Posted: Monday 20 February 2017
Commissioner makes 10 recommendations and 2 learning points in 5 complaint handling reviews
The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) has found that 10 complaints out of 15 made to Police Scotland were not dealt with to a reasonable standard in her complaint handling reviews published today, Monday 20 February 2017. A total of 10 recommendations were issued and 2 learning points.
In 278.16, the complaints arose from the discovery of previous foreign convictions in relation to the applicant's husband, Mr A.
Three complaints were considered namely:
1. that Police Scotland failed to timeously establish the previous foreign criminal convictions in relation to Mr A;
2. that having been made aware that Mr A had relevant previous convictions of a sexual nature involving a child, Police Scotland failed to establish that he had regular access to a step-grandchild;
3. that Police Scotland did not share Mr A's previous foreign convictions with the applicant.
The review found that two complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard while the remaining complaint was not. A recommendation and a learning point were made in this connection.
The complaints in 281.16 arose from the police investigation into an allegation of rape made by the applicant against a colleague.
Three complaints were reviewed, namely:
1. that officers failed to make all necessary enquiry into the alleged offences;
2. that officers failed to refer the applicant to counselling services;
3. that an officer dealt with the applicant without an appropriate degree of empathy in updating her on the enquiry.
The review found that none of the complaints had been dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made and a learning point was identified.
In 302.16, the complaints arose from the applicant's arrest in connection with the alleged theft of a motor vehicle.
Seven complaints were reviewed, namely:
1. that police officers unnecessarily visited the applicant's premises twice on one day;
2. that the applicant's detention and arrest was unlawful and unjustified;
3. that police officers were uninterested in listening to his side of the story about why he exercised a lien over the motor vehicle;
4. that an officer placed himself in close proximity to the applicant in a threatening manner and swore saying "I'm not interested in your f****** paperwork";
5. that the applicant was not offered any food during his stay in police custody;
6. that the applicant's home and business premises were searched without justification;
7. that an officer failed to inform the Procurator Fiscal that he had spoken to the investigations company.
The review found that three of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and four were not. Four recommendations were made.
The complaint in 384.16 arose from an incident in which the applicant was bitten by a dog.
One complaint was reviewed, namely that the allegation reported to the police was marked "no crime" due to Police Scotland's failure to conduct a full enquiry and consider all the available evidence.
The review found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. Three recommendations were made.
In 443.16, the complaint arose from the applicant's arrest warrant.
The complaint considered was that a police officer failed to input accurate information regarding the applicant's address on police recording systems, which ultimately led to the applicant's arrest for failing to appear in court.
It was found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. A single recommendation was made in this connection.