• 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/00457/15
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    17 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    457.15 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's telephone call to Police Scotland on 2 November 2014. Three complaints were reviewed, namely: 1. that a 101 call handler mentioned information that should not have been known to the police; 2. that the call handler made an inappropriate comment; and 3. that two police officers told the applicant not to contact the police again and to drop her complaint against the NHS. The review found that all three of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00576/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    17 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    576.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's concern that a Special Constable had followed members of his family. One complaint was reviewed, namely: 1. that his complaint about a Special Constable following his family in 2014 was not suitably dealt with and fell below the standards expected. The review found that the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00032/17
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland, Report
    Date:
    3 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    032.17 The complaints in this case arose from various social media posts that the applicant reported to the police. Three complaints were reviewed, namely: (1) that the police took the decision to class the allegation the applicant made about social media postings as non-criminal; (2) that the applicant was provided with conflicting information as to how the allegation was being dealt with; and (3) that the applicant received a poor service from officers at the police station who did not answer telephone calls and dealt with her at the back of the station. Of the three complaints reviewed, it was found that one was dealt with to a reasonable standard while two were not. Two recommendations were made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00328/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland, Report
    Date:
    3 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    328.16 The complaint in this case arose from the applicant’s conviction for an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. A single complaint was considered: that Police Scotland failed to investigate the applicant’s allegation that witnesses at his trial had lied under oath and produced false evidence. The review found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard, however it was not considered necessary to make any recommendation in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00484/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland, Report
    Date:
    3 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    484.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's interview under caution for drugs offences. Three complaints were considered: 1. that the applicant was not provided with sufficient time to arrange legal representation; 2. that the applicant was not cautioned in respect of a number of criminal allegations which he was subsequently questioned on; and 3. that the applicant was told he would be detained if he did not attend voluntarily for an interview, however does not believe there were sufficient grounds to detain him. The review found that two complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard while the remaining complaint was not. A reconsideration direction was issued in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00513/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland, Report
    Date:
    3 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    513.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant being charged and issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) in connection with a road traffic offence. Two complaints were reviewed, namely: (1) that the two officers who issued the applicant with FPN were incorrect in their statements when they said the female officer approached her car and charged her as the applicant alleges it was the male officer; and (2) that a note was left with the applicant's neighbour regarding her Copy Complaint.The review found that one of the complaints was dealt with to a reasonable standard and one was not. One recommendation has been made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00521/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland, Report
    Date:
    3 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    521.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's arrest for threatening and abusive behaviour. Five complaints were considered, namely: 1. that the police failed to retrieve CCTV which would have supported the applicant's innocence; 2. that Police Scotland did not carry out a sufficient enquiry into the disturbance leading to the applicant's arrest, resulting in the applicant being incorrectly reported to the Procurator Fiscal; 3. that the applicant was kept in custody to appear at court without a reason or sufficiency of evidence; 4. that an insufficient investigation conducted into the circumstances of the charge of vandalism libelled against the applicant's son, as his son was not present when the damage occurred; and 5. that the applicant considers that Police Scotland are "supporting" the hotel's claim for damages, in excess of the value of the damage actually caused, without sufficient evidence. The review found that two complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard while three complaints were not. Three recommendations were made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00606/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland, Report
    Date:
    3 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    606.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's detention by officers of Police Scotland. Two complaints were considered: 1. That the applicant's detention was disproportionate and unnecessary; and 2. That the applicant, a serving Police Officer, was treated differently than a member of the public would have been in the same circumstances. It was found that both complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00612/16
    Police Body:
    Police Scotland, Report
    Date:
    3 July 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    621.16 The complaints in this case arose from an incident in which the applicant's car was stopped by two police officers. Two complaints were reviewed, namely: (1) That an officer accused the applicant of speeding but later dropped this; and (2) That an officer threatened the applicant with arrest. The review found that one complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard and one was not. One recommendation is made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00536/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    26 June 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    536.16 The complaint in this case regards an email conversation between the applicant and a police officer who was investigating allegations of theft and vandalism at the applicant's home. At the time of the alleged crimes, the applicant was on holiday and had left her home in the care of the daughter of a family friend. The applicant alleged that an unauthorised party had taken place in her home. The applicant complained that an email she received from the officer investigating her case was insensitive, dismissive and showed an apparent lack of impartiality. The review found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made.