Posted: Monday 27 March 2017
Commissioner directs police to reconsider several complaints made about them
The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (PIRC) has directed police to reconsider several complaints made in two complaint handling reviews (CHRs) published today.
In 454.16 a total of nine complaints were considered, with six not dealt with to a reasonable standard. For complaints 1,2,4,5 and 6 a reconsideration direction has been issued. Police Scotland must now appoint a person, who has had no previous involvement in dealing with these complaints, to undertake a re-assessment of them.
In 455.16 two complaints were reviewed and neither were dealt with to a reasonable standard. A reconsideration direction has been issued to police for both complaints.
In the other two reports published, in one all six complaints were handled to a reasonable standard. In the other, one complaint was upheld and a recommendation was issued to police.
Below is a summary of the four CHRs published today:
In 454.16 the complaints in this case arose after police officers stopped the applicant's vehicle in order to speak to him about his manner of driving.
Nine complaints were reviewed, namely:
1) that during an incident on 7 June 2016, the officers involved did not identify themselves as police officers;
2) that a police officer pulled the applicant from his vehicle without any explanation;
3) that the officer was swearing;
4) that the officer jumped on the applicant's back while he was lying on the ground;
5) that the applicant was not advised of the reason for his arrest or why he had been stopped;
6) that a police officer laughed at the applicant;
7) that the applicant was not allowed to contact his girlfriend;
8) that the applicant did not understand the officer who cautioned and charged him;
9) that ash was left on the front seat of his car after it had been searched. The review found that three of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and six were not. A reconsideration direction has been made in respect of five complaints.
In 455.16 the complaints in this case arose from the applicant's arrest during an incident on 7 June 2016.
Two complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that the applicant was unlawfully arrested; and, 2) that police officers treated him in a way that made him feel harassed, distressed and alarmed.
The review found that neither complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. A reconsideration direction was issued in this connection.
In 469.16 The complaint in this case arose from the applicant’s involvement in a road traffic collision.
One complaint was reviewed, namely, that the attending officer wrote down his own statement and did not ask what had happened, and did not note statements from people at the scene of the crash.
The review found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made.
In 482.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant being given a warning by an officer of Police Scotland in relation to a road traffic matter.
The following six complaints were considered: 1. that the officer knowingly wrote a false statement about the applicant in his notebook;
2. that the officer asked the applicant to sign his notebook but did not explain why;
3. that the officer wrote a second false statement in his notebook, specifically that the applicant refused to sign the notebook;
4. that the officer neglected to accurately record the incident;
5. that the applicant was stopped unjustifiably and solely due to his identity, which he perceived as harassment; and
6. that writing falsehoods seemed "second nature" to the officer.
The review found that all six of the applicant's complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made.