Publications

15 October 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00095/21

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 an incident at the applicant’s workplace, as a result of which he was charged with assault. We have reviewed the handling of seven complaints, namely that: 

1. officers carried out insufficient enquiries into the allegation of assault made against the applicant;
2. officers colluded in writing their statements in relation to the allegation of assault made against the applicant;
3. an officer said in her statement that she saw the applicant pull the alleged victim’s arm “right up his back”, which was untrue;
4. officers said in their statements that the applicant had told them the alleged victim was “trying to film [the applicant] and being a nuisance”, which was untrue;
5. an officer told the applicant that the allegation of assault against him was corroborated by statements from the alleged victim’s friends and passers-by, which was untrue;
6. officers failed to investigate the applicant’s report of assault made on 21 February 2020; and
7. an officers’ disclosure to the applicant’s professional regulator regarding the criminal case against him contained inaccurate information. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaints 1, 4 and 6 and did not uphold complaints 2, 3, 5 and 7. 

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled four of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard (1, 4, 5 and 6) but not so the other three (2, 3 and 7).

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

In relation to complaint 2, we recommend that this is reassessed with reference to the observations made in our report, while further enquiries should be carried out in relation to complaints 3 and 7. A further response should then be sent to the applicant.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

15 October 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00039/21

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 Police Scotland’s involvement in an ongoing neighbour dispute. 

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

1. over the last five years, Police Scotland did not properly investigate several incidents concerning a neighbour dispute; 

2. during this time, officers provided the applicant with incorrect information and advice, which when followed, led to the applicant and his family being contacted, warned or charged by officers; 

3. on several occasions, an officer was rude and uncivil towards the applicant and his family, including during a telephone call with the applicants mother; 

4. on 30 January 2018, an officer was condescending and arrogant towards the applicant and his father when he attended to remove firearms; and 

5. on the same date, an officer did not treat the firearms with care when removing them. 

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 3, 4 and 5 to a reasonable standard, but not so complaints 1 and 2. 

Consequently, we have made two recommendations and identified two learning points to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. 

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

07 October 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00054/21

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 police responded to a concern for welfare report involving the applicant. 

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

1. An officer was oppressive in his behaviour and threatened to arrest the applicant for failing to provide his details;
2. Officers were unprofessional towards the applicant;
3. Officers sourced the applicant’s date of birth from a third party;
4. Officers failed to provide the applicant with their shoulder numbers or surname; and
5. An officer used the word ‘evasive’ in correspondence with the applicant, which the applicant considered offensive. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have issued a reconsideration direction, made a recommendation, and identified two learning points to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaint.  

In reconsidering complaint 1, Police Scotland should conduct any further enquiry as necessary before reassessing the complaint taking cognisance of our observations, and reach a well-reasoned position on whether the applicant’s complaint is now upheld or not upheld. In relation to complaint 2, we recommend that Police Scotland seek further accounts from the officers subject of the complaint and reassess the complaint taking cognisance of our observations. We have also identified two learning points to address administrative shortcomings in the complaint enquiry.

 Our reconsideration direction, recommendation, and learning points should be completed and implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report. 

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

29 September 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00229/21

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 after the applicant’s mobile phone was seized by Police Scotland as part of a criminal investigation.

We have reviewed the handling of a single complaint, namely that Police officers unnecessarily seized the applicant’s mobile phone upon his release from custody. 

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.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

29 September 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00098/21

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 relate to Police Scotland’s reinvestigation into an incident reported by the applicant. 

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

• A police officer failed to conduct sufficient enquiry into an incident that the applicant reported, by failing to speak with his daughters who had witnessed the incident;
• The same police officer was incorrect by informing the applicant that, as a witness statement had been obtained from a neighbour which corroborated the applicant’s evidence,  there was no requirement to include his daughters as witnesses in the case; and
• The same police officer failed to sufficiently explain the process of how the applicant would be updated by Police Scotland or the COPFS 

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 2 to a reasonable standard, but not so complaint 3.

Consequently, we have made a recommendation to address the shortcoming in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaint. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland issue the applicant with a further response to complaint 3.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

29 September 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00072/21

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 called the emergency services, reporting that he was within his home address in a state of distress whilst in possession of a knife and a hammer.

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

1. Police Officers forced entry to the applicant’s house; and
2. Police Officers used excessive force to control the applicant. 

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.

We have identified a learning point that should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

29 September 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/038/21

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 when police officers attended an incident at the applicant’s home. 

We have reviewed the handling of a single complaint, namely that: 

• On 13 December 2020, a police officer verbally threatened the applicant while attending an incident at his address. 

Police Scotland’s Decision 

Police Scotland upheld 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 issued a learning point to address an administrative shortcoming we have identified in Police Scotland’s complaint response. 

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

29 September 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00031/21

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 relate to Police Scotland’s handling of the applicant’s electronic devices, which were examined as part of a criminal investigation. 

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

1. While in the possession of Police Scotland, parts of the motherboard/hard drive within the applicant’s mobile phone were deliberately snapped; and
2. While in the possession of Police Scotland the applicant’s body worn camera had a broken power hole/button, was sub-merged in water and the rubber seals were broken; which was done deliberately. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

23 September 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland - PIRC/00530/20

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 his neighbour to the police. 

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

1. On 22 March 2020, the applicant reported an incident but did not receive any update nor did any officer speak to him about it;
2. On 2 April 2020, the applicant reported an allegation of assault and was treated unfairly by police officers;
3. The applicant was told by Police Scotland that his neighbour had been charged with assault when she had only been issued a formal warning;
4. Officers did not charge the applicant’s neighbour with theft and vandalism after she attempted to take his mobile phone and damaged his spectacles; and
5. The applicant’s neighbour was not charged with ‘Wasting Police Time’ for having made an allegation against the applicant. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaints 1 and 3, but did not uphold complaints 2, 4 and 5. 

Our Findings

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

We have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings we have identified in Police Scotland’s administration of complaints 1 and 3. We have also identified a learning point.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

10 September 2021 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland -PIRC/00490/20

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 that money had been removed from his bank account without his permission. We have reviewed the handling of sixteen complaints, namely: 

1. Between March 2019 and February 2020, the applicant’s report of theft was dealt with by an officer who is not trained in financial investigations;
2. Between March 2019 and November 2020, the applicant’s report of theft was not dealt with timeously;
3. Between March 2019 and February 2020, an officer failed to update the applicant properly in relation to his theft allegation;
4. Between September 2020 and November 2020, the applicant was not updated regarding his theft allegation;
5. Between September 2020 and November 2020, the applicant was not given the details of the new investigating officer tasked with investigating the theft allegation;
6. In a letter dated November 2020, the applicant was informed by an officer not to contact him directly;
7. Between 16 November 2020 and 23 November 2020, the applicant received a letter from Police Scotland that contained incorrect information;
8. Between March 2019 and November 2020, the applicant is unhappy at the manner in which Police Scotland has investigated his theft allegation;
9. On 14 September 2020, an officer was rude and dismissive towards the applicant during a meeting he attended to discuss the investigation into his theft allegation;
10. On an unknown date in September 2020, an officer was rude to the applicant during a telephone call and inferred that he was wasting her time;
11. Between January 2020 and September 2020, an officer said the applicant could not travel to Police Station X to discuss the investigation and that, if he did so, no-one would speak to him;
12. On an unknown date in September 2020, an officer shouted at the applicant during a telephone call, advising him that she could not continue speaking to him and hung up;
13. Between 25 September 2020 and 29 October 2020, an officer failed to acknowledge receipt of a document that was sent from another police force;
14. On 27 September 2020, an officer claimed, in email correspondence with the applicant, that it was his fault that money was taken from him;
15. In September 2020, an officer told the applicant that the matter he reported was not a crime of theft but rather a ‘mismanagement of finances’; and
16. In September 2020, an officer told the applicant to go through his bank statements and highlight odd payments to prove his report of a crime. 

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaints 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6; but, did not uphold complaints 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. 

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled complaints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15 and 16 to a reasonable standard; but not so complaint 6.

We have made three recommendations and three learning points to address the shortcomings we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of complaint 6, and the recording of complaints 4 and 8. Our recommendations and learning points should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland