Meeting SPA Complaints and Conduct Committee Date and Time 1400 hours on Wednesday 22 January 2014 Location i2 Office, West Regent Street, Glasgow Title of Paper Complaint Handling Reviews in relation to Police Scotland Lessons Learned Item Number 5.3 Presented By Chief Superintendent Val McIntyre For Approval / For Information For Information please annotate (IN RED BOLD) Appendix Attached: Yes or No Yes PURPOSE To advise members of the Scottish Police Authority in relation to Complaint Handling Reviews received by Police Scotland from the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC) during September, October and November 2013: Appendix A - PIRC Decision Letters issued November 2013 Appendix B - PIRC Published Complaint Handling Reviews issued November 2013 BACKGROUND 1.1 Where a complainer is dissatisfied about the way in which the Service has investigated his/her complaint, they can refer their file to the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC). 1.2 The PIRC thereafter requests a copy of the complaint file which they then review. 1.3 As a result of this review, the PIRC may issue a Complaints Handling Review (CHR) in relation to the file and comment on how the Service dealt with the complaint. FURTHER DETAIL ON REPORT 2.1 During the months of November 2013, 11 published Complaint Handling Reviews and 3 Decision Letters were received. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 3.1 None - 2 -
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS 4.1 None LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 None REPUTATIONAL IMPLICATIONS 6.1 None SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS 7.1 None RECOMMENDATIONS Members of the Scottish Police Authority to note this information.
Agenda Item 5.3 Appendix A POLICE INVESTIGATIONS AND REVIEW COMMISSIONER DECISION LETTERS ISSUED NOVEMBER 2013 (3) NORTH (2) 1. Allegations 1 Dealt with reasonably 1 Recommendations 0 Learning Points 0 In 2002 the complainer was involved in a road traffic collision and as a result of injuries sustained retired from work prematurely. She sought damages for her injuries and during that process expert medical opinion was obtained from NHS Consultants at that time acting in a private capacity. In her view the Consultants were fraudulently using NHS time and resources for private work and this impacted negatively on the financial settlement of her case. The complainer lodged a complaint regarding fraudulent activities by NHS Consultants. The allegation reviewed was: 1. It is alleged by the complainer that the enquiry officer failed to obtain and pass important documents to the CID and because of this they wrongly decided not to conduct an investigation into the alleged fraud. Appendix 'A' - PIRC - Decision Letters November 2013 (3) 1
Police Findings Whilst the complainer contended that the information she had in her possession was vital to her case, she had already been made aware from a number of individuals that the police would not be conducting any further investigation into her original conduct as they did not have primacy. Findings by PIRC The PIRC s view was that the police were justified in declining to investigate the complainer s fraud on two grounds. The first was that the police had received written confirmation that the allegation had previously been considered by the NHS Counter Fraud Services. The second was that a Memorandum of Understanding existed and permitted CFS to consider the allegation without involving the police. No recommendations were made and the complaint was considered to have been dealt with to a reasonable standard. 2. Allegations 3 Dealt with reasonably 2 Not dealt with reasonably 1 Recommendations - 1 The complainer lodged a complaint as a result of his being charged with an offence under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010. This is the offence commonly known as Stalking. Police Findings Police examined four allegations, all of which were not upheld and were concluded by explanation. The PIRC reviewed three allegations: 1. When noting the complaint Sergeant D and a female officer did not let you get a word in edgeways and were controlling and did not let you mention the circumstances which led to your arrest. 2. Due to the petty spite and nastiness of Constable A and Constable B they conducted a weak and thin investigation into an incident which led to the complainer being charged. Appendix 'A' - PIRC - Decision Letters November 2013 (3) 2
3. The complainer was unhappy that Chief Inspector C did not comment on his letter dated 5 April 2013 and withheld the complaint reference number. Recommendation The PIRC concluded that allegations 2 and 3 had been dealt with to a reasonable standard. In respect of allegation 1, PIRC concluded that it had not been dealt with to a reasonable standard and recommended that both officers be asked to provide their accounts of what occurred during the noting of the statement and that the complaint allegation is recorded. The allegation will be recorded and officers will be asked to give an account of what occurred. A further letter will then be written to the applicant and copied to PIRC. WEST (1) 1. Allegations 1 Not dealt with reasonably - 1 Recommendation - 1 This review relates to the complainer who reported a theft to Police. Enquiries were conducted but it was not established who stole the items the complainer reported missing. No one was charged and the enquiry was closed. The specific allegation asked to be reviewed was: Police failed to investigate or charge anyone following a theft she reported. Police Findings Police concluded that this allegation was not upheld. The conclusion reached for this allegation was based on the fact that a full and comprehensive enquiry was conducted into the theft and a Crime Report raised. The complainer s daughter s was detained under the terms of Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and taken to a Police Office. There was no corroborative evidence to liable any charges against her. An Inspector met with the complainer regarding her complaints and an explanation was given to her. There was insufficient evidence to submit a report to the Procurator Fiscal. Appendix 'A' - PIRC - Decision Letters November 2013 (3) 3
Findings by PIRC The Commissioner concluded that this allegation was not dealt with to a reasonable standard because the letter of response issued to the complainer was too general in its terms. Recommendation The PIRC recommended that Police Scotland write to the complainer to clarify the general nature of the original enquiries conducted into the alleged theft and the explanation provided to the complainer by the Inspector during the meeting on 5 April 2013. Police Service of Scotland will undertake enquiries in the above regard and a response will be prepared and sent to the complainer. Appendix 'A' - PIRC - Decision Letters November 2013 (3) 4
Agenda Item 5.3 Appendix B POLICE INVESTIGATIONS AND REVIEW COMMISSIONER 11 PUBLISHED COMPLAINT HANDLING REVIEWS ISSUED NOVEMBER 2013 SERVICE 46 Allegations 29 Handled Reasonably 16 Not Handled Reasonably 15 Recommendations 2 Learning Points North (2 CHRs) 5 Allegations 4 Handled Reasonably 1 Not Handled Reasonably 3 Recommendations 0 Learning Points 1. PIRC/00446/12/TP Papers sent 26 April 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background The complaint relates to the conduct of police officers who attended at the complainer s home address to remove firearms and shotguns after the complainer had been reported to the Procurator Fiscal for a Breach of the Peace. The allegations reviewed were: 1. That a police officer who attended at the complainer s house was brusque in her approach and forced her foot inside the door. 1
2. That the complainer was not given the opportunity to provide his account of the Breach of the Peace incident prior to the circumstances being reported to the Procurator Fiscal. 3. That the police did not notify the complainer when his shotguns would be returned following seizure and a letter received from the police in this connection was condescending. 4. That the address of the alleged incident detailed in the report to the Procurator Fiscal was wrong. Police Findings Police concluded that two of the allegations were upheld and two were not. 1. The conclusion reached in respect of Allegation 1 was the attending officers were not brusque but were simply being firm and forthright in their approach. The complainer was extremely agitated and by his own admission annoyed by their attendance at his home. The officers felt it was necessary to be assertive to prevent any escalation in the complainer s behaviour. The officer s foot was placed in the door to prevent the door being closed on them and to maintain communication (not upheld). 2. The conclusion reached in respect of Allegation 2 was that although it was not always necessary to interview a suspect or verbally charge a person before submission of a report to the Procurator Fiscal, out of fairness police should have afforded the complainer an opportunity to respond (Upheld. The officer was provided with advice on the correct procedure to be followed in these circumstances). 3. The conclusion reached in respect of Allegation 3 was that the complainer had been content with a verbal explanation of the process adopted when first spoken to on receipt of this complaint (not upheld). 4. The conclusion reached for Allegation 4 was that the complainer was correct. The address details on the correspondence to the complainer was incorrect, however this had no real bearing on matters. The correct locus was detailed on the charge. An explanation was issued to the complainer (upheld). PIRC concluded that one allegation (Allegation 4) had been dealt with to a reasonable standard. 2
Recommendations 1. In respect of Allegation 1, the Commissioner recommended that a further response to the complainer is issued examining whether in placing her foot in the complainer s doorway the officer was acting under any specific power and if not, whether her actions are considered appropriate in the circumstances. 2. The Commissioner also recommended that police write to the complainer apologising for the failure identified in Allegation 2. 3. In respect of Allegation 3, the Commissioner recommends that police consider amending its Standard Operating Procedure to ensure that Firearms Certificate Holders are informed of the procedure that will be followed in the event that their firearms are seized by the police. The recommendations from this Review have been addressed. In respect of Allegation 3, this recommendation has been passed to the Firearms Licensing Department who are addressing this at a national level. 2. PIRC/00009/13/TP Papers sent 12 April 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background The complaint relates to the procedures adopted by Police Officers in dealing with the sudden death of an 82 year old woman. Specifically the complainer is unhappy that his wife s body was removed to the police mortuary meaning he could not spend some time with her and he then had to pay to have the body transported from the mortuary to the funeral restrooms. The allegation reviewed was: The complainer was dissatisfied with the procedures used by police following the sudden death of his wife. Police Findings The allegation was not upheld. The conclusion reached for this single allegation was that officers had followed the Police Standard Operating Procedure for dealing with sudden deaths. 3
The concluding letter fully explained the reason why the body had been taken to the mortuary (the attending GP refused to sign a Death Certificate). However, as a result for this complaint all local NHS 24 Doctors received a reminder of what was expected from them when attending sudden deaths to avoid unnecessary distress to the deceased s family. A full explanation was also provided with regards to the Funeral Director costs, the charge of conveyancing from the mortuary to the restroom is identical to what would have been charged for removing the body from the home address to the restroom. This expense is incurred following any deaths as it is a standard charge implemented to remove and care for the body. The PIRC concluded that the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard and no recommendations were made. 4
East (5 CHRs) 31 Allegations 23 Handled Reasonably 7 Not Handled Reasonably 6 Recommendations 0 Learning Points 1. PCCS/00033/13/CSP Papers sent 30 April 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background This case originates from a vehicle which was struck by another vehicle and the driver did not stop. The incident was reported in another Force area and passed to the legacy area for enquiry. Due to an internal delay, enquiries were not conducted immediately although the offending vehicle and registered keeper were traced and he was reported under Section 172(2) and (3) of the RTA 1988. The applicant complained about the standard of the investigation and that no attempt was made to interview other potential drivers. The Commissioner identified that allegations had not been dealt with in an appropriate manner, those being: 1. That there were errors in the investigation and that the registered keeper should have been interviewed sooner. 2. That a certain named individual should have been interviewed as well as other persons named by the registered keeper who had access to his vehicle. Recommendations The Commissioner recommended that police should consider why no attempt was made to trace the registered keeper sooner and provide the complainer with a further response and, secondly, that Police Scotland should apologise for their failure to interview the registered keeper s wife and to establish if enquiries ought to have been made in respect of other persons who had access to the vehicle and that a further response be issued to the complainer on completion of that work. This has been progressed by Police Scotland. 5
2. PCCS/00059/13/CSP Papers sent 15 May 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background This case originates from a vehicle which was stopped following an ANPR activation which wrongly read the applicant s number. The applicant was stopped and invited into a police car. He later complained that despite the error: 1. He was required to provide his details. 2. That a Constable spoke to him in an intimidating manner. 3. That he was not given an apology for the ANPR error. The Commissioner identified that the following allegations had not been dealt with in an appropriate manner. These being: 1. That the applicant did not receive an explanation of the powers the police officers were using when they made their requirement for his details. 2. That the statements obtained from the officers did not address that aspect of his complaint that he had been spoken to in an intimidating manner. 3. That despite the finding that this aspect of him not being issued with an apology for the ANPR error was not dealt with appropriately, no recommendation be made in that respect. PIRC Recommendations The Commissioner recommended that Police Scotland should issue the applicant with a further response explaining clearly the specific power the police officers were acting under and the basis on which the complainer s details were required and obtain further statements from the Constables in which they address the complaint about an officer s manner, assess the evidence and issue the applicant with a response. This will be progressed by Police Scotland. 6
3. PCCS/00432/13/CSP Papers sent 22 April 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background This case relates to a number of varied allegations over a prolonged period of time as follows: 1. That in 2001 a Constable did not note statements when the complainer reported a theft and fraud. 2. In 2001 police did not note statements when the complainer and his partner were assaulted. 3. That in 2004 a Constable assisted the Electricity Board in disconnecting the electricity supply to the complainer s home. 4. That the complainer was not interviewed in respect of his partner s Complaint About the Police in 2004. 5. That in 2004 a Constable told lies about the complainer to a former neighbour. 6. That the complainer was wrongfully arrested in 2005. 7. That the complainer s property went missing following police action. The Commissioner identified that all the allegations had been dealt with in an appropriate manner with the exception of Allegation 2, however, he felt that due to the time lapse of 11 years it was not proportionate to recommend further action. 4. PIRC/00527/12/FC Papers sent 7 May 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background The applicant made the following Complaints About the Police: 1. That on 25 June 2012 the applicant s wife was unlawfully detained by the police. 7
2. That on 5 July 2012 the suggestion by a police officer that she would attend at the applicant s daughter s place of employment was neither reasonable nor proportionate. 3. That the time taken to respond to the applicant s complaint was unacceptable. Police Findings Police investigated Allegations 1 and 2 and provided a letter on 30 October 2012 in which the findings of the investigation were conveyed. Both allegations were found to be not upheld. The applicant wrote again to the police on 8 November 2012 expressing his continued dissatisfaction and requested the Force review the Complaint Handling (A practice that was operated by the legacy Force at that time). Following this internal review it was found that the initial findings were considered to be appropriate and the applicant was provided a further letter dated 11 March 2013. The view of the Commissioner is that Complaints 1 and 2 were dealt with to a reasonable standard, however he highlights that the applicant raised additional points in his letter dated 8 November 2012 which were not addressed by the legacy Force. The delay in concluding this CAP formed a third aspect to the applicant s complaint to PIRC which was found to be upheld. PIRC Recommendations 1. Police Scotland addresses the additional points raised in the applicant s letter dated 8 November 2012 and issue him with a response. 2. Police Scotland issue an apology to the applicant for the failure to keep him fully informed as the complaint review progressed. The Commissioner s recommendations are considered to be reasonable and are being progressed. 5. PIRC/00034/13/FC Background The applicant made the following Complaints About the Police. 1. A police vehicle was parked in a position that blocked access to the applicant s garage. 8
2. A member of staff at the police station asked the applicant for his name. 3. A Sergeant had a dismissive attitude and repeatedly stated that s your opinion. 4. That a Sergeant s actions, body language, tone and manner of speaking were intended to intimidate the applicant. 5. That a Sergeant intimated that the applicant had lied about the incident. 6. That an Inspector did not introduce Constable C until they were within the meeting room. 7. An Inspector did not inform him in advance that another officer would be present during the meeting. 8. That an Inspector made an inappropriate remark during the meeting. 9. That an Inspector made an inappropriate remark during the meeting. 10. Prior to the meeting with the Inspector, the applicant was not informed of his right to have a third party present at the meeting. 11. The Inspector s actions, body language, tone and manner of speaking were intended to intimidate the applicant. 12. The applicant was provided with conflicting information regarding how many officers should be present when noting a statement of complaint. 13. Prior to meeting with a Chief Inspector, the applicant was not advised that another officer was required to be present. 14. That a Chief Inspector inferred that the applicant s actions had caused a member of the public to leave the reception area of the police station. 15. That a Chief Inspector attempted to provoke the applicant by having another officer present. 16. That a Detective Chief Inspector suggested that the delay in progressing the complaint had been due to the applicant s actions. 9
Police Findings Police investigated the complaint and provided a final letter in which the findings of the investigation were conveyed, with the exception of Allegation 8 which was upheld, all other aspects of the complaint were found to be not upheld. The view of the Commissioner is that these complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard and no recommendations were made. 10
West 10 Allegations 2 Handled Reasonably 8 Not Handled Reasonably 6 Recommendations 2 Learning Points 1. PIRC/00413/12/SP Papers sent 30 August 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background This review relates to a male being slashed on the face with a knife by another male in a busy street. The male fled the scene in a car but reattended a short time later. He was later charged with the murder of the complainer s son, an unrelated event, which occurred a day later. He was also charged with Assault to Severe Injury and Permanent Disfigurement in respect of the initial incident. He was convicted on the charge of Assault but the murder charge was not proven. The complainer s specific allegations reviewed were: 1. Following one individual being assaulted the police did not arrest the suspect at the scene and thus presented him the opportunity to murder the applicant s son. 2. Officers wrongly told the complainer that there was no CCTV footage relating to the locus of the original incident on 10 June 2011. Police Findings Police concluded that Allegations 1 and 2 were not upheld. The conclusion reached for Allegation 1 was that all lines of enquiry into the incident were followed promptly and professionally. The suspect left the location and was at no time identified or spoken to by any police officer at the scene. The complainer was advised in a final letter of response that the suspect was identified, tried and convicted of this crime. The conclusion reached for Allegation 2 was reached against the background of the matter being sub-judice because certain aspects of the enquiry could not be disclosed. It was explained to the complainer that the CCTV footage was seized, however it transpired that there was no footage of the incident itself. The complainer received an apology for the information not being clearly communicated to him at the time. 11
The Commissioner concluded that Allegation 2 was not dealt with to a reasonable standard as the police did not seek accounts from the officers concerned as to what they told the complainer regarding the existence of CCTV. PIRC Recommendations PIRC recommends that accounts are sought from the officers in respect of the CCTV footage. This will be undertaken by Police Scotland and a response will be sent to the complainer. 2. PIRC/00515/12/SP Papers sent 24 April 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background The complainer was detained at her home in connection with an investigation into drugs that were being cultivated at a property owned by her employer. The complainer was taken to a local police office and questioned in relation to the offence. She requested the services of a solicitor who is the complainer s personal friend. The specific allegation reviewed was: 1. The solicitor requested by the complainer was not contacted by the police. Police Findings Police concluded that Allegation 1 was not upheld. The conclusion reached for the allegation was based on the accounts of the officers who stated that the complainer did not request the services of a specific named solicitor on 23 November 2012. From police records this solicitor was only requested by the complainer on 24 November 2012 and he visited her in custody. This solicitor raised an issue in terms of the SARF (Solicitor Access Recording Form) process and shortcomings were identified in terms of this. The complainer received an apology and the officer involved was counselled. 12
The Commissioner concluded that allegation 1 was dealt with to a reasonable standard. However, as Police Scotland did not assess whether there was any basis for a comment which was made by a Police Officer that the complainer had told police staff she did not know the name of any Solicitor, 1 recommendation was made. PIRC Recommendations The PIRC recommends that Police Scotland carry out enquiries to establish whether there was a basis for the comment that the complainer told police staff she did not know the name of any solicitor. Thereafter a response should be sent to the complainer. Police Scotland will undertake enquiries in this regard and a response will be prepared and sent to the complainer. 3. PIRC/00008/13-SP Papers sent 16 April 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background This review relates to an incident whereby the complainer, who was on foot, crossed a motorway exit lane. He was told by police he should not be walking there which he disputed. The complainer was arrested and charged with a Breach of the Peace and later issued with an Anti Social Behaviour Fixed Penalty Notice. The specific allegations reviewed were: 1. That a police officer s attitude was overbearing and insulting. 2. That his arrest was unnecessary. 3. That he was handcuffed unnecessarily. Police Findings Police concluded that Allegations 1, 2 and 3 were not upheld. The conclusion reached for Allegation 1 was based on the accounts of the two police officers. The officer subject to the allegation denied being uncivil towards the complainer in any way and this position is supported by another officer who was present at the time. 13
The conclusion reached for Allegation 2 was based on evidence from the officer that the complainer s actions constituted a Breach of the Peace, necessitating the complainer s arrest. This position is supported by another officer who was present at the time. The conclusion reached for Allegation 3 was based on evidence from the officer that he acted in accordance with Officer Safety Training and that the complainer was handcuffed to prevent harm coming to himself or any other person. The Commissioner concluded that Allegation 1 was not dealt with to a reasonable standard as his concern was not addressed in the final letter of response, however, no recommendation was made because the complainer s concerns were addressed by the Commissioner himself in the review. In respect of Allegation 2, the Commissioner concluded that it was not dealt with to a reasonable standard as the entire decision making process on the part of the officers concerned was not examined from the point when they encountered him to the point when they decided to arrest him. The Commissioner concluded that Allegation 3 was not dealt with to a reasonable standard as the actions as specified under Allegation 2 required to be completed before a reasonable response can be provided. PIRC Recommendations In respect of Allegation 2 the PIRC recommends that the Police Service of Scotland re-examines the entire decision making process and as part of this process police should consider whether or not the complainer was required to comply with an instruction to remain on the verge and whether or not they were justified in laying hands on him when he refused to do so. Further enquiries should also be undertaken as necessary including obtaining further accounts from the officers concerned. A clear conclusion should be reached as to whether grounds existed to arrest the complainer and a further response should be sent. In respect of Allegation 3 the PIRC recommends that the applicant is issued with a further letter of response once re-examination of the officer s actions under Allegation 2 has been completed. Police Scotland will undertake enquiries in the above regard and a response will be prepared and sent to the complainer. 14
4. PIRC/00036/12-SP Papers sent 7 May 2013 PIRC decision issued 21 November 2013 Background This review relates to a vehicle parked in the complainer s car parking space outside his home. The complainer blocked the vehicle in with his van and reported the matter to the police. Shortly after the complainer returned to his van the driver of the offending vehicle drove past him laughing and gesticulating. The complainer alleged his van had been damaged and moved indicating that force has been used to move his van out of the way. The specific allegations reviewed were: 1. That an officer rebuked the complainer for swearing. 2. That an officer called the complainer a liar. 3. That an officer walked off when the complainer was attempting to provide a statement. 4. That an officer forgot to take CCTV evidence (this allegation was identified by PIRC, however was not investigated by the police). Police Findings Police concluded that the allegations submitted to them i.e. Allegations 1, 2 and 3, were not upheld. The conclusion reached for Allegation 1 was based on the evidence of the officer subject to the complaint who confirmed that he had made a comment to the complainer, however this was a request due to the public nature of where the conversation was taking place. He was supported by colleagues who were present at the time. The conclusion reached for Allegation 2 was based on the officer s denial that he had made such a remark or that he was in any way uncivil towards the complainer. He confirms that he may have challenged the accuracy of the information the complainer was divulging. His position is supported by a colleague who was present at the time. The conclusion reached for Allegation 3 was based on the officer s account. The officer confirmed that he ended the interaction he had with the complainer that day. It is his position that the complainer was being un-cooperative throughout the incidents and his efforts to note an evidential statement from the complainer were hindered by the complainer s instance of including irrelevant facts pertaining to numerous previous parking disputes. The officer is fully supported in his position by a colleague who was present at the time. 15
Allegation 4 was not made known to the police at that time. The Commissioner concluded that Allegations 1 4 were not dealt with to a reasonable standard. In respect of Allegation 1 the Commissioner concluded that although some officers may not have had an issue with the complainer s language, there was nothing wrong with an officer asking the complainer to refrain from swearing. The Commissioner did not think that this request amounted to incivility or was condescending or demeaning as had been implied by the complainer. However, contrary to the Chief Inspector s position in his letter, neither officer stated in their statements that the reason the applicant was asked not to use such language was due to the public nature of the conversation. Although the terms of the response implied that the complaint was not upheld, this should have been made clear along with the specific reasons for that conclusion. In light of these deficiencies, the Commission does not consider that this complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. The Commissioner concluded that Allegation 2 was not dealt with to a reasonable standard because one of the officers did not address the complainer s specific allegation. The Commissioner concluded that Allegation 3 was not dealt with to a reasonable standard because the officers position on the matter was simply narrated in a letter of response and the complainer was not informed whether his complaint was upheld, nor was he provided with specific reasons for this decision. However, the Commissioner took into consideration the officers accounts and the contents of one of the officer s notebooks and concluded that the decision by the officers to disengage with the complainer was indeed reasonable. The Commissioner concluded that Allegation 4 was not dealt with to a reasonable standard as the complaint was not recorded or responded to by the police. PIRC Recommendations In respect of Allegation 2 PIRC recommends that a further statement is requested from one of the officers in which he is asked to address the complainer s specific allegation. Police Scotland should then consider the evidence as a whole and issue a further response to the complainer making clear whether or not the complaint is upheld and the reasons for this decision. 16
In respect of Allegation 4 PIRC recommends that Police Scotland records this complaint, makes appropriate enquiries and issues the complainer with a response. Police Service of Scotland will undertake enquiries in the above regard and a response will be prepared and sent to the complainer. Learning Points Two Learning Points were identified by the Commissioner. 1. In responding to complaints officers must ensure that the information provided to complainers reflects accurately the evidence contained within the police complaints file. Complainers should also be informed clearly whether their complaint is upheld or otherwise and the specific reasons for this. 2. Frequently officers who are subject of a complaint or who may be witnesses do not address the substance of the complaint in their operational statements. Where this occurs and the officers accounts are considered necessary for the proper determination of the complaint, enquiry officers should remind them of the benefits of addressing the complaint and provide them with a further opportunity to do so. These Learning Points will be addressed by Police Scotland. 17