• Filter by:
  • Search:

Reviews


The Police Investigations & Review Commissioner carries out independent review of the way in which police bodies operating in Scotland deal with complaints made by members of the public.

The Commissioner often publishes reports, known as Complaint Handling Reviews, in anonymised form. This is to provide assurance to the public that there is robust and independent oversight of police complaints handling in Scotland. On occasion a press release to highlight in the media an issue arising from a CHR may be issued, these can be found in the press centre.

Here you will find Complaint Handling Reviews published by the Commissioner.  All reviews are completely anonymised prior to publication. 

Click here to access reviews carried out under the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland.

  • Title:
    Report- Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00302/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    20 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report- Police Scotland
    302.16 The complaints in this case 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; and 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.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00334/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    13 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    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
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00267/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    13 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    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.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00210/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    13 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    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.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00382/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    13 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    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.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00462/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    13 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    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 abouthe 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.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00212/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    30 January 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    212.16 The complaints in this case arose from an officer's investigation into an alleged assault reported by the applicant. Two complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that a police report was rejected by Case Management and not passed to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service due to a lack of corroborative evidence when there was such evidence; and 2) that an officer said she found the investigation difficult to deal with but did not pass the investigation to another officer; that the officer said she found it hard to believe the suspect would behave like he did and that the officer advised the applicant he should not discuss the case. The review found that neither complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. Two recommendations were made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00295/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    30 January 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    295.16 The complaints in this case arose from the police investigation into the applicant's report that his vehicle had been struck by another vehicle and that he believed the driver to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Seven complaints were considered, namely: 1) that an officer failed to investigate if medication was a factor in a road traffic collision; 2) that an officer failed to investigate if the driver's vehicle was fit for road use; 3) that an officer had an aggressive manner; 4) that a civilian staff member advised that the applicant's complaint had been recorded but this was incorrect; 5) that a civilian staff member denied that the applicant made a complaint to her and disagreed with his version of events; 6) that the applicant was contacted by an officer about whom he had raised a complaint; 7) that the applicant was given conflicting information regarding whether or not the road traffic collision was a reportable incident. The review found that five of the applicant's complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard while the remaining two were not. One recommendation was made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC00387/16
    Police Body:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Date:
    30 January 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    387.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's on-going dispute with her neighbours. Five complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that officers carried out insufficient enquiries into an incident at the applicant's home address; 2) that the applicant was not afforded the opportunity to read the statement she provided or have the statement read back to her before she signed it; 3) that officers carried out insufficient enquiries into an incident at the applicant's home address involving alleged damage to a gate; 4) that the applicant was provided with insufficient feedback in relation to the incident where her gate was allegedly damaged; 5) that the applicant was not afforded the opportunity to read the statement she provided or have the statement read back to her before she signed it. The review found that 3 of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and 2 were not. Three recommendations were made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00235/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    24 January 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    235.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's detention for a domestic breach of the peace and her subsequent time spent in custody. Nineteen complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that on 22 March 2016, the applicant was charged over a domestic incident; 2) that on 20 March 2016, there was an unnecessary delay in officers taking her to hospital; 3) that on 20 March 2016, officers persuaded the applicant against having her daughters accompany her to hospital; 4) that on 20 March 2016, officers failed to take action about her aunt threatening to slap the applicant; 5) that there was insufficient enquiry into the assault she reported on 20 March 2016; 6) that on 20 March 2016, officers told her they would taker her children to the hospital but later said they did not have time; 7) that on 22 March 2016, she was detained for an offence even though she had reported assaulted and injured two days earlier; 8) that on 22 March 2016, officers were dismissive of her medical condition and said she must talk and to stop gesticulating; 9) that on 22 March 2016, an officer accused her of being unreasonable; 10) that on 22 March 2016, an officer threatened to strip her; 11) that on 22 March 2016, there was an unacceptable delay in her being given access to an inhaler; 12) that on 22 March 2016, an officer made comments which implied she was pretending to need an inhaler; 13) that on 22 March 2016, officers told her they would let her out of the cell after she used the toilet but they did not return to let her out; 14) that on 22 March 2016, she was kept in custody overnight which was unjustified and unnecessary particularly as she needed to care for her aunt and children; 15) that on 22 March 2016, an officer stated he did not like the tone of her voice; 16) that on 22 March 2016, she asked to speak to the Custody Sergeant on a number of occasions but he did not speak to her before he went off duty; 17) that on 22 March 2016, an officer was dismissive of her distress and smiled/smirked at her; 18) that on 22 March 2016, she was not allowed access to medication for a considerable time despite requesting it; 19) that on 24 March 2016, officers attended at her home on six occasions and banged on her doors and windows. The review found that 16 complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and 3 were not. Four recommendations were made.