Report - Police Scotland

Police Body:
Police Scotland, Report
22 May 2017
Download Report - Police Scotland

The complaints in this case arose from an incident on 25 January 2016 in which the applicant’s husband was struck by their neighbour’s vehicle.

Twenty-four complaints were reviewed, namely:

1. that there was no medical follow up by officers following the incident on 25 January 2016;

2. there was a lack of knowledge of the essential elements in proving charges of Section 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (“the Act”);

3. that relevant charges were not submitted by the officer submitting the report;

4. that relevant charges were not submitted by an Inspector who was instructed to carry out a review of the circumstances;

5. that an officer lacked knowledge of Section 2 of the Act;

6. that an officer did not libel an additional charge of Section 3 of the Act for the applicant’s neighbour blocking in their car;

7. that officers failed to note antecedents in the report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS);

8. that the letter of complaint was given to the officer completing the report in breach of protocol;

9. that officers failed to carry out follow up checks to ensure there was insurance in place for the applicant’s neighbour’s vehicle;

10. that an officer used phrases like “you know the score” and “I’ve told you repeatedly she can park there if she wants.”;

11. that an officer stood with his thumbs in his body armour and stated “I would welcome a complaint, my supervisor and crime manager are more than happy with what I’ve done, there’s my shoulder number”;

12. that an officer dismissed the applicant’s complaint that her neighbour had parked her car outside the applicant’s home address in an effort to intimidate the applicant and her husband and in contravention of Section 103 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986;

13. that comments made by an officer illustrated his lack of knowledge of parking at lowered kerb regulations;

14. that a hold was not put on the police report before it was forwarded to the COPFS;

15. that an inaccurate report was forwarded to COPFS to meet the police 28 day target for submission of cases;

16. that the applicant’s 999 call was not requested which could have been used to corroborate a further charge of breach of the peace;

17. that an Inspector failed to make contact with the applicant and that a period of 62 days passed between the initial complaint being acknowledged and the first officer to speak with her;

18. that there was not a phone call or email from an Inspector despite his Chief Inspector’s instruction;

19. that an Inspector deliberately misled a senior officer by sending an email saying that good progress was being made when this was not the case;

20. that an Inspector was deliberately misleading in emails and phone calls to the applicant and her husband regarding a subject report;

21. that an Inspector failed to instruct an investigation regarding the applicant’s report of her neighbour’s intimidation and obstruction;

22. that the applicant was not provided with information about who was actually investigating the complaint;

23. that the applicant and her husband were not updated when an urgent response marker was put against their address; and

24. that an officer deliberately misled the applicant and her husband that he had obtained background information from their son and that the enquiry was intelligence led.

The review found that eight of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and sixteen were not. Thirteen recommendations were made.

Police Bodies: Police Scotland

<  Return to reviews