Publications

11 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00025/19

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 a road traffic collision involving the applicant, the applicant’s daughter and another driver.

The Complaints

We have reviewed the handling of four complaints regarding the service received by the applicant from Police Scotland, namely that:

1. the applicant was not provided with support by police officers regarding issues he had with the ambulance at the scene;

2. officers failed to carry out appropriate enquiry into whether a female was driving whilst impaired;

3. the police failed to provide updates on the enquiry; and

4. it took too long to investigate the collision.

In doing so we have had the opportunity to review all relevant documentation provided by the applicant and the police including all statements.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold Complaints 1, 2 and 4. It upheld Complaint 3.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled all four of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard. We have not recommended any further action in this connection.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

11 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00598/18

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 from the applicant’s arrest and subsequent time in custody.

The Complaints

We have reviewed Police Scotland’s handling of five complaints, namely:

1. that officers carried out insufficient enquiry into an assault that the applicant was accused of;
2. that officers failed to note an allegation of assault on the applicant’s granddaughter;
3. that the applicant was not offered a diabetic meal while in police custody;
4. that the applicant was placed in an unsanitary cell; and
5. that the applicant’s release from custody was delayed.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld one of the applicant’s complaints and none of the others.

Our Findings

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

We have made three recommendations to address the shortcomings in the handling of the complaints, and we have identified a learning point. In short, we have recommended that Police Scotland record, investigate and respond to complaint 2, and record each of the applicant’s complaints as distinct complaints about the police.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00027/19

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 reported to the police for sending unwanted messages and turning up at his daughter’s home uninvited.

The Complaints

We have reviewed the handling of three complaints, namely:

1. that the applicant was wrongfully arrested;
2. that the applicant should not have been searched or strip-searched; and
3. that the applicant’s laptop and mobile phone were seized and not returned.

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 the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard.

We have however identified a learning point.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00261/18, PIRC/00418/18 & PIRC/00422/18

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’s contact with Police Scotland regarding an on-going neighbour dispute.

The Complaints

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

1. The applicant is dissatisfied that [Constable A] made unfounded, false statements to [local authority] Social Work Department about her marriage, likelihood of domestic violence and the alcohol consumption of her husband (amongst other views), which have subsequently been documented in Social Work Department notes;
2. On unspecified dates, at [the applicant’s address], Police Scotland have recorded incidents the applicant reported to them as neighbour disputes when the applicant believes they should be recorded as stalking offences;
3. The applicant made a written complaint to the police about her neighbour repeatedly taking photos/videos of her children; however the applicant does not believe that this complaint was investigated properly and appropriately, and that the events were recorded incorrectly and inaccurately;
4. On 4 June 2015, [the applicant’s neighbour] deliberately smashed and broke one of the applicant’s children’s ride-on plastic trucks and called the applicant an "ugly English C**t". However, [Constable B] did not take a statement from the applicant; did not want to see the damage to the property; and informed the applicant that it was a civil matter;
5. On 7 May 2016, at [the applicant’s address], the applicant heard her neighbour make an insulting remark in the presence of an officer [Constable A], and she heard [Constable A] laugh in response to this remark;
6. On an unspecific date, at [the applicant’s address], the applicant is dissatisfied at the lack of action taken by Police Scotland to establish the facts surrounding the land dispute and ownership of said land and track;
7. In June/July 2013, two police officers entered the applicant’s property without authority or warrant, asking for persons that did not reside there. This caused the applicant to feel threatened, intimidated, and alarmed;
8. On 6 March 2015, the applicant reported various allegations to Constable A, none of which she logged or enquired into;
9. The applicant is dissatisfied that the incident she reported to the police on 10 September 2015 was recorded as a neighbour dispute and civil matter; and
10. The applicant is dissatisfied that Police Scotland have failed to enforce an interdict against her neighbour, and in doing so, have failed to keep her and her family safe.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaint 10, but did not uphold complaints 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8.

No determination was provided in relation to complaint 9.

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have made three recommendations to address the shortcomings we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of complaints 1, 6 and 10, with an additional recommendation having been made in relation to complaint 9.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00620/18

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 from the applicant’s arrests and subsequent detention in police custody.

The Complaints

We have reviewed the handling of three complaints:

1. that the applicant was unlawfully arrested on 7 November 2018;
2. that the applicant was unlawfully arrested on 26 October 2018; and
3. that officers made no effort to obtain medication for the applicant’s diabetes while he was in police custody.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland upheld complaint 1, did not record complaint 2, and did not uphold complaint 3.

Our Findings

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

Consequently we have made a recommendation to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of complaint 2.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00414/18

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’s contact with the police in relation to an ongoing dispute with his neighbour.

The Complaints

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

1. The applicant is dissatisfied that an officer made unfounded, false statements to his local authority social work department about his marriage, likelihood of domestic violence and alcohol consumption (amongst other views), which have subsequently been documented in social work department notes; and
2. At an unknown date/time, medical information about the applicant that was contained in a firearms/shotgun license application was disclosed to his neighbour.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold either of the complaints.

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have made a recommendation to address the shortcomings we have identified in Police Scotland’s handling of complaint 1.

Police Scotland should implement our recommendation within two months of the date of this report.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00559/18

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’s arrest at his brother’s address.

The Complaints

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

1. officers used excessive force when arresting the applicant;
2. officers took no action to relieve the applicant’s pain despite being aware of his health condition;
3. the applicant was not informed of his arrest until he arrived at the police station, which he considered to be a procedural error; and
4. the applicant was inappropriately kept in custody pending appearance at court, which he considered unjustified.

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 complaint 4.

We have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have recommended that complaint 4 be reassessed and a further response sent to the applicant. We have also recommended that complaints 1 and 2 be recorded as separate complaints.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00116/19

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 to the police an alleged traffic offence involving a parked vehicle.

The Complaints

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

1. Officers did not deal with an incident appropriately; and
2. An officer was uncivil towards the applicant during a telephone call.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the complaints.

Our Findings

We have found that Police Scotland handled both complaints to a reasonable standard. There is no further action required in this connection.

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00019/19

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 arrested at his home address on 29 January 2019 and held in police custody for a period of around seven and a half hours.

The Complaints

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

1. officers failed to consider if the applicant needed medication when arresting him;
2. the applicant was not properly cared for while in custody as he was not offered food, water or a blanket;
3. the applicant was held in custody for longer than was necessary;
4. the applicant’s welfare was not considered on his release from custody;
5. insufficient enquiry was carried out in relation to the incidents of 23 and 24 October 2017;
6. the applicant’s interview of 9 December 2018 was inaccurately reported to the Procurator Fiscal; and
7. the report made by the applicant to the police on 30 January 2019 was not investigated.

Police Scotland’s Decision

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

Our Findings

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

Consequently, we have issued a reconsideration direction and made one recommendation to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of the complaints. In summary, we have issued a reconsideration direction in relation to complaint 2 and recommend that further enquiries are carried out in relation to complaint 3. A further response should then be sent to the applicant.

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland

03 February 2020 | Complaint Reviews

Report - Police Scotland PIRC/00280/19

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 following the applicant being involved in a road traffic collision which resulted in a citation being issued by the Procurator Fiscal to be served on the applicant.

The Complaint

We reviewed the handling of one complaint, namely:

• that the police made insufficient enquiry to cite the applicant for court which resulted in his arrest and spending a night in custody and a day at court.

Police Scotland’s Decision

Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant’s complaint.

Our Findings

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

Police Bodies : Police Scotland