Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

Transcription

1 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland independent and effective investigations and reviews independent and effective investigations and reviews

2 Index 1. Role of the PIRC 2. Key findings 3. Background 4. The Review 5. Conclusions Page 1

3 1. Role of the PIRC Sections 34 and 35 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 ( the Act ) provide that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner ( the PIRC ) may examine the manner in which particular kinds of complaints are dealt with by Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. Through agreements with UK police bodies operating in Scotland, the PIRC may also examine the manner in which these bodies deal with complaints. The PIRC cannot review complaints of criminal behaviour against police officers or police staff, or complaints made by persons serving, or who have served with the police, about the terms and conditions of their service. In performing this review function, the PIRC obtains information from the police body which dealt with the complaint. This information is considered together with information provided by the person who made the complaint ( the applicant ). An assessment is then made as to whether in all the circumstances the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. Among the factors taken into account when making this assessment are the following: whether sufficient enquiries into the complaint have been carried out by the policing body; whether the policing body s response to the complaint is supported by all material information available; whether in dealing with the complaint the policing body has adhered to all relevant policies, procedures and legal provisions; whether the policing body s response to the complaint is adequately reasoned; and where the complaint has resulted in the policing body identifying measures necessary to improve its service, whether these measures are adequate and have been implemented. 2. Key findings The complaints in this case arose when the applicant claimed a ring that he had previously found and handed in to Police Scotland as an item of lost property. Two complaints were reviewed, namely: 1. that the ring he found on 21 February 2017 was not the same one that was later returned to him; 2. that after handing the ring back to the police, he did not receive the ring he was entitled to claim. The review found that both complaints were handled to a reasonable standard. No recommendations have been made. Page 2

4 3. Background On 21 February 2017, the applicant found a gold ring whilst he was travelling on a local bus. The ring had diamonds (or similar) set into approximately one third of the band. The applicant handed the ring into the police office and it was logged as an item of lost property. After two months, as the item was not claimed by the owner, the applicant was entitled to have the ring returned to him. He therefore attended at the police office on 21 April 2017 to obtain the ring. However, later that same day, the applicant went back to the police office and returned the ring as he believed that it was not the one that he had originally found. Police Scotland thereafter decided that the ring should be auctioned in accordance with the normal procedures for the disposal of unclaimed property. On 24 April 2017 the applicant submitted an online complaint form to Police Scotland. Inspector A was appointed to investigate the applicant s concerns and met with him on 12 May 2017 when a statement of complaint was taken. Chief Inspector B responded to the complaint by letter of 18 August The Review Complaint 1: Wrong ring returned to applicant The applicant complained that a gold ring he retrieved from Police Scotland was not the same one that he had originally found and handed in as an item of lost property. The applicant recorded in his statement of complaint that the rings were very similar and looked the same but weren t the same. He stated that the ring he was given was the same kind of design and the diamonds were set in the same way. However, in his view, it was thinner than the ring he had handed in; was a larger size; and possibly a different carat. The applicant concluded his statement by noting I think someone has undoubtedly made a mistake and given me the wrong one back. Police Handling of Complaint 1 The applicant s complaint was not upheld. Chief inspector B provided the following response: The Police Scotland Lost, Abandoned and Found Property Standard Operating Procedure (referred to henceforth as the SOP ) provides instruction and guidance to all police officers and police staff who in the course of their duties are required to deal with lost, abandoned and found property. Page 3

5 The SOP is based upon the statutory provisions contained within Part VI of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 which specifically relate to Lost and Abandoned Property. Section 1.2 of the SOP Purpose provides the following guidance: Part VI of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 requires the Chief Constable to take appropriate care of lost and abandoned property, which has been delivered, or the finding of which, has been reported to a constable under Section 67 of the Act. When you attended at the Front counter at [the police office] on 21 February 2017 you handed the ring that you had found to the [Public Enquiry and Support Assistant] (PESA) who in turn issued you with a pink Found Property Receipt. This PESA then sealed the ring within an envelope and attached a yellow card copy of the Found Property Receipt before placing the package within the office safe as well as entering details of the found property within the safe book. At the start of every tour of duty the PESA and Police Officer performing Front Counter duties will review the office safe and safe book to verify that every item contained within the safe and recorded within the safe book is present and accounted for. They confirm that this is done by initialling the safe book next to each and every item that is recorded. This audit check is carried out three times per day. In relation to found property item [number provided], which refers to the ring that you handed in, the safe book shows that it remained within the office safe, and was initialled at each and every shift change until it was collected and signed for by a member of the Productions Department and transferred to the Productions Store. Due to the nature of the found property, it was transferred to a secure cabinet, within a secure room, within the Productions Department which only Production Keepers have access to. The ring you handed in then remained secured as described until Friday 21 April when you returned to [the police office] to claim the ring. When the Production Keeper was notified of your attendance they retrieved the ring from the aforementioned secure facilities and found that the envelope it was contained in was undamaged, showed no signs of being tampered with and had the yellow card Found Property Receipt [number provided] securely attached. The Productions Keeper then opened the envelope in your presence, returned the ring to you and caused you to sign the rear of the Found Property Receipt confirming you had claimed and received the item that you had previously found. Following receipt of your complaint a check was made of all found property that was handed into and lodged at [the police office] during February, March and April 2017 up to 21 April when you attended to make your claim as the finder. During this time period only three rings were handed in as found property to the Police. One was the ring you found and brought to [the Page 4

6 police office]. The other two were found at [a shopping centre] and were described as having a floral design and being costume jewellery respectively. I have noted from your statement to Inspector [A] that you are not suggesting that there had been any form of criminality or misappropriation but rather that a mistake was made and that the wrong ring was returned to you. I also note that on the day you found the ring you only had possession of it for a short period of time, possibly only in the region of 15 minutes before you handed it in as found property to the Police. I would therefore respectfully suggest that due to the passage of time between finding and claiming the ring, your honest and genuinely held recollection of the rings appearance has perhaps changed. In summary, and having considered Inspector [A] s findings with the explanations noted above, there is insufficient evidence from which to uphold your complaint and as a result I am satisfied that the ring that you surrendered at [the police office] on 21 February 2017 was properly managed, that the chain of custody was maintained and that the same ring was returned to you on 21 April Consideration of Complaint 1 Police Scotland s Complaints about the Police Standard Operating Procedure ( the Complaints SOP ) states that the decision whether to uphold a complaint must be taken based on the balance of probabilities. That is, the enquiry officer must use their own professional judgement to decide, based on all available evidence, whether one account is more credible than the other. Where the evidence is equally weighted, the complaint will not be upheld. In this case, Police Scotland has been able to demonstrate that the item handed in by the applicant was held securely and in accordance with the relevant procedures for the handling of found property. Mr C was the Production Keeper on duty on 21 April 2017, the day the applicant collected the ring. Mr C confirmed that the ring remained within a sealed envelope with the original found property receipt attached. He confirmed that there were no signs of the envelope having been opened or damaged. Police Scotland also confirmed that it was the only ring of its type handed in to the police office within the relevant period. The applicant himself confirmed that the ring he received was very similar in design to the one he recalled handing over to the police two months earlier. The differences he described were minimal and related mainly to the size of the ring rather than the style. As explained in the complaint response, he had the ring in his possession for a very short time. Accordingly, Police Scotland s assessment that the applicant s recollection of the ring s size maybe be flawed is considered to be reasonable. On the basis of the information gathered during the complaint enquiry, it is considered that Police Scotland was justified on balance in concluding that the ring returned to the applicant was the same one that he handed in as found property two months earlier. As the decision not to uphold the complaint Page 5

7 is supported by the material information available and is adequately reasoned, it is concluded that the complaint was handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required in this connection. Complaint 2: Applicant did not receive the ring he was entitled to claim The applicant complained that, after returning what he believed to be the wrong ring to the police, he still does not have the gold ring he was entitled to claim. Police Handling of Complaint 2 Although highlighted on his original online complaint form, this aspect of the applicant s complaint was not recorded formally by Police Scotland as a Head of Complaint. Nevertheless, the applicant was informed in the complaint response letter that the ring he returned would be sent for public auction. It can therefore be inferred from the response that the applicant s complaint was not upheld. Chief Inspector B stated the following: I also noted from your statement to [Inspector A], that you explained that if it did turn out that the ring [you] got back was the one [you] handed in then [you] would need to consider whether [you] wanted it back. In order to determine the most appropriate means of disposal for the ring I have considered the content of section 68(4) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 which provides specific guidance in relation to disposal of abandoned property and is reproduced below. The chief constable may, after the expiry of a period of 2 months from the date on which the property was delivered or its finding reported to a constable under section 67 of this Act, having regard to the whole circumstances including the nature and value of the property and the actings of the finder, offer it to the finder under section 70(1)(b) of this Act or, if in his opinion so to offer it would be inappropriate, may sell it or, if in his opinion it would be both inappropriate to offer it and impracticable to sell it, may dispose of it or make arrangements for its disposal otherwise as he thinks fit Having taken cognisance of all the available evidence and the statutory disposal options available, I have taken the decision that as you genuinely believe that the ring returned to you was not the one you found, the ring should not be offered to you and that it will be disposed of by means of auction with any proceeds being passed to the Police Authority. I have taken advice from the Police Scotland Legal Services Department and am satisfied that we have fulfilled our obligations in law and in relation to our own procedures. Page 6

8 Consideration of Complaint 2 It is noted that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 quoted above provides an element of discretion to the police regarding the disposal of found property. Nevertheless, prior to sending the ring for auction, the National Production Manager sought advice from Police Scotland s Legal Services Department to ensure that the organisation complied with its legal responsibilities in the circumstances of the applicant s case. That advice confirmed that Police Scotland had fulfilled its legal responsibilities, complied with its own internal procedures on the handling of found property, and that the item could now be sent for auction. The complaint response explained that, having established that the ring originally offered to the applicant was considered to be the same one that he handed in as found property two months earlier, it would be inappropriate to offer the ring to the applicant a second time. Chief Inspector B explained that his decision to send the ring for public auction instead is supported by the relevant legislation and is consistent with the legal advice provided to the National Production Manager. It is considered that Police Scotland sufficiently explained why the ring was sent for auction rather than being offered again to the applicant. It also explained the steps taken to ensure that the decision was consistent with the relevant legislation. Accordingly it is considered that the complaint was handled to a reasonable standard. However, it is recommended that Police Scotland now formally records Complaint 2 as a complaint about the police, documents the findings accordingly and confirms to the PIRC that this has been done. 5. Conclusions Complaints 1 and 2 It is concluded that both of the complaints were handled to a reasonable standard. No further action is required in connection with Complaint 1. However, it is recommended that Police Scotland now formally records Complaint 2 as a complaint about the police, documents the findings accordingly and confirms to the PIRC that this has been done. Lynn McCord Review Officer Jacqui Jeffrey Senior Review Officer Page 7