Download Report

00419/14 | April 2015
Report of a Complaint Handling
Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews
independent and effective investigations and reviews
00419/14 | April 2015
Index
1.
Role of the PIRC
2.
Key findings
3.
Background
4.
The Review
5.
Conclusions
Page | 1
00419/14 | April 2015
1.
Role of PIRC
Sections 34 and 35 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (“the Act”)
provides that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (“the PIRC”) may examine the
manner in which particular kinds of complaints are dealt with by Police Scotland and the Scottish
Police Authority. Through agreements with UK police bodies operating in Scotland, the PIRC may
also examine the manner in which these bodies deal with complaints. The PIRC cannot deal with
complaints of criminal behaviour against police officers or police staff, or complaints made by persons
serving, or who have served with the police, about the terms and conditions of their service.
In performing this review function, the PIRC obtains information from the police body which dealt with
the complaint. This information is considered together with information provided by the person who
made the complaint (“the applicant”). An assessment is then made as to whether in all the
circumstances the complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard. Among the factors taken into
account when making this assessment are the following:
2.

whether sufficient enquiries into the complaint have been carried out by the policing body;

whether the policing body’s response to the complaint is supported by all material information
available;

whether in dealing with the complaint the policing body has adhered to all relevant policies,
procedures and legal provisions;

whether the policing body’s response to the complaint is adequately reasoned; and

where the complaint has resulted in the policing body identifying measures necessary to improve
its service, whether these measures are adequate and have been implemented.
Key findings
The complaints in this case arose from the applicant’s detention by police on a number of occasions.
Of the four complaints considered, all were found to have been dealt with to a reasonable standard. No
recommendations were made in this connection.
Page | 2
00419/14 | April 2015
3.
Background
In 2013, the applicant was taken into police custody on four occasions (23 May, 23 June, 23 August
and 16 September). Three of these occasions followed the applicant being charged with offences and
one followed the applicant being detained under section 297 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment)
(Scotland) Act 2003.
On 29 August 2014, the applicant complained that on each of these occasions the police had failed to
inform a solicitor or her next of kin that she had been detained. Enquiry into the applicant’s complaint
was carried out by Inspector K and on 15 December 2014 Chief Inspector L responded in writing to the
applicant.
4.
The Review
Complaint 1: Failure to notify solicitor or next of kin of detention on 23 May 2013
Police Handling of Complaint 1
The response to the applicant stated:
“Following investigation into this allegation, records indicate that when you were brought into
Police custody you were asked if you wished for intimation to be sent to a solicitor and a
reasonably named person. You asked for the duty solicitor to be contacted and a message was
left with the Public Defence Solicitors Office, [address].
You also asked for [Mr M] to be informed … the intimations that you asked were completed fully.
I am satisfied that on this occasion officers carried out their duties and I do not uphold the
allegation.”
Consideration of Complaint 1
A copy of the applicant’s custody record (which is a contemporaneous record of what takes place
during a person’s time in custody) was obtained as part of the investigation into her complaint. The
record shows that a duty solicitor was contacted and Mr M was named by the applicant and contacted
as her reasonably named person. Statements were also provided by officers who were present when
the applicant was processed into custody, all of whom speak to the applicant naming Mr M as her
father and thereafter being contacted.
As the response to this complaint is supported by the available evidence, it is considered that this
complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard.
Page | 3
00419/14 | April 2015
Complaint 2: Failure to notify solicitor or next of kin of detention on 23 June 2013
Police Handling of Complaint 2
The response to the applicant stated:
“On this occasion, officers found you in a public place and were concerned for your welfare.
They enacted legislation under section 297 Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act
2003 which provides a power to a Constable to remove a person in these circumstances and
take them to a place of safety.
You were taken to the [hospital] for assessment however due to intoxication, they were unable to
assess you. In order to allow time for you to become sober, you were taken to [a police station]
and held under the same act, pending assessment. A person held in a police station under this
legislation does not have the right to have intimation sent to a solicitor to a reasonably named
person as detailed in section 15 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
The officers acted within the law and I do not uphold this allegation.”
Consideration of Complaint 2
Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (“the 1995 Act”) provides that person
arrested or detained under section 14 of the 1995 Act has the right to have a reasonably named person
contacted. Section 15A(2) of the 1995 Act provides that a suspect detained under section 14 or who is
arrested (but not charged) in connection with an offence has the right to have intimation sent to a
solicitor of, among other things, the fact of the suspect’s detention or arrest and that the solicitor’s
professional assistance is required.
From the available information, the applicant was detained under the Mental Health (Care and
Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. As the applicant was not detained as a suspect or arrested, her rights
under the 1995 Act were not engaged.
As the response to this complaint is supported by the available evidence, it is considered that this
complaint was dealt with to a reasonable standard.
Complaint 3: Failure to notify solicitor or next of kin of detention on 23 August 2013
Police Handling of Complaint 3
The response to the applicant stated:
“On this occasion, when you first arrived at [the police station], officers found that you were too
uncooperative and unruly and as such you were taken directly to a cell. The investigation
reveals that you were not asked if you would like intimation sent to a solicitor and reasonably
named person due to your demeanour at the time.
Page | 4
00419/14 | April 2015
When this happens, custody staff should speak with the person in custody as soon as they are
calm enough to engage and ask them if they wish intimation sent to a solicitor and reasonably
named person. On this occasion, this was omitted and you were not asked.
Whilst I note that you asked for [solicitor name] to be informed around 12 hours later and this
was completed, there is no record to indicate that your rights in terms of section 15 Criminal
Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 were completed fully and accordingly I uphold your complaint.
The officer concerned will be provided with corrective advice and their personal records updated.
All staff have been reminded of their responsibility to ensure such rights are provided to avoid
similar mistakes in the future. May I apologise that on this occasion, the Police Service of
Scotland fell short of the required standard.”
Consideration of Complaint 3
Statements were obtained from the officers who dealt with the applicant, from which it is clear the
applicant was not informed of her right to have a solicitor or reasonably named person informed of her
arrest. The response to the applicant advised her of this, informed her that the officer concerned would
be provided with corrective advice and apologised to her. It is considered that this was an appropriate
response to the applicant’s complaint and that, accordingly, this complaint was dealt with to a
reasonable standard.
Complaint 4: Failure to notify solicitor or next of kin of detention on 16 September 2013
Police Handling of Complaint 4
In his statement, the arresting officer (Constable J) advised that the applicant had asked for a named
solicitors firm and the social work department to be informed of her arrest. According to Constable J,
he contacted the solicitor and left a message informing of the applicant’s arrest and that he then
informed a named individual within the social work department of the applicant’s arrest. The response
to the applicant stated:
“Following investigation into this allegation, records indicate that when you were brought into
Police custody you were asked if you wished for intimation to be sent to a solicitor and a
reasonably named person. You asked for [solicitor name, address] to be informed and for [social
work department] to be informed.
Both of these intimations were completed as you requested and accordingly I do not uphold the
allegation.”
Page | 5
00419/14 | April 2015
Consideration of Complaint 4
The custody record in respect of the applicant’s detention confirms that Constable J was nominated to
contact the solicitor named by the applicant. Entries within Constable J’s notebook detail the names of
the individuals contacted and the specific numbers called in this connection.
From the information supplied, it is considered that the conclusion reached by the police is justified by
the evidence. Accordingly, the complaint has been dealt with to a reasonable standard.
5.
Conclusions
Complaints 1-4
It is concluded that these complaints were dealt with to a reasonable standard. No further action is
required in this connection.
Catherine Cumming
Review Officer
Jamie McGrandles
Head of Reviews
Police Investigation & Review Commissioner
Page | 6