I'm happy to speak about the equality of prisoners.
For a grievance process to be effective, there are risks to a grievance process if it is abused. The challenge is determining what is abuse and what is fair use. In a prison system that can be a very challenging thing to do, because things that some of us would see as fairly incidental are fairly major to people whose entire lives are controlled and prescribed by certain people.
Where you have people with mental health issues who are coming back and not understanding that the grievance has been denied, or they are coming forward with something that looks pretty similar to something they've already brought forward, and it's preventing other grievances from being considered or delayed to such as extent that you get into problems, I think there does need to be some sort of remedial process. And I think that Professor Mullan did come up with some good ideas about how to deal with multiple grievances.
I think what I would find troubling is describing and labelling certain inmates as vexatious grievers. Multiple grievers are fine, because it doesn't necessarily label them with an outcome of whether there is merit to the grievance they put forward. But if you label them as vexatious grievers, you are already making a determination and running the risk that some of the legitimate grievances they may put forward may be not given adequate weight because of the label.