Posted: Monday 13 February 2017

Commissioner makes 7 recommendations and 1 learning point in 5 complaint handling reviews


The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) has found that 9 complaints out of 16 made to Police Scotland were not dealt with to a reasonable standard.

In the 5 complaint handling reviews (CHRS) published today, Monday 13 February 2017, the Commissioner made a total of 7 recommendations and in 1 case a learning point for police was identified.

In 334.16 the complaints in this case arose from the applicant's arrest and detention in connection with a breach of the peace. Three complaints were reviewed, namely:

1) that police officers used excessive force when attempting to remove the applicant from a police vehicle;

2) that the applicant's request to be taken to hospital was ignored by police staff; and

3) that the applicant's request to see an inspector to lodge a complaint was ignored.

The review found that all of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made.

Read the Complaint Handling Review here>>

In 267.16 the complaints in this case arose from officers attending at the home address of the applicant to caution and charge him for an alleged offence. Six complaints were reviewed, namely:

1) that officers failed to explain the reason for their attendance at the applicant's home address and then failed to take him to the police office when they informed him they were going to do so;

2) that officers refused the applicant access to legal representation despite the applicant requesting it; 

3) that officers failed to carry out a full investigation into the allegations made;

4) that the reply to the charge noted was not what the applicant said;

5) that the officers informed the applicant they would report the circumstances of the incident as a civil matter; and

6) that officers twisted the officer's words and wrongly alleged he had made a criminal admission.

The review found that three of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and three were not. Three recommendations were made.

Read the Complaint Handling Review here>>

In 210.16 the complaint in this case arose from the applicant's arrest and detention on 13 June 2016.

One complaint was reviewed, namely that the applicant believes he should not have been arrested and later detained under the Mental Health Act.

The review found that the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made.

Read the Complaint Handling Review here>>

382.16 The complaints in this case arose from an incident involving the applicant's daughter, which resulted in items of their property being seized as part of a police enquiry. Three complaints were reviewed, namely:

1) that the mobile phone presented to the applicant was not her daughter's and her daughter's

phone could not be found;

2) that Police Scotland had no trace on its systems of the applicant's laptop being seized; and

3) that an officer was rude and unhelpful.

The review found that none of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. Two recommendations were made.

Read the Complaint Handling Review here>>

In 462.16 the complaints in this case arose from the applicant's involvement in a road traffic incident which he reported to Police Scotland. Three complaints were reviewed, namely:

1. that Police Scotland officers failed to send out a Notice of Intended Prosecution within the statutory 14 day limit;

2. that Police Scotland officers failed to keep the applicant informed about the progress of the investigation into his allegations; and

3. that Police Scotland failed to prosecute the other driver involved for lighting and number plate offences.

The review found that none of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. Two recommendations were made and a learning point was identified.

Read the Complaint Handling Review here>>

<  Return to news