Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaint in this case arose after the police were called to attend a licenced premises where an incident had occurred between the applicant and door staff. The police attended the scene, viewed the CCTV footage of the premises and subsequently arrested and charged the applicant with assault and a contravention of Section 38 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2010. The charges were dropped against the applicant during court proceedings who then made a counter allegation of assault against door staff. Police investigated the counter allegation but no further action was taken. We have reviewed the handling of seven complaints, namely that: 

1. On 11 June 2022, an officer failed to record the applicant’s counter allegation against door staff.
2. Officers failed to provide the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) with an accurate description of CCTV footage, which captured the circumstances leading to the applicant’s arrest.
3. Officers took an inordinate period of time to trace witnesses and investigate the applicant’s criminal allegations.
4. Officers failed to provide the applicant with sufficient updates during the investigation into his criminal allegations.
5. Officers provided the applicant with inaccurate information when he was provided with investigative updates.
6. Officers failed to conduct sufficient enquiry into the applicant’s reported criminal allegations, which resulted in the persons responsible not being reported to the COPFS, despite there being sufficient evidence, and
7. Officers failed to provide the applicant with an explanation for why the crimes he reported were not being reported to the COPFS.

Police Scotland's Decision

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

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled complaints 5, 6 and 7 to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Consequently, we have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of complaints 2 and 3. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland conducts further necessary and proportionate enquiries into complaints 2 and 3 and thereafter re-assess the available information. Thereafter, Police Scotland should provide a further response to these complaints, which clearly explains to the applicant whether the complaint is upheld/not upheld alongside the rationale for the conclusions reached.

We have also identified two learning points to address administrative shortcomings. 

Our recommendations and learning points should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months.

Outcome

Police Scotland implemented both recommendations and both learning points in this case. In doing so, Police Scotland conducted enquiries into both complaints and re-assessed the available information. Thereafter, Police Scotland provided a further response to these complaints, which was well reasoned and supported by the available information. One complaint remained not upheld whilst the other was upheld. The complaint that was upheld was re-categorised in line with our observations and upheld on the basis that the service received fell below the expected standard. The applicant was provided with an apology. Both learning points were shared with the Chief Inspector involved, who accepted the learning provided.

Police Bodies: Police Scotland