independent and effective investigations and reviews [PIRC/00522/17 [MARCH 2018] Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
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. 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. 3
Executive Summary The Complaint(s) The applicant contacted the police to report a non-recent assault by his father along with several other issues he deemed to amount to child neglect. He made three complaints about the action taken by the police to his reported concerns, namely: 1. that an officer stated that he would make arrangements for a statement to be taken but the incident was disposed of by way of a vulnerable person s referral; 2. that the letter the applicant received from Police Scotland dated 2 September 2016 did not contain any detail of discussions that took place; 3. that the setting at which the applicant provided a statement was inappropriate as it was a working office as opposed to an interview room. Police Scotland s Decision As a result of its investigation, Police Scotland did not uphold any of the complaints. Our Findings We have found that Police Scotland did not handle two complaints to a reasonable standard. Consequently, we have made recommendations to address the shortcomings identified in Police Scotland s response to complaints one and two. We expect our recommendations to be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report. 4
Background On 22 August 2016, the applicant contacted Police Scotland to report a historical assault and child neglect at the hands of his father. Constable A spoke with the applicant about his concerns and submitted an Adult Concern Report for entry onto the Interim Vulnerable Person s Database (ivpd). The following day, the applicant re-contacted Police Scotland for information about the progress of the enquiry. Arrangements were subsequently made to obtain a statement from him. On 26 August 2016, the applicant attended at the police office to provide a statement to Constable B. An appropriate adult was also in attendance. At this time, the interview room was in use so Constable B noted the applicant s statement within the report writing room. The applicant s statement was then forwarded to a different force area however was initially forwarded to an incorrect email address. The applicant subsequently complained about the fact that the statement was forwarded to an incorrect address which he alleged delayed the investigation. On 2 September 2016, Sergeant C spoke with the applicant about his complaint and it was initially resolved via front line resolution (FLR). A letter dated 2 September 2016 was sent to the applicant by Sergeant C which confirmed the complaint was resolved in this manner. The letter signposted the applicant to the professional standards department if he remained unhappy. On 16 October 2017, the applicant submitted further complaints online and the complaint investigation was re-opened and allocated to Sergeant D for investigation. The applicant received a final response in writing to his complaints from Superintendent E in a letter dated 20 December 2017. 1
Complaint 1 The applicant complained that an officer stated he would arrange for a statement to be taken but the incident was disposed of by way of a vulnerable person s report. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 1 [not upheld by the police] In his response to the applicant, Superintendent E stated that the submission of this information by Constable A onto the Interim Vulnerable Person s Database (ivpd) was in line with established practices when dealing with such instances. He also stated that entry onto the ivpd was a mechanism for recording the reported information that would allow the information to be assessed by the relevant staff. The response also referred to the account of the Sergeant who spoke with the applicant, Sergeant F, who stated that the applicant was informed that enquiries were on-going with another force area, the likely outcome of which would be that a statement would be obtained from him. In his decision not to uphold the complaint, Superintendent E reasoned that the submission of the concern report was a mechanism for recording the information which allowed it to be assessed by the relevant staff before making arrangements for a statement to be obtained. Police Scotland s response letter is attached at appendix 1. The response to complaint 1 can be found at paragraphs 1-8. Our Review of Complaint 1 The crux of the applicant s complaint is that he was informed that a statement would be obtained from him but instead he was advised the next day that the case was closed with a vulnerable person s referral. The response referred to the statement of the Sergeant F, the officer who spoke with the applicant on 23 August 2016. Within it he stated that he had informed the applicant that communication had been opened with another force area to ascertain if any concerns had previously been reported to them. He further stated that he explained that how Police Scotland proceeded would be based on the information gleaned from this force area but one of the likely outcomes would be that a statement would be obtained from the applicant and transmitted to the other force area for progression. His statement is accurately reflected in the response. However, from reviewing the incident report created following the applicant s contact with the police on 23 August 2016, we note that Sergeant F updated the incident after speaking to the applicant to reflect that he had identified that no contact had been made with the other force area, no statement had been obtained and the incident had not been transferred. We also note that Sergeant F updated the incident to suggest that he had contacted the public protection unit directly following which enquiries were progressed by Detective Sergeant G. Accordingly, although we acknowledge that enquiries were ultimately progressed and a statement was obtained from the applicant, the information updated on the incident suggests that these enquiries 2
appear to have been instigated by Sergeant F following his conversation with the applicant rather than following the submission of the concern report. Whilst the PIRC cannot speculate on whether or not these enquires would have been undertaken had the applicant not made contact with the police, the response has failed to consider the evidence available that supports the applicant s position. We consider that the response is not therefore adequately reasoned and had failed to reflect all the material evidence available. Our Conclusion on Complaint 1 We conclude that Police Scotland did not handle this complaint to a reasonable standard. We recommend that Police Scotland issue the applicant with a further response that takes into account the points highlighted above and all the material evidence available. Complaint 2 The applicant complained that the response he received from Police Scotland in a letter dated 2 September 2016 did not include any details of discussion the applicant had with an officer who was attempting to resolve his complaints. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 2 [not upheld by the police] In his response to the applicant, Superintendent E explained that the Sergeant who sent the letter to the applicant, Sergeant C, had acted in line with the provisions of the relevant Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and referred to the relevant paragraph of the SOP. Superintendent E offered the applicant an apology that the letter did not contain the detail the applicant had hoped for but reasoned that Sergeant C had complied with the provisions of the SOP and did not uphold the applicant s complaint. Police Scotland s response letter is attached at appendix 1. The response to complaint 1 can be found at paragraphs 9-14. Our Review of Complaint 2 The response referred to the relevant section of the current version of Police Scotland s Complaints about the Police Standard Operating Procedure ( Complaints SOP ). It stated that although the letter 3
the applicant received did not contain the detail he expected, it complied with the provisions of the SOP. During the review, we examined a copy of this letter and agree with Police Scotland s position that the letter does indeed comply with the provision referred to in the response. However, we note that Superintendent E referenced provisions of the most up to date version of the Complaints SOP which was published in May 2017. However, the FLR letter forwarded to the applicant was dated 2 September 2016 and the previous version of the Complaints SOP therefore applies. We note that the version of the SOP that was in place at the time includes a similar provision to the one outlined in the response. However, paragraph 6.5.7 of this SOP also states: Where the complainer indicates they are satisfied with the explanation given or an apology, the complaint will be concluded A letter sent [sic] to the complainer confirming the explanation or acknowledging the shortcoming and highlighting any action taken to rectify the issue. Where an apology is due it should be clear and unequivocal. Although we appreciate that the letter explained that early resolution had been achieved and signposted the applicant to the relevant department if this was not the case, this provision of the SOP does suggest that the letter should have included a more detailed explanation and should have acknowledged any shortcoming (if known) as well as any action taken to rectify this issue. Notably, this provision of the SOP has not been transferred into Police Scotland s most recent version of the Complaints SOP. As the FLR letter is potentially a final response letter, it must contain sufficient detail to include the nature of the complaint, the nature of any discussions and any resolution reached. For the reasons stated above, we consider the response is inadequately reasoned and has failed to reflect the guidance that was in place at the time, Our Conclusion on Complaint 2 We conclude that Police Scotland did not this complaint to a reasonable standard. It is recommended that Police Scotland consider the provisions of the SOP that were in place when the letter was sent and assess if the letter complied with the relevant procedure. It is also recommend that Police Scotland revise the terms of their current Complaints about the Police Standard Operating Procedure to clarify the details that should reasonably be included in an FLR letter. As the FLR letter is potentially a final response letter, Police Scotland should ensure that it contains sufficient information about the nature of the complaint, the brief summary of the discussions that took place, the resolution reached and any action that is agreed upon in order to resolve the complaint. Complaint 3 4
The applicant complained that the setting in which he provided a statement was inappropriate as it was a working office rather than an interview room. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 3 [not upheld by the police] In his response to the applicant, Superintendent E referred to the account of the officer who noted the applicant s statement and detailed the reasons the officer provided for taking the statement in the report writing room. Superintendent E then assessed the options that were available to Constable B at the time and reasoned that the setting was appropriate and suitable and that Constable B had made a reasonable decision in taking the statement at that location. Police Scotland s response letter is attached at appendix 1. The response to complaint 1 can be found at paragraphs 15-19. Our Review of Complaint 3 The response has accurately reflected the content of the statement provided by Constable B in which he explained the rationale behind his decision to note the statement in the police report writing room. The reasons reflected in the response included: the officer believed the setting to be reasonably private and within his control to prevent anyone else loitering there; the applicant did not raise any objection to the alternative arrangements; and, the officer s assertion that, although the statement was not taken in a normal setting, nothing impacted on the integrity of the proceedings. Superintendent E also offered his own assessment of the circumstances and provided a detailed rationale as to why he believed that the officer had made a reasonable decision in noting the statement in that location. During our review, we reviewed the statement provided by Constable B and note that he also said: I explained the situation regarding the interview room to [the applicant] which he accepted. We consider that the response and Policed Scotland s position would have been strengthened by fully reflecting the statement and the fact Constable B stated that the applicant accepted the arrangements. This suggests a positive action rather than relying on the applicant s failure to voice his objection at the time. However, the response has offered a reasonable explanation and has accurately reflected the rationale of the officer who noted the applicant s statement. It also reflected on the circumstances and acknowledged that the setting was not ideal but reasoned that the decision made by Constable B had been reasonable in the circumstances. Based on the evidence available, we consider that Superintendent E s was justified in his decision not to uphold the complaint. Our Conclusion on Complaint 3 We conclude that Police Scotland handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. 5 No further action is required.
Kirstin McPhee Review Officer Ilya Zharov Head of Reviews and Policy What happens next We have made two recommendations within our review. We expect our recommendations to be implemented within two months of date of this report. We will continue to liaise with the police until such time as we consider that they have implemented the recommendations to our satisfaction. 6
Appendix [I] Copy of Police Scotland s response letter dated 20 December 2017 (Redacted and paragraphs numbered) Complaint 1 1. Within your statement to Sergeant [D] you state that [Constable A] and another officer attended your house the same day you reported the incident and he asked you about what happened. You state he explained that he would arrange for a statement to be obtained at a more suitable time and that he would be in contact regarding this. 2. You state when you called to speak to a Sergeant the next day you were informed "the case was closed with a vulnerable person referral" to which you objected as it had been agreed to take a statement from you. You state the Sergeant agreed and said he would arrange for this to be done. 3. As a result of your follow up call to police a further incident was created on police command and control systems and as you point out the duty sergeant for your area was alerted, contacted you by phone and a statement was subsequently obtained from you on 26th August 2016. 4. The subject officer has provided an account of his actions. He has no recollection of advising you that he would return to obtain a statement and believes this could possibly be a miscommunication between you both. He confirms as is normal practice that he recorded a report on the Police Service of Scotland interim Vulnerable Persons Database. A check of the report shows that the subject officer recorded the following text, "[Detective Sergeant G] has made attempts to contact [named force] Police with a view to establishing what has been reported there. He is awaiting a reply. An arrangement is to be made for a statement to be noted from [the applicant] to clarify what has actually occurred". 5. The Vulnerable Persons Database enables information to be appropriately recorded, assessed and shared with other partner agencies. Once a report is Input it is assessed by relevant members of staff working within the PSoS Risk and Concern Hub, whose role it is to assess risk, identify further action and share appropriate information, while ensuring compliance with The Data Protection Act 1998. [Detective Sergeant F] at that time was working within the Public Protection Unit (PPU) at [named] Police Station and was a supervisor within the local Risk and Concern Hub. 6. An account has been obtained from Sergeant [F], the Sergeant who you spoke to on the evening of the 23rd August 2017, He states that he checked the VPD record and informed you that communication had begun between PSoS PPU Department and [named force] Police with a view to establishing what had previously been reported to them, that matters were "work in progress" and depending on what information was returned from [named force] Police, the likely outcome would be that PSoS would obtain a statement from you and transfer it to [named force] Police for their progression. 7. Having considered the information available to me, it appears to me that records show that enquiry was not prematurely completed by simply recording a report on the interim Vulnerable Persons Database. The submission of the report was a mechanism for recording the information, allowing it to be assessed by relevant staff within the PSoS Risk and Concern Hub, clarifying what had already been 7
reported to [named force] Police before making arrangements for an officer to obtain a statement from you. I consider [Constable A] therefore performed his duty in accordance with established practices when dealing with these types of incidents and that enquiry was on-going with another force prior to a statement being taken from you. 8. I do not uphold the allegation made against the officer concerned. Complaint 2 9. Within your statement to Sergeant [D] you describe, following making a complaint about the police, being contacted by phone by Sergeant [C] with the Professional Standards Department. Matters were discussed and you describe that at that point you were happy to conclude matters. You state, "I think he perhaps made an apology in terms of the delay in submitting the statement and acknowledged there could be some learning practices improved. However my complaint is that this was not included or acknowledged within the written response I received on 2nd September 2016". 10. You provided Sergeant [D] with a copy of the letter dated 2nd September 2016 from Sergeant [C]. I have reviewed this alongside the contemporaneous notes made by Sergeant [C] and a statement provided by him in relation to his interactions with you regarding your complaint. 11. It is evident that Sergeant [C] has acted correctly and in good faith when making initial contact with you and dealing with your complaint. He has correctly assessed your complaint, identified that it is appropriate to offer an early resolution and this has been achieved through his liaison with the relevant officer to ensure your statement was sent to [named] Constabulary and provided an apology to you for the delay. As agreed, and in line with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Sergeant [C] wrote to you confirming that the matter had been resolved and offering you a way to progress your complaint further if you felt that this was more appropriate. 12. Sergeant [C] states that after this letter was emailed to you, you responded by thanking him for his investigation and assistance. He goes on to state that several weeks later you telephoned him to say that you had reconsidered the matter and wished to have the matter investigated fully. As such, Sergeant [C] passed your complaint out to the local division to investigate, again in line with the SOP. 13. With regards the specific complaint made, that the letter sent to you did not include any details of the discussions which took place, section 6.5.11 of the Complaints about the Police SOP states: "A pro-forma letter, or email, will be sent to the complainer, which explains that the matter has been resolved by Early Resolution and, if the complainer changes their position, they should contact the Professional Standards Department in the first instance." 14. While I can only apologise if the letter provided did not contain all the information that you anticipated, Sergeant [C] fully complied with the SOP and the agreement made with you and as such, having considered the information available to me, I do not uphold the allegation made against Sergeant [C]. Complaint 3 15. Within your statement to Sergeant [D] you explained attending for an arranged appointment in order to obtain a statement from you. The officer took a statement from you in the presence of an appropriate adult. They explained to you that no interview room was available and you were taken into an office with computers which you were told was used by officers who were based there, You explain the officer was pleasant throughout however your issue was that you felt it was not an appropriate environment to carry out such an interview. 8
16. Constable [B] has provided an account of his actions and confirms that he was the officer who obtained a statement from you. His electronic notebook confirms that he noted a statement from you at 10:47am on 26/08/16 in the presence of appropriate adult [named appropriate adult]. Constable [B] confirms in his account that he checked the one interview room at [named] Police Station and found it to be in use. He states he checked for other space available and the least busy place at the time was the police writing room where he set up three chairs within a corner. 17. It is his view that he deemed the setting to be reasonably private and within his control to prevent anyone else loitering there. He states he explained this situation to you and you did not raise any objection regarding the setting at any time. He acknowledges that while noting a statement from you one other officer on duty walked into the room, checked some paperwork before leaving. Two other officers were turned away at the door on seeing a statement in progress being obtained. He states no one else spoke or interrupted proceedings. Constable B states, "it is my opinion that, despite not being the normal setting to note a statement, there was nothing to adversely impact the integrity of proceedings". 18. Having considered the information available to me, the officer in this case appears to have had three options, cancel the meeting with you, find an alternative location within the police station or locate another interview room at another police station. It is my opinion that the decision taken to find the next best alternative within the police station you were at was the most reasonable option in the circumstances. I acknowledge the setting where a statement was obtained from you was not the ideal setting and there was some minor interruption. However I regard that as it was within a police station and the room largely within the control of the interviewing officer it is my opinion that the setting was appropriate and suitable and the officer made a reasonable decision in conducting the interview at that location. 19. I do not uphold the allegation made against the officers concerned. 9