Posted: Monday 23 May 2011
Commissioner challenges police to explain legal basis for actions
Scotland's independent police watchdog has this week told Strathclyde Police and Lothian and Borders Police to explain to two members of the public the legal basis for their actions.
The call from Professor John McNeill, the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, follows Lothian & Borders' decision to use CS spray, leg restraints and handcuffs when transporting a man with mental health issues from his home to hospital. The man in question posed a significant physical threat to the officers involved. In a separate incident, Strathclyde Police have been told to explain why they pulled a driver over following his challenge that he had committed no offence.
Professor John McNeill said: The police enjoy significant powers to intervene in our lives, it is essential therefore that the police are able to demonstrate that they are using those powers appropriately and within the law. When they are challenged it is incumbent on them to state explicitly and accurately the basis upon which those powers were exercised. In these two cases the police failed to do that."
In other reports, known as Complaint handling Reviews, published this month Professor McNeill criticises police forces for not providing sufficient information to a complainer to properly inform them of how they reached key decisions in their responses to complaints. One case involved the extent of the enquiries Strathclyde Police carried out before forcing entry to an elderly man's home. The Commissioner was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the officers carried out adequate enquiries and had acted in response to neighbours' concerns for his welfare but the police response to the complaint had not made this clear.
The Commissioner made the same point in relation to Dumfries and Galloway Police Authority, criticising it for providing the senior police officers involved with a copy of their report into the complaints against them. The complaint arose from an incident which resulted in the complainer's brother being dismissed as a police officer, following his arrest and conviction of the attempted murder of his wife.
In his report Professor McNeill describes it as "objectionable" that no consideration was given to also supplying a copy of the report to the complainer. The response merely reflected the relevant paragraph of the regulations with no explanation as to why the complaints sub-committee found as it did.
Professor McNeill again: It is not sufficient merely to advise someone of the decision that has been made in respect of their complaint. Police bodies must provide sufficient information to inform the person making the complaint of how key conclusions were reached. Only then can decisions be subject to appropriate scrutiny."
The Commissioner published 12 Complaint Handling Reviews this month involving Strathclyde (5), Northern Constabulary (2) and one each from Tayside Police, Fife Constabulary, Lothian and Borders and Dumfries and Galloway Police and Fire Authority.