Report - Police Scotland

Reference:
PIRC/00037/16
Police Body:
Police Scotland
Date:
4 April 2017
Download:
Download Report - Police Scotland

00037.16 The complaints in this case arose from two separate incidents, where the applicant was alleged to have committed a breach of section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 on each occasion.

35 complaints were considered, namely:

1. that Constable E failed to include the time and date on a calling card delivered to the applicant's address;

2. that Constable E "ordered" the applicant not to have any correspondence with members of Company YY;

3. that Constable E failed to respond to the applicant's correspondence or make contact with the applicant during February 2016;

4. that Constable E took too long to investigate an allegation against the applicant (Police Incident XX);

5. that Inspector J lied about the reason for his visit to the applicant's home on 8 March 2016, and thus failed to adequately explain the purpose of noting a statement from the applicant;

6. that Inspector J failed to take a statement from the applicant regarding the incident on 18 January 2016;

7. that Inspector J did not investigate the applicant's allegation of assault;

8. that Inspector J did not sufficiently investigate an allegation against the applicant (Police Incident XX);

9. that the applicant was unjustifiably arrested under section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 on 9 March 2016;

10. that the arresting officers did not follow the provisions of the relevant legislation or police procedures in relation to mental health;

11. that the arresting officers did not enquire after the applicant's welfare, despite being aware of his mental ill health;

12. that the arresting officers used unreasonable force on the applicant and refused to loosen his handcuffs;

13. that the arresting officers did not monitor the applicant, check his condition or apply first aid on route to the custody office at Police Office RR;

14. that the applicant was not provided with adequate clothing to keep warm in the police van or in the custody cell;

15. that the arresting officers handed the applicant over to different officers in a police van, without first giving a sufficient briefing on the applicant's condition;

16. that the applicant was not taken to see a doctor following his arrest, and was lied to by the arresting officers about this;

17. that one of the arresting officers lit a cigarette beside the police car, which the applicant found inappropriate;

18. that the arresting officers lied to the applicant by telling him that he would not be charged, but then improperly charged him;

19. that officers at Police Office RR "dumped" the applicant on the ground and "dragged" him across the concrete floor;

20. that an officer behind the counter at Police Office RR told the applicant that he could not see a doctor;

21. that officers at Police Office RR failed to provide the applicant with an Appropriate Adult;

22. that a sergeant at Police Office RR said "here are your rights", and dropped the letter of rights on the floor;

23. that an officer at Police Office RR did not provide the applicant with his reading glasses or a large-print version of the letter of rights, despite this being available;

24. that an officer at Police Office RR told the applicant that he may need to remove his trousers;

25. that officers at Police Office RR restrained the applicant unnecessarily when taking him to see the nurse;

26. that an officer at Police Office RR displayed bias against people with mental health conditions;

27. that officers did not submit a concern report about the applicant, and nor did they notify the local authority or the Mental Welfare Commission;

28. that there was a conflict of interests in Inspector J investigating the applicant's original complaints at same time as progressing a charge against him;

29. that Inspector J, Temporary Chief Inspector L, Inspector H and Chief Inspector AA each contributed to unacceptable delays in the applicant's complaints being investigated and responded to;

30. that Temporary Superintendent G and Temporary Chief Inspector L failed without reason to provide the applicant with information regarding the charges against him;

31. that Inspector J did not send the applicant's statement regarding the incident on 18 January 2016 to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), despite telling the applicant that he would do so;

32. that Inspector H did not provide the applicant with documentary evidence to support her assertion that the applicant's statement had been included with the standard prosecution report sent to the COPFS;

33. that Inspector H failed to inform the applicant that she had asked the COPFS to review the standard prosecution report;

34. that there was a conflict of interests in Inspector H investigating complaints when she herself was the subject of complaints made by the applicant; and

35. that Inspector H failed to answer the applicant's queries regarding why he waited for a number of months yet heard nothing about the charges made against him.

The review found that 22 complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard while thirteen complaints were not. Two reconsideration directions were given and twelve recommendations were made.

Police Bodies: Police Scotland

<  Return to reviews