Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following the police response to an incident reported by the applicant’s neighbour. The applicant’s neighbour reported to the police that during an altercation, the applicant had stolen her mobile phone from her hand. An officer attended the applicant’s address to request that he hand over his firearms in light of the allegation being made. The officer managed to retrieve some of the applicant’s firearms but reattended with a warrant and with additional officers to search his property for the remaining firearms and certificates. The police then returned to the applicant’s address with a warrant to search for his neighbours mobile phone. 

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

1. On 18 February 2022, an officer attended at the applicant’s address single crewed, without another officer for corroboration.
2. An officer entered the applicant’s home address under false pretences.
3. An officer refused to listen to the applicant’s wife, and responded in an aggressive attitude by saying “I don’t want to hear from you.”
4. The applicant repeatedly asked an officer to leave, however he refused to do so; and told the applicant lies to gain access to the applicant’s house by saying that an incident had been captured on CCTV.
5. An officer had already made up his mind about what happened regarding a report made by the applicant’s neighbour and refused to listen to the applicant’s version of events.
6. An officer had a sarcastic attitude when he commented to the applicant several times “don’t forget the guns under the bed.” 
7. On 18 February 2022, officers attended the applicant’s home to carry out a search of his property but they were more interested in documents stored in his office and the applicant’s wife’s bedroom, which are yet to be returned, and provided no explanation as to what they were searching for.
8. On 25 February 2022, an officer attended at the applicant’s address, despite having been told not to by a detective sergeant, and
9. On the same day, an officer was instructed to search the applicant’s car, whilst the applicant’s house was being searched for a second time, but did not explain what the police were looking for. 

Police Scotland's Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant’s complaints. 

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled complaints 1, 5, 7 and 9 to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. 

Consequently, we have made three recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of complaints 2, 3, and 4. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland conducts necessary and proportionate enquiries into complaints 2, 3, and 4. Thereafter, Police Scotland should provide a further response letter to these complaints, which clearly explains to the applicant whether the complaints are upheld/not upheld, alongside the rationale for the conclusions reached.

We have also identified a single learning point to address an administrative shortcoming in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. 

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

Police Bodies: Police Scotland