Complaint Handling Reviews

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following an internal review of the police investigation into the death of the applicant’s son. Following the applicant’s son’s death, the applicant and his wife questioned the circumstances surrounding his death and raised their concerns with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). Over the years, COPFS instructed further police investigation, and after these concluded, senior officers agreed to an internal review of the police investigation, which would focus on four key areas of concern. We have reviewed the handling of ten complaints, namely that: 

1. The applicant was misled into believing that the review of the police investigation into his son’s death was genuine, when in fact the Crown Counsel had already instructed there would be no further investigation in July 2020.
2. The applicant was not informed that the Terms of Reference (ToR) had been disregarded until he received a copy of the report in January 2021.
3. Senior Officer E did not provide a meaningful response to the written comment that the applicant was asked to provide.
4. Senior Officer E sent two police officers to hand deliver information to the applicant which the applicant considers is a ridiculous use of public resources.
5. Senior Officer E did not respond to a further 27 direct questions that the applicant submitted to him in an email dated 26 January 2021.
6. Senior Officer E disparagingly detailed the six learning points arising from the official review at a level and manner that the applicant found insulting.
7. Senior Officer E presented a façade that he lacked awareness of how health application data (“health app data”) might be used in digital detection despite presiding – at a senior level – over a police force using such information for at least three years.
8. Senior Officer E spent a considerable period of the video conference looking over his shoulder, ignoring questions raised, and/or talking over the applicant and his family.
9. The applicant and his family received a poor standard of communication and were subjected to unbecoming manners from a senior level in policing, which failed to adhere to basic professional standards.
10. Senior Officer E defended the position provided by a Detective Inspector and Detective Sergeant, who claimed that health app data could not be used to produce a space-time map, despite evidence to the contrary.

The Scottish Police Authority's Decision

The Scottish Police Authority (SPA) did not uphold any of the applicant’s complaints. 

Our Findings

We have found that the SPA did not handle complaints 1-10 to a reasonable standard. 

Consequently, we have made nine recommendations to address the shortcomings in the SPA’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that the SPA conducts further necessary and proportionate enquiries into complaints 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10; reassesses complaint 3; and provides a further response to complaint 5.

Thereafter, the SPA should provide the applicant with a well-reasoned further response to each complaint, which outlines whether the complaints are upheld or not upheld and clearly explains the rationale for the determinations reached.

We have also identified two learning points relative to the SPA’s handling of the complaints.

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

Policing Bodies: Scottish Police Authority