Posted: Wednesday 27 April 2011
Police watchdog calls on ACPOS to develop guidance on treatment of vulnerable prisoners
Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary's decision to remove the clothing of a woman who it was believed posed a risk of self-harm while in custody, has prompted Scotland's independent police watchdog to call for the police and ACPOS to draw up guidance on when it is appropriate to order the full removal of a prisoner's clothing.
The move follows two complaints by the woman who was arrested for breach of the peace. She claimed that the police were heavy-handed in their dealings with her and that her clothing was forcibly removed by female officers, assisted by male colleagues.
Lawyers acting for the woman described the forcible removal of her clothes by two female officers and also male officers as "highly irregular". CCTV footage obtained by the PCCS, shows that while in police custody the woman acted in an aggressive and uncooperative manner, struck her head and other parts of her body against various objects in a way that posed a risk to her own safety. The Commissioner's view is that there were alternatives available to the police short of involving male officers in the removal of the woman's clothing, such as placing the woman in an observation cell and subjecting her to constant observation.
In his report the Commissioner accepts that the measures adopted at the time by the officers were taken in good faith but goes on to say that this incident highlights deficiencies in the force's own standard operating procedures and a lack of formal training for those performing the role of duty custody officer. This is a view shared by an Inspector at Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary who looked into the initial complaint and subsequently issued a briefing note to supervisory custody officers stating that only same gender officers should be used when forcibly removing clothing, that it should not be done in a "camera cell" and that no more than two officers should be present.
Professor McNeill said: "This case highlights the dilemma faced by officers when there is no clear guidance available on what to do in a certain situations, in this case when it is appropriate to order the removal of a prisoner's clothing by force. In the absence of guidance there is a risk that such decisions will be made on a purely arbitrary basis and that is why I am recommending that Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, in conjunction with ACPOS, introduce guidance as to the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to order the full removal of a prisoner's clothes."
In another report published this month, Professor McNeill asks Strathclyde Police to apologise to a woman for forcing entry to her home when looking for her son following a "curfew recall notice" issued by the Scottish Prison Service. Although not part of the complaint reviewed by the Commissioner, Professor McNeill notes in his report that Strathclyde Police had breached its own Standard Operating Procedures which state that there is "no power to force entry to any premises following the revocation of the Home Detention Curfew".
The incident occurred when the Scottish Prison Service advised Strathclyde Police on 30 September 2008 that it had revoked the complainer's son's curfew, which was to have run from June 2 2008 until 14 October 2008. Despite being assigned Category A - the highest priority - the police did not attempt to enforce the notice until 20 October, some six days after the tag had been removed and the son no longer stayed at the house, blaming administrative enquiries for the delay. The first attempt was unsuccessful and they tried again on 31 October, eventually forcing entry to the property. The Commissioner has asked Strathclyde Police to explain to the complainer the delay between 2 October, when the police admit the administrative enquiries were completed, and 20 October when the first attempt was made to enforce the notice.
This month the Commissioner published reports on 35 individual complaints involving Dumfries & Galloway, Fife, Northern, Strathclyde, Lothian & Borders and British Transport Police. He found that in 20 instances the police had not handled the complaint reasonably and in the majority of these cases the police have to take action to remedy their shortcomings and in others they are to apologise to individuals where their investigation had fallen short.
It is vital for public confidence to know that there is a stand alone, independent body scrutinising the actions of the police. As well as examining individual cases, I look to use complaints constructively as a way of driving up standards in complaint handling across the police in Scotland. If one force can learn from the mistakes of another and avoid repeating or engraining poor practice, then standards will improve across Scotland."
John McNeill Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland