independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00176/17 August 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

Transcription

1 independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00176/17 August 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. *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. 1 P a g e

3 Executive Summary The Complaints The complaints in this case arose following the applicant s street traders license being objected to by Police Scotland. We have reviewed two complaints, namely that: 1. during a licensing committee on 30 June 2016, a sergeant provided the reason for the police objection being late was due to the complexity of the case, which the applicant did not accept; and 2. during a meeting at a local police office in February 2017, a sergeant said that she had no contact with police in another local authority which the applicant believed to be false. Police Scotland s Decision As a result of their investigation into the complaints, Police Scotland did not uphold either of the applicant s complaints. Our Findings We have found that Police Scotland have not handled either of the applicant s complaints to a reasonable standard. Consequently, we have made two recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland s handling of each of the complaints. We expect our recommendations to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report. 2 P a g e

4 Background The applicant owns a small business and applied to various local authorities in respect of obtaining a street traders license. The applicant s husband, Mr A, used to be a serving police officer, however in 2011 he was convicted of various offences and spent time in prison. The applicant applied for a street trader s license to three different local authorities. She was granted a temporary license by local authority 1, and subsequently made similar applications to local authority 2 and 3. Police Scotland submitted objections to the applicant s applications in local authority 2 and 3, however following the applicant s further representations her application in local authority 3 was granted. The applicant said that she believed her application with local authority 2 would have been granted if it had not been for officers from local authority 3, where her husband used to work, having contacted officers in local authority 2. The applicant contacted her MSP with her concerns who ed Police Scotland on her behalf on 5 October As a result, the applicant was invited to attend a meeting with officers from local authority 2 on 6 February During the meeting, the applicant said that Mr A asked Sergeant B whether she had any contact with police in local authority 3. The applicant was unhappy with the information she was provided with during meetings she attended on 30 June 2016 and 6 February The from the MSP dated 5 October 2016, on behalf of the applicant, was recorded as a formal complaint against Police Scotland on 26 July Inspector C was appointed as the enquiry officer. The applicant provided a statement of complaint and agreed and signed a Heads of Complaint form on 15 August The applicant received a response to her complaints in a letter from Chief Inspector D dated 20 September P a g e

5 Complaint 1 The applicant complained that during a licensing committee meeting on 30 June 2016, Sergeant B provided the reason for the police objection being late was due to the complexity of the case, which the applicant did not accept. The applicant said that she believed that the objection was late because Sergeant B had been in contact with officers from local authority 3 who provided information that lead to the objection being submitted to local authority 2. The applicant said that she believed that Sergeant B lied. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 1 (not upheld by the police) Within the response letter to the applicant Chief Inspector D said that during the meeting on 30 June 2016 the managing solicitor for local authority 2 made it clear to all parties present that the police objection to the applicant s application had been submitted late and he invited Sergeant B to provide a reason for the late submission. Chief Inspector D said that Sergeant B replied with words to the effect due to the complexity of the case and in fairness to the applicant. Chief Inspector D said that the applicant s solicitor, who was speaking on behalf of the applicant, was invited to ask any questions on the applicant s behalf however he declined. He further said that the eight elected members present also declined to ask any questions and upon them being asked to vote whether the reason for the police objection being late was competent and whether it should be allowed to be heard, they voted that the police objection should be admitted and the meeting progressed in the usual manner. Chief Inspector D said that he understood that the elected representatives subsequently voted and refused the applicant s application. Chief Inspector D said the following in respect of the applicant s complaint: in the interests of clarity, I would like to point out that the investigation into this allegation identified that the Police Scotland National Licensing Policy Unit electronically provided information to the Licensing department at [Division AA] that [the applicant] had applied to trade in a number of policing areas and that [Division BB] had requested Police Scotland provide a consistent response. This is not unusual and routinely sharing information at a local, regional and national level is a significant benefit of Police Scotland. At that point, the Licensing Department at [Division AA] delayed submission of their objection to [the applicant s] applications pending the submission of an objection by [Division BB]. This led to the [Division AA] objection being submitted on 3 rd June 2016, which was out with the normal period, hence the open invitation to question its late submission during the meeting on 30 th June Chief Inspector D said that he was content that the reason provided by Sergeant B during the meeting was accurate as there were complexities, and he said therefore that the applicant s complaint was not upheld. 4 P a g e

6 Our Review of Complaint 1 In order to inform our review we have been provided with a copy of Sergeant B s statement. Within her statement Sergeant B said that she was asked to refrain from any response as the applicant had applied to various policing areas and the police had to take a consistent approach. She further said that during the meeting on 30 June 2016 she informed the committee that the submission was late due to the complexity of the case and in fairness to the applicant. The response provided by Chief Inspector D detailed the exact wording used by Sergeant B within her statement. Having reviewed Chief Inspector D s response letter and the statement provided by Sergeant B we consider that neither the response letter nor the statement explain what the complexities were in this case, nor does the response letter or statement explain why the delay in submitting the objection was in fairness to the applicant. The statement provided by Sergeant B said that Division BB submitted their objection to local authority 3 on 18 May 2016 and the objection from Division AA was lodged with local authority 2 on 3 June Noteworthy however is that there is no explanation provided in either the statement provided by Sergeant B nor the letter issued by Chief Inspector D as to what caused the delay between 18 May and 3 June 2016, nor has the response considered when the 28 days expired for the objection to be lodged with local authority 2 and whether there was an opportunity to meet this deadline if officers in Division AA had responded at the same time as they received a copy of the objection from officers in Division BB. Although Sergeant B said within her statement that she had received instruction from the licensing coordination unit to refrain from any response, the only paperwork provided to the PIRC confirms on 10 May 2016 Division BB Licensing Unit sent information in an to the central licensing unit which advised that the applicant had submitted an application; that they were objecting to it; and they provided their reasons for this and said that it was their belief that Police Scotland should be objecting to these applications on a like-for-like basis. At the end of the there is a request for the information to be circulated to other areas however there is no request to delay submission of any objections, nor is there a suggestion that this matter is particularly complex. Accordingly, for the reasons mentioned we do not consider that this complaint has been handled to a reasonable standard. Our Conclusion on Complaint 1 We conclude that Police Scotland have not handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. We recommend that Police Scotland: obtain a further statement from Sergeant B. Within her statement she should explain in detail what she meant when she said that the objection was late due to the complexity of the case and in fairness to the applicant ; and issue the applicant with a further response. In doing so, Police Scotland should explain to the applicant the complexity in the case, and explain the two week delay between Division BB lodging their objection and Division AA submitting their objection. If there was an instruction to delay any response then this should be evidenced. The further response to the applicant should explain clearly whether her complaint is upheld/not upheld and should be based on the material information available. 5 P a g e

7 Complaint 2 The applicant complained that Sergeant B said that she had no contact with officers in another division however the applicant said that she believed this to be false. Within her statement, the applicant said that during the meeting Mr A asked Sergeant B if she had any contact from the police in Division BB in relation to her case. The applicant said that Sergeant B replied that she had not and said that all information which formed the police objection which was submitted to local authority 2 had been taken from the national police IT system. The applicant said that Sergeant B then went into detail and explained how information is shared between the police in Scotland. The applicant came to the conclusion that Sergeant B had lied to her as she had received an from Inspector E who was based within Division BB which confirmed that officers in Division BB had shared information with officers in Division AA. The applicant said that she wished to establish whether there had been any contact between Inspector E and Sergeant B, and if so she wished an explanation why Sergeant B said that she had no contact. The applicant further said that she wished to clarify whether any contact had been made between officers in Division AA and Division BB. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 2 (not upheld by the police) In order to inform the complaint enquiry, statements were obtained from the applicant, Mr A, an MSP representative, Sergeant B and Superintendent F. Within his response letter to the applicant, Chief Inspector D said that he is aware that during the meeting on 6 February 2017 Mr A asked Sergeant B a question with regards to her interaction with police in local authority 3. Chief Inspector D said that there is no audio or written minutes recorded and as no party can confirm the exact wording used it has been a difficult line of enquiry. Chief Inspector D said the following in respect of the applicant s complaint: I am in no doubt that when [Mr A] posed the question his intentions were to enquire about any contact whatsoever between [Sergeant B] and her colleagues in [local authority 3]. Equally, I am in no doubt that [Sergeant B] interpreted the manner in which the question was framed to mean any verbal communication, hence her reply that she had not had such contact. All parties agree that following her response [Sergeant B] provided a detailed explanation regarding the accessing and sharing of information via the national police IT systems. I can clarify with certainty that [Sergeant B] was in electronic contact with police colleagues in other policing areas, including [local authority 3], with regard to your applications and used that information in the course of formulating her objection to your applications. Chief Inspector D said that he is content that Sergeant B s response to Mr A s question was entirely honest and based on her interpretation of the words used. 6 P a g e

8 Chief Inspector D concluded that the applicant s complaint was not upheld. Our Review of Complaint 2 The statement provided by the applicant is supported by Mr A. Within his statement, Mr A said that during the meeting he voiced that he believed that officers in Division BB had contacted officers in Division AA objecting to the applicant s application to trade in local authority 2. Mr A said that Sergeant B advised that she had no contact with police in Division BB and then went on to say that the information she needed which formed her objection was taken from the police IT system. Both statements from the applicant and Mr A are supported by a statement obtained from the MSP representative, who was also in attendance during the meeting on 6 February Within her statement, the MSP representative said that during the meeting on 6 February 2017 she recalled Mr A having asked Sergeant B if the police in Division BB had contacted her in relation to his previous convictions, to which Sergeant B replied that they had not been contacted. The MSP representative said that Sergeant B then went on to explain that licensing information was stored in a central database and that information could be accessed from both areas. Noteworthy, however is that although the MSP representative said that she cannot remember the exact words which were used by Mr A when he asked his question, she said that she definitely remembered the word contact being used in his question. The MSP representative confirmed that the applicant contacted her days after the meeting and forwarded an she had received from Inspector E from Division BB which confirmed that officers within Division BB had shared information with officers in Division AA. The sent to the applicant from Inspector E has been provided to us. Within his Inspector E confirmed that officers from Division BB shared information with officers in Division AA. He further said that the wider sharing of information and the introduction of shared licensing database is one of the outcomes of the establishment of Police Scotland. As mentioned previously, Sergeant B provided a statement which has been considered as part of the review. Within her statement, Sergeant B said that Mr A asked her if she had spoken to any officers in Division BB and she said that she replied that she had not, which she said was accurate. Sergeant B said that she explained that information was shared and accessed across Police Scotland via an IT system. Within her statement, Sergeant B confirmed that she had communicated with officers from Division BB using this IT system. Sergeant B advised that due to the way Mr A s question was framed she interpreted it as meaning face to face or verbal contact and this was the reason she responded that she had not had such contact and then explained the use of the police IT system as a way of sharing and accessing information. Sergeant B concluded her statement by confirming that throughout the case she was in contact with officers in Division BB. Superintendent F was also present during the meeting on 6 February 2017 and she provided a statement, which has also been considered as part of the review. Within her statement she said that she was aware that Sergeant B had received electronic communication but was not aware of any face to face or verbal communication. Superintendent F said that during the meeting Sergeant B did not confirm that she had face to face or verbal contact with officers in Division BB. Having reviewed the statement provided by Superintendent F we consider that it supports the applicant s position that Sergeant B had been in contact with officers in Division BB however we note that she does not address the specific words used by Mr A when he asked his question. As per the response letter from Chief Inspector D the exact wording used by Mr A is not known however based on the information available, and in particular the statements provided by the applicant, Mr A, and the MSP representative it would be reasonable on balance to infer that the question asked by Mr A surrounded whether there had been any contact. Furthermore, this was accepted by 7 P a g e

9 Chief Inspector D within his response letter when he said I am in no doubt that when [Mr A] posed the question his intentions were to enquire about any contact whatsoever. A reasonable interpretation of contact would include any form of communication in any form whether this was verbal, written, electronic or otherwise. The wording provided by Sergeant B in that she said she was asked if she had spoken to any officers is not supported by any other statements. Although it is a point of concession that Sergeant B explained the use of the police IT system which is used in order to share information, we consider that irrespective of this explanation the response provided by Sergeant B to Mr A s question could have been misleading and may have resulted in the applicant concluding that Sergeant B lied. As mentioned, Chief Inspector D advised that he had no doubt that Mr A was enquiring about any contact whatsoever therefore irrespective of whether Sergeant B misinterpreted the question or not, we consider that the decision not to uphold the applicant s complaint is at odds with the information available and is not based on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, we do not consider that this complaint has been handled to a reasonable standard. Our Conclusion on Complaint 2 We conclude that Police Scotland have not handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. We recommend that Police Scotland: re-assess the applicant s complaint. In doing so, Police Scotland should assess the information available and make a determination using the balance of probabilities test; and issue the applicant with a further response which clearly details how the available information has been used to determine the outcome of her complaint using the balance of probabilities test. The letter should clearly detail to the applicant as to whether her complaint is upheld/not upheld. 8 P a g e

10 What happens next We have made two recommendations. We expect these to be implemented within two months of the date of this report. We will continue to liaise with Police Scotland until such time as we consider that the recommendations have been implemented to our satisfaction. Nicola Mayes Review Officer Ilya Zharov Head of Review and Policy 9 P a g e