Publications

31 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00723/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant reported to the police that his friend had been coerced into changing his will. We have reviewed the handling of two complaints, namely that: 

1. Police Scotland initially failed to record or investigate a crime reported by the applicant; and
2. The investigation into the applicant’s report was not thorough. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland did not handle either of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard. 

Consequently, we have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland provides the applicant with a further response which takes account of our observations and explains whether each of the complaints are upheld or not upheld. 

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

31 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00598/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following the applicant’s attendance at a police office for a pre-arranged interview under caution. We have reviewed the handling of two complaints, namely that: 

1. The applicant was unreasonably made to wait at a police office for about an hour prior to interview despite being told to make himself available as soon as possible; and
2. An officer entered the applicant’s address without invitation to serve him with duplicate paperwork. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled both the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard. No further action is required by Police Scotland.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

31 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00580/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaint

The complaint in this case arose as a result of officers attending the applicant’s address in an attempt to trace her step-son. We have reviewed the handling of a single complaint, namely that: 

1. On 21 December 2020, officers attended the applicant’s address when she was not there and frightened the children who were present, by hammering on the front door and telling the children that they had to let the officers into the premises to search for their brother. After the officers were told that the children’s brother was not there, they continued to search around the premises and bang on multiple doors, which further frightened the children, to the point that they are now traumatised by the sight of police officers. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant’s complaint.  

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland did not handle the applicant’s complaint to a reasonable standard.

We have not made any recommendations to address the shortcomings in the handling of the applicant’s complaint.

However, we have identified a learning point relative to Police Scotland’s administration of the complaint.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

31 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00296/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The complaints in this case arose as a result of the applicant’s reports to the police about alleged criminality on the part of his neighbours. We have reviewed the handling of seventeen complaints, namely that: 

1. The applicant is unhappy with the police response to his in person and telephone reports of 4 August 2020 about alleged criminality on the part of his neighbours;
2. The applicant is unhappy that a named officer told him that he would not be charging a named person, due to that named person having learning difficulties;
3. The applicant is unhappy with the police response to his telephone report of 5 August 2020 about alleged criminality on the part of his neighbours;
4. A named officer told the applicant that he would attend to speak with his neighbour immediately but failed to do so;
5. A named officer did not attend the applicant’s home as agreed on 7 August 2020 to take a statement from his husband;
6. A named Inspector provided a dismissive and lazy response to correspondence from the applicant’s MSP;
7. An officer told the applicant that a report he wished to make about his neighbour would be a waste of police time as he had no proof of criminality;
8. On 8 August 2020, an officer told the applicant that he would ask a named officer to contact him but the applicant did not receive a response until 11 August 2020;
9. On 15 August 2020, the applicant sent a named officer an image of a nail in his car tyre but nothing was done;
10. The applicant is unhappy with the police response to his in person report of 17 August 2020 about alleged criminality on the part of his neighbours;
11. A named officer only found time to call the applicant because the applicant had threatened to make a complaint about the police;
12. A named officer told the applicant that he would be charging his neighbour but failed to do so;
13. Police Scotland failed to respond to the applicant’s report made by telephone on 18 August 2020 about alleged criminality on the part of his neighbour;
14. The applicant is unhappy with the police response to his 999 calls of 21 January 2021 to report that he had been assaulted by his neighbour;
15. The applicant is unhappy with the police response to his report made on 14 June 2021 about alleged criminality on the part of his neighbour;
16. A member of staff displayed a defensive, disinterested and rude attitude towards the applicant and his husband when they visited a police station on 15 June 2021; and
17. The applicant is unhappy with the attitude of two officers who attended his home on 15 June 2021 and, in particular, with a specific comment made by one of these officers. 

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 1-6, 9-15 and 17 to a reasonable standard, but not so complaints 7, 8 and 16.

Consequently, we have made a recommendation and identified an organisational learning point for Police Scotland. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland reassesses the available evidence in relation to complaint 16 and provides the applicant with a further response which clearly explains the determination reached. We have also requested that Police Scotland considers whether the current procedures in place to record attendance at police stations by members of the public are sufficient and fit for purpose.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

26 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00482/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant assisted a police officer to restrain a prisoner within the custody suite of a police station.  We have reviewed the handling of 7 complaints, namely that: 

1. an officer entered a cell without carrying out sufficient risk assessment, contrary to the relevant SOP;
2. the same officer entered a cell to retrieve a blanket while the prisoner was still within the cell, contrary to the relevant SOP;
3. the same officer provided incorrect information in his operational statement regarding a previous complaint made by the applicant;
4. a second officer provided incorrect information in his operational statement regarding a previous complaint made by the applicant;
5. the same officer failed to check on the applicant’s welfare following the same incident;
6. Police Scotland deliberately deleted custody CCTV footage in respect of the same incident; and
7. a Police Custody and Security Officer (PCSO) provided a contradictory version of events in subsequent statements he provided about complaints made by the applicant. 

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, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard  but not so complaint 6.

We have made one recommendation to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints.

Specifically, we have recommended that Police Scotland re-assess the information available and provide the applicant with a further response.

Our recommendation should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

26 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00103/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaints 

The complaints in this case arose following the applicant being charged with an offence, which resulted in the suspension of his employment. We have reviewed the handling of six complaints, namely that: 

• On 7 December 2020, a police officer made inappropriate comments about members of the applicant’s profession, causing him to feel uncomfortable; 

• In a telephone call regarding the police enquiry into the applicant, which took place between a police officer and a representative from the applicant’s professional regulatory body, an officer did inappropriately ask whether suspension would prevent the applicant from working with children completely, when the enquiry had discovered no evidence; 

• The police failed to notify the applicant, between 17 December 2020 and 18 March 2021, that there would be no proceedings, despite it having been mentioned in a child protection case discussion on 17 December 2020 that the police would not be taking the case forward; 

• Having carried out an enquiry into the applicant, and with the outcome of the enquiry known on 17 December 2020, the police did unreasonably carry forward action from the child protection case discussions to “explore if there are any further measures that can be taken with regard to [the applicant] and his future contact with children”; 

• On 5 December 2020, in a telephone call between a social work representative and a police officer, the officer did incorrectly infer that the child who made disclosures on two occasions was not prompted; and 

• Police Scotland used recordings of both parent’s interviews of the subject child as evidence and failed to take account of inconsistencies and confirmation bias in that evidence. 

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 and 3 to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 4, 5 and 6.

Consequently, we have made three recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of complaints 4, 5, and 6. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland undertakes further necessary proportionate enquiries and provides the applicant with a further response to these complaints.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

22 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00619/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose following the police response to an altercation involving the applicant and her neighbour. We have reviewed the handling of two complaints, namely that: 

1. the applicant was dissatisfied with the police response in relation to abuse she received from a neighbour; and
2. the applicant was dissatisfied with advice provided by a Police Scotland call handler. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have made a recommendation and identified a learning point to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaint. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland re-assess the information available, specifically with regard to a second 101 call made by the applicant to Police Scotland. A further response should then be sent to the applicant. 

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00733/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaints

The complaint in this case arose after the applicant reported alleged theft and fraud to the police. We have reviewed the handling of one complaint, namely that: 

• Police Scotland carried out insufficient enquiries into alleged theft and fraud reported by the applicant. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not give a determination on the complaint. 

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland did not handle the applicant’s complaint to a reasonable standard. 

Consequently, we have made a single recommendation to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaint. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland takes into account our observations and provides the applicant with a further response which: addresses the complaint; advises whether the complaint is upheld or not upheld; and, explains the rationale for the conclusions reached. 

Our recommendation should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00607/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant was charged with a road traffic offence. We have reviewed the handling of five complaints, namely that: 

1. On 18 June 2021, the applicant was cautioned and charged by an officer with a contravention of Section 3 of the RTA 1988 following an incident on 5 June 2021, the applicant stated that he did not drive carelessly on that date and the charge against him was malicious;
2. An officer did not make a requirement in terms of Section 172 of the RTA 1988 when he attended to charge the applicant;
3. An officer said that the applicant’s wife was not present in the vehicle when she was, and did not carry out sufficient enquiry into the incident;
4. An officer waited until the 13th day to administer the section 1 warning to the applicant and the applicant said they should have notified the registered keeper of the vehicle;
5. An officer looked left as he passed the applicant when he was overtaking, which the applicant believes was dangerous driving due to the speed he was driving at. 

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.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 May 2023 | Complaint Reviews

Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00468/22

Our role is to review the way in which policing bodies handle complaints made about them. It is not to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint or uphold allegations made. When carrying out a Complaint Handling Review (CHR) we consider a number of factors, including whether police carried out sufficient enquiries; their response was supported by the material information available and whether the police response was adequately reasoned. 

See a Report Summary of the relevant CHR below. To comply with UK Government accessibility regulations we no longer publish documents in PDF form, so it’s currently not feasible for us to publish a full copy of the report.

The Complaints

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant was arrested and interviewed by the police in relation to allegations made by his ex-wife. We have reviewed the handling of three complaints, namely that: 

1. On 8 May 2022, the applicant was arrested solely on the information provided by his ex-wife;
2. On 8 May 2022, the applicant was arrested by local officers and taken to a police station where he would be known to other officers and staff; and;
3. The applicant was falsely accused during an interview of being provided with medical proof of his ex-wife’s allergy. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have issued a reconsideration direction to address the shortcoming we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling complaint 2. 

Our reconsideration direction should be completed by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland