independent and effective investigations and reviews [PIRC/00442/17] [JUNE 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

Transcription

1 independent and effective investigations and reviews [PIRC/00442/17] [JUNE 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

2 What we do We obtain all material information from Police Scotland and the applicant. We then use this information to examine the manner in which the complaint was dealt with and conclude whether the complaint was handled to a reasonable standard. In doing so, we consider factors such as: whether sufficient enquiries into the complaint have been carried out by Police Scotland; whether Police Scotland s response to the complaint is supported by the material information available; whether Police Scotland has adhered to the relevant policies, procedures and legal provisions in dealing with the complaint; whether Police Scotland s response is adequately reasoned; and where the complaint has resulted in Police Scotland identifying measures necessary to improve its service, that these measures are adequate and have been implemented. Finally, where we consider appropriate, we make recommendations, give reconsideration directions and identify learning points for Police Scotland.

3 Executive Summary The Complaint On 1 September 2017, police officers forced entry to the applicant s property. The applicant complained that officers had forced entry to the wrong address and that he had incurred the cost of the repair to the front door. Police Scotland s Decision As a result of their investigation, Police Scotland did not uphold the applicant s complaint. Our Findings Having reviewed the handling of the complaints, we have found that Police Scotland has handled the complaint to a reasonable standard. No further action is required in this connection. independent and effective investigations and reviews

4 Background The applicant manages the property in question a tenanted rental property on behalf of his fatherin-law. On 1 September 2017, officers from Police Scotland executed a search warrant and forced entry to the property. The applicant incurred the costs of repairing the front door. The applicant made his complaint both by telephone on 6 September 2017 and in writing in a letter of the same date. The enquiry was allocated to Sergeant A, who met with the applicant on 27 September 2017 and noted a statement of complaint. The Heads of Complaint form was also agreed and signed on this date. Sergeant A originally resolved the applicant s complaint via front line resolution (FLR). The applicant received a letter from Police Scotland dated 6 October 2017 to this effect, explaining that as he had accepted Sergeant A s explanation, they considered the matter as having been resolved. However, the applicant responded to Police Scotland in a letter dated 13 October At this time, he made clear that he was not happy with the proposed resolution. The complaint enquiry was thereafter re-allocated to Sergeant A for further enquiry. The applicant received a final response to his complaints from Chief Inspector B in a letter dated 23 November The Complaint The applicant complained that Police Scotland had forced entry to the wrong address and that he had incurred the cost of the repair. Police Scotland s Handling of the Complaint [not upheld by the police] In his response to the applicant, Chief Inspector B explained that entry to the premises was forced under warrant. He explained that the complaint enquiry officer Sergeant A - had viewed the warrant in question and had confirmed that the address shown on the warrant was the applicant s property. Chief Inspector B then explained that Police Scotland would not comment upon the existence of any intelligence held nor confirm the specific basis on which a warrant application was made. However, in order to provide the applicant with some reassurance, he explained the process that is followed in relation to intelligence led warrant applications prior to their presentation to the Procurator Fiscal. In doing so he referred to the relevant standard operating procedures, protocols and codes of practice. 1 1 A copy of Police Scotland s detailed response in this respect is attached at Appendix 1

5 In relation to the cost of the damage to the door, Chief Inspector B has referred to Police Scotland s Forced Entry and Insecure premises Standard Operating SOP (Forced entry SOP) which states: where entry is forced with a legal Warrant to occupied or unoccupied premises by Police Officers for crime investigation purposes the responsibility for costs rests with the owner/occupier or insurance company Chief Inspector B reasoned that entry was forced to the correct property by officers who were in possession of a lawfully granted warrant that was obtained in line with the relevant standard operating procedures. He explained that, in line with the relevant procedures, the cost for repair did not lie with Police Scotland. Chief Inspector B did not uphold the applicant s complaint. Our Review of the Complaint We consider there to be two aspects to the applicant s complaint, namely: (i) that Police Scotland had forced entry to the wrong address under a search warrant; and (ii) that he had incurred the cost of repairing the damage that had been caused to the door of the property. For ease of reference, we will consider each aspect of the applicant s complaints in turn. (i) Wrong address In his statement of complaint, the applicant has said that he believed that Police Scotland had made a mistake leading them to have attended at the wrong address. As Chief Inspector B s response explains to the applicant, Police Scotland s position is that they will not comment upon the existence of any intelligence that they hold nor will they comment upon the specific basis on which a warrant application is made. However, so as to provide some form of reassurance to the applicant, Chief Inspector B explains the robust system of checks that exists regarding intelligence held warrant applications that requires to be satisfied prior to their presentation to the PF. Chief Inspector B explains that the purpose of these checks is to satisfy the Divisional Intelligence Manager as to the quality of the case that is being presented by the police at the time of seeking a warrant. Chief Inspector B explains that the final decision ultimately lies with the Sheriff who, upon being presented with all the intelligence available, will make the decision as to whether to grant the search warrant. We also note that Chief Inspector B has explained to the applicant in great detail the guidance and protocols that are in place in relation to the recording and retention of intelligence on the Scottish Intelligence Database (SID). Having viewed the provisions of Police Scotland s Warrants Standard Operating Procedure and their Scottish Intelligence Database Standard (SID) Standard Operating Procedure as part of our review, we can confirm the response that has been given by Chief Inspector B in this respect is both accurate and in accordance with the relevant procedures. Police Scotland has also provided us with a copy of the warrant in question. Having considered the content of the warrant, we can confirm to the applicant that it does indeed relate to his property. Furthermore, we have also viewed the intelligence relied upon by Police Scotland to crave the search warrant. Whilst we cannot disclose the details of the intelligence, we are able confirm that it has been appropriately evaluated and graded, and that proper procedures have been followed. For this reason, we agree with Police Scotland s position that entry was forced to the correct address by officers in possession of a lawfully granted warrant that was obtained in accordance with the relevant guidance and standard operating procedures.

6 (ii) Cost of damage In order to address this aspect of the applicant s complaint, we note that Chief Inspector B has referred to the provisions of Police Scotland s Forced Entry SOP. Having viewed the Forced Entry SOP 2 as part of our review, we can confirm that this SOP makes clear that on occasions whereby entry is forced to a property with a legal warrant, then the responsibility for any costs that will thereafter be incurred rests with the owner/occupier of the property or insurance company. We consider this SOP fully supports Chief Inspector B s response to the applicant, and his explanation that as the officers were in possession of a legal warrant, Police Scotland are not responsible for the associated financial costs arising from the execution of the warrant. Although we appreciate the applicant s frustration that the source and/or content of the intelligence that resulted in the warrant being craved and executed at his property cannot be disclosed to him, we seek to reassure the applicant by confirming that we as an independent oversight body are satisfied that Police Scotland has followed the relevant processes and procedures. Furthermore, we also consider that Chief Inspector B has given a thorough and well-reasoned response to the applicant that is in accordance with these procedures. We therefore consider Chief Inspector B s decision to not uphold this complaint as being supported by the material information available. Accordingly, we conclude that overall, Police Scotland has handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. Our Conclusion on the Complaint We conclude that Police Scotland has handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. No further action is required 2 Relevant extract of the Forced Entry SOP can be found at Appendix II

7 Appendix [I] Copy of Police Scotland s response letter dated 23 November 2017 (Redacted and paragraphs numbered) 1. COMPLAINT 1 2. You told us that the Police damaged the front door of your property when they forced entry to the property, in error, and you were left to pay for the repair. 3. You explained that you manage a property at [named address] on behalf of your father-in-law. On 1 September 2017, the tenants of the property were [Miss C] and her partner [Mr D]. You state that on this date, you were informed by [Miss C] that on her return home, she found the door of the property open and number of Police Officers within. You state that officers had forced entry to the property, using the powers of a Search Warrant You state that the officers told [Mr D] that Police Scotland would not be liable for the damage caused to the door and surround when entry was forced. You also state that Miss C has asked to see the Warrant since the day of the incident, but has not been allowed to check the name and address on the Warrant, to ensure that the details are correct. You state that the Police Officers attending may have forced entry to the wrong address and that you have been left to pay for the repair. 4. [Applicant] it is not in doubt that Police Officers forced entry to the property at [named address]. Sergeant [A] has viewed the Warrant submitted through the Procurator Fiscal. As explained in my previous letter dated 6 October 2017, the address on the Warrant is [named address]. You state that the Warrant was shown to [Mr D] at the time of execution but has not been viewed by [Mr D] since this date. 5. Police Scotland will not comment on the existence of any intelligence held and will not confirm the specific basis on which any Warrant application is made. Neither will we confirm nor deny any individual's suspected involvement in criminality. However, in order to provide some assurance on quality control, you should be aware that a robust system of checks exists whereby the Divisional Intelligence Manager reviews all intelligence-led Warrant applications prior to their presentation to a Procurator Fiscal (PF). 6. The Police Scotland Warrants Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) states that, for the purposes of applying for search Warrants based on intelligence recorded on and obtained from the Scottish Intelligence Database (SID), the PF will require the grading of each piece of intelligence and may make further enquiries and seek guidance on how many separate sources are contained in the Warrant application. This is based on the rationale that uncorroborated intelligence from more than one source adds credibility to the information that is being presented. The evaluation of the source of the intelligence will be reflected in the grading that is attributed to the intelligence contained in the relevant SID log. This effectively means that, in applying for the Warrant, the PF would have to be satisfied that there was a sufficiency of reliable and/ corroborated intelligence. 7. It may be helpful to explain the guidance and protocols relative to the recording and retention of intelligence on SID. At present, the protocols relative to the recording, use and sharing of intelligence held on SID is contained in the Police Scotland SID Standard Operating Procedure, which details the. SID Rules, Conventions and Data Input Standards, and also makes reference to the legacy National

8 Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) Code of Practice and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) Manual of Standard for the Recording and Dissemination of Intelligence Material. These documents provide that the origin of any intelligence must be appropriately explained prior to recording. The intelligence must be graded in accordance with the '5x5x5' system, which aims to ensure adherence to the Data Protection Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to intelligence record held on persons. 8. The '5x5x5' system is used by UK Police Forces to evaluate the following: the reliability of the source providing the intelligence; the accuracy of the intelligence itself; and its potential to be disclosed or shared with other agencies. Prior to being recorded onto SID, intelligence submitted by Police Officers and Police staff must be assessed by an Intelligence Officer, who should examine it to determine whether it meets the standard grounds for recording onto the system. If it passes this test, the Intelligence Officer should examine the '5x5x5' grading given by the submitting officer and make any necessary changes to the grading, dependent on their assessment of the appropriateness of the assigned grades. The guidance also states that it remains the responsibility of the intelligence area creating a record on SID to ensure that the data entered is correct, and has proper source and provenance. This guidance serves to demonstrate the robust principles that are in place regarding the recording and retention of intelligence. 9. With regard to the costs of repairing any damage caused, as explained in the letter dated 6 October 2017, Police Scotland Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) on Forced Entry and Insecure Premises state: where entry is forced with a legal Warrant to occupied or unoccupied premises by Police Officers for crime Investigation purposes the responsibility for costs rests with the owner/occupier or insurance company. It is therefore my determination that entry was forced to the correct property by officers in possession of a lawfully granted Warrant, obtained in accordance with the relevant Police Scotland Standard Operation Procedure, and that the associated costs of repair do not rest with Police Scotland. Accordingly, I do not uphold your complaint.

9 Appendix [II] Relevant extract of Police Scotland s Forced Entry to Premises Standard Operating Procedure: When the police force entry to premises the responsibility rests with the owner/occupier of the property. Therefore, in the majority of cases Police Scotland will not be considered liable for the costs the responsibility for costs are detailed in the following table: Type of Incident Forced entry with legal warrant to occupied or unoccupied premises by Police Officers for crime investigation purposes. Forced entry to premises by Police Officers under suspicious circumstances. Forced entry for medical emergency or to protect life Property is subject to a forensic examination with the owner's consent or is necessary as part of a serious criminal enquiry. Forced by police at incorrect address. Responsibility for Costs Owner/occupier or insurance company Owner/occupier or insurance company Owner/occupier or insurance company Owner/occupier or insurance company. Police Service liable for payment.