Related Downloads
The aim of this inspection was to review and assess the effectiveness of COPFS complaints procedure. The report will focus on a number of issues including: the effectiveness of the complaints procedure; the availability and accessibility of information on how to make a complaint; and, the quality of responses to complaints.
Additional
Annex B – Analysis of Case Review
Analysis of Case Review[61]
| QUESTION | ANSWER | RESULT |
|---|---|---|
| GENERAL | ||
| Court Type | ICP Justice of the Peace Summary Sheriff & Jury High Court Other[62] |
19%(15/79) 6.3% (5/79) 46.8% (37/79) 11.4% (9/79) 3.8% (3/79) 12.6% (10/79) |
| Who made the complaint? | Accused or rep Victim or rep Witness or rep Other[63] |
31.6% (25/79) 27.8% (22/79) 16.5% (13/79) 24.05% (19/79) |
| How the complaint was made | Telephone Letter Other |
20.3% (16/79) 32.9% (26/79) 44.3% (35/79) 2.5% (2/79) |
| Where the complaint was received | Enquiry Point RIU Other[64] |
22.8% (18/79) 45.6% (36/79) 31.6% (25/79) |
| Is there evidence the complainant had difficulty in making the complaint? | Yes[65] No |
6.3% (5/79) 93.7% (74/79) |
| Complaint Type | Stage 1 - Quick Resolution Stage 2 - Formal Complaint |
21.5% (17/79) 78.5% (62/79) |
| STAGE 1 - QUICK RESOLUTION (17 CASES) | ||
| Nature of complaint | Decision to take no proceedings Failure to return productions Communication issues Sentencing issues Complaints against police Other[66] |
35.3% (6/17) 11.8% (2/17) 23.5% (4/17) 5.9% (1) 5.9% (1) 17.6% (3/17) |
| Acknowledgement issued within 3 days? | Yes No |
88.2% (15/17) 11.8% (2/17) |
| How was the complaint resolved? | Letter Telephone |
18.8% (3/17) 43.8% (7/17) 37.5% (6/17) |
| Number of days to deal with complaint | 5 days or less[67] 20 days or less More than 20 days | 64.7% (11/17) 17.6% (3/17) 17.6% (3/17) |
| In the circumstances was quick resolution deemed appropriate? | Yes No | 82.4% (14/17) 17.6% (3/17) |
| Outcome | Resolved | 100% (17/17) |
| STAGE 2 - FORMAL COMPLAINT (62 CASES) | ||
| Nature of complaint | Deaths Decision to take no proceedings Failure to return productions Communication issues Failure to countermand witnesses Bail Sentence related Witness related Decision to prosecute Defer/delay Poor service Address read out Complaint against the police Marking decision Other |
6.5% (4/62) 14.5% (9/62) 4.8% (3/62) 11.3% (7/62) 1.6% (1/62) 1.6% (1/62) 4.8% (3/62) 4.8% (3/62) 14.5% (9/62) 8.1% (5/62) 11.3% (7/62) 1.6% (1/62) 3.2% (2/62) 3.2% (2/62) 8.1% (5/62) |
| Acknowledgement issued within 3 days? | Yes No |
77% (47/61) 23% (14/61) |
| Number of days to deal with complaint | 20 days or less[68] 30 days or less More than 30 days |
67.7% (42/62) 16.1% (10/62) 16.1% (10/62) |
| Delays and use of holding letters handled correctly? | Yes No[69] N/A |
8.1% (5/62) 21% (13/62) 71% (44/62) |
| Was information from office received timeously? | Yes No N/A |
45.9% (28/61) 18% (11/61) 36.1% (22/61) |
| In the circumstances was formal complaint procedure deemed appropriate? | Yes No[70] |
96.8% (60/62) 3.2% (2/62) |
| Outcome | Complaint resolved Referral to SPSO |
93.5% (58/62) 6.5% (4/62) |
| RECORDING OF COMPLAINT | ||
| Are records accurate and complete? | Yes No |
81% (64/79) 19% (15/79) |
| Is there sufficient evidence to provide an audit trail of contact/communication (including telephone calls)? | Yes No[71] |
82.3% (65/79) 17.7% (14/79) |
| COMMUNICATION | ||
| Was the reply easy to understand?[72] | Yes No |
77.3% (58/75) 22.7% (17/75) |
| Were all the issues raised by the complainer covered in the response?[73] | Yes No |
92.2% (71/77) 7.8% (6/77) |
| Did the reply contain an appropriate level of empathy (e.g. was the response tailored to the individual and not defensive/if upheld was an apology offered)?[74] | Yes No |
79.5% (58/73) 20.5% (15/73) |
| If the complaint related to a prosecutorial decision, was the evidence considered afresh?[75] | Yes No N/A |
32.1% (25/78) 0.0% (0/78) 67.9% (53/78) |
| Outcome of complaint?[76] | Upheld Partially upheld Not upheld Withdrawn |
13% (10/77) 2.6% (2/77) 75.3% (58/77) 9.1% (7/77) |
| Did the complaint involve another criminal justice organisation? | Yes No |
31.6% (25/79) 68.4% (54/79) |
| If yes, which agency? | Police Court Other[77] |
60% (15/25) 32% (8/25) 8% (2/25) |
| Was there consultation with this other agency? | Yes No |
28% (7/25) 72% (18/25) |
| Was the complaint dealt within the complaints policy time limits or if not were any delays explained? | Yes No N/A[78] |
67.1% (53/79) 24.1% (19/79) 8.9% (7/79) |
| Was the complainer informed of the right of appeal?[79] | Yes No[80] |
76.66% (59/77) 23.4% (18/77) |
| What was the overall quality of the response? | Excellent Good Fair Poor |
46.8% (37/79) 32.9% (26/79) 16.4% (13/79) 3.8% (3/79) |
| LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES | ||
| Did response from the complaint indicate there would be a change to COPFS policy or other organisational change? | Yes No |
5.1% (4/79) 94.9% (75/79) |
| Is there evidence of organisational change? | No N/A |
5.1% (4/79) 94.9% (75/79) |
| EQUALITY | ||
| If appropriate were special arrangements made, e.g. languageline, typetalk, etc? | N/A | 100% (79/79) |