Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant was arrested firstly on suspicion of domestic assault and thereafter on suspicion of breach of bail. We have reviewed the handling of nine complaints, namely that:

1. On 10 January 2021 at Named police office 1 the applicant was placed into a holding cell with another prisoner with no social distancing observed;
2. On 10 January 2021, within a holding cell at Named police office 1, an officer wrongly provided the applicant with advice regarding access to a solicitor and what processes he believed were most suitable for the applicant;
3. On the 10 January 2021, at Named police office 1, during police interview the applicant disclosed to an officer that an assault had taken place on his ex-partner’s young child and this wasn’t investigated or reported correctly;
4. On 10/11 January 2021, within Named police office 1, Constable B refused to obtain details or preserve evidence from the applicant regarding a counter allegation he wished to make concerning the matter under investigation;
5. On the 10/11 January 2021 whilst in custody the applicant did not receive medication or medical treatment for a head injury he had disclosed;
6. On 11 January 2021, the applicant telephoned 101 to make a counter allegation of assault against his partner, however the attending officers informed him that he could not report this allegation as this was his defence at court, and as such no statement was noted from him;
7. On 14 January 2021, the applicant and Constable B got into a heated argument regarding access to a solicitor and previous assault allegations, which the applicant believe was unprofessional behaviour by Constable B;
8. On 14 January 2021, within Named police office 1, Constable B informed the applicant that he could not have access to a solicitor which was incorrect; and
9. On 10 January 2021 before the police interview and within Named police office 1 holding cell, the applicant became engaged in a heated argument with Constable B who failed to remain impartial by saying to the applicant: “You shouldn’t have been punching walls”. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold any of the applicant’s complaints.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled all of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard.

However, we have made a recommendation and identified a learning point to address shortcomings we identified in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that the learning identified in the police response is cascaded to the relevant officer and an auditable trail provided to us to confirm that it has been done. We have also highlighted the importance of officers providing their own independent accounts to inform a complaint enquiry.

Our recommendation and learning point should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland