Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00264/25
The Complaints
The complaint in this case arose from the lack of action into a crime the applicant reported to the police, and her arrest and charge with a counter allegation. The applicant, and another named female, reported each other to the police for communication act offences. The applicant was subsequently arrested and transported to custody where she was charged and released. Both the applicant and the named female were reported by the police to the Crown Officer and Procurator Fiscal Service. The cases were then dropped upon both parties withdrawing their statements against each other. We have reviewed the handling of sixteen complaints, namely that:
Officers refused to let the applicant attend a pre-arranged medical appointment for cancer treatment.
Officers did not allow the applicant to take pain killers, which she takes every morning for ongoing pain relief.
Officers refused the applicant’s request to be interviewed at a local police station.
An officer constantly asked the applicant about the case, prior to a solicitor consultation.
The applicant was not provided with suitable food whilst in police custody.
The applicant was told that she was being transported to a named custody suite because it was discreet, but she had to walk through the custody suite and was seen by other police officers and persons in custody.
On two occasions, an officer escorted the applicant to the toilet and held the door open which was humiliating and disrespectful.
An officer sat with the applicant in the back of the vehicle, refusing to sit in the front, even though she was no longer under arrest.
The applicant had to alert officers to another road user’s driving, which they failed to identify and action.
Officers showed no care for the applicant’s welfare and gave no consideration to the reasonable adjustments that she requested to make things easier.
The applicant was not shown a search warrant for her house and had concerns that the warrant did not cover her son’s car, financial documents, or IT equipment belonging to the applicant’s partner.
There was lack of enquiry into the applicant’s allegation against a named female, that was originally made in August 2022.
Police Scotland failed to send evidence to a named police force to support the crime the applicant had reported.
An officer failed to reply to the applicant’s repeated email requests for updates.
An officer failed to tell the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that a named female had withdrawn her report against the applicant.
An officer had a poor attitude towards the applicant.
Police Scotland's Decision
Police Scotland upheld complaints 1, 12 and 14. The rest of the applicant’s complaints were not upheld.
Our Findings
We have found that Police Scotland handled complaints 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 4, 5, 10 and 16.
Consequently, we have made six recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland reassess complaints 1, 10 and 16 in line with our observations and re-categorises complaints 1 and 14. We have also recommended that complaints 4 and 11 are split and recorded as two separate complaints about the police. Thereafter, Police Scotland should provide the applicant with a further response to each complaint which clearly explains the rationale for the conclusions reached.
We have also identified three learning points relative to Police Scotland’s administration of the complaints.
Our recommendations and learning points should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.
Police Bodies: Police Scotland