelter in recognition of the distress caused, and his undertaking to review the relevant procedures, as a satisfactory response to my findings.

23 April 2001 Simon MacCulloch

Investigation Manager

Duly authorised under section 7(4) of the

Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and

Transitional Provisions) (Complaints of

Maladministration) Order 1999

REPORT BY THE SCOTTISH PRISONS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

When staff required you to attend at the orderly room on 19 September, you refused to comply with that order. When you continued to refuse to move or to speak to staff, you were forcibly removed from the cell under handcuffs and then moved by a three person team to Skye House to await the orderly room. You again refused to move from the waiting room into the orderly room and the adjudicating governor then came to the waiting room where he carried out the hearing. Thereafter you refused to move back to your own block and were again moved by a three person team and located in the back cells of Younger Block. At no stage did you display any aggression to staff but you continued to refuse to cooperate or communicate with staff throughout the process. The three person team which moved you on both occasions used the normal Control and Restraint techniques (C&R). This process ended with you being strip searched in the back cells of Younger Block. Your clothing was then removed from the cell and you were provided with a strong suit. On several occasions thereafter you were asked by staff if you wished to move to your own cell and you refused to communicate with them. You remained in the back cell until the following day when, at the end of your protest, your own clothes were returned and you were located in an ordinary cell in Younger Block. The Law The orders given to you to go to the orderly room and to return from the orderly room were undoubtedly lawful. Prison staff are entitled to use force to ensure compliance with a lawful order, though Rule 79(2) requires that staff should use no more force than is necessary. Strip searching is authorised by Rule 88 of the Rules and is routinely carried out at the end of a C&R removal. Rule 19 requires the Secretary of State to provide suitable clothing for each prisoner having regard to the health and safety of the prisoner. Special clothing, designed for suicide prevention purposes, was provided to you in the back cells when your own clothing was withdrawn. The Commission’s Conclusions The Commission considers that staff were entitled to use force to ensure your compliance with the lawful command to attend the orderly room and to return from the orderly room to your own accommodation. The only techniques which Scottish Prison Service staff have been taught for moving prisoners are the C&R techniques. These techniques have been adapted primarily for prisoners who are actively resisting staff orders and are designed to minimise the risk of damage to both prisoners and staff They are not, however, appropriate for the removal of passive resisters - The incidence of passive resistance in prisons is thought to be very low and the need for knowledge of techniques for removing such persons had thus not been given high priority in staff training. Nonetheless, the Commission considers that the Scottish Prison Service should give consideration to providing staff training for this eventuality so as to keep to a minimum the amount of force which might need to be used against a prisoner. In their removal of you, staff used the minimum of force consistent with their training in the removal of prisoners. While the Commission considers that this was more force than was necessary in the circumstances, this does not imply any criticism of the staff involved. They were simply doing what they were trained to do and had no alternative method available to them of achieving compliance with their lawful order.

The conduct of the strip search on your return to the back cells of Younger Block was in accordance with normal C&R practice. The Commission considers, however, that the removal of your clothing and the retention of it until the following day when you returned to your normal location were not justified. It is perfectly proper for staff to conduct a thorough search of a prisoner’s clothing in these circumstances; but the clothing should be returned to the prisoner as soon as possible consistent with the need- to protect the prisoner’s health and safety in terms of Rule l9(2)(b). There was no suggestion that you were suicidal and the provision therefore of clothing normally made available to suicide risk prisoners was inappropriate. The Commission’s Recommendations 1. While the number of occasions on which techniques for the removal of passively resisting prisoners need to be used may be very limited, the Scottish Prison Service should consider including the teaching of these techniques in the basic training of all staff. Control and restraint techniques should then be reserved for situations in which a prisoner is actively resisting being moved.

2. The practice at Cornton Vale of removing the normal clothing of all persons located in the back cells at Younger Block should be reviewed to ensure that such clothing is only removed when this is necessary for health and safety purposes and that clothing designed for suicide - prevention purposes is only issued to prisoners identified as suicide risks.

REPORT OF VIOLENT TREATMENT SUFFERED BY ANGIE ZELTER WHILST AT CORNTON VALE PRISON ON 19th SEPTEMBER 1998

I have written this report as accurately and fairly as I can. (The other women will soon be writing their reports). Where the prison authorities acted well I have said so and when they have acted abusively I have also said so. I write this report to clarify for the Scottish Prison Service my personal experiences and also to send to those many concerned people who have anxiously asked what really happened. I have focused my remarks upon the maltreatment and use of pain to force me to comply with orders to move and have not dealt with other outstanding complaints I have concerning the lack of regular exercise and other matters that we all raised when in prison.

Unfortunately, Cornton Vale have been writing letters about the way we prisoners were treated which I consider to be untruthful or if not deliberately untruthful show that the norms of prison ethics and culture are far removed from the norms of behaviour expected in the outside world. If you would care to read my report and bear in mind the following extracts from the letters from Cornton Vale you will be able to make your own minds up.

In a letter of 24/9/98 to Ross Nockles from Mrs McAlpine it says that at all times ’staff have treated them in a fair, courteous and professional manner’. In a letter to Rev. Ainslee of 21/10/98 from R.A Hastings of the SPS he said, ’I am assured that at no time was any prisoner left in a naked state’. Background.

Five peace activists, part of the Trident Ploughshares 2000 (TP2000) campaign, had been remanded in custody under the care of the Scottish Prison Services at Cornton Vale Prison. Their names were Hanna Jarvinen, Helen John, Katri Silvonen, Krista Van Velzen, and Angie Zelter.

During the August TP2000 Disarmament camp there were a total of 115 arrests made, most of which have led to charges that are slowly being dealt with by the courts. The TP2000 campaign is known as being based on totally peaceful, nonviolent, open and accountable principles and these very principles meant that some activists were unable to sign the standard bail conditions unless the Court agreed that Bail Condition (b) (that states that the accused will not commit an offence whilst on bail) did not apply to their continued disarmament actions. The activists argued that Trident was a crime under international law and that they had pledged to prevent nuclear crime and to try to peacefully and safely disarm the Trident nuclear weapon system. They would continue to try to prevent grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions Act and other humanitarian laws by continuing the kinds of acts that they had been arrested and charged for. If this would be in breach of bail condition (b) then in all honesty they could not agree to sign the bail conditions. They were thus all sent to prison until their court dates. They appeared in Helensburgh District Court at various dates and were all found guilty and admonished. They are appealing against the guilty verdict and will take the case to Europe if necessary. Plans for an anti-Trident Demonstration. Whilst in prison they heard that the 4th Trident submarine named ’Vengeance’ was due to be launched on the 19th September. Whatever the view of the prison authorities all five viewed themselves as still being part of society as a whole with ethical and political rights and they determined to make a small symbolic protest at the continuing illegal and immoral threat of mass destruction that Trident represented. They therefore borrowed two old sheets that already had holes in them and with washable toothpaste they stuck to the sheets letters shaped out of torn up newspapers. They did this so that after the banner hang they would be able to wash the sheets and return them undamaged to the prison. One banner said ’No Escape’ and the other said ’From Trident’ and they were to be hung out of the two cell windows. At that time Helen and Angie were sharing a cell and Henna, Katri and Krista were sharing another cell and the two windows were very close together They also prepared 7 identical hand-written statements that explained that all five of them were deeply concerned at the launch of yet another Trident submarine that would deploy 48 100-kiloton nuclear weapons threatening innocent civilians all over the planet; that they were all determined to peacefully sit in their cells all day, refusing to come out, refusing to speak and refusing to eat, that this would continue for 24 hours only, and that the demonstration was to be seen as a personal demonstration against nuclear weapons and not as a demonstration against prison conditions. They were going to hand out the notes to their prison officers very early on Saturday 19th and to keep one each to bring out as necessary if they were questioned, as they would not be talking all day. Events on Friday 18th September 1998.

Sometime on Friday 18^th September, I (Angie Zelter) was called to see the head of security and asked if I was planning a demonstration for the next day. I answered truthfully yes and explained it was perfectly peaceful and against Trident not the prison, and that I would be explaining it all the next day and refused to answer any more questions except to say it did not involve any of the other prisoners only the peace activists. A short time later both the cells were thoroughly searched in a respectful and orderly way. Strip searches were conducted on all five, again in a very respectful and orderly manner. The banners and letters were found and I was taken away and put in a single cell in Younger House and lost contact with the other 4 women. I was told 1 had breached certain rules and left in the cell. Later I had a chance to speak to an officer and explained what had happened and that my protest would be continuing the next day and warning him that I would not be speaking or eating or moving for the 24 hours of 19th September and explaining about Trident and why I was doing the protest and that it was not directed at the Prison. I explained very carefully that I would not be willing to talk the next day and please not to take it personally and to explain the situation to other officers. I also asked for a pen and paper, which was given to me and 1 made a note for the next day to be able to hand it to any officer who entered the cell to explain why I was not moving, eating or talking. Saturday 19th September. 1998.

The morning arrived and the usual calls and knocks were made on the cell door. One of the Officers acknowledged that he knew I was not talking and just to move my hand in acknowledgement that I was alive and well. I did. I then arose and dressed and was sitting in a chair reading when the door suddenly opened and a whole group of officers came to the door of the cell. One asked me whether I would come willingly with them to the Orderly Room. I didn’t know what the Orderly Room was and in any case had promised not to move, speak or eat for the 24 hours and they knew this. I shook my head and handed them the note which they read. They then said I had to go with them. I shook my head and remained silent and peacefully sitting on the chair. Three officers then came into the room (a further two or three were observing from the door) and said I had to walk or they would make me walk. When I shook my head again they grabbed my hands and forced them behind me, roughly put handcuffs on and then yanked me to my knees and started dragging me with the handcuffs. The pain was excruciating and I couldn’t help yelling out in pain. It felt as though my arms would break. I was not struggling but was trying to stay quite limp. They took me out of the cell and into the corridor and forced me to my knees saying ’get down on your knees’. I was not resisting at all and was no threat to anyone. They then took the handcuffs off and began twisting my thumbs and wrists back until I was in terrible pain and really screaming. All the time they were yelling at me to walk. They dragged me out of the corridor and through some wet grass, I could feel it on my bare feet (I had been dressed but not put on any socks or shoes that morning). I was conscious of very little except the terrible pain as they forced my wrists back further and further. I know I was screaming and that I got very breathless with the pain, that I seemed not to be able to see, I think because I was clenching my eyes closed with the pain, praying for it all to stop. At one point I was aware of an officer yelling in my right ear that if I didn’t get off his shoe he would break my leg and then I realized my feet were dangling all over the place, sometimes I was on tiptoe trying to relieve the pain in my wrists and sometimes being dragged. At last, I have no idea how long it lasted, it seemed like an eternity whilst it was happening, I was thrown onto my knees again and told I had ten minutes ’to recover’. The cell door was banged shut and they left me. 1 can remember finally stopping crying, feeling shocked, nursing my wrists and arms and leaning against the wall. I was still in shock when a nurse came in and looked at my wrists and my shocked tear-stained face, asked me how I was and left as though it was a perfectly normal procedure (which I was later to find out it was).

Then the officers came back in again and asked me if I would come willingly this time to the Orderly Room or they would hurt me again. I shook my head and cringed as they came for me. They then told me that Mr. McKerchar would come to me and they would hold the Orderly Meeting in the cell. Mr. McKerchar then came in and reeled off a list of punishments for offences, all of which made no sense to me at all as I was still slumped up against the wall of the cell and in shock, but it was something about not being allowed to watch the TV and I can remember even at that time being aware of the incongruity of such pain and the triviality of being denied TV! He didn’t seem at all perturbed by the state I was in, as though seeing me on the floor of an empty concrete cell in an obvious state of pain and shock was perfectly normal and even though the last few times we had met he had been quite civilised. He then went out and the officers came for me again.

They explained quite carefully that if I did not go willingly with them I would be hurt yet again, that once they started the procedure they had to complete it however much it hurt, that I was making them hurt me, that I was a prisoner and I had to ’comp1y’. They said they had seen it all before, that I didn’t impress anyone; that I was behaving like a two-year-old. They then grabbed my thumbs and wrists and started applying the pressure once more until once more I was screaming in agony. Again they pushed, pulled and carried me whilst hurting me as much as they could. I thought my wrists were going to break at any moment, I think I was screaming most of the time it took them to get me to another cell. I have no idea where it was, it took forever to reach it, but finally I was forced onto my knees and then face down onto a concrete floor. I remember a woman officer trying to protect my head and having my head in her hands and hearing her say something about being more careful and then the pain seemed to get much worse and my clothes were being stripped off and I was being turned this way and that and the pain filled up my whole consciousness and then a final pressure in the small of my back and I was left totally naked on the floor under bright lights that never went out. I finally recovered enough to crawl to a mattress on the other side of the cell and to cover myself with the sheet there.

I stayed there until the following morning in shock, going over and over what had happened, unable to stop it all going round and round. Remembering that two of the officers involved had been quite friendly and normal in the weeks before and that I had trusted them, feeling totally abused, knowing that in some stubborn kind of way I was unwilling to be broken, knowing how easy it was to be broken, feeling totally vulnerable, knowing that much worse could have happened, that it had not lasted so long, that I could have had my wrists broken, that it was so completely unnecessary as I was not a physical threat but knowing that I must be seen as a threat to the authority of the prison, realising that it would have been so much worse for any vulnerable youngster who felt depressed and suicidal. I didn’t drink or eat or say anything. I was conscious that the nurse came in again and that my wrists were recovering and were able to be moved and that there were hardly any signs of abuse, just a redness and a mark from the handcuffs. I was thankful that my wrists were going to be alright. Sometime later someone came in and said did I want a newspaper, and later did I want to go to another cell. I just lay under my sheet and shook my head at everything. Sunday 20^th September, 1998 The following morning I was asked if I wanted to return to my previous cell. As it was now the 20th and my protest day was over I consented. I was then given my clothes back and told to get dressed. I returned to the cell in Younger Unit. I found out that I was to be isolated and not allowed to talk to any other prisoner, that I would be given access to an hours exercise on my own every day, that I would not be allowed to use my phone cards, and was not allowed to go to the canteen so would not be able to buy stamps. As I was not allowed to receive stamps sent in to me this meant I would not be allowed to write letters out freely. All this and yet I was on remand, not guilty until proven innocent. Some time that afternoon I was told by a guard that my daughter had called and had heard that I had been hurt and was concerned and that I was given permission to call her and tell her I was alright. I phoned her and got my son and told him a few details and reassured him that I had no permanent injuries.

I asked for a complaints form and wrote a short formal complaint that appears at the end of this report. I was given half an hours exercise in the small yard attached to Younger. My belongings from Ross were finally brought over to my new cell and I was given mail and newspapers. The next day, Monday, I was taken to see Governor Donegan who explained that I was at a kind of Hearing or trial for my offences. I understood everything she explained although I have forgotten much of it now. I was still very upset at what had happened and can remember breaking down and crying again when telling her my side of the story. I was most distressed by her calm assurance that nothing was wrong, that the prison service had acted in complete conformity with home-office regulations, that the ’restraint’ procedure was quite lawful and had been vetted by the European Court of Justice, that I was basically making a fuss about nothing. She also said that it was for my own protection, that if they had just picked me up and moved me without ’restraining’ me then I might have fallen and got hurt! The fact that I got very badly hurt seemed to escape her. She then went on to tell me how I had chosen to come to prison, that I was taking away resources from other prisoners who needed attention, that other prisoners were vulnerable and needed sympathy and attention. When I protested that such a use of pain to force people to comply would surely do even more psychological damage to vulnerable young girls who had been physically and sexually abused in their childhood and that it was a complete breach of trust and would undermine the very anti-bullying strategy the prison was committed to instituting, she was coldly furious at my temerity to even try to get into a discussion. She then told me I was guilty of various breaches of prison regulations and that I would have an extra 5 days put on my sentence if I was sentenced for the charge I was being held on remand for, that I was to be kept apart from all the other prisoners and various other things that I have forgotten. I was never given any written record of my punishments and cannot remember clearly the details. I felt trapped in a Kafka novel, upset, hurt and angry.

Later I was seen by the Stirling CID who had apparently been informed by outside sympathisers of my treatment and I was interviewed. I again found this upsetting as I was quite aware that the police use pressure points and similar ’restraint’ methods. I have also witnessed the police deliberately hurting people when they move them in order to dissuade them from taking part in demonstrations. I did not feel any sympathy and in fact told them this. They wrote the statement in their own words from asking me questions and I also gave them the original copy of the Prison Complaint as it had just been returned to me with the first part completed saying that the procedure they had used on me was standard.

I later saw a Doctor who told me that it was prison policy for him to see all prisoners who had suffered this treatment5. He was the only person I saw within the prison service who I felt understood why the ordeal had been so shocking to me and why I felt it was such an abuse of trust. He said that he thought that the method had been devised to control violent men in men’s prisons and that in his opinion it was not necessary to use it against women. Issues Raised Is prison authority so insecure that it has to inflict pain in order to get prisoners to obey rules? It may be necessary to ’remove’ a prisoner from a certain place and take them to another but should this be done by inflicting pain?

Is there not a difference between ’restraint’ and ’inflicting pain’?

Are there so few nonviolent sanctions that violence has to be used in this way to enforce regulations?

What kind of an example is the prison service giving to society at large and to prisoners in particular if they deal with a non-threatening nonviolent protest in this way?

How can real trust be built up between staff and prisoners if the rules and regulations of the prison service allow staff to inflict such pain on prisoners and if they are forcibly stripped and left in a cell without their clothes and with strong lights on at all times? What is this other than humiliating and cruel treatment?

In a prison situation where one loses most of ones independence and freedom, where one is completely dependent on Officers for every need, even having to ask to be let out of a cell to use a toilet, one feels very vulnerable and extremely frustrated. There are not many ways one can express any individuality and it is easy, even for the emotionally strongest women to feel depressed and suicidal. Surely the ease with which the approved ’restraint’ method can be turned into vindictive bullying is very dangerous in this context?

Some prison officers justified the assault I suffered by saying that it had been much worse in the past, when prison officers had beaten up the prisoners and broken their bones as if this justified the present actions. Surely the prison service should be looking at the ’best practice’ examples form other countries and trying to improve conditions rather than saying it could be much worse?

Is it right that when complaints are made by prisoners that they are dealt with by the very system that the complaint is being made against? Should there not be an independent complaints system?

Is it right that a prisoner can be cut off from all connection with the outside world and any independent monitoring if the Governor so orders it?

Is it right that extra prison time can be imposed upon prisoners (and especially prisoners on remand) for breaking prison rules by engaging in behaviour that would not be considered a crime in the outside world?

Copy of the written report made on 20/9/98 in Cornton Vale as part of the Prisoners Complaints Procedure. (CP1 Form).

The actual Complaint Form is now in the hands of Stirling CID who are investigating the complaint. The complaint was a formal one made on the official form and was not a report as such but a formal challenge to what I had been told was ’normal procedure’.

’I was inhumanely subjected to torture, cruel, degrading and humiliating behaviour under the authority of Mr. McKerchar and at least 5 other officers. After peacefully and non-violently informing the staff through a letter addressed to the Governor, Prison Officers and Inmates and also through speaking to staff in both Ross and Younger Houses, all staff who dealt with me knew that I would not be speaking, eating or moving from my cell of my own free will for the 24 hours of 19^th September. When I therefore refused to walk to see Mr. McKerchar for a disciplinary hearing I could have been peacefully left alone for the 24 hours or if the prison felt they had to move me they could have done it reasonably without inflicting pain. Instead I was humiliated and purposely hurt. My wrists were bent back until I was screaming with pain and I was dragged to a cell. I was subjected to this treatment twice and a third threat was made. I was then finally stripped and left face down, naked in a punishment cell. Mr. McKerchar knew exactly what was going on as he saw me crying and holding my wrists - so did the nurse. It has been made quite clear to me that this is standard treatment for those not obeying the rules of not ’complying’. The officers were obviously enjoying making me suffer - they could easily have carried me without hurting me if they needed to get me from A to B. That was not the point. The point was to subject me to pain in order to force me to do something I didn’t want to do. They made comments like ’Do you really want us to hurt you again’, ’You are making us do this to you’, ’You’re crying like a two-year old’, Who do you think you are impressing, we’ve seen all this before’, ’Once we start we can’t stop’. When I stumbled onto an Officer’s shoe he yanked my wrist even harder, so I screamed louder, and said if I didn’t get off his foot he’d break my leg. The use of pain as a punishment is surely not condoned. I should not be subjected to physical abuse and degrading treatment whilst under the care of the Prison Service. Nor should officers be encouraged to become sadistic torturers. I was not struggling nor was I violent at all. I could easily have been removed nonviolently and efficiently without harm to a punishment block and there had my ’privileges’ taken away. This is the most serious complaint I have made so far because it underlies the whole moral basis of the prison service. Pain should not be inflicted purposely to force prisoners to obey - it undermines all the trust and is a total abuse of the absolute power that is held by Prison Officers. I would like names of all the officers involved - Mr Adair was one, a full apology and a promise that this harmful technique is not used on prisoners in the future.’

DISCHARGE BY ANGELA ZELTER

I, ANGELA ZELTER, Valley Farm House, East Runton, Cromer, Norfolk hereby acknowledge having received from THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS, for and on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service, Calton House, Edinburgh the sum of seven hundred and fifty Pounds (£750) by way of an ex gratia payment made in full and final settlement of all claims, present and future, that I may have, or allege to have, against (1) Thc Scottish Ministers, (2) any other Minister of the Crown or Government Department or body, or any of their respective agents, servants or employees whomsoever in respect of any loss, injury or damage of any kind sustained by me arising from, or referable to, events at Cornton Vale Prison, Stirling, on 19 and 20 September 1998 commencing with my removal from a cell in Younger House, Cornton Vale Prison at approximately 09.15 hours on 19 September 1998 and ending with my return to Younger House, on 20 September 1998.

I acknowledge that this ex gratia payment is made without admission of liability on the part of The Scottish Ministers, or any other Minister of the Crown or Government Department or body or any of their respective agents, servants or employees whomsoever.

Subscribed by me at Valley Farmhouse on this 9^th day of May, Two Thousand and One before this witness whose name and address is appended to his or her signature below.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH REPORTS

THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

1st Floor 28 Thistle Street Edinburgh EH2 ,1EN

Dear Mr Canavan

23 April 2001

MS ANGELA ZELTER, VALLEY FARMHOUSE, EAST RUNTON, CROMER, NORFOLK NR27 9PN

My colleague, Mr Relph, wrote to you on 16 February about Ms Zelter’s complaint against the Scottish Prison Service.

Acting with the authority of the Scottish Commissioner given by virtue of his powers under section 7(4) of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions)(Complaints of Maladministration) Order 1999, I have now completed the investigation of this complaint. In accordance with section 14(1) of the Order I am sending you the enclosed report of the results.

I am very sorry that the investigation has taken so long, but the outcome has been some measure of redress for Ms Zelter.

Yours sincerely,

Simon MacCulloch

Investigation Manager-------

From: SCOTTISH PRISON SERVICE

Headquarters

Calton House

5 Redheughs Rigg

Edinburgh EHl2 9HW

Tel 0131 2448522

Fax: 0131 244 8699

Email: tony.cameron@sps.gov. uk

25 April 2001

Dear Ms Zelter,

1. The Scottish Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has completed its investigation into a complaint you raised through Dennis Canavan MP MSP about aspects of your treatment at Cornton Vale Prison in September 1998. I am grateful to the Commissioner for this comprehensive report, which includes my substantive comments on the report’s findings and I have accepted the Commissioner’s recommendations.

2. May I offer you an apology on two aspects of your treatment by SPS.

3. In the vast majority of cases where a prisoner requires to be removed applying Control and Restraint techniques it is necessary to conduct a full search once the prisoner has been restrained. This is to ensure that the prisoner is not concealing items such as a weapon or illicit substances. On this occasion however I accept that the circumstances were slightly different and there was therefore perhaps no need for a strip search to be conducted. May I therefore apologise for any distress or embarrassment that conducting a strip search may have caused you.

4. May I also apologise for the delay in returning your own clothes following the strip search. As you are aware my predecessor accepted the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commissioner’s recommendation that a prisoner should have their own clothes returned to them following any strip search unless there are health and safety reasons not to do so. This revised procedure has been in place at Cornton Vale since January 1999.

5. By way of reinforcement of this apology I have agreed to offer you an ex-gratia payment of £750 which is made without admission of liability.

6. To enable me to proceed with arrangements for the ex-gratia payment I would be grateful if you could sign the attached discharge document and return it to me in the enclosed envelope. On receipt of the signed discharge form I will arrange for a cheque to be sent to you.

Yours sincerely

TONY CAMERON

Chief Executive-------

From: Dennis Canavan, MSP

Constituency Office

37 Church Walk

Denny

FK6 6DF

26^th April 2001

Dear Angie,

Further to our previous correspondence, I enclose a reply which I have received (at last!) from the Scottish Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

I realise that, like me, you will probably not be entirely satisfied with the outcome of the investigation but, nevertheless, I trust that you find the information contained in the report helpful in some way. I am pleased to hear that the Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service has apologised to you and agreed to make you an ex gratia payment of £750 in recognition of the unnecessary distress which you suffered. I also hope that the review of the use of special cells and strip-searches will help to ensure that, in future, no other prisoner will have to endure what you did.

I think that there may be some media interest in the Commissioner’s report but I do not want to inform the media unless I have your permission. Please let me know what you think.

With best wishes

Printer friendly version

Home | Top