• 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/00409/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland
    Date:
    13 March 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    409.16 The complaints in this case arose after Police Scotland responded to an allegation that the applicant's mother was being attacked at her home address. Two complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that the applicant does not believe that officers were justified in forcing entry to his house; and 2) that the applicant believes there was no investigation to establish who made the allegation. The review found that both complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made.
  • Title:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00465/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland
    Date:
    13 March 2017
    Download:
    Download Reports, Police Scotland
    465.16 The complaint in this case arose from the applicant receiving a verbal notice of intended prosecution in relation to an alleged road traffic offence. The applicant was convicted of the alleged offence but his conviction was overturned on appeal due to the notice of intended prosecution being delivered incorrectly. One complaint was considered, namely that a warning under section 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1998 was incorrectly administered. It was found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made in this connection. A learning point was also identified.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00483/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland
    Date:
    6 March 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    483.16 The complaints in this case arose from officers' attendance at the applicant's home. Two complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that the officers gained entry to the applicant's home without authority by "badgering" her daughter; and 2) that officers questioned the applicant's daughter in relation to a matter they were investigating without an adult being present. The review found that both complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00475/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland
    Date:
    6 March 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    475.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant being stopped and issued a Fixed Penalty Notice for allegedly speeding. Two complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that the information contained within the police officers’ statements was inaccurate and inconsistent; and 2) that Police Scotland provided evidence to the COPFS which quoted inaccurate ticket numbers and referred to the applicant as "she". The review found that one of the complaints was dealt with to a reasonable standard and one was not. Two recommendations were made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00467/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland
    Date:
    6 March 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    467.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant’s partner’s arrest. Three complaints were considered: 1) that an officer failed to provide an explanation as to why the applicant’s partner was arrested; 2) that an officer used excessive force when arresting the applicant’s partner; and 3) that an officer failed to pass on £3 given to him by the applicant to pay her partner’s taxi fare. The review found that two complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard while the remaining complaint was not. A single recommendation was made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00464/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland
    Date:
    6 March 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    464.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's contact with police following an alleged disturbance at his home address. Two complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that officers failed to obtain a statement from a witness to a disturbance at the applicant's home address; 2) that an officer informed the applicant he would be charged if he pursued a criminal complaint. The review found that both complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00371/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland
    Date:
    6 March 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    371.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant being entered onto Police Scotland's Vulnerable Person's Database (VPD). Three complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that the decision to submit a concern report and enter the applicant onto the VPD was unjustified ; 2) that an officer carried out an investigation without discussing the matter with the applicant, and then failed to respond to his request for a meeting; and 3) that Police Scotland did not advise the applicant that he was the subject of a concern report. The review found that none of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. Three recommendations were made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00118/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland
    Date:
    6 March 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    118.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's involvement in an altercation with a workman. Three complaints were considered: 1) that Constable C allowed a workman to illegally alter a communally-owned part of the building without the appropriate agreements or a Building Warrant; 2) that Constable C ignored warnings from the applicant that the work was dangerous and could cause damage to the building; and 3) that Constable C both supported and continued the harassment of the applicant initiated by the workman involved in the incident. The review found that one complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard while the remaining two complaints were not. Two recommendations were made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00403/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    27 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    403.16 The complaints in this case arose from police officers attending at a property rented by the applicant following an allegation from her landlord that she had been assaulted by the applicant. Two complaints were reviewed, namely that: 1) Police Scotland did not recognise that the applicant's landlord acted criminally by evicting her from the house; and 2) officers did not investigate an assault on the applicant by her landlord and his wife. The review found that one complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard while one was not. One recommendation was made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00418/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    27 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Scotland
    418.16 The complaint in this case arose when police officers attended at the applicant’s address in search of a family member. One complaint was reviewed, namely that police officers failed to identify themselves by giving their shoulder numbers and names. The review found that the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made.