Posted: Monday 20 June 2011
Watchdog highlights shortcomings in complaints handling by Scottish forces
Failings in complaint handling by Strathclyde Police
Professor John McNeill, the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, has described Strathclyde Police's response to two complaints as "more a matter of good fortune than good complaint handling" after it responded to a complaint from the public, before it had received statements from all of the officers involved.
The issue came to light after the father of a 15-year-old boy arrested by Strathclyde Police made a number of complaints alleging rudeness by officers and a refusal to provide information on the reasons for his son's detention.
The Commissioner found a number of flaws in the force's own internal investigation into the complaints, culminating in the Professional Standards Department issuing a response to the father before it had received statements from all of the officers present at the time.
It later transpired that there was evidence to support the force's response that the officers had behaved appropriately and correctly. However, Professor McNeill's criticism is of the way the force handled the complaint, rather than the conduct of the officers involved and has asked the force to apologise to the father for the "inadequacies" of their investigation in respect of some of the complaints.
Professor McNeill said: Public confidence in the police relies on the absolute certainty in the mind of the person making the complaint that it will be investigated fully and rigorously. When it comes to light that this has not been the case, it can detract from the very real progress the police are making in dealing with and resolving complaints locally, before they land on my desk.
I published statutory guidance earlier this year that is designed to ensure that police from the Borders to the Highlands follow the same six-stage process when investigating a complaint from the public. It's all about driving up standards and using complaints in a positive way to see where improvements can be made and lessons learned."
Poor treatment of prisoner in custody in second Scottish force
In the same set of reports, Professor McNeill highlighted a poor response by Northern Constabulary to nine out of 15 separate complaints by a female prisoner. Her complaints included one that no female officer was present when she was detained, and another that her request for her glasses to be returned to allow her read what she was being asked to sign was declined by officers as "impractical".
This is the second Scottish force to have its treatment of prisoners in custody highlighted by the Commissioner. In April this year, the Commissioner criticised Dumfries and Galloway Police over the involvement of both male and female officers in the forcible removal of the clothing of a woman while in police custody.
In his review of the complaints about Northern Constabulary, Professor John McNeill also urged the force to amend its own Care and Custody of Prisoners handbook to address contradictory guidance given to officers in relation to searching prisoners of the opposite sex.
According to the force's handbook there should be "a cursory search" of all prisoners prior to them being placed in a police vehicle, the same handbook also advises that a "prisoner is to be searched by a person of the same sex". In the case in question both officers involved in the detention of the woman were male.
Professor McNeill commented: The only way that both requirements of Northern Constabulary's handbook can be met is for a police officer of the same sex always to be present at the time of the detention. There will be occasions when this is not possible, leaving officers with no alternative but to choose between preserving the dignity of the detainee and ensuring that the detainee is not carrying anything likely to cause injury. Placing officers in this position is likely to result in them facing criticism whatever choice they make.
In another review following an allegation by an applicant of bias on the part of a Sergeant within Northern Constabulary, the Commissioner found nothing to indicate bias. In his review Professor McNeill went on to highlight the fact that the applicant is described by the Sergeant in the report to the Procurator Fiscal as having cooperated fully with the police investigation and that a specific reference is made to his having never come to the attention of the police in the past.
Professor McNeill again: I often bemoan the fact that a thorough investigation by the police is then let down by a cursory response to the person who made the original complaint. In this case I would commend Northern on the thoroughness of its investigation into the allegation of bias and the level of detail contained in its response to the complaint."
Faster responses to the public and the police
In nine other cases published today, Professor John McNeill, the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland, has used a "decision letter" to respond to complaints from members of the public, rather than producing a detailed Complaint Handling Review (CHR).
In one decision letter, Tayside Police have been asked to review a complaint from a foreign national living and working in Scotland who it was alleged had called her neighbour "a Scottish slag". Two complaints about how Tayside had handled the incident were submitted four months apart, one by the foreign national and another by lawyers acting on her behalf.
The Commissioner found that the first complaint made in January concerned incivility by the police and an apology has been made by the force. However, the second complaint made in May, which concerned the police investigation into the allegations, had not been investigated by Tayside Police and has been sent back to the force by the Commissioner to action. Professor McNeill also highlighted the perception of the complainer that she had been treated differently because of her nationality and recommended that Tayside Police consider these matters during its investigation.
Professor McNeill said: A decision letter allows me to quickly identify the key issues in a straightforward complaint and return it to the police saying 'you got it wrong, do it again, do it better'. It can also remove the anxiety for the officers involved in a complaint from the public by establishing quickly that they have followed the correct procedures and handled the complaint reasonably. This approach allows me to direct resources towards the more complex cases without compromising the quality of the service we deliver to the public.