Scottish Police Authority complaints audit 2015
APRIL 2015 Scottish Police Authority complaints audit 2015 contents 1 background 2 introduction 3 methodology 4 findings 5 conclusion 1 1 background The post of a Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland was first established in 2007 by the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006. Following the introduction of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, the functions of the post were extended and the role re-named as Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. Under the Act the Commissioner, supported by a team of staff, undertakes: independent investigations into the most serious incidents involving the police reviews of the way the police have handled complaints from the public and provides independent scrutiny of the arrangements police bodies operating in Scotland have in place to respond to complaints from the public 2 2 introduction The Scottish Police Authority (the ‘Authority’) and the Police Service of Scotland (‘Police Scotland’) were established by the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, replacing the arrangements previously set out in the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. The Authority is responsible for maintaining policing, promoting policing principles, the continuous improvement of policing and for holding the Chief Constable to account. Table 1 below sets out the Authority’s remit to deal with complaints. Table 1: Authority’s complaint handling remit ‘A relevant complaint’ The Authority has a remit to deal with: complaints against the Authority itself complaints about an act or omission of a member of the Authority’s staff complaints about an act or omission of a senior officer1 of Police Scotland ‘A non-relevant complaint’ The Authority does not have a remit to deal with: an act or omission of an officer below the rank of Assistant Chief Constable complaints about terms and conditions of police officers an allegation about an act or omission by a person serving with the police that may constitute a crime Among her responsibilities, the Police Investigations & Review Commissioner (the ‘PIRC’) has a legal duty, to “keep under review” the arrangements made by the Authority for the handling of relevant complaints and to seek to ensure those arrangements: 1 are efficient and effective contain and manifest an appropriate degree of independence are adhered to An officer of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable or above 3 2 introduction continued In May 2014, the PIRC carried out an audit aimed at establishing a baseline picture of the Authority’s practice (table 2 below sets out the number of cases audited). The audit, published in July 2014, made a number of recommendations for improvement which the Authority accepted and built into its newly developed improvement action plan. Table 2: 2014 Audit case file sample 20 relevant complaints received between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014 16 ‘legacy’ complaints transferred from former police authorities to the Authority on 1 April 2013 95 enquiries/non-relevant complaints received between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014 4 3 methodology In January 2015, six months following publication of the audit report, the PIRC carried out a follow-up audit to identify what progress the Authority had made in implementing its action plan. The PIRC’s staff examined: the Authority’s website the Authority’s processes for differentiating between complaints that fell within its remit and those that did not the Authority’s recording and management information systems the case files for all relevant complaints (eight) received by the Authority in the six-month period between July 2014 and January 2015 a dip sample of enquiries and non-relevant complaints during this six-month period the quality assurance processes the Authority had put in place Of the eight relevant complaints, PIRC found that two were closed at an early stage, two were ongoing and a further two had been forwarded by the Authority to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for consideration of criminal proceedings. As a result, in the period under consideration, the Authority had required to deal with just two complaints through to conclusion using their complaints handling procedures. Given the low number of cases involved, the audit therefore based much of its conclusions on an evaluation of the systems that the Authority had put in place. 5 4 findings 1 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority should ensure that its website contains enough information to enable the public to understand what complaints it can and cannot deal with and how it will handle those complaints that fall within its remit. 2015 Audit: Progress The audit found that the appearance of the website has improved and provides information in a clearer, more easily understood format. It is now more immediately apparent to the public that there are certain matters that the Authority can and cannot deal with. Processes for dealing with relevant complaints are also evident. The Authority’s complaints procedures are available on the website. It is understood that there are also plans to introduce an online complaints form. 2 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority must, as a matter of urgency, introduce fully-developed complaint handling procedures 2015 Audit: Progress Following the 2014 audit the Authority made significant improvements to its draft procedures although did not finally agree and publish these on its website until shortly before the commencement of the follow-up audit. However, it was apparent from examining the Authority’s processes for differentiating between relevant and non-relevant complaints and its subsequent handling of relevant complaints, that, over recent months, it has been following standardised and thorough procedures. The introduction of appropriate procedures is an important development that should afford the Authority greater resilience in the event that it experiences the staffing shortages it experienced prior to the 2014 audit, as the newly established procedures will assist and support any staff transferred to the complaints team from other business areas to provide continuity of service. 6 4 3 findings continued 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority should review its handling of legacy cases, identify any lessons learned and act on these. 2015 Audit: Progress Following the 2014 audit, the Authority assessed the manner in which it had dealt with legacy complaints and built the learning from this into its improvement plan. The 2015 audit concluded that it was evident in both the development and implementation of the plan that the Authority has done so. 4 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority should ensure that its recording system differentiates between enquiries and complaints and that it captures key information. 2015 Audit: Progress The 2014 audit found that failure by the Authority to differentiate between enquiries, non-relevant complaints and relevant complaints meant that the Authority was inaccurately reporting that it was receiving higher numbers of complaints about the Authority itself and about senior officers of Police Scotland than it was actually receiving. The 2015 audit found that recording practice had now changed, figures are no longer conflated, and public reporting of statistics accurately reflects the number of relevant complaints the Authority receives. The follow-up audit also found that the recording system now captures key information on: the number of complaint allegations; a description of the allegations; the outcome of the complaint, whether the complaints have been withdrawn by the complainer, or abandoned due to non-cooperation of the complainer. 7 4 5 findings continued 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority should set up systems to track complaints and to ensure that complainers receive regular updates on the progress of their complaints. 2015 Audit: Progress The 2014 audit found that the absence of a system to monitor the progress of complaints had contributed in some instances to lengthy delays and failures to update complaints. The follow-up audit found significant improvements. The Authority has now developed sound, complementary electronic and paper systems for tracking the progress of complaints and for updating complainants. Both systems provide clear prompts to assist staff in taking the appropriate steps at relevant points. 6 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority should set out clear procedures in relation to the expected timescale for handling complaints and the process for providing complainers with updates. 2015 Audit: Progress The 2014 audit found that there were no timescales for the complaint-handling process and that there were avoidable delays both in providing initial responses to enquirers and in dealing with relevant complaints. The follow-up audit found that the Authority has detailed and is adhering to new procedures in relation to timescales. For example, it was apparent from the sample of enquiries and non-relevant complaints examined, that the Authority now responds to enquirers in three working days or less. The Authority had also dealt with relevant complaints within the required 40 day period (as set out in statutory guidance2). 2 From Sanctions to Solutions, PCCS, March 2011 8 4 7 findings continued 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority should ensure that it outlines each allegation made and records that the complainer has agreed the specific points that will be considered. 2015 Audit: Progress The 2014 audit had found that the Authority did not specifically address what complaint allegations the complainant wished it to look at or confirm the Authority’s understanding of the issues that had been raised. The 2015 audit found that this was no longer the case and that the Authority sets out heads of complaint in appropriate case files. 8 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority should ensure that the role of the complaints and conduct committee is clear and that the committee operates effectively and efficiently. 2015 Audit: Progress The 2014 found that the absence of a clear description of the role of the Authority’s Complaints and Conduct committee was having an impact on the Committee’s ability to deal with matters promptly. The 2015 audit found that the Authority’s fully developed procedures now described the Committee’s: functions and powers scheme of delegation the process and purpose of presenting reports and complaints to the committee Delays by the Committee in dealing with matters were no longer evident. 9 2014 Audit: Recommendation The Authority should develop and implement robust quality assurance processes 2015 Audit: Progress The 2014 audit found no evidence of any quality assurance processes. The follow-up audit, in contrast, found robust procedures in place. Files now contain set dates for quality assurance checks and there is evidence that these are taking place as planned. 9 5 conclusion It is evident that the Authority has made significant improvements to its complaints handling process since the PIRC carried out an initial audit in 2014. It has developed and implemented appropriate systems which have strengthened the Authority’s ability to deliver its statutory function efficiently and effectively. 10 APRIL 2015 Police Investigations & Review Commissioner Hamilton House, Hamilton Business Park, Caird Park, Hamilton, ML3 0QA Freephone: 0808 178 5577 f: 01698 542 901 e: [email protected] www.pirc.scotland.gov.uk
© Copyright 2025