Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00296/20 & PIRC/00058/21
The Complaints
The complaints in this case arose following the applicant’s interaction with officers after the carried out welfare checks on her. We have reviewed the handling of twenty-two complaints, namely that:
on 7 June 2019, officers forced entry to the applicant’s home, despite knowing that this would increase her risk of self-harm / suicide;
on the same date, officers left the applicant’s door insecure;
on the same date, officers used excessive force when arresting the applicant, leaving her bruised;
on the same date, officers fabricated a charge of assault against the applicant;
on the same date, officers arrested the applicant when she should have been detained under mental health legislation;
between 7 – 8 June 2019, the applicant was not provided with access to a solicitor while in custody;
between the same dates, the applicant was held in custody for longer than the permitted 12 hours;
between the same dates, officers illegally detained the applicant in custody;
between the same dates, the applicant was repeatedly sworn at by custody staff;
between the same dates, custody staff deactivated the call buzzer in the applicant’s cell overnight;
between the same dates, custody staff only checked on the applicant three times while she was in custody;
between the same dates, the applicant’s glasses were damaged while she was in custody;
on 24 October 2019, officers incorrectly assessed an email sent by the applicant as a suicide note, resulting in numerous attempts to contact her and officers passing her details to the ambulance service;
on the same date, an officer said that a friend had called with concerns for the applicant’s welfare, which was untrue;
officers illegally imprisoned the applicant for sending work related emails;
an officer pointed a Taser at the applicant within her home address;
officers forced entry to the applicant’s property without a warrant;
the officer involved in the Taser incident changed his version of events to try and justify it;
officers have left small pieces of paper in the applicant’s door frame on numerous occasions to ‘stalk’ her movements;
since June 2019, the applicant has been dissatisfied with the complaints process and the length of time for it to be completed;
after receiving the applicant’s complaint, CCTV evidence from 17 May 2019 was not secured; and
after receiving the applicant’s complaint, CCTV evidence from 7 June 2019 was not secured.
Police Scotland’s Decision
Police Scotland did not uphold nineteen of the applicant’s complaints (1 - 19) and did upheld the other three (20 - 22).
Our Findings
We have found that Police Scotland handled fourteen of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 22) but not so the other eight (3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16 and 19).
We have made four recommendations in total. Three of these relate to the way in which some of the applicant’s complaints were recorded. The remaining recommendation relates to complaint 8, for which we recommend that Police Scotland provides the applicant with a further response. We have also identified a learning point to address administrative shortcomings in Police Scotland’s response to the complaints. Our recommendations and learning point should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of our report.
Outcome
Police Scotland implemented all recommendations and the learning point identified in this case.
In doing so, they provided the applicant with a further response and, while the complaint remained not upheld, learning was identified in respect of the actions of a number of officers involved in both the original incident and the subsequent complaint enquiry.
All learning identified as a result of our review, and Police Scotland’s further response, was appropriately disseminated.
Police Bodies : Police Scotland