Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after Police Scotland responded to a report from a third-party that the applicant said he was going to harm himself.  Officers traced the applicant and reported that during their interaction, the applicant told them he owned firearms. A police systems check indicated that the applicant did not have the required licence for the weapons described.

The applicant was arrested for a communications offence due to his comments to the third-party. Officers then applied for a search warrant for the applicant’s home, which was granted. Police officers forced entry to the property, while the applicant was in custody, and conducted the search. No live firearms were found.

We have reviewed the handling of three complaints, namely that: 

1. The applicant was unlawfully arrested for a communication offence;
2. Officers forced entry to the applicant’s property which was not justified; and
3. Officers caused unnecessary damage to the applicant’s property. 

Police Scotland's Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant’s complaints. 

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled complaints 1 and 3 to a reasonable standard, but not so complaint 2. 

Consequently, we have made two recommendations and identified two learning points.  

In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland provide the applicant with a further well-reasoned response to complaint 2.  We have also recommended that Police Scotland consider whether complaints 2 and 3 should be re-categorised.

Our learning points relate to identification of learning from complaints and complaint categorisation. We have also suggested that Police Scotland consider whether the wording of the search procedures should be amended to more clearly identify when a search should be video recorded. 

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

Outcome

Police Scotland implemented two recommendations and a learning point in this case. In doing so, a well-reasoned fresh response was provided to the applicant which clearly explained why the complaints remained not upheld. Despite this, learning was identified for the subject officers during the further enquiry, which was properly recorded and disseminated. Learning in relation to complaint categorisation was also accepted and the complaints re-categorised.

The learning point in relation to updating a Standard Operating Procedure to provide further clarity was rejected as unnecessary. 

Police Bodies: Police Scotland