• 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/00347/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    4 January 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    347.16 The complaint in this case arose from the applicant's interaction with police officers whilst he was taking photographs at the scene of an incident. One complaint was reviewed, namely that an officer behaved in a childish, sarcastic, belligerent and unprofessional manner. The review found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00052/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    28 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    52.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's arrest on an apprehension warrant. Four complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that the applicant was arrested unnecessarily; 2) that the applicant was not kept informed of the proceedings taken against him; 3) that a malicious complaint was made about the applicant which was not properly investigated; 4) that the applicant was not properly charged or reported by summons. The review found that all four complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No recommendations were made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00067/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    28 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    67.16 The complaints in this case arose from a dispute between the applicants and a neighbour. Five complaints were considered, namely: 1) that a member of civilian Police staff failed to record the applicants' allegation of verbal abuse and damage to their property; 2) that Police Scotland took too long to speak to the individual whom the applicants suspected of causing damage to their property; 3) that an officer who responded to the applicants' report on 24 July 2015 lacked interest and had a poor attitude; 4) that an officer who attended at the applicants' home on 3 October 2015 involved himself in a civil matter, causing the applicants financial difficulties; and 5) that an officer informed the applicants that they may be subject to a verbal warning when the applicants do not believe he had any grounds to say this. The review found that three complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard while the remaining two were not. Two recommendations were made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00164/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    28 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    164.16 The complaints in this case arose from a search under warrant of the applicant's home. The warrant was granted on the basis that the applicant's son lived at the applicant's home but the applicant contends that he had not done so for some time. Four complaints were reviewed, namely: (1) that officers obtained a warrant based on inaccurate information that the applicant's sons resided there; (2) that officers searched the applicant's personal belongings even though his sons did not reside at his home; (3) that the applicant was not contacted prior to officers forcing entry; and (4) that officers stated that a letter found within the applicant's property addressed to his son justified the search.The review found that one of the complaints was dealt with to a reasonable standard and three were not. Three recommendations were made and a learning point was identified.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00423/15
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    28 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    423.15 The complaint in this case arose from the applicant's involvement with the police following her reporting that she had been raped. One complaint was reviewed, namely: that an officer, when conducting a criminal investigation, behaved abusively and unprofessionally towards the applicant and asked inappropriate questions. The review found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made in this connection and a learning point was identified.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00240/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    19 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    240.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's arrest and detention in police custody. Three complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that an officer made remarks which the applicant found offensive; 2) that it was decided the applicant should be placed in harm prevention clothing whilst in custody, which had not happened previously; and, 3) that the applicant's clothing was removed against his will without a satisfactory explanation. The review found that two of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and one was not. One recommendation was made and a learning point was identified.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00248/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    19 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    248.16 The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's arrest and detention following a road traffic incident. Six complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that the applicant was unnecessarily arrested; 2) that the applicant's cell was unsuitable for his disability; 3) that the applicant did not receive legal representation that he requested; 4) that the applicant was detained unnecessarily until 10pm; 5) that the applicant was not allowed facilities to take nutrients or medication; and, 6) that police officers did not listen to the applicant's version of events. 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/00354/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    19 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    354.16 The complaint in this case arose when officers attended at the applicant's address in connection with a noise complaint. One complaint was reviewed, namely that an officer acted in an aggressive and threatening manner. The review found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00404/16
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    12 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    404/16. The complaints in this case arose from the applicant's detention under Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Five complaints were reviewed, namely: 1. that Constable A acted in an aggressive manner and did not communicate in a reasonable manner thus abusing his police powers; 2. that Sergeant E acted in an aggressive manner and did not communicate in a reasonable manner thus abusing his police powers; 3. that Inspector F acted in an intimidating and controlling manner whilst he took the applicant's complaint and that he was kept in the police station until 2am without a break; 4. that the applicant's vehicle was seized when offices did not have grounds for doing so; and 5. that the applicant's mobile phone was seized when officers did not have grounds for doing so. The review found that four of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and one was not. One recommendation was made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00629/15
    Police Body:
    Report, Police Scotland
    Date:
    12 December 2016
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    629/15. The complaints in this case arose after the applicant reported damage to an access road at his property (which he considered to be an act of vandalism). Eight complaints were reviewed, namely: 1. that the length of time taken to investigate a reported vandalism was unreasonable; 2. that the crime category was recorded as malicious mischief and not vandalism; 3. that the overall standard of the enquiry was inadequate; 4. that the standard of the enquiry was inadequate in relation to named witnesses; 5. that an officer concluded there was insufficient evidence that a crime had been committed; 6. that no response was provided to multiple letters sent by the applicant; 7. that no explanation was provided for an officer being unable to contact the applicant by phone; and 8. that Police Scotland failed to provide a substantive response to questions raised by the applicant. The review found that six of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and two were not. Two recommendations were made.