Publications

05 November 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00653/17

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 Police Scotland provided advice to a [named local council] that the applicant considered to be incorrect and misleading. We have reviewed three complaints, namely that:

1. Police Scotland advised [named local council] that it would be a criminal offence to remove from site an obstruction in the road. The applicant believed this advice was misleading and entirely incorrect;
2. officers failed to carry out an enquiry into the complaint made to them in December 2017 and thereafter conflated the complaint with the FOI request, advising the applicant that the response to the FOI request would provide a resolution to his complaint; and
3. the applicant believes the matter has taken far too long and has been ignored by Police Scotland who failed to contact him and keep him updated about the complaint.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaints 2 and 3; but did not uphold complaint 1.

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have made one recommendation to address the shortcomings that we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of complaint 1. In summary, we recommend that Police Scotland re-assesses complaint 1, taking into account the observations that we have made within this report. A further response should then be issued to the applicant.

No further action is required of Police Scotland in relation to complaint 2.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

05 November 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00152/17

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 from a police officer attending the applicant’s address to conduct a welfare check on her mother. We have examined the handling of two complaints, namely:

1. that the officer was rude, truculent and overzealous when he spoke about the welfare of the applicant’s mother; and
2. that the officer would not give the applicant his name when she asked for it.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the first complaint and did not formally record the second complaint.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland dealt with Complaint 2 to a reasonable standard, but did not handle Complaint 1 to a reasonable standard.

We have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland reassess the evidence available and provide the applicant with a further response in relation to Complaint 1, and that Complaint 2 be formally recorded as a complaint about the police.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

05 November 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00637/17

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 from a long running dispute between the applicant, Mr A and Mr A’s family. We have reviewed two complaints, namely that:

1. insufficient enquiry was carried out into reports that named persons were purposely leaving a gate open and allowing livestock to escape onto the carriageway; that named persons were not charged; and that other persons were not dealt with; and
2. during the course of the investigation, Constable C was biased in his treatment of the applicant and had shown favouritism to other parties involved in the matter.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold either complaint.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland have not handled either complaint to a reasonable standard.

Consequently, we have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings that we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we recommend that further enquiries are carried out in respect of both the applicant’s complaints, paying particular attention to the observations that we have made within this report. A further response should be sent to the applicant. This should make it clear as to whether the complaints have been upheld, fully explain its reasons and offer an apology if appropriate.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

05 November 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00618/17

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 the applicant’s contact with officers after his firearms license was refused; and he had reported acts of vandalism at his property.

We have reviewed four complaints, namely that:

1. Police Scotland lied to the applicant’s GP regarding his mental health;
2. Police Scotland lied to the applicant’s NHS Psychiatrist regarding his mental health;
3. Police Scotland failed to properly investigate the applicant’s reports of vandalism, specifically that weed killer was sprayed over his plants; and
4. Police Scotland failed to properly investigate the applicant’s allegations that his neighbour had been witnessed driving under the influence of drugs.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not address complaints 1 and 2, and they did not uphold complaints 3 and 4.

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings that we have identified in the handling of the complaints. We have also identified a learning point.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

05 November 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00604/17

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 alleged assault on the applicant’s father at their home address. We have reviewed two complaints, namely:

1. that officers from Police Scotland failed to charge a male for an assault on the applicant’s father; and
2. that an officer’s precognition statement contains false information.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld the applicant’s first complaint and did not uphold the applicant’s second complaint.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled one of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard but did not handle the applicant’s other complaint to a reasonable standard.

We have identified one learning point.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

05 November 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00557/17

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 alleged assault against the applicant at his home address. We have reviewed two complaints, namely:

1. an officer’s precognition statement contains false information; and
2. officers from Police Scotland failed to properly investigate an allegation of assault made by the applicant, and that the male responsible was not charged.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant’s first complaint but did uphold the applicant’s second complaint.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled one of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard but did not handle the applicant’s other complaint to a reasonable standard.

No further action is required of Police Scotland in relation to these complaints.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

29 October 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00490/17

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 applicant was dissatisfied with Police Scotland’s investigation into his allegations that he had been abused by family members approximately 20 years previously. We have reviewed 32 complaints as follows:

1. On or after 17 June 2015, Detective Constable A or his supervisor decided not to investigate the applicant’s report based on information received from the hospital prior to meeting him;
2. On or before 12 June 2015 and on 17 June 2015, whilst at the police office, the applicant requested a male appropriate adult but a female appropriate adult attended instead;
3. On or after 12 June 2015, the police were unduly influenced by those individuals that the applicant was accusing resulting in a lack of investigation into his allegations;
4. On 17 June 2015, whilst at the police office, Detective Constable A assured the applicant that he could update/add to his statement as often as he wanted; could check it to ensure he had given all information; and that the investigation would not proceed until he was 100% satisfied with it. This did not happen;
5. On 17 June 2015, the applicant’s meeting with Detective Constable A was not video recorded;
6. On 17 June 2015, whilst at the police office, Detective Constable A assured the applicant that he would discuss with him how he was going to progress the investigation but did not do so;
7. On or after 17 June 2015, Detective Constable A spoke to the applicant’s mother and sister as part of the investigation. The applicant had requested that they were spoken to last, but Detective Constable A spoke to them first;
8. On or after 17 June 2015, the applicant provided details of potential witnesses that he thought should be spoken with by the police. However as far as he knows, this enquiry was not carried out;
9. After 17 June 2015, Detective Constable A closed the case over the telephone and did not take the time to discuss it with the applicant in person;
10. After 17 June 2015, Detective Constable A did not inform the applicant that he could make a complaint about his investigation or ask for it to be reviewed;
11. On or after 17 June 2015, despite the applicant telling officers he did not want any contact with his family - officers acted inappropriately by repeatedly telling the applicant that his mother and family members were concerned about him, and that his mother had asked that the applicant contact her;
12. The applicant complained that the officers did not take appropriate measures to ensure that family members did not contact him.
13. On or after 11 June 2015, officers failed to carry out a proper investigation and make any enquiry regarding video, CCTV, or other evidence;
14. On or after June 2015, investigating officers placed undue pressure on the applicant to drop the investigation, and to not contact them;
15. On or after June 2015, investigating officers failed to contact the applicant when they said they would, and that he could not speak to them when he contacted them by phone. They also cancelled or re-arranged several appointments;
16. On or after 11 June 2015, Detective Inspector C, Detective Constable A, and Detective Constable B made the applicant feel insignificant. He believed that their views and actions were unduly influenced by what hospital staff told them about his mental health, and that they thought they could treat the applicant how they wanted without consequence;
17. On or after June 2015, officers carried out a limited investigation, and pretended to investigate the applicant’s allegations to buy time for doctors to come up with evidence to support the applicant’s diagnosis made by a named doctor;
18. On 21 June 2016, the applicant called 101 to speak with Chief Inspector L or Detective Constable B but both were unavailable. The applicant was told that an email would be sent to Chief Inspector L on his behalf but he did not get a response;
19. On or after June 2015, the applicant provided personal information to the investigating officer that he believes was not acted upon;
20. On or after June 2015, the applicant provided information to Detective Constable A and Detective Constable B to the effect that his now deceased father had been assaulted by his mother and others in the 1990s. The applicant complained that the officers have not properly investigated this allegation;
21. Detective Constable B repeatedly asked the applicant to provide proof or physical evidence of the offences that had taken place despite the applicant telling him from the outset that he did not have any;
22. Detective Constable B did not consider the use of a forensic hypnotherapist nor discuss the possibility of a cognitive interview as a means of providing more proof and evidence;
23. On or after February 2016 and on 27 May 2016, Detective Constable B was unprofessional, rude and defensive during meetings and telephone calls with the applicant;
24. On or after February 2016, Detective Constable B provided false hope that he was re-investigating the applicant’s case when the applicant believes he had no intention of doing so;
25. On or after February 2016, Detective Inspector C and Detective Constable B accused the applicant of uncertainty regarding the details of the offences. The applicant does not believe they have any evidence to support that he was uncertain about what happened to him;
26. On or after 27 May 2016, Detective Inspector C and Detective Constable B failed to clarify the status of the investigation, and did not tell the applicant whether it was still active;
27. On 7 September 2016, during a meeting with the applicant and an advocacy worker, Detective Inspector C commented that the applicant had re-ignited a family argument; had caused trouble in his family; and, that he should not pursue the investigation further;
28. On 7 September 2016, Detective Inspector C was unwilling or unable to give the applicant a definitive answer regarding the status of his case;
29. On or after 07 September 2016, Detective Inspector C told the applicant that he had information that he was paranoid and used drugs - despite being unable to provide the applicant with evidence to support this position. The applicant believes that Detective Inspector C used this as a reason to not proceed with the enquiry, and not to question his mother or anyone else as a suspect in connection with his allegations;
30. That it was inappropriate for Detective Inspector C to investigate the applicant’s complaint about the police as he was involved in the initial investigation;
31. On 8 December 2016, the applicant called 101 on two occasions to speak to Professional Standards Department. On both occasions, Professional Standards refused to take his call, saying that they did not deal with public enquiries;
32. The applicant complained about the length of time taken by Police Scotland to investigate his complaints.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold any of the complaints listed above.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled seventeen of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard but that fifteen of the complaints were not reasonably handled. These are complaint numbers 2, 9,10,11, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 32.

Consequently, we have recommended that Police Scotland issues a further response to the applicant to address the shortcomings identified in Police Scotland’s original response to thirteen of the complaints.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

29 October 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00039/18

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 in police custody and her contact with custody staff.

We have reviewed two complaints, namely that:

1. on 16 July 2016, whilst in custody at a named police office, the applicant had to wait for over seven hours before she received her medication; and
2. on the same date/location, custody staff were uncivil towards the applicant; called her a ‘junkie’; and did not talk to her as a fellow human being.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold either complaint.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland have handled complaint 1 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.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

22 October 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00595/17

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 Complaint

The complaint in this case arose after the applicant reported that her brother had been threatened. We have reviewed a single complaint, namely:

1. that a report made to Police Scotland of an individual having threatened the applicant’s brother was not investigated properly.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant’s complaint and provided the following response:

"In relation to this allegation, it has been established that the officer who was allocated the [report] of threats was a part time officer who made diligent enquiries and an attempt to detain the suspect within a reasonable time period, unfortunately without success. Between the report being made and the death of your brother, this officer was on duty for a total of 5 shifts.

Having considered all of the circumstances I am satisfied that this officer made diligent attempts to pursue the investigation and was consequently not in neglect of her duty.

I have considered the circumstances of this non-criminal allegation and in considering all the evidence that is available to me I can find no misconduct on the part of any officer in relation to your complaint and as such I do not propose to take the matter further".

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland did not handle the applicant’s complaint to a reasonable standard. We consider that the complaint response did not address the crux of the complaint as it focused on the availability and actions of a single officer rather than Police Scotland as an organisation. Consequently, we have given a reconsideration direction to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaint. In reconsidering this complaint, Police Scotland should take account of the findings highlighted in our report, in particular:

• how the reported threat allegation was, or should have been, assessed;
• whether the enquiry should have been allocated to another officer; and
• whether limited resources were a factor in the enquiry not being reallocated.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

22 October 2018 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00444/17

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 was arrested and charged following an altercation with another driver over an incident on the road. We have reviewed three complaints, namely:

1. that the applicant was involved in an argument with another driver, and was dissatisfied that this resulted in him being charged and the other driver not, despite the other driver being the aggressor;
2. that an officer came to the applicant’s house and immediately tried to handcuff him without finding out the circumstances of the incident; and
3. that the applicant later attended a sheriff court to answer the charge of breach of the peace and discovered that the charges were: racially aggravated threatening and abusive behaviour; driving without a licence; and driving without insurance, when he had not originally been charged with any driving offences and was not previously aware of them.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold any of the complaints.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled two of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard and one not so.

We have not recommended any further action on the part of Police Scotland.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland