Publications

18 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00016/18

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after officers attended at the applicant’s address to return property to her. We have reviewed three complaints, namely that:

1. on 21 December 2017, an officer was uncivil towards the applicant when visiting her home;
2. on 21 December 2017, officers failed to inform the applicant whether she was a suspect or under arrest; and
3. on 11 January 2018, an officer provided the applicant with incorrect information when she advised him that she would be making a complaint.

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 1 and 3 to a reasonable standard; but not complaint 2.

Consequently, we have made a recommendation to address the shortcomings that we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of complaint 2. In summary, we recommend that further enquiry be carried out in relation to this complaint, taking account of the observations we have made within this report. A further response should then be sent to the applicant.

We expect our recommendation to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

11 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00094/18

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following the applicant’s detention and subsequent arrest in connection with an alleged domestic related incident. We have reviewed five complaints, namely:

1. that he was arrested before statements were taken from all of the prosecution witnesses, and he was unhappy at how these statements were obtained;
2. that no defence statements were noted from his family;
3. that a statement was not obtained from his sister-in-law;
4. that no photographs were taken of his hands; and
5. that he should not have been held in custody, but should have been released on an undertaking.

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 1, 2, 4 and 5 to a reasonable standard; but not complaint 3.

Consequently, we have made a recommendation to address the shortcoming we have identified in relation to complaint 3. In summary, we recommend that Police Scotland reassess the complaint and provide the applicant with a further response.

We have also made an additional recommendation to rectify a further shortcoming that we have identified. In this regard, we have recommended that Police Scotland record complaints 1, 2, 3 and 4 of our report separately.

In addition, we have issued a learning point in connection with a shortcoming that we have identified in relation to Police Scotland’s overall complaint handling.

We expect our recommendations to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

11 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00623/17

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant made a number of allegations to the police, including one of dangerous driving. The applicant was subsequently charged with wasting police time. We have reviewed four complaints, namely that:

1. in July 2017, an officer did not carry out proper enquiries into a stalking allegation made by the applicant and her daughter;

2. during an enquiry into a dangerous driving incident, an officer insisted that the applicant’s daughter provide him with a statement when she did not wish to do so;

3. an officer provided the applicant’s daughter with incorrect information whilst he was charging her with wasting police time; and

4. the applicant believes that she is being persecuted by the police for being Catholic and of gypsy descent.

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland have not handled any of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard.

Consequently, we have made three recommendations to address the shortcomings that we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of each of the complaints. In summary, we recommend that a full and auditable investigation is carried out into complaints 2, 3 and 4. A further response should then be sent to the applicant.

No further action is required in relation to complaint 1.

We expect our recommendations to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

11 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00474/17

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant’s parents’ home was searched and items belonging to him were seized by officers.

We have reviewed eight complaints, namely that:

1. a Detective Inspector visited the applicant at [named prison 1] and offered him "a deal";

2. a Detective Inspector swore and expressed disgust at the length of the applicant’s prison sentence;

3. a Detective Inspector did not record the applicant’s allegation that a constable had lied in court;

4. the officer who led the search on the applicant’s parents’ house was not aware that the property had a rear door, and swore on discovering this;

5. no search warrant was shown to anyone prior to the applicant’s parents’ house being searched;

6. during the search, officers broke open and damaged two flight cases despite the keys being available;

7. an officer lied about not knowing the applicant’s whereabouts while he was on home leave from prison; and

8. a Detective Chief Inspector, who visited the applicant at [named prison 3], failed to record his complaint about the police.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold any of the complaints.

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have issued four reconsideration directions to address the shortcomings we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of complaints 4, 5, 6 and 7.

We have also identified a learning point and made a separate observation, with an additional reconsideration direction.

We expect our reconsideration directions to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

11 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00180/17

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following an investigation into historic sexual offences. We have reviewed three complaints, namely that:

1. on or after 2 March 2015, the officers who interviewed the applicant did not investigate claims that the four females had colluded to make false allegations;

2. on or after 2 March 2015, during an interview, the applicant was not questioned regarding the allegations made by one of the females and therefore could not provide his version of events; and

3. on or after 28 November 2014, the officers did not speak with all of the applicant’s children and their families with whom he had either lived with or had access to.

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled all of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard.

No further action is required of Police Scotland in relation to the complaints considered in this review.

We have identified a learning point in relation to Police Scotland’s use of the Frontline Resolution (FLR) process in respect of these complaints.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

11 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00170/18

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaint

The complaint in this case arose following Police Scotland investigating whether transactions on an individual’s bank account were to his knowledge and consent. We reviewed the handling of one complaint, namely that Police Scotland did not sufficiently seek to establish the individual’s capacity in relation to his financial understandings.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant’s complaint.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled the applicant’s complaint to a reasonable standard. We have determined that no further action is required of Police Scotland in relation to this complaint.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

11 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00135/18

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following police attendance at the applicant’s address to carry out a welfare check after they received a report that she was in possession of a knife and intended to harm herself. We have reviewed two complaints, namely that:

1. on 21 February 2018 at her home address, a male officer was angry and aggressive towards the applicant, and approached her in an intimidating manner;

2. on the same date and at the same location, a male officer took out his baton and threatened to smash in the heads of the applicant’s dogs.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland dealt with the applicant’s complaints as a single complaint. As a consequence, they made a single determination not to uphold the complaint.

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have made one recommendation to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of complaint 1. In summary, we recommend that complaint 1 is recorded as a separate complaint. Further enquiries should then be carried out into this complaint and a further response sent to the applicant.

We expect our recommendation to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

11 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00026/18

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant was arrested in relation to a breach of the peace.

We have reviewed nine complaints, namely that:

1. during the summer of 2017, the applicant reported to the police that someone had thrown eggs at his home. The applicant said that he did not receive sufficient updates regarding this;

2. the applicant was not given an opportunity to provide his version of events when the police attended in response to an incident on 21 December 2017;

3. on the same date, the officers that arrested the applicant decided to do so without being in possession of all available information;

4. on the same date, officers based their decision to arrest the applicant on the basis of a complaint made by a known trouble-maker that dislikes English people;

5. on the same date, officers failed to show compassion and afford the applicant proper care whilst conveying him to a police station despite him having made the officers aware that he had a recent operation;

6. the applicant requested to discuss the incident of 21 December 2017 with an officer not connected to his arrest, but this request was ignored. The applicant believes this was to limit his complaint and hide issues from senior officers;

7. the officer who spoke to the applicant and his partner on the telephone after the incident on 21 December 2017, slammed the phone down during the conversation with the applicant’s partner;

8. the arresting officers did not provide the applicant with details of the accusations that were made against him; and

9. the applicant does not believe that the arresting officers wrote anything in their notebooks whilst they were having discussions with him.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold any of the complaints.

Our Findings

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

We have issued a learning point.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

04 February 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00436/17

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant’s foster sons were stopped and searched by officers.

We have reviewed six complaints, namely that:

1. officers from Police Scotland unlawfully stopped and searched the applicant’s foster sons on 30 October 2017 at a named location;
2. officers from Police Scotland unreasonably handcuffed the applicant’s foster sons in a public place on 30 October 2017, one of whom remained in handcuffs until his release into the applicant’s care;
3. officers from Police Scotland failed to build a reasonable rapport with the applicant’s foster sons in order to establish their backgrounds; and failed to explain to them why they were being searched;
4. officers from Police Scotland failed to contact the applicant directly to explain what was happening to his foster sons and instead it was left to one of his sons to make contact;
5. Police Scotland officers at a named police office failed to make sufficient enquiries with the applicant and his wife to verify his foster son’s identity and background; and
6. Police Scotland’s complaints procedure appears to be geared to closing discussion down and is unfit for purpose.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold any of the complaints.

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have issued three reconsideration directions to address the shortcomings that we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of complaints 2, 3 and 4.

We expect our reconsideration directions to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

We have also identified a learning point.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

28 January 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00532/17

The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) reviews the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. Our role is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint but to review how the complaint itself was handled.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant’s son was killed in a road accident. We have reviewed eight complaints, namely:

1. that Police Scotland failed to properly investigate the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son;
2. that the content of the Police Collision Investigation Report was at odds with a report that she commissioned;
3. that the officers who attended on the day after the collision told the applicant that there were four witness statements saying that her son was at fault – this was incorrect as the applicant later learned that there were only three;
4. that the same officers were very aggressive in relation to three aspects of the accident.
5. that the bicycle belonging to the applicant’s son was destroyed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry;
6. that the press were informed before the applicant that the driver would not be prosecuted;
7. that there were discrepancies in the information given to the applicant during a meeting with the police and Procurator Fiscal at the conclusion of the enquiry; and
8. that the t-shirt and helmet belonging to the applicant’s son were not shown on the scale plan

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaints 2 and 6. The remaining complaints were not upheld.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland did not handle complaints 1 and 2 to a reasonable standard but that the remaining complaints were reasonably handled.

We have made a recommendation to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of complaint 1. In summary, we have asked Police Scotland to re-evaluate the decision not to uphold the complaint.

We expect our recommendation to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland