independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00095/17 [July 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

Transcription

1 independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00095/17 [July 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

2 What we do We obtain all the material information from Police Scotland and the applicant. We then use this to review how 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 were carried out by Police Scotland; whether Police Scotland s response to the complaint was supported by the material information available; whether Police Scotland adhered to the relevant policies, procedures and legal provisions in dealing with the complaint; whether Police Scotland s response was adequately reasoned; and where the complaint resulted in Police Scotland identifying measures necessary to improve its service, that these measures were adequate and have been implemented. Finally, where we deem appropriate, we give reconsideration directions, make recommendations and identify learning points for Police Scotland. 1 P a g e

3 *Sections 34 and 35 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 as amended ( 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. The Complaint(s) The applicant complained about the level of enquiry carried out by the police into theft/fraud allegations that she had reported to them. We have reviewed three complaints, namely: 1. In May 2016, the applicant reported a theft/fraud but does not believe that the suspect was interviewed; 2. In May 2016, the applicant reported a theft/fraud but does not believe neighbours who might be witnesses were spoken to; and 3. In May 2016, she reported a theft/fraud but does not believe the owners of the stolen car were spoken to in order to identify how they received the vehicle. Police Scotland s Decision As a result of their complaint investigation, Police Scotland did not uphold any of the applicant s complaints. Our Findings We have found that Police Scotland did not handle any of the complaints to a reasonable standard. Consequently, we have made a single recommendation in order to address the shortcomings that we have identified in Police Scotland s response to the complaints 1, 2, and 3. We expect our recommendation to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report. 2 P a g e

4 Background In May 2016, the applicant reported theft/fraud allegations to Police Scotland involving Ms A. Ms A was a friend of her now late father-in-law, Mr B. Although the police recorded her concerns, they considered the matters she reported to amount to a civil dispute between the parties involved, and marked the incidents as no crime. On 17 January 2017, the applicant submitted her complaints online. On 7 February 2017 Inspector C noted the applicant s statement of complaint and agreed the Heads of Complaint to be investigated. The applicant received a response to her complaints in writing from Chief Inspector D in a letter dated 5 September P a g e

5 Complaint 1 The applicant complained that, in May 2016, she had reported a theft/fraud to the police and the suspect was not interviewed. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 1 [not upheld by the police] In his response to the applicant, Chief Inspector D explained that legal advice was sought from Police Scotland Legal Services Department, the outcome of which deemed that the matter reported was a civil dispute. This was because the suspect was named legally within the applicant s father-in-law s Will and therefore had legitimately received the items. On this basis, the applicant s complaint was not upheld. Complaint 2 The applicant complained that in May 2016, she had reported a theft/fraud to the police; however, potential witnesses were not spoken to. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 2 [not upheld by the police] In his response to the applicant, Chief Inspector D explained that legal advice was sought from Police Scotland Legal Services Department, the outcome of which deemed that the matter reported was a civil dispute. On this basis, the applicant s complaint was not upheld. Complaint 3 The applicant complained that, in May 2016, she had reported a theft/fraud to the police; however, she does not believe that the owners of the stolen car have been spoken to in order to identify how they received the car. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 3 [not upheld by the police] In his response to the applicant, Chief Inspector D explained that legal advice was sought from Police Scotland Legal Services Department, the outcome of which deemed that the matter reported was a civil dispute. This was because the suspect was named legally in the applicant s father-in-law s Will and had legitimately received the items. He then explained that the car was the property of Ms A to retain or sell as she wished. On this basis, the applicant s complaint was not upheld. Our Review of Complaints 1, 2 and 3 4 P a g e

6 Having reviewed the complaints file we note that the applicant s allegations were initially recorded, however the matter was marked as no crime. Despite our repeated requests to be provided with the relevant information in order to for us to conduct our review, to date we have yet to be provided with a copy of the relevant crime report or any associated witness statements that were obtained during their investigation into the allegations. From the paperwork that has been provided to us, we note that enquiry was carried out with Police Scotland Legal Services Department as part of the complaint investigation. The advice that was provided by a force solicitor appears to have affirmed the belief that the matter was a civil dispute and has thereafter been used by Chief Inspector D to form the basis of the explanation he has provided in response to the applicant s complaints. Notably, the explanation offered by Chief Inspector D for each complaint is broadly similar, namely that the applicant s father-in-law (Mr B) had named Ms A as executor in his Will. He explained that because Ms A was named as the executor, she would have been entitled to remove all moveable items in the estate including bank balance, cash sums and shareholdings, and would have legitimately received these items. Whilst we agree with this position in respect of events that may have unfolded after Mr B s death, from our assessment of the limited evidence available, the concerns reported by the applicant appear to relate to incidents that occurred prior to this. Without having had sight of the crime report, it is difficult for us to determine the exact nature as to what was recorded and/or investigated; and to assess the rationale behind Police Scotland s decision to mark the report as no crime. We consider that if the concerns recorded do indeed relate to incidents that occurred prior to Mr B s death, it would stand that Ms A would not at that time have been appointed executor, meaning that the explanation offered by Chief Inspector D in the complaint response to the applicant would not be applicable. For this reason, we consider Chief Inspector D s response to all three complaints to be inadequately reasoned. Accordingly, we conclude that none of the applicant s complaints have been handled to a reasonable standard. Our Conclusion on Complaints 1, 2 and 3 We conclude that Police Scotland have not handled the applicant s reasonable standard. complaint to a We recommend that Police Scotland issue the applicant with a fresh response that takes into consideration the points highlighted above. In doing so, Police Scotland should clarify and fully explain the nature of the concerns reported and the decision to mark the report no crime. If the concerns reported did relate to incidents that occurred before Mr B s death, Police Scotland should fully explain the police action taken and assess the adequacy of the level of enquiry carried out. Kirstin McPhee Review Officer 5 P a g e

7 Jacqui Jeffrey Senior Review Officer What happens next We have made a recommendation within our review. implemented within two months of date of this report. We expect our recommendation to be We will continue to liaise with the police until such time as we consider that they have implemented the recommendations to our satisfaction 6 P a g e