independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00423/17 APRIL 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

Transcription

1 independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00423/17 APRIL 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. independent and effective investigations and reviews

3 Executive Summary The Complaints The complaints arose after the applicant contacted Police Scotland to report a non-recent domestic abuse allegation against his ex-partner. We considered two complaints, namely that: 1. Officers did not provide a quality of service to the applicant in relation to the recording of his report of domestic abuse; and 2. An officer was uncivil to the applicant during a telephone conversation on 9 February Police Scotland s Decision As a result of their complaint investigation, Police Scotland did not uphold either of the applicant s complaints. Our Findings Having reviewed the handling of the complaints, we agree with Police Scotland s decision to not uphold the complaints. We have therefore concluded that Police Scotland has handled the complaints to a reasonable standard. However, while we have found that Police Scotland has handled both of the complaints to a reasonable standard; a learning point has nonetheless been identified in this connection. Page 1

4 Background The applicant was in an on/off relationship with Ms A between 2005 and During this time, Ms A had a son that the applicant raised as his own. Since separating with Ms A, the applicant has moved away and has had no recent contact with his son. Over the years, the applicant has made various allegations about Ms A and his son to Police Scotland. The applicant has also made various complaints about the service he has received from Police Scotland in this regard. As a result, he is known to officers in the relevant local police division. The applicant initially contacted Police Scotland in 2013 to report an allegation of rape involving his son. The applicant subsequently made a complaint about Police Scotland in this regard. Of note is that this matter has been concluded separately, having been subject to a previous complaint handling review. In November 2015, the applicant reported to Police Scotland that he had been the victim of domestic abuse by Ms A in The incident was investigated by officers, following which the applicant was updated to the effect that there was insufficient evidence in which to charge Ms A. The applicant contacted Police Scotland on 9 February 2017 requesting a welfare check to be carried out on his son. He believed that his son should not be with his mother, and he again made reference to the alleged rape involving his son that he had raised previously. In March 2017, the applicant corresponded with Police Scotland. At this time, he complained that he did not receive a quality of service in relation to his domestic abuse allegations. He further said that Sergeant B had been uncivil to him during a telephone call regarding his son on 9 February Of note is that in May 2017, and whilst the complaint enquiry was ongoing, the applicant made further contact with Police Scotland. At this time, he again reported that he had been the victim of domestic abuse by Ms A in This resulted in an additional statement being taken from the applicant, and a further crime report being raised in June The applicant received a final response to his complaints in a letter dated 19 September 2017 from Detective Chief Inspector D. Page 2

5 Complaint 1 The applicant complained that officers did not provide a quality of service to him in relation to the recording of his report of domestic abuse. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 1 [not upheld by the police] Within her response to the applicant, Detective Chief Inspector D said that at the applicant s request, she had dispatched two officers to attend at his address in May 2017 and obtain a statement from him. She explained that this statement resulted in [most recent crime report number] being raised, and that this crime report records the progress of the enquiry. Detective Chief Inspector D thereafter explained that a review of the crime recording system showed that the applicant had previously reported a domestic abuse incident at the hands of the same perpetrator. She also said that this report had been recorded and given a separate crime report number. Detective Chief Inspector D said that the incident recorded under the previous crime report number had been reviewed, and as such she was able to confirm that a thorough investigation had taken place. She also noted that the information contained within the previous crime report was similar that provided by the applicant in his most recent statement and used to form the basis of the most recent crime report. Detective Chief Inspector D said that the witnesses named by the applicant were interviewed in relation to his allegations all of whom denied having witnessed the alleged assault against him or having seen bruises on him thereafter. Detective Chief Inspector D explained to the applicant that there was a lack of corroborative evidence to justify any charges being raised against Ms A. Detective Chief Inspector D however confirms that she is being kept up to date in relation to the other allegations that he has since made that are still being investigated. Detective Chief Inspector D advised that she agreed with the enquiry officers conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to consider charging Ms A at that time. For this reason, she has not upheld the applicant s complaint. Our Review of Complaint 1 A copy of the previous crime report has been provided to us to inform our review. This confirms that the applicant made contact with Police Scotland on 5 November At this time, he alleged that he had been the victim of a non-recent domestic abuse incident between 1 February and 28 February 2013 by Ms A. He provided the details of three witnesses who he said had either seen the assault against him or had witnessed the subsequent bruising. We can confirm that the crime report raised in 2015 details the actions taken by the enquiry officers. This crime report confirms that witness statements were obtained. It is noted that all three witnesses denied having seen Ms A assault the applicant and/or denied having seen any bruising on him thereafter. Page 3

6 The most recent crime report - raised on 20 June has also been provided to us. We can confirm that this crime report refers to the applicant alleging that he was a victim of domestic abuse. Of note is that this subsequent allegation also dates to having occurred between 1 February and 28 February The crime report raised in 2017 refers to a system check as having being carried out, and the officers having noted that the crime report was identical to an earlier crime report that had been raised by the applicant in It was noted that the crime report from 2015 had been fully investigated, with statements having been obtained from the alleged witnesses. It also noted that the accused was interviewed in respect of the allegation against her; however it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support any charges being raised. The crime report confirms that the applicant was made aware of the enquiries carried out by the officers at that time and the outcome of the same. Furthermore, it is noted in the 2017 crime report that the applicant had failed to supply Police Scotland with any new evidence or information to support his allegation. We consider that when the applicant initially reported his allegation of domestic abuse in 2015, the allegations were fully investigated at that time. Therefore, when the applicant later reported what appears to be the same incident in 2017, the officers have correctly cross-examined the crime reports, and deemed that there was nothing further to investigate as he had failed to provide any further and/or new information to support his allegation. The applicant had previously been told that there was a lack of evidence to support any charges being raised against Ms A. The fact that there are two crime reports that have been raised confirms that Police Scotland have both recorded the allegations made by the applicant and have also carried out an investigation, with the applicant being advised on both occasions of the outcome. This demonstrates that Police Scotland have taken the applicant s domestic abuse allegations seriously, and thus addresses the crux of his complaint in this regard. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the response provided by Detective Chief Inspector D is based on the material information available. Our Conclusion on Complaint 1 We conclude that Police Scotland has handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. No further action is required. Page 4

7 Complaint 2 The applicant complained that an officer was uncivil to him during a telephone conversation on 9 February The applicant claimed that the officer told him that he did not care that his son had been raped five years previous. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 2 [not upheld by the police] Detective Chief Inspector D said that she had identified the subject officer that spoke with the applicant on the evening of 9 February She requested that this subject officer provide a statement recalling the conversation he had with the applicant. Detective Chief Inspector D told the applicant that the subject officer denied being uncivil to the applicant, and that he specifically denied having told the applicant that he did not care about the rape of his son. Detective Chief Inspector D further explained that the subject officer had named another officer as being present during the telephone conversation, and who would have over-heard his side of the conversation. Detective Chief Inspector D explained to the applicant that she had checked to see if a recording of the telephone conversation was available, but it was not. Detective Chief Inspector D thereafter advised the applicant that she was unable to uphold his complaint due to the lack of evidence to support his position. Our Review of Complaint 2 Sergeant B has provided a statement in response to the complaint against him. A copy of this statement has been provided to us to inform our review. We can confirm that in his statement, Sergeant B has said that on 9 February 2017, he had reviewed the incident report that was raised after the applicant had contacted Police Scotland to request a welfare check to be carried out on his son. Sergeant B said that upon reviewing the incident report he had noted that, on the face of it, there appeared to be an immediate child protection concern. As such, he contacted the applicant by telephone. Sergeant B said that he was working alongside Sergeant E at the time, and that Sergeant E witnessed his side of the telephone call with the applicant. Sergeant B has provided a detailed account of his recollection of the telephone call with the applicant. He said that the applicant was difficult to deal with when he contacted him by telephone. He also said that the applicant appeared intent on making various allegations against individuals, separate police forces, and social workers. However, despite this being the case, the applicant was unable to provide answers to questions he was asked by Sergeant B regarding why he had contacted the police that day requesting a welfare check on his son. Sergeant B said that as the call progressed, he was able to establish that the applicant had not seen the various persons involved in his allegations for a period of four years or longer. He also said that the applicant had no new information to give Police Scotland to justify his request. Sergeant B said that when he was trying to explain his position, the applicant became irate and began accusing him of not caring about his son s rape. Within his statement, Sergeant B also describes trying to explain to the applicant that this was not the case; however the Page 5

8 matter that he was reporting was historical, and that he was not reporting any new information. Despite this, the applicant continued to make accusations against Sergeant B before he ended the call. Sergeant B said that at no time did I say to [the applicant] that I didn t care about any aspect of his call, but specifically did not say this in relation to a child s rape. The converse is true however as he repeatedly accused me of this. It is noteworthy that although Sergeant B has said that his colleague - Sergeant E had been present and over-heard the telephone exchange, no statement was obtained from him as part of the complaint enquiry. We consider that Detective Chief Inspector D s response to the applicant would have been strengthened if she had obtained a statement from Sergeant E confirming: whether he overheard Sergeant B being uncivil to the applicant; and/or whether Sergeant B had told the applicant that he did not care about his son being raped. Nonetheless, despite there being no statement from Sergeant E, we do not consider that this would have altered the final outcome of the complaint enquiry. As we have explained, Sergeant B has denied the allegation made by the applicant and there is no recording of the call available. We therefore consider that the available information is equally balanced. Of relevance in this respect is section of the Complaints about the Police Standard Operating Procedure ( the SOP ) which provides: There may be occasions when it is simply not possible to conclude that on [sic] account is more probable than another. This may occur when the evidence is equally weighted on both sides, for example where there is nothing in the surrounding facts to support either account, or where there is nothing to undermine the credibility of either account. In such circumstances the complaint will not be upheld. An explanation why the complaint is not upheld must be provided. This explanation should describe what evidence the enquiry officer found in the course of the enquiry for each allegation. With this in mind, we consider that Detective Chief Inspector D s response is in line with the SOP. This is because there are two versions of events - that of the applicant and that of Sergeant B. In the absence of any additional information to support either party, Detective Chief Inspector D has correctly determined that the applicant s complaint is not upheld and has provided an explanation for this. Our Conclusion on Complaint 2 We conclude that Police Scotland has handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. No further action is required. Page 6

9 Learning Point In her final response letter to the applicant, it is noted that Detective Chief Inspector D did not refer the applicant to the PIRC to request a review should he remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint enquiry. Accordingly, we consider that Detective Chief Inspector D should be reminded of the relevant Complaints about the Police Standard Operating Procedure, and more specifically section which clearly says that the complainer must be notified of what to do if he or she remains dissatisfied; and be provided with the relevant contact details to enable the applicant to contact the PIRC. This should be borne in mind by Detective Chief Inspector D when responding to any future complaints. Nicola Mayes Review Officer Jacqui Jeffrey Senior Review Page 7