Thematic report on complaints against the police

5.1 Glasgow

5.1.1 Glasgow has had for many years a discrete unit which dealt exclusively with complaints against the police under the personal supervision of originally the Regional Procurator Fiscal and latterly the new Area Procurator Fiscal.

5.1.2 This unit normally consisted of a mixture of legal, paralegal and administrative staff and staff were selected normally on the basis of seniority and their ability to deal with what was considered an important area of work.

5.1.3 The number of complaints in Glasgow meant that the Regional and now Area Fiscal could not personally deal with the bulk of these and the investigation was therefore delegated to these other staff. However, the reports on all cases were and are considered by the then Regional and now Area Fiscal.

5.1.4 The Glasgow office itself was originally divided into 4 Divisions mirroring the police divisions of the city and recently was restructured to 3 Divisions to again mirror police administrative areas in the city of Glasgow. The Area Fiscal decided to delegate the investigation of complaints against the police from this discrete central unit to each of the newly created 3 Divisions.

5.1.5 Central control is still maintained, however, by the Area Fiscal seeing all the complaints on arrival and the monitoring of progress against the targets being carried out by a dedicated Personal Assistant in the Area Fiscal's office. All reports will also return to the Area Fiscal for final consideration.

5.1.6 At the time of our enquiry the old system was in operation and all the cases examined had been investigated by the previous discrete central unit.

5.1.7 Management information showed that a total of 310 complaints against the police were received and closed off in 2006 for all four Divisions within the Glasgow Area. 207 of these cases were selected for review. It was noted that the Area Fiscal applied a new streamlined approach in 6 cases where, in certain circumstances, the copy statement procedure is applied straight away eg where there is no apparent corroboration.

5.1.8 Complainers in 116 cases (56%) withdrew complaints, 48 of which were noted to have been withdrawn within days of the complaint being made.

5.1.9 The findings at Glasgow are as follows:

• The Area Fiscal accepted or rejected the complaint ranging from the same day as receipt up to 25 days later with 96% of decisions being made within 7 days.
• Decisions were intimated to the complainer/Assistant Chief Constable in a timescale ranging from the same day as the decision up to 50 days later with 61% informed within 14 days.
• In cases where the complaint had been withdrawn a standard letter asking for confirmation of the withdrawal was issued between 1 and 35 days after the complaint was reviewed with 53% being issued within 14 days.
• In 55% of applicable cases a full report was received from the police within the 10-week target.
• There were no cases where the complainer should have been advised that the actions complained of were not criminal.
• The complainer was advised of the role of the PF by style letter in 97% of cases. Attempts were made through an agent to advise the complainer in the remainder.
• In 99% of relevant cases it would appear that the standard Department Information Leaflet had not been issued but as stated above an in-house letter was issued in 97% of cases.
• In 29 cases the complainer was precognosed. In 35 other cases the complainer either failed to appear for precognition, was ill, or for some other reason could not be contacted.
• In 28 cases the copy statement procedure was followed.
• In 20 cases all material witnesses had been precognosed. In a further three witnesses failed to appear for precognition.
• Video evidence was available in 37 cases.
• In 2 cases the complainer was shown the video.
• No videos were submitted to Crown Office.
• 2 cases were submitted to Crown Office, one within 9 weeks and the other within 6 months of receipt of the full report.
• There were no cases where the complainer refused to be precognosed until after his/her trial.
• Where the complaint was being withdrawn the Area Fiscal in all cases issued a letter to the complainer to confirm whether he/she wished to withdraw the complaint and that there had been no undue pressure or influence from the police in all cases.
• In all applicable cases appropriate people were advised of the decisions taken.
• In 97% of cases the investigation was completed within 12 weeks.

5.2 Lanarkshire

5.2.1 The Area Fiscal for Lanarkshire sees all reports against the police on first submission and instructs what is to happen to them. She does not personally carry out the investigation work but has a dedicated member of staff, who is a senior legal member of staff, who deals exclusively with this work.

5.2.2 There are 3 District Offices within the Lanarkshire Area namely Hamilton, Airdrie and Lanark. Previously some of the investigation work was delegated to the District Fiscals for each of these area but in recent times that has ceased to be the case.

5.2.3 The Area Fiscal is currently content with the arrangement whereby a single centralised person deals with such work. There are currently no paralegal staff such as Precognition Officers dealing with this work.

5.2.4 So far as training is concerned the police run training courses for Officers dealing with complaints and it is intended that a legal member of staff from Lanarkshire will attend the next such course.

5.2.5 The Area Fiscal indicated that she would like more discretion in dealing with complaints against the police including such matters as seeing the complainer and reporting cases to Crown Office.

5.2.6 Management information showed that 141 complaints against the police were received and closed off in 2006 in Lanarkshire. 98 cases were selected for review. 1 case was reported to the Area Fiscal from the British Transport Police. Another case showed that the complainer was charged with making false allegations. A further case showed that the complainer referred the complaint to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary when the police decided to deal with the complaint on a 'counselling' basis. The matter was thereafter referred to the Area Fiscal.

5.2.7 Complainers in 36 cases (37%) withdrew complaints. Details were provided in some instances as to why complaints were withdrawn eg 7 cases showed that the complainers wished to withdraw the complaint immediately when they had sobered up, in 5 cases the complaints were withdrawn when the complainers realised the police were taking it seriously.

5.2.8 The findings at Lanarkshire are as follows:

• In just under half of the cases reviewed the Assistant Chief Constable referred the allegation/complaint to the Area Fiscal within the target of 14 days.
• In all relevant cases the Assistant Chief Constable advised the Area Fiscal whether or not a case had been or was to be reported against the complainer.
• The Area Fiscal accepted or rejected the complaint ranging from the same day as receipt up to 24 days later with 71% of decisions being made within 4 days.
• These decisions were intimated to the complainer/Assistant Chief Constable ranging from same day as the decision up to 11 days later with 86% being issued within 3 days.
• In only 52% of cases a full report was received from the police within the 10-week target.
• In 4 cases the complainer was advised that the actions complained of were not criminal.
• In all except 2 relevant cases the complainer was advised on the role of the Procurator Fiscal in the investigation of the complaint by letter. In the remainder one was advised at precognition and one appeared not to be advised.
• In all except 5 relevant cases the standard Departmental Information Leaflet was issued to complainers.
• In cases where it would be expected that the complainer would be seen or the copy statement procedure followed, 5 cases showed that the complainer was seen and in 37 cases the copy statement procedure was followed.
• In 4 cases all material witnesses had been precognosed.
• Video evidence was available in 4 cases.
• In the above 4 cases the complainer was not shown the video.
• In 1 case the video was submitted to Crown Office.
• In 9 cases a report was submitted to Crown Office.
• There were no cases where the complainer refused to be precognosed until after his/her trial.
• In all relevant cases the Area Fiscal issued a letter to the complainer to confirm whether he/she wished to withdraw the complaint and that there had been no undue pressure or influence from the police.
• In all relevant cases appropriate people were advised of the decisions taken with the exception of the District Fiscal who was not always so advised.
• In 92% of cases the investigation was completed within the 12-week target.

5.3 Ayrshire

5.3.1 In Ayrshire the Area Fiscal personally deals with most of the complaints against the police and sees complainers and, if necessary, relevant witnesses.

5.3.2 He would be in favour of delegating some of this work. Within the Ayrshire area there are 2 District Offices namely Ayr and Kilmarnock and the Area Fiscal feels it would be possible to delegate complaints against the police emanating from these offices to the other office to ensure a measure of independence. The Area Fiscal estimates this takes between 10 and 15% of his time. As previously stated only complaints against the police alleging criminal conduct while on duty are referred to the Area Fiscal. The system in Ayrshire for complaints against Police Officers allegedly committing crimes or offences outwith normal duties are currently dealt with by the District Fiscal at Kilmarnock.

5.3.3 Management information showed that 64 complaints against the police were received and closed off in 2006 in Ayrshire. 38 cases were selected for review. Analysis showed that 35 of the 38 were marked for no proceedings/no substance by the Area Fiscal, 2 were marked no proceedings on Crown Counsel's instructions and 1 was marked for proceedings on Crown Counsel's instructions and the accused was placed on petition pending further procedures. In 1 of the cases marked by the Area Fiscal for no proceedings/no substance, proceedings were raised against the complainer for making a false/malicious allegations and in a further two consideration was given to pursuing proceedings for making false/malicious allegations but it was decided not to proceed.

5.3.4 Complainers in 12 cases (32%) withdrew complaints. Details were provided in some instances as to why complaints were withdrawn eg 1 case showed that the complainer wished to withdraw the complaint immediately when he had sobered up. In a further 7 cases complainers withdrew their complaint while still in custody.

5.3.5 The findings at Ayrshire are as follows:

• In just under half of the cases reviewed the Assistant Chief Constable referred the allegation/complaint to the Area Fiscal within the target of 14 days.
• In all cases the Assistant Chief Constable advised the Area Fiscal whether or not a case had been or was to be reported against the complainer.
• The Area Fiscal accepted or rejected the complaint in a timescale ranging from the same day as receipt up to 42 days later with 63% of decisions being made within 12 days.
• These decisions were intimated to the complainer/Assistant Chief Constable on the same day as these decisions were made.
• Further enquiries were needed to ascertain if the conduct complained of amounts to a criminal complaint in only 1 case.
• In 67% of cases a full report was received from the police within the 10-week target.
• In 1 case the complainer was advised that the actions complained of were not criminal.
• In 8 cases the complainer was advised of the role of the PF at precognition.
• In 95% of cases leaflets had been issued to the complainer. The remaining 5% of complainers were not provided with leaflets but this was only in 2 cases.
• In 9 cases of the 38 cases examined the complainer was precognosed. In 13 cases the copy statement procedure was followed. For the remainder, the complainer either did not turn up or the procedure was not applicable.
• In 9 cases all material witnesses had been precognosed.
• Video evidence was available in 14 cases but was not shown to the complainer.
• In 1 case the video was submitted to Crown Office.
• In 3 cases a report was submitted to Crown Office.
• There were no cases where the complainer refused to be precognosed until after his/her trial.
• In all relevant cases the Area Fiscal issued a letter to the complainer to confirm whether he/she wished to withdraw the complaint and that there had been no undue pressure or influence from the police.
• In all relevant cases appropriate people were advised of the decisions taken with the exception of the District Fiscal who was not always so advised.
• In 95% of cases the investigation was completed within the 12-week target.

5.4 Argyll and Clyde

5.4.1 Like most of his other Area colleagues in Strathclyde the Area Fiscal for Argyll and Clyde personally handles all complaints against the police and sees complainers and, where necessary, the relevant witnesses.

5.4.2 Again like other colleagues he would prefer to and has in the past delegated such work to District Fiscals within his Area. The District Offices within his Area are Dumbarton, Paisley, Greenock and Oban. At the time when this was done again mirroring approaches by other Area Fiscals he would send complaints to a different District from which they had emanated.

5.4.3 The current system he feels has the merit of achieving economies of scale and consistency. As with other Area Fiscals his Personal Assistant tends to be the person who monitors the time targets for such cases.

5.4.4 He had strong views on changes to the system and would like to have more autonomy in dealing with complaints especially in minor cases including referring more cases back to the police for 'misconduct hearings'.

5.4.5 In contrast to other views the Area Fiscal was of the view that mirroring the police's central unit for dealing with complaints for the whole of Strathclyde he would like to see a pan Strathclyde Fiscal Complaints Unit which would have the benefit of economies of scale and expertise.

5.4.6 Argyll and Clyde was the last Area reviewed. 26 cases were selected for review. In one case a personal warning was given to the Police Officer involved due to his conduct and in another proceedings were raised against the complainer for making a false accusation.

5.4.7 Complainers in 4 cases (15%) withdrew complaints. Details were provided in some instances as to why complaints were withdrawn eg 1 case showed that the complainer wished to withdraw the complaint immediately when he had sobered up!

5.4.8 The findings at Argyll and Clyde are as follows:

• In 77% of cases the Assistant Chief Constable referred the allegation/ complaint to the Area Fiscal within the target of 14 days.
• In all cases the Assistant Chief Constable advised the Area Fiscal whether or not a case had been or was to be reported against the complainer.
• The Area Fiscal accepted or rejected the complaint in a timescale ranging from the same day as receipt up to 20 days later with 69% of decisions being made within 7 days.
• These decisions were intimated to the complainer/Assistant Chief Constable in a timescale ranging from the same day as the decision was made up to 16 days after with 46% intimated the same day and 92% intimated within 7 days.
• In 2 cases where the complaint had been withdrawn standard letters asking for confirmation of the withdrawal had been issued 1 and 10 days after the complaint was reviewed.
• In 1 case further enquiries were made to ascertain if the conduct complained of amounted to a criminal complaint.
• In only 35% of cases a full report was received from the police within the target of 10 weeks.
• In all relevant cases the complainer was advised, where appropriate, that the actions complained of were not criminal.
• In all relevant cases the complainer was advised of the role of the Procurator Fiscal by letter.
• In 84% of relevant cases leaflets had been issued to the complainer.
• In 15 cases the complainer was precognosed or attempts were made to do so.
• 4 cases the copy statement procedure was followed.
• In all relevant cases all material witnesses had been precognosed.
• Video evidence was available in 12 cases.
• In 2 cases the complainer was not shown the video. It was not clear from the papers whether the complainers were shown the video in the remaining cases.
• In 4 cases a report was submitted to Crown Office.
• There were no cases where the complainer refused to be precognosed until after his/her trial.
• In 4 cases the Area Fiscal issued a letter to the complainer to confirm whether he/she wished to withdraw the complaint and that there had been no undue pressure or influence from the police.
• In all cases appropriate people, with the exception of the District Fiscal, were advised of the decisions taken.
• In 78% of cases the investigation was completed within the target of 12 weeks.