• 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/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.
  • Title:
    Reports - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00356/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    27 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Reports - Police Scotland
    356.16 The complaints in this case arose from police officers' attendance at the applicant's property on 16 April 2016 in connection with a reported disturbance. Three complaints were reviewed, namely that: 1) police officers entered the applicant's property and damaged carpets in the process; 2) the applicant was grabbed and pushed against a door and handcuffs were applied which caused bruising; and 3) a police officer grabbed the applicant's arm. The review found that two of the complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and one was not. One recommendation was made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00281/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    20 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    281.16 The complaints in this case arose from the police investigation into an allegation of rape made by the applicant against a colleague. Three complaints were reviewed, namely: 1) that officers failed to make all necessary enquiry into the alleged offences; 2) that officers failed to refer the applicant to counselling services; and 3) that an officer dealt with the applicant without an appropriate degree of empathy in updating her on the enquiry. The review found that none of the complaints had been dealt with to a reasonable standard. One recommendation was made and a learning point was identified.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00443/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    20 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    443.16 The complaint in this case arose from the applicant's arrest warrant. The complaint considered was that a police officer failed to input accurate information regarding the applicant's address on police recording systems, which ultimately led to the applicant's arrest for failing to appear in court. It was found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. A single recommendation was made in this connection.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00384/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    20 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    384.16 The complaint in this case arose from an incident in which the applicant was bitten by a dog. One complaint was reviewed, namely that the allegation reported to the police was marked "no crime" due to Police Scotland's failure to conduct a full enquiry and consider all the available evidence. The review found that the complaint was not dealt with to a reasonable standard. Three recommendations were made.
  • Title:
    Report - Police Scotland
    Reference:
    PIRC/00278/16
    Police Body:
    Reports, Police Scotland
    Date:
    20 February 2017
    Download:
    Download Report - Police Scotland
    278.16 The complaints in this case arose from the discovery of previous foreign convictions in relation to the applicant's husband, Mr A. Three complaints were considered namely: 1) that Police Scotland failed to timeously establish the previous foreign criminal convictions in relation to Mr A; 2) that having been made aware that Mr A had relevant previous convictions of a sexual nature involving a child, Police Scotland failed to establish that he had regular access to a step-grandchild; and 3) that Police Scotland did not share Mr A's previous foreign convictions with the applicant. The review found that two complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard while the remaining complaint was not. A recommendation and a learning point were made in this connection.
  • 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.