Posted: Thursday 21 January 2010
Poor communication masking good practice by police, according to PCCS
The latest batch of eleven complaint handling reviews published today [Thursday 21 January] by John McNeill, the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, show that the police are letting themselves down by not communicating effectively with the public when it comes to showing how thoroughly they have investigated their complaints. The reviews did however uncover examples of good practice in both Fife and Strathclyde and the Commissioner has encouraged forces to learn from each other when it comes to identifying and adopting best practice in complaints handling.
The Commissioner found instances where the depth of the investigation into the complaint undertaken by the police, or the actions to be taken by the force as a result of the complaint, were not fully set out in the final letter to the person who made the complaint. According to Mr McNeill this is a missed opportunity by the police to increase the confidence of the public in them and their complaints handling systems.
In one case of alleged misconduct, involving officers from Strathclyde Police, the force decided that it was not appropriate to take any disciplinary action against the officers but did not inform the complainer as to how they had come to this decision. As a result of his review the Commissioner has now asked Strathclyde Police to provide the applicant with additional information so that he can understand the reasons that led to the decision.
In the same case, the Commissioner identifies a "learning point" for all Scotland's police: where a police force substantiates a complaint by a member of the public, it should inform the person who made the complaint of the actions to be taken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. This is in line with guidance issued by the Commissioner to ACPOS in October last year.
He also used his review of a case arising from a report to Grampian Police, concerning alleged drink-driving on the part of two motorists, to highlight how better communication would have demonstrated the thoroughness of their investigation into the complaint.
Although Grampian Police apologised for the delay in dealing with the applicant's complaints they did not explain that the delay was due to a review of the matter by its own Professional Standards and Conduct Department, which ultimately led to the satisfactory resolution of the complaint.
John McNeill, PCCS said:
Providing information that helps the public understand why a decision was taken or why a delay occurred is a necessary part of the complaints process. It validates and reinforces the complaints system. When the police tell someone that, as a direct result of their complaint, steps have been taken to prevent the situation arising again, it is evidence that the police have taken the complaint seriously. This in turn contributes towards increasing public confidence in the police."
In a separate case, also involving Strathclyde Police, the Commissioner has asked them to apologise to a member of the public for not telling her that the initial investigation into her complaint could have been conducted better and that the officers involved had been given advice on this issue.
Similarly, Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary made a decision not to supply a police car to a member of the public who wanted to carry out a reconstruction of the traffic incident in which he was involved, but the force did not explain why it was not prepared to do so. The Commissioner found that this was not reasonable and has asked the force to write to the applicant informing him of the reasons behind its decision not to supply the car.
The Commissioner again:
Being held to account is never comfortable but, if we are to drive up standards and increase public confidence in our police, then independent scrutiny by me of how complaints are handled is an essential part of the story. I want to move away from a blame culture towards one where mistakes can be acknowledged, lessons learned and best practices adopted across all of Scotland's police forces. I see my complaint reviews as a mechanism to bring that about and, without exception, the policemen and women that I talk to understand and support that aim.
Fife Constabulary and Strathclyde Police were both commended for the way they had handled separate complaints about them. In the case of Fife Constabulary, the Commissioner highlighted both the thoroughness and sensitivity with which it handled 10 complaints from an individual. Strathclyde Police were commended for taking the step of appointing an Inspector as a dedicated point of contact for one applicant and the Commissioner acknowledged the individual was afforded time and understanding from them in challenging circumstances.