Publications

13 January 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00057/19

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose following the applicant’s son taking unwell on a bus, which resulted in him being searched for drugs.

The Complaints

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

1. an officer used excessive force when detaining the applicant’s son for a drugs search;

2. an officer was oppressive with the applicant’s son when detaining him for a drugs search;

3. an officer intimidated the applicant’s son when carrying out a full search at the police station;

4. an officer twice made the applicant’s son strip naked for a search;

5. an officer failed to tell the applicant’s son he had been charged with an offence;

6. the custody sergeant did not follow correct procedures when dealing with a vulnerable person; and

7. an officer was arrogant when he pulled over the applicant’s vehicle when she and her mother were en route to collect her son.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold complaints 1, 3, 4, 5 or 6 and did not record complaints 2 and 7 as complaints about the police.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled complaints 5 and 6 to a reasonable standard but not so any of the other complaints.

Consequently, we have made five recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that further statements be sought from the officers involved and a fresh response issued to the applicant. We have also identified a learning point for Police Scotland.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 January 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00127/19

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose when officers attended at the applicant’s home address following a report that she had behaved in a threatening and abusive manner towards her sister.

The Complaints

We have reviewed the handling of six complaints, namely:

1. that officers failed to identify themselves when they attended at the applicant’s address;

2. that the officers did not explain to the applicant why she was being arrested and who had instigated the complaint about her;

3. that an officer used excessive force when arresting the applicant;

4. that Police Scotland did not interview the applicant and therefore she was not given an opportunity to provide her account;

5. that Police Scotland did not interview a particular witness during the enquiry; and

6. that officers did not attend at the applicant’s home until 10:15 pm when the incident had been reported earlier that afternoon.

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, 4, 5 and 6 to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 2 and 3.

We have issued a reconsideration direction in respect of Police Scotland’s handling of complaint 3. This should be completed by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 December 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00648/18

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant was accused of stalking his former partner.

The Complaints

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

1. officers failed to carry out a thorough investigation into the stalking allegation; and
2. officers failed to arrest and charge the applicant’s ex-partner after she and her children lied to the police.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaint 1 but did not uphold complaint 2.

Our Findings

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 December 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00548/18

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose following the applicant being charged with road traffic offence and the matter proceeding to trial in Justice of the Peace Court.

The Complaints

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

1. an officer failed to attend court as a defence witness after being lawfully cited by a police sergeant;

2. an officer contacted the Procurator Fiscal and discussed a case that she was cited for as a defence witness; and

3. the same officer failed to attend court as a defence witness after being lawfully cited by a sheriff officer.

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 2 and 3 to a reasonable standard but not so 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 Police Scotland re-assess complaint 1, taking into consideration the legal advice provided by Legal Services and consider whether Sergeant B should have identified the issues in relation to the citation.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 December 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00169/19

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant reported money as having been stolen from a box containing donations from a charity event.

The Complaints

We have reviewed the handling of 2 complaints, namely that:

1. Police officers that came to the applicant’s house accused the applicant, her family and her guests of stealing money; and

2. The applicant feels that the initial investigation into the theft of money on 18 June 2016 from her local bowling club was not completed properly.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold complaint 1, but did uphold complaint 2.

Our Findings

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

No further action is required in this connection.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 December 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00168/17

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose following the applicant’s arrest and detention in police custody on 6 April 2017. We have reviewed eleven complaints, namely:

1. that officers detained and arrested the applicant without good reason;

2. that officers did not read out the applicant’s rights when he arrived at the police office;

3. that an officer delayed contacting the applicant’s solicitor without good reason;

4. that the applicant was placed in a cell that was infested with ants;

5. that, whilst within a cell, officers handcuffed the applicant without good reason and that the handcuffs were too tight;

6. that an officer left the applicant in a cell naked and without clothes that fitted him;

7. that officers asked the applicant to pull back his foreskin without good reason and humiliated him;

8. that an officer asked the applicant if he had any suicidal thoughts, which was not necessary;

9. that officers were uncivil towards the applicant, calling him "an idiot, childish and foolish".

10. that officers did not offer the applicant a drugs test; and

11. that officers took DNA samples and impressions of his fingerprints without good reason.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaints 4, 5, 6 and 7. The remaining complaints were not upheld.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled complaints 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 to a reasonable standard but not so complaint 3.

We have not made any recommendations.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 December 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00106/19

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.

Executive Summary

The complaint in this case arose when the applicant was questioned and subsequently arrested for the theft of items from the premises where he worked. The case was reported to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration of prosecution.

The Complaints

We have reviewed the handling of one complaint, namely that:

 The applicant was wrongly arrested by officers from Police Scotland on 8 October 2010.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant’s complaint.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland has handled the applicant’s complaint to a reasonable standard.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 December 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00072/19

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant’s wife telephoned the police using the 999 emergency contact number, and officers subsequently attended at their home to carry out a welfare check.

The Complaints

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

1. When officers attended to carry out a welfare check on the applicant’s wife, they wanted to speak with the applicant’s wife separately and would not accept a response that she was okay from behind the door;

2. An officer informed the applicant that, if he did not open the door, entry would be forced and the applicant arrested for obstruction;

3. One or both officers who attended at the applicant’s home kicked his door to force entry;

4. Officers entered the applicant’s home after his wife opened the door despite the applicant telling them not to, and in doing so were illegally trespassing;

5. Officers asked the applicant’s wife if she wanted to report anything in order to coerce her into saying something against the applicant so the applicant could be arrested; and

6. Officers took the applicant’s wife to a ‘safe zone’ to stay overnight, which was unnecessary as the applicant was more than capable of looking after her.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold any of the complaints.

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings identified in the handling of complaints 2 and 3. We have also made a further recommendation and issued a learning point.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 December 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00050/19

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose after the applicant was charged with a contravention of section 6(1) and (2) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 2003.

The Complaints

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

1. On 27 July 2018, the applicant was cautioned and charged with overfishing by the police; however he does not consider the police to have jurisdiction in this regard and instead believes this to be the jurisdiction of Marine Scotland; and
2. On 3 September 2018, a sergeant was unhelpful and rude towards the applicant when he attended at a police station to retrieve his fishing net.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold either complaint.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled both complaints to a reasonable standard; however we have issued a learning point.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 December 2019 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00567/18 & 00033/19 & 00088/19

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.

Executive Summary

The complaints in this case arose following the applicant’s contact with the police in relation to what he described as a vendetta against him by individuals in his neighbourhood.

The Complaints

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

1. the applicant is dissatisfied with the lack of coordinated response to ongoing issues he is experiencing;

2. a Sergeant was uncivil to the applicant during a meeting at a police station in relation to the comments made and had a dismissive tone on 24 August 2018;

3. a Constable was uncivil to the applicant, stating "what is this all about?" in an aggressive manner and raised voice on 5 October 2018;

4. an Inspector was uncivil to the applicant in respect of some of the comments made on 14 December 2018;

5. the applicant is dissatisfied with comments made by an Inspector during a phone call on 20 December 2018;

6. the applicant is dissatisfied with the way the police dealt with an incident he reported to them on 23 February 2019;

7. the applicant is dissatisfied that the phone number he was provided for a single point of contact at a police station was not answered and he was offered no solution to this;

8. the applicant does not believe that the measures an Inspector said would be put in place have been actioned;

9. a Constable attended at the applicant’s address on 25 February 2019 and breached his privacy by looking in his window; and

10. officers failed to carry out sufficient enquiries into an allegation of breach of bail reported by the applicant on 10 October 2018.

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, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 to a reasonable standard but not so complaints 2, 3 and 9.

Consequently, we have made one recommendation to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we recommend that further enquiries are carried out in relation to complaint 3. A further response should then be sent to the applicant.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland